Aspen is known for being one of the most exclusive ski destinations in the United States, and it’s home to a lot of very wealthy people.
However, the airport has an uncertain future when it comes to commercial service. That’s because the airport facility needs some major upgrades, which many locals remain opposed to, fearing that it could lead to a lot more commercial service to the airport. In this post I wanted to discuss that in a bit more detail, and take a look at both sides.
In this post:
Why Aspen Airport needs major upgrades
Currently, Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE) has commercial service from the regional subsidiaries of the “big three” US carriers, including American Eagle, Delta Connection, and United Express.
The only commercial aircraft that flies to Aspen Airport is the Bombardier CRJ-700, which is no longer the preferred aircraft of many regional airlines. Flying this aircraft to Aspen is no coincidence — it’s because the more popular Embraer E175 family of aircraft can’t fly to Aspen Airport.
The reason for this is because of the layout of the airport. As it’s currently certified, Aspen Airport can only accommodate planes with a wingspan of up to 95 feet. This is due to the limited separation between the taxiway and runway. In order to accommodate larger aircraft, there would need to be 400 feet of separation between the taxiway and runway, while Aspen Airport has only 320 feet of separation.
While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued some exceptions in the past, regulators have made it clear that in order to continue receiving government funds, the airport must widen its separation between the taxiway and runway, to allow larger aircraft.
The FAA’s logic makes sense. While the CRJ-700 could still keep flying for a long time, the reality is that many airlines are slowly phasing out these planes. Since 2020, the aircraft has no longer been in production, and over time we’ll see the number of these aircraft flying continue to decrease.
The major airlines have scope clauses (to protect the jobs of mainline limits), which limit the number of regional jets that can fly in relation to the number of mainline jets. With airlines having quite a few Embraer E175 regional jets on order, that presumably means we’ll continue to see the retirement of CRJ-700s.
The FAA doesn’t want government funds going into an airport that has an uncertain future, since there’s not any other modern commercial aircraft that could fly to the airport based on the current restrictions. With the FAA’s modernization plans, the airport would be able to accommodate planes with a wingspan of up to 118 feet.
Allowing planes with wingspans of up to 118 feet would pave the way for service from Embraer E175 aircraft, as well as service for small mainline jets, like the Airbus A220 Boeing 737 MAX 7, etc. To be balanced, it’s also worth mentioning that expanding the airport would allow service from some larger private jets, like the Gulfstream G650.
Why locals oppose the Aspen Airport expansion plans
Many locals in Aspen are opposed to the concept of expanding the airport to allow larger aircraft. Polls have shown that over 50% of locals oppose this expansion, and there are even groups set up campaigning against the plans, like the Aspen Fly Right group.
The argument against expanding the airport is basically what you’d expect whenever locals oppose any sort of expansion. For example, as one local explains:
“This airport, in some ways, feels like a last stand of sorts. I know that’s dramatic. But it’s a big part of the quality of life conversation. This is about Pitkin County voters having a say in the future of their airport.”
Lobbying groups against the airport expansion have stated that they want to reject public funds from the FAA, and have everything funded locally, so that they don’t have to comply with the FAA’s expansion plans.
To me, the logic of those opposed to this growth is flawed. Their argument seems to rest on the belief that the CRJ-700 will keep flying for 30 years. Could the CRJ-700 stay in service for around 30 years? Yes, that’s theoretically possible, since planes can fly for a long time, if properly maintained.
Is it likely that the CRJ-700 will be in service for the next 30 years at the regionals of all of the “big three” US carriers? Personally I think that’s highly unlikely.
In reality, if the airport were expanded, we’d probably just largely see E175s replacing CRJ-700s. Even though the former has a bigger wingspan, the plans have roughly the same capacity, so this wouldn’t actually lead to a capacity increase.
Sure, maybe we’ll also eventually see some small mainline jets flying to Aspen, but would that really be a bad thing? If the concern is about noise, wouldn’t larger aircraft to the airport be good for the local community, since it would lead to fewer takeoffs and landings?
But it just seems like this argument is based largely on there being some massive increase in commercial air service to Aspen, which just doesn’t seem likely to me. Currently airlines have the option of greatly expanding service to Aspen with their regional subsidiaries, but they choose not to.
Ultimately Aspen can only accommodate so many visitors, since there’s just not much hotel and home inventory, and local authorities want to keep it that way.
Bottom line
Aspen Airport is in a tricky situation at the moment. Currently the airport is restricted to commercial service from CRJ-700s, because of a wingspan limit that applies due to the distance between the runway and taxiway. The FAA wants the airport to be modernized, and is willing to provide funding to cover much of it.
The “catch,” as locals see it, is that larger aircraft would be allowed to fly there, and that’s something many residents are opposed to. If you ask me, this upgrade makes perfect sense, and in reality, we’d just mostly see CRJ-700s replaced by Embraer E175s. But locals seem to think that this will lead to some massive increase in service.
Something’s gotta give here, so I’m curious how this plays out. Either these upgrades will have to be made, or the FAA will stop providing funding for airport improvements.
What do you make of this debate over the future of Aspen Airport?
The privileged have always protested the changes... If more plane access could be allowed then United would not be able to charge $1400 for Denver-Aspen-Denver and not make as much $$$. Otherwise there is no reasonable transportation between denver and aspen... Also Delta only flies there seasonly!!!!Not good...
It's sad that at least 1/3rd of the people claiming to be local yokals are just transplants trying to make a name for their self!
Improve the airport and bring the bigger planes!
Come to place where the beer flows like wine and the women instinctively flow like the salmon of Capistrano!
I get why the locals don't want this, they can privately fund everything without FAA or public funding. ASE is only a really small portion of traffic. Many chose to fly into EGE (Vail) or DEN and make the drive, because flights into ASE are so unreliable due to weather. Even if the runway - taxiway space was larger, it wouldn't impact commercial flight traffic that much. I go to Aspen 2-3 x every year...
I get why the locals don't want this, they can privately fund everything without FAA or public funding. ASE is only a really small portion of traffic. Many chose to fly into EGE (Vail) or DEN and make the drive, because flights into ASE are so unreliable due to weather. Even if the runway - taxiway space was larger, it wouldn't impact commercial flight traffic that much. I go to Aspen 2-3 x every year to ski, and fortunately have always landed without being diverted. But the majority I know chose to drive in from Vail or Denver.
This is gonna sound woke... but what are the ground transport options between Aspen and Denver?
This seems like a great opportunity for rail as ASE and DEN are only 125 miles apart. (If rail were built, people could fly into DEN and take the train to Aspen.)
The Front Range of the Rocky Mountains separates DIA from Aspen. It would be prohibitively expensive to tunnel to Aspen.
The real problem is it will ultimately affect the town itself. Consider if nothing is done. Then, it would basically become a private airport and would be more expensive and more troublesome for people who fly commercial to go, so many just won't do it.
Which is exactly what the majority of the people who now "live" (have a vacation home) in Aspen want.
Simple. Fly in little turboprops more often!
It's simple, not only should the FAA stop the money but pull the ATC facility and controllers out too. Then the rich and famous can have the airport all to themselves.
I worked in Aspen for Aspen Airways/UAX until we were sold to Air Wisconsin. As far back as I can remember Aspen/Pitkin County Airport expansion has been a huge contriversy for local homeowners. Today it is home for the ultra rich, with many of the multi-million dollar homes in close proximity to the airport. I haven't been there for years, but if the local voters get their way, which they probably will, private jets will...
I worked in Aspen for Aspen Airways/UAX until we were sold to Air Wisconsin. As far back as I can remember Aspen/Pitkin County Airport expansion has been a huge contriversy for local homeowners. Today it is home for the ultra rich, with many of the multi-million dollar homes in close proximity to the airport. I haven't been there for years, but if the local voters get their way, which they probably will, private jets will rule ASE and the poor folk like us, and tourists, will have to settle on Eagle/Vail (EGE) which is about 1 1/2 hr drive in good weather.
Wish I could post a few photos showing Aspen Airways 50 seat Convair 580 in Aspen, along with the Bae 146 (if i remember right an 86 seater?). Both aircraft were first painted using Aspen Air's famous 'Aspen Leaf' logo, then later in UAX colors. Those were the days!
I fly into Aspen 2 to 3 times a month. I've been on the small planes numerous times and have experienced some of the worst tuburlance in my life. I have also flew on the 175 to other destinations in which I was in the back of the plane and experienced bad tuburlance without even going thru mountains which produce the most severe tuburlance ever. What I don't want to experience is double the trouble...
I fly into Aspen 2 to 3 times a month. I've been on the small planes numerous times and have experienced some of the worst tuburlance in my life. I have also flew on the 175 to other destinations in which I was in the back of the plane and experienced bad tuburlance without even going thru mountains which produce the most severe tuburlance ever. What I don't want to experience is double the trouble in a 175 when I don't have too. It's not safe to me and please consider the wind because I know the wind is why the plane can't leave the airport a lot times so will it be different with a plane with longer wing span?
Billionaire NIMBY alert
Not upgrading the airport to FAA standards will shut down the Aspen economy, shut down the airport to commercial traffic and make flying into Aspen more dangerous than it already is. How short sighted to even consider not complying with FAA safety standards. Let’s invest in our infrastructure with available FAA funds not make the airport dangerous.
All the high and mighty (less mighty than flying private) might be flying on ATR 72-600's to connect in denver after the -700 jets can no longer operate. Been to many airports overseas where there is NO taxiway. Just can't be any other planes except at the parking positions away from the runway. Also, don't rule out in the next 30 years a new plane being developed that could replace the crj-700s weird operating capacity.
We have to take zoning and planning permission away from small groups of locals if we ever want to save America. Outside of tort reform, there is no bigger problem in America. It’s time for radical YIMBY activism.
The only people who really "need" the airport to be expanded are workers and 'locals' who were born here like 50 years ago. These people are poor, so I don't know why anybody cares about what they want. They can drive to Eagle/Vail or go back to Denver and fly Southwest where they probably belong anyway.
Right! What’s next, allowing people to increase housing supply in the state to make home ownership remotely possible for young people that drive the community? We can’t have that!
Seems to me this is a perfect market for the CRJ-550, which is basically a slightly modified crj-700. Higher premium capacity, lower total payload weight for better performance in the challenging terrain. CRJ-550 is relatively new introduced by United in 2019 and just order by Delta this year.
If you're flying to ski you might as well fly to cooler ski hills near SLC or JAC
The ability of an aircraft to be certified to serve ASE is not just about wingspan but about performance including single engine out climb and descent.
The CRJ900 fits the wingspan requirements for ASE even though its wingspan is longer than the CRJ700 but the 900's climb performance is not as good - similar to other "stretch" models in an aircraft family.
The issue is not just for Aspen to no longer receive FAA funding...
The ability of an aircraft to be certified to serve ASE is not just about wingspan but about performance including single engine out climb and descent.
The CRJ900 fits the wingspan requirements for ASE even though its wingspan is longer than the CRJ700 but the 900's climb performance is not as good - similar to other "stretch" models in an aircraft family.
The issue is not just for Aspen to no longer receive FAA funding in the future but for them to pay back what the FAA has spent so far on an amortized basis - some of the improvements in the past came from tax dollars and have not fully been "run out" based on an accounting basis.
and there is a precedent similar to this. The City of Dallas, at WN's behest, floated the idea of no longer receiving federal funding in order to protect WN from competition at Love Field when it became clear that DL would fight to be able to remain at Love Field. The FAA said " you will repay our investment first" and the City of Dallas, which already has massively underfunded pensions, backed down.
ASE doesn't just serve Aspen but other areas in the mountains and those communities likely would fight any attempts to close ASE to commercial traffic.
The FAA should not back down. ASE needs to upgrade its facilities and then put caps in place such as at HPN. Fewer but more capable and quieter but larger aircraft like the A220 or 737 MAX 7 or A319NEO is the way to go.
This article is incorrect about the E175. The E175 meets the requirements for wingspan and max gross weight. The problem is the climb performance. The E175 would be severely weight restricted, and SkyWest already did proving runs with the E175 in Aspen. If the E175 was capable performance-wise, we would probably already see it flying in and out of Aspen.
The wingspan limit increased to 118 feet would allow for the 737MAX7, A229, and...
This article is incorrect about the E175. The E175 meets the requirements for wingspan and max gross weight. The problem is the climb performance. The E175 would be severely weight restricted, and SkyWest already did proving runs with the E175 in Aspen. If the E175 was capable performance-wise, we would probably already see it flying in and out of Aspen.
The wingspan limit increased to 118 feet would allow for the 737MAX7, A229, and A319 to operate into Aspen. The E175 still would not meet performance requirements.
Can't blame the locals: there's nothing like overtourism to ruin a place. Those who traveled to Honolulu or Venice in the 1980s know exactly what has been lost to overtourism.
Thankfully both cities still have some non-touristy areas with charm, I just won't name them here so that they remain free of overtourism...
lol as if the rich people at Aspen are "locals" not rich people with 3 other houses for each season of the year
NIMBYs of the world, unite!
Aspen, Colorado is a difficult town to drive or fly into. Especially during winter. These rich people that don’t want regular commercial air service want to keep the airport for private airplanes, thus keeping Aspen even more exclusive than it already is. Aspen ski resorts are not private (membership only) mountains for the ultra rich to play. The FAA should make the decision to keep the airport for public use as well as private. Like it always has been.
CRJ700, 900 and 1000 are all under 117’ wingspan and still in production by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (sold by Bombardier). The A319 and A220 and B717 are also under 117’ wingspan. Expansion of the airport might be a bigger issue than your article suggests if all these types could get in to the expanded airport.
The CRJ production has been officially ended, with the final CRJ being delivered to Delta Connection back in 2021.
It’s an issue of max weight (currently restricted to 100,000lbs) and wingspan (95 feet) and also single engine climb performance (lots of mountainous terrain). The A319 has the performance but does not have the wingspan and weight to meet the requirements of the airport in its current design.
The issue isn't only the airport taxiway to runway separation, it's also an issue of valley width. If they can make it wider to allow larger more modern planes, that would be great, but it should also come with slot restictions or at least maximum passangers per hour through the terminal.
Wouldn’t A220s be able to fly too at 115’
@ AdamH -- Good point on the A220! Updating the post to add that.
Another case of NIMBYs voting for their own demise. Surely they’re smart enough to realize tourism makes up a significant part of the town’s revenue stream. And modifications to the taxiway/runway will help to keep that money train on the tracks.
Sorry, meant to post this in the general comments. Not as a reply here.
Some Aspenites want Aspen to be exclusive to the ultra rich.
@9volt-- Sometimes you don't know what you have until it's gone.
Areas that depend on tourism usually have a love / hate relationship with it.
Can they not just slot restrict the airport and make the upgrades?