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.
Continue reading: The Debate Over Aspen Airport’s Future…
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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'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
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.
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 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.
If you're flying to ski you might as well fly to cooler ski hills near SLC or JAC
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
The Front Range of the Rocky Mountains separates DIA from Aspen. It would be prohibitively expensive to tunnel to Aspen.
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?
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!
Which is exactly what the majority of the people who now "live" (have a vacation home) in Aspen want.
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...
Per what Ben wrote, the airport isn't the bottleneck for amount of tourists, it's hotels. Expanding the runway wouldn't change that. Current capacity can't be maintained without expanding the runway.
The ATR 42 and ATR 72 aircraft are both in production and can serve Aspen (ASE). Continental Express used both types to serve Aspen in the 1990s. Silver Airways and Empire Airlines operate both types in the U.S., although Empire is currently cargo only after its passenger flights ended in 2021. Connect Airlines (a startup that hasn't started) was going to operate ATR 72s (and Dash 8 Q400s). The ATR planes would be reasonable on DEN-ASE (United) and SLC-ASE (Delta) routes if United and/or Delta would like to strike deals with Silver and/or Empire.
The Dornier 328 looks like it's on the cusp of going back into production as the "D328eco." The new variant is stretched to accommodate up to 43 passengers (up from 33). The Dornier 328 also flew into ASE in the 1990s from DFW, DEN, and COS. There aren't any civilian U.S. operators of the Dornier 328 at this time.
The Dash 8 Q400 could be going back into production, too, but probably not until the 2030s. Dash 8s are in limited U.S. civilian passenger operations.
The CASA CN235 is at least notionally in production and can carry up to 51 passengers, but it's not popular and has only minor passenger operations in the U.S. (on occasional charter missions it looks like).
The new Cessna 408 SkyCourier can carry up to 19 passengers. Western Aircraft is operating the type in passenger revenue service in Hawaii, and Empire is running some for cargo. But this plane is really quite small for ASE. I guess it might work if Empire restarted passenger services with a United DEN-ASE route and then mixed ATR 72, ATR 42, and Cessna 408 services depending on the season and demand, but probably the Cessna 408 still wouldn't make sense. Nice airplane, though, and 19 seats has certain scope advantages.
....Fix the airport. 🙂