The Santa Monica City Council, continuing on its path toward the permanent destruction of Santa Monica Municipal Airport (SMO) in California, recently voted to obtain new bids on removing “excess" runway pavement at the airport, including areas both within and outside the runway safety areas. The city council, upon learning it can only use airport funds to remove runway areas outside the runway safety areas, found initial bids on such activity too high and decided to reject those bids in favor of new ones.

That vote came over strenuous objections from the industry, citing safety and legal concerns. Council member Kevin McKeown noted, “Hope springs eternal [from the aviation community] that they will get their airport back” and added, “that’s not going to happen.” For this reason he pushed for bids that encompassed the full removal of excess runway at both ends totaling about 750 feet, including within the runway safety areas. This move comes after the airport already has reconfigured the runway to reduce the amount of usable space from about 5,000 feet to 3,500 feet, effectively prohibiting most jet operations.

AOPA and NBAA jointly appealed to the city to scrap the plan, warning of safety ramifications. “Although accidents at SMO are fortunately rare, in the event of a runway overshoot or undershoot event, retaining the existing pavement would help ensure safety margins for those aboard the aircraft as well as for airport neighbors,” they said in a joint letter.

Pointing out decades-long safety concerns expressed by the city regarding operations at the airport, the associations added, “It thus defies explanation that the City would now pursue a course of action that would reduce safety margins.”

The organizations also stressed that the city has not justified nor provided data for the need to remove pavement after it already reduced the operational length to 3,500 feet through markings and signs.

Further, AOPA and NBAA questioned the city’s belief that airport funds could be used for runway demolition. “The entire project must be funded by taxpayer dollars,” they contended, pointing to an FAA letter that recommended that none of the airport funds be used because the project serves no aeronautical purpose.

The associations further pointed to the 2017 agreement—which ultimately allowed the city to shorten the useable runway space—continues to prohibit revenue division by the city. A number of local airport backers have made similar appeals to the city council, but council members agreed nearly unanimously (one abstention from a late arriver) to move forward with a new round of bids. McKeown called the aviation backer’s arguments “strongly worded, sometimes offensively worded.” Council members even offered to take up to $100,000 from the city council’s discretionary fund to make sure the work gets done.

Airport backers are continuing their fight to preserve SMO, both through the courts and an administrative filing within the FAA, including one pending that seeks a review of SMO financial practices. NBAA, along with local airport businesses, further has a case before the. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the 2017 agreement that not only allowed the runway shortening, but will clear the pathway for the airport's closure altogether in 2028.