FAA TO CUT FUNDING FOR CONTROL TOWER

In the second disappointment for the Cape Girardeau Regional Airport in as many days, the FAA announced Tuesday that it will cease funding operation of the airport's air-traffic control tower.

However, city and airport officials hope there still is a chance to convince the Federal Aviation Administration that its decision is in error.

"We are disappointed," said Greg Chenoweth, airport manager. "We put together what we thought was a very convincing argument" for continued support.

The city had been hopeful in recent weeks after an FAA official designated the tower as "mission essential." Barring a reversal of its decision, the FAA will cut off funding at the end of business Dec. 31.

In a letter Tuesday to Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond of Missouri, FAA Administrator David R. Hinson said the benefits provided by the Cape Girardeau tower were significantly less than cost. On Monday, Trans World Express, the airport's fixed-base operator, announced it would eliminate some flights due to cutbacks in its federal subsidy.

The FAA plans to discontinue funding for 23 towers nationwide which don't meet a cost/benefit ratio of at least 1.0., meaning that a minimum of $1 in benefit is yielded from every $1 spent.

An FAA analysis puts the ratio for the Cape Girardeau tower at .40. However, airport and city officials claim the ratio is closer to 1.1. Chenoweth said the city is working through Sen. Bond to set up a meeting with FAA officials to discuss the disparity.

"We want to look over their numbers and take another shot at tearing apart their figures," said Michael Miller, Cape Girardeau city manager.

The ratio is determined through a complex formula set by the FAA. Chenoweth speculates that the city and the FAA plugged different numbers into the formula. As to what numbers the FAA used, Chenoweth said those were omitted from information provided by the agency.

"It is not necessarily two plus two equals four," J. Fred Waltz, airport board chairman, said of the formula.

An estimate of potential growth and economic impact over the next 15-years was part of the FAA's criteria. Chenoweth said the FAA rejected some assumptions concerning future growth, including the possibility of increased air traffic if a gambling boat ever comes to town.

But looking into the future is speculation, he said. "No one has contracts for something that may happen in the future," Chenoweth said.

The FAA had been paying $170,000 annually to the city to operate the tower. Earlier this year, the city agreed to pick up the cost of liability insurance, lowering the FAA's contribution to $145,000.

If the FAA remains adamant, alternative funding sources will be sought to keep the tower open. To do so may require the city to pick up the entire tab. Whether the city can come up with that kind of money remains to be seen.

"When you talk about federal cuts and a balanced budget, this is what it comes down to," Miller said. Other options such as possible ways to receive state funding or raise it regionally also will be considered.

Without a control tower, pilots would be on their own and would have to take responsibility for letting other pilots know where they are. That usually works, Chenoweth said, but is not nearly as safe.

"That is not acceptable to me as a general aviation pilot," he said.

Closing the tower likely would limit the types of aviation activity that could take place at the airport. The city hopes to the avoid that possibility.

"It is a first-class operation and we want to keep it that way," Miller said.