For years, the topic of closing Whiteman Airport in Pacoima has gone back and forth, with airport personnel and aviation enthusiasts speaking strongly in its favor while local nonprofits and politicians have been calling for its closure.
Supporters say that Whiteman provides a significant benefit for the community, providing jobs and programs for youth, while groups like Pacoima Beautiful have led the charge to close it – receiving political support from Los Angeles City Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez and Imelda Padilla, LA County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and State Sen. Caroline Menjivar – alleging the airport poses an environmental and safety risk to the community.
But a recent letter issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in January supports the airport, pointing out that the decision to close an airport can only be made at the federal level, not the local one.
The letter states that LA County has accepted multiple Airport Improvement Grants (AIP) for Whiteman. The FAA confirmed that land purchased with these funds carries obligations that don’t expire and the property remains “federally obligated until released by the FAA.”
The letter states, “This means an airport sponsor that has used grant funds to purchase land … must use the airport as an airport until released by the FAA. The FAA’s overarching requirement for approving any airport closure is that the action must demonstrate a net benefit to civil aviation. It is critically important to understand that non-aviation interests cannot serve as justification for a release or closure of the airport.
“The county, as the airport sponsor, remains responsible for conducting its own analysis and providing justification for any long-term planning requests, including the pursuit of release and closure. … Ultimately, the FAA will not issue a decision unless and until such a request is thoroughly reviewed and approved by the FAA associate administrator of airports.”
Penny Alderson is one of the owners of Vista Aviation, the largest business operating at Whiteman, and is a member of the Whiteman Airport Coalition – which was formed to ensure that any decisions about Whiteman are made “based on facts and the law according to the FAA.”
Despite the efforts of politicians and nonprofits to close the airport, Alderson maintains the community has made it clear that they support Whiteman, based on the action of neighborhood councils that have voted in favor of keeping it open.
But the community is being listened to, she continued, so the purpose of the coalition is to make sure the community knows the facts and knows what it will take to close Whiteman.
“The requirements for the FAA to close the airport are [extremely] strict and a lot of work has to be done and evaluated, and it’s just not going to happen,” Alderson said. “Whiteman Airport is one of the five county airports, but it’s also a profitable airport.
“If in fact Whiteman Airport would close for some reason, at least two other county airports would also have to close, and that would just collapse the Southern California aviation system, and the FAA is never going to allow that.”
The closure of Whiteman wouldn’t just mean that owners of small-engine aircraft would have one less place to house their planes, but the airspace would change. Alderson said that planes leaving and arriving at Burbank Airport can’t fly low over Pacoima because of Whiteman; if it closed, that would all change.
Additionally, Whiteman played a key role in the January 2025 wildfires. As previously reported by the San Fernando Valley Sun/el Sol, the airport served as a base for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to combat the Hurst Fire in Sylmar, as the Van Nuys and Burbank airports were filled up with other assets being used against the Palisades Fire.
“This airport isn’t just a Pacoima airport, it’s a regional airport for Southern California,” Alderson said. “It’s important for everyone to realize that.”
Concerns About Airport Safety
On March 12, Congresswoman Luz Rivas sent a letter to the FAA urging the safety of workers and travelers at Whiteman, Van Nuys and Burbank airports ahead of the World Cup and Olympics in LA.
The letter comes after National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy said in a Jan. 27 hearing that the next midair collision would be at Burbank Airport and that “nobody at FAA is paying attention.”
“The Van Nuys, Whiteman, and Hollywood Burbank airports all have flight paths over my Congressional District in the San Fernando Valley,” wrote Rivas. “One error along any of these flight paths could result in a tragic outcome in the loss of life and property. It is the responsibility of the FAA to instill confidence in my constituents and the aviation industry and assure them that every possible tool is being used to ensure safety.”
The community has always supported Whiteman Airport. Blame accusing the FAA as unresponsive is misplaced. FAA guidance has long supported airports with perpetuity benefit and when a Bakersfield airport (L45) with perpetuity applied for closure for redevelopment purposes similar to Whiteman, the request was denied. Even today, Whiteman qualifies for FAA grant monies, but Supervisors and those with development interests have opposed acceptance fearful of the less important 20-year attachment obligation to keep the airport open. Even today after perpetuity was revealed to the Supervisors via a letter in the public record written on October 21. 2024 by aviation notables, AOPA, NBAA, NATA, and VAI in association with the Southern California Aviation United Working Group (SCAUWG.ORG), The FAA nor the community is to blame. Rather, those who claim to represent the community, should. The next election (less than 3 months away) is June 2nd.
Leave the airport alone. Keep it safe & deal with it! Tell the city counsel the same.
L.A. County should be spending taxpayer money making the airport safer and mitigating noise, not wasting it on futile studies which only serve to line the pockets of their pals running outside consulting services.
How many more tax dollars must be wasted defending single-family homeowners who built houses next to a preexisting airport? These people have a noise complaint, and they are making the rest of LA pay for it with decades of pointless legal battles and infective politicians who would bend over backwards for outdated zoning systems. If we lose the airport, we lose access to emergency services, flight schools, general aviation, aerospace careers, and even part of national airspace system. But hey, I guess when someone else is footing the bill for you, it doesn’t matter. I hear double paned windows could solve all of these problems, but that would require to call the FAA to send out a free contractor, oh noooo?!!
To give fuller context to this article: attempts to close Whiteman Airport have regional implications, both because Whiteman itself serves LA County in full and its surroundings already and because Whiteman is the primary financial engine of the LA County airport system of five airports across the county.
.
Whiteman is the breadwinner of the five County-owned airports (the others being in Lancaster, El Monte, Pomona and Compton); if the surpluses Whiteman generates were lost (due to closure), public officials have stated two other airports in the system would almost certainly close as well. Thereby, Angelenos would lose THREE airports’ services, most notably emergency and infrastructural transit capabilities.
.
Furthermore, the two ‘surviving’ airports would likely then require financial infusions from taxpayers after a closure of Whiteman to survive. By contrast, the county airport system is currently self-sustaining as Whiteman’s contributions help balance the budgets of those that lean on it.
.
If Whiteman closes, two other airports *also* close and taxpayers end up paying far more to have 2 airport with far much less emergency response and infrastructure than the practically ‘zero-cost’ conditions they enjoy with five airports now.
.
So what do closure advocates offer to Angelenos?
.
It is simple: you give them your public facility and they will take it for their private profit. You will lose the emergency services, critical infrastructure and opportunities for people of all ages that facility provides, but they will have a chance to reap a handsome payday. This is not a great deal for everyday Angelenos, but financiers and wealthy special interests love the idea.
.
Amid all of the recent air traffic worries, forcing three whole airports’ worth of traffic into other places like Burbank Airport is dangerous and foolish.
.
Likewise, recent natural disasters such as the January 2025 fires, including the Hurst Fire that Whiteman played a “vital role” in stopping (per the SF Sun) and looming catastrophes like the next big earthquake mean we need more facilities like Whiteman Airport at the ready, not fewer.
.
The FAA letter demonstrates a legal reason to abandon thoughts about closing Whiteman.
.
A more damning argument against closure than even the FAA’s legal angle, strong as that is, is simply recognition of Angelenos’ practical needs which Whiteman handles daily. Closure advocates never have any concern about the critical functions they’d cut–only the money they could make.
.
Attempts to close Whiteman Airport are a selfish, short-sighted plot that benefit no one except a handful of out of touch special interests who have no care for Los Angeles nor any concern for their neighbors.