Whiteman Airport Is Worth Saving. The County’s Own Study Shows Why.

Los Angeles County spent $2.1 million studying Whiteman Airport’s future. After years of debate, calls for closure and millions in deferred improvements, the County has finally released the executive summary.

The findings raise an uncomfortable question: Why has the County spent years trying to figure out how to close an airport that its own study shows is worth investing in?

Whiteman is the County’s only profitable general aviation airport; federal obligations stand in the way of closure; and while the County explored shutting it down, it stopped pursuing federal grants that could have helped pay for critical improvements.

Think about that. The County turned away federal money, potentially increased the burden on taxpayers, and continued exploring closure despite federal restrictions it had known about for years.

Members of the Whiteman Airport Coalition have been raising these issues, and now the County’s own $2.1 million study provides evidence supporting our concerns.

So who made these decisions, why were they made, and what has all of this cost taxpayers?

www.whplandusestudy.com

THE BOTTOM LINE

The County’s consultants did not recommend closing Whiteman Airport. Instead, they examined three possible scenarios, including two that keep the airport open and project positive financial outcomes.

Here are six findings that stood out to us:

The FAA has the final say on closure. The County can’t simply close Whiteman without federal approval, and some of WHP’s federal obligations never expire.
The County turned away federal money. By stopping FAA grants for airport improvements, the County put more of the financial burden on taxpayers and could face compliance problems down the road.
Whiteman is the County’s only profitable general aviation airport. It brings in nearly a third of the County airport system’s operating revenue and helps contribute to other county programs and facilities.
What about safety? The County’s own study found Whiteman’s accident numbers were comparable to or lower than those at several other regional airports, and investigated accidents weren’t to blame on the airport’s design or control tower.
And the concerns about lead? The County’s public health review found no evidence of elevated blood lead levels in children living near Whiteman compared with countywide conditions.
Keeping Whiteman open makes financial sense. Both options that preserve the airport project positive financial outcomes, more jobs and community benefits. Closing it? That could mean financial losses, years of delays and major federal hurdles.

The County Turned Away Federal Funding. Now Its Own Study Warns of the Consequences.

In 2020, Los Angeles County stopped pursuing new FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants while considering Whiteman’s closure. The idea was to avoid extending federal obligations tied to keeping the airport open.

But here’s the problem: Some of those obligations were already permanent.

The County could not simply close Whiteman or substantially change its use without FAA approval.

This wasn’t news to County officials.

2020: The County’s Department of Public Works acknowledged Whiteman’s federal obligations and its responsibility to maintain the airport.
June 2022: Supervisor Holly Mitchell confirmed in writing that the County could not close Whiteman without FAA approval.

This was also documented in the media and by aviation leaders:

By turning away federal grants, the County gave up opportunities to have the FAA help pay for airport improvements. That means more of those costs could now fall on the County and ultimately taxpayers.

Now, the County’s $2.1 million study lays out the financial challenges of continuing without new federal grants:

$53.5 million in needed infrastructure improvements through 2050,
$27 million in projected negative net present value through 2050 under the existing conditions scenario without new FAA grants,
potential FAA compliance problems if critical improvements continue to be delayed,

Here’s the irony: The County stopped pursuing federal money to avoid obligations that, in part, were already permanent.

Our questions: So why did the County stop pursuing those grants? How much federal funding has Whiteman potentially missed out on, and how much more could taxpayers end up paying?

Whiteman Is the County’s Only Profitable General Aviation Airport

Here’s another finding that should get the County’s attention.

Whiteman is the only one of Los Angeles County’s five general aviation airports that operated at a surplus during the period studied.

According to the County’s own financial analysis, between fiscal years 2022 and 2025:

Whiteman generated approximately $18.7 million in operating revenue, compared with $17.7 million in expenses.
It produced an operating surplus of approximately $1.1 million.
It was the only County general aviation airport to operate at a surplus.
It accounted for approximately 32% of the County airport system’s operating revenue.

We didn’t need a $2.1 million study to recognize Whiteman’s financial contributions. Months ago, our coalition highlighted the airport’s performance and real estate land value using the County’s own financial records.

[Read Whiteman Airport Coalition Coverage]

Whiteman supports local businesses, jobs, flight training and emergency services. It also contributes revenue to a County airport system in which every other general aviation airport operated at a deficit during the period examined.

Our questions: Why would the County consider closing its ONLY profitable general aviation airport instead of investing in it?

What the County’s Own Study Says About Safety, Air Quality and Lead

Safety has been one of the biggest arguments for closing Whiteman Airport. So what did the County’s own consultants find?

After reviewing accident records from 11 regional airports between 2009 and 2026, they found that Whiteman’s accident numbers were comparable to or lower than those at several other airports.

With approximately 1.8 million takeoffs and landings during that period, Whiteman is a busy airport.

The study also found that investigated accidents were attributed to pilot, operational or mechanical factors, not problems with Whiteman’s physical design or control tower.

Yet local, state, and federal lawmakers and related land developers repeatedly and immediately called for Whiteman’s closure before accident investigations were complete.

Here’s what’s troubling: Other airports in their districts also experienced accidents, some even with higher rates, yet those airports did not face the same calls for closure.

Our questions: Why was Whiteman singled out? What evidence justified demanding its closure before investigators had even determined the causes of those accidents?

What About Lead and Air Quality?

For years, concerns about lead exposure and air quality have fueled calls to close Whiteman Airport, but the County’s own study tells a different story.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found no evidence of elevated blood lead levels in children living near Whiteman compared with countywide conditions. Air monitoring also found lead concentrations well below federal standards.

The study acknowledges aircraft noise concerns but did not establish a noise regulation violation.

These findings matter. Decisions about Whiteman’s future should be based on facts, not fear or misinformation.

Three Options for Whiteman’s Future

The County’s study looks at three possible futures for Whiteman. It doesn’t recommend any one option, but the differences are worth paying attention to.

Option 1: Preserve and Improve

Keep Whiteman open and invest in its existing facilities and infrastructure. This scenario projects a positive financial outcome through 2050.

Option 2: Transform and Optimize

Keep the airport operating while modernizing portions of the property to create opportunities for new businesses, workforce training and community development. This scenario also projects a positive financial outcome, along with additional jobs and economic activity.

Option 3: Transform (really close) and Repurpose

Close Whiteman and redevelop the property for other uses. This scenario projects a financial loss through 2050, would require FAA approval and could take decades to complete.

Here’s what stands out to us:

Two scenarios keep Whiteman open and project positive financial outcomes.
The closure scenario comes with major financial challenges, uncertain federal approval and a much longer timeline.

What About the Community That Supports Whiteman?

There’s something important missing from the County’s study of Whiteman’s future: the strong and growing community support for keeping the airport open.

whitemanairport.com

While much of the debate has focused on those calling for closure, seven neighborhood councils and the Kagel Canyon Civic Association have officially come out in support of Whiteman.

Together, these organizations represent communities with roughly 280,000 San Fernando Valley residents.

Pacoima Neighborhood Council
The Foothill Trails District Neighborhood Council
Arleta Neighborhood Council
Sun Valley Area Neighborhood Council
Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council
Granada Hills North Neighborhood Council
North Hills West Neighborhood Council
The Kagel Canyon Civic Association

That’s a significant voice in this debate, and they deserve to be heard.

After $2.1 Million, Questions Remain

The County has now spent $2.1 million studying Whiteman’s future, but the study also raises questions about decisions made long before its release.

Why did the County spend years exploring closure while turning away federal funding for improvements, even though they knew the FAA had final authority on closure?
Who pushed for those decisions, and what information were they relying on?
Now that the County has its study, will officials seriously consider the options that keep Whiteman open?

The public deserves clear answers about the decisions that brought us here and what happens next.

What’s Next: Make Your Voice Heard

Los Angeles County will present the study’s findings at a public meeting on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

The County needs to hear from the communities fighting to preserve Whiteman, not just those calling for its closure. We need Whiteman supporters to show up and be heard.

Advance registration is required, and space is limited.

[REGISTER FOR THE COUNTY MEETING]

Whether you can attend, volunteer, help make signs or simply spread the word, we want to hear from you.

[CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT WHITEMAN]