GUEST EDITORIAL BY JASON BLAIR
Officials at Battle Creek Executive Airport at Kellogg Field (KBTL) in Michigan are proposing the airport close its parallel runway.
In a recent remote airport advisory board meeting, the airport’s aviation director discussed a potential plan to remove the airport’s parallel 5R/23L runway.
This runway was added a few years back to accommodate expanded traffic from a growing Western Michigan University flight training program, significant growth from Duncan Aviation, and has also now helped accommodate growth from WACO aircraft.
The advisory board noted that having the extra runway is a burden on their staff to maintain it and that plans are in the works to potentially remove it and redevelop the space with additional hangars.
While this would reduce the workload for the airport staff, it comes with potential safety and traffic concerns.
When an airport has a parallel runway, it can better separate traffic of different speeds and handle more aircraft in a traffic pattern at the same time. This allows more operations to be completed with better aircraft separation on busy days.
During the meeting, Aviation Director Philip Kroll noted that the parallel runway was “nice to have” but not needed, highlighting that WMU is the primary user of the runway.
He did note that “the pattern can fill up at Battle Creek very quickly with three or more planes when there isn’t a parallel runway” but that “there are lots of other local airports that the pilots can go use instead.”
He added that over the previous 20 years or so, the airport didn’t need the parallel runway regularly.
What is missing from the context of that statement is that over those 20 years, WMU, one of the largest collegiate flight training programs in the country, moved all of its operations in 1997 to the airport and significantly expanded its operations with a larger fleet and investment into new buildings since then.
Additionally, Duncan Aviation and WACO aircraft have significantly increased their business operations and the need for aircraft flight operations at the airport over that time.
While Kroll added that removing the parallel runway wouldn’t “hurt the airport in any way,” that question is debatable.
If the runway is closed, it will certainly affect operations and potentially affect safety at the airport if it proceeds.
Closing a runway does not mean the need for the operations goes away. The numerous based operators don’t go away. It means operations are attempted with fewer runways. This has the potential to reduce safety at the airport.
It doesn’t just affect the Battle Creek Airport either. The removal of this runway would reduce traffic capacity and drive traffic to outlying airports, which are not served by towers. This increases operations at airports that do not have ATC services that help reduce traffic conflicts and, potentially, incidents and accidents.
Doing this will surely increase costs for students at WMU’s aviation program who will not be able to train at the airport they are based, having instead to travel to outlying airports to accomplish training.
According to data from the FAA’s Operations Network (OPSNET), Battle Creek Executive Airport regularly ran more than 90,000 tower operations per year going back to 2021 and 2022.
In late 2023, the airport damaged the parallel runway (5R/23L) during snow plowing operations and left it closed until a reopening late in 2024, when some repairs were finally made.
During this time, the airport saw traffic capacity fall to 86,831 in 2023 and 79,260 in 2024.
During the period when this runway was closed in 2024, it was common for students and other aircraft to be told by the Battle Creek Tower, “the pattern is full, unable pattern work.” This forced them to discontinue their flight or fly to some other airport to complete their lessons, increasing the time and cost associated with those lessons.
I personally experienced this multiple times while conducting FAA practical tests at Battle Creek airport.
Making changes like removing a runway affects the entire aviation system when infrastructure is reduced.
The concern here should be obvious. An airport desiring to reduce staffing workload is understandable. However, doing that may have safety and efficiency effects that go well beyond the local airport budget.
The Michigan aviation community is hopeful that the proposed removal of the parallel runway at KBTL will not proceed and that decisions will be made that enhance safety and efficiency, not reduce them.
You can view a recording of the Remote Airport Advisory Board Meeting from March 11, 2025 here.
For more information: FlyBTLcom
Bad decision usually made by those with no aviation experience or common sense.
Airports lack runways and to destroy a perfectly good runway is simply insane!
This is happening all over the U.S. FAA policy. They are not funding “secondary” runways. Decisions made by non-pilots. Same policy is being forced on TSTC WACO (CNW) in TX.
It is wild to have an airport recognize a need for increased capacity, build new infrastructure to meet that demand, have the demand grow, and then have the airport contemplate removing the infrastructure it built. Truly crazy.
This is my home base. The number of TO’s and Landings handled at this airport needs to be looked at in context. There are a lot of days in SW Michigan when there is very limited or no flying due to weather for probably 98% of the pilots who use the field. Take the remaining “flyable days” and divide by the number of flights and you have a VERY busy airport on good flying days. Having WMU students sit on the ground waiting to take off impacts their actual training time negatively. Closing 23L / 5R will drastically change the really good current functionality of this airport. Bad idea!
The whole concept of moving WMU to Battle Creek was based on the ability to turn it into the flight world class program it has become. The number of operations it produces for the airport is what drove need for the parallel runway in the first place. While the director of the airport says it’s not really needed, did he actually ask anybody that uses the airport? This would have to include WMU students, Tower controllers, or the businesses on the field. And another question, what about the open area to west of runway 23 R? It already has taxiway access and plenty of room for hangers. There is a lot of tunnel vision in this proposal he is presenting. Please sir, get out of the office and look around at what you’re managing. Progress is moving forward and enhancing the facilities you have, not backwards by reducing the efficiency of the airport.
At my home field KSBP San Luis Obispo there is a similar thing happening to close second runway 25 even tho volume of flights of Airlines and GA are stable and increasing.
It looks like is a national goal to reduce workload of controllers by simplifying the airport runways.
Follow the money. Who stands to profit the most from the new buildings? Who’s getting the kickbacks? It’s the same story every time this comes around regardless of the airport.
The primary focus of the WMU flight training program is to supply the demand for pilots in the air transport category. All airlines operate into airports with parallel runways as a matter of safety and efficiency. Having the option for WMU flight students to become proficient in that type of environment and with complex airport layouts is absolutely ideal for this operation. There are only three airports in Michigan with parallel runways and having WMU practice at either kf those two is already limited by capacity and safety at those airports. Having students practice at Three Rivers, Sturgis, and Coldwater are not at all similar to DCA, ORD, LAX, ATL, or any other airline hub in the entire world ✅
The stated reasons for closure are all lies. The real reason is pressure from other entities to increase revenue from airport property, period.
silliest thing and idea…that skull guy is a whacko. The cost alone to remove it should scare the board into being happy with their additional runway……find another area on the airport for his hangar(s) idea. Must be plenty of spots….it would be cheaper to buy adjoining property for the hangars and in doing so add even more traffic “in the pattern”…..he is nuts.
This is the worst idea that they could propose. The removal of a runway to add more hanger space? So it makes since to reduce flow and add capacity? As a GA (Non-Western) pilot I have had to sit 20 min holding short to depart because traffic was so heavy and it was all Western, no Duncan or Waco. This tells me the person driving this is not a pilot and has no idea how to run an airport.
What is the hangar situation like? Any estimates on both demand and expected rents? It’s an unfortunate fact that hangars are in short supply and the necessary rent to make a modest profit on a T hangars complex is now >$1000/unit.
Closing the parallel runway is a bad move. I wish I could help, but I have my own government problems trying to stay in business in California.
That doesn’t make any sense. Zero. It smells like the Aviation Director doesn’t really have any interest in aviation and most likely has some other iron in the fire here (the as of yet unseen agenda?).