Group weighs shifting passenger and cargo roles among SEA, Boeing Field and Paine Field

Peter and other consultants laid out how changing the mix of operations among the region's three largest commercial-service airports could reduce pressure at the most constrained facility. He said SEA has "very limited capacity for commercial passenger traffic," while "Seattle Paine Field does have capacity for both commercial passenger and commercial cargo," and Boeing Field may have limited passenger capacity but constrained real estate for cargo.

Panelists discussed concrete tools to influence airline and cargo behavior: peak-period pricing to discourage operations at the busiest times, promotional fee waivers at airports with spare capacity, and lease-structure changes that would make alternate airports more attractive. Peter used a hypothetical "shell game" illustration: by incentivizing GA operators to relocate from Boeing Field to smaller GA airports (Auburn, Arlington), port space could be repurposed for cargo or passenger facilities. Several members cautioned that airspace interactions — particularly SEA approaches over BFI — and the political sensitivity of displacing GA users make these options politically and technically complex.

Ben Brookman and others urged realistic assessments of whether differential rates can materially change airline behavior; Peter and members agreed rate differentials are often only one of multiple factors that would have to be combined in a package to shift service. The consultants recommended further study of surface access (transit, rail) and detailed modeling of airspace and facility needs before recommending operational shifts.