Dissonance From United

United Airlines has a chance to show that a conscientious business can be a good neighbor. It can do so by scrapping its plan to schedule a new flight into Burbank Airport that would land at 11:15 nightly--an hour past the airport’s voluntary curfew.

True, the airline is not legally bound by the curfew--which airport critics have long argued is exactly the problem. They claim that only a mandatory curfew, one that is not dependent on the goodwill of airlines, would guarantee peace and quiet during nighttime hours. United Airlines’ new flight, if it goes into affect as scheduled Oct. 31, would only prove their point.

Establishing a mandatory curfew is up to the Federal Aviation Administration, and it’s a tough sell. Wary of setting precedents for other airports and charged with the protection of interstate commerce, the FAA maintains that the voluntary curfew works well enough. But airport opponents have blocked construction of a safer and more comfortable airport terminal until the curfew question is settled. A complex and costly federal study is now underway.

The Times has long supported a new terminal to replace the old one, a 1930s-era building that is not only outdated and cramped but is built too close to the runway to meet modern safety standards. We’ve called for all sides--the Airport Authority, the Burbank City Council, airport critics, the airlines and the FAA--to work together to get the terminal built.

United Airlines’ decision to ignore the voluntary curfew is the opposite of working together. What is needed is more cooperation, not less. And cooperation depends on trust.

Neighbors of Burbank Airport have legitimate gripes about noise. An effort is underway to resolve those complaints in a way that respects the needs of those who live near the airport and those who depend on it for business and convenient transportation. United Airlines has said it wants to be sensitive to the community’s needs. It can do so by waiting for the results of a process already well underway.