JSX currently operates 30-seat Embraer 135 and 145 aircraft. They’re adding a third aircraft type, bringing ATR 42-600 turboprops into the fleet which allows “reaching more private terminals…and underserved airports across the United States.”
They will initially lease just two of the planes, however they signed a letter of intent for 15 plus 10 options on either ATR 42-600s or ATR 72-600s. These planes ultimately will be configured with ATR’s HighLine interior with 30 seats (but not initially and I’m told, “our intention is to put the airplane in a 2×1 configuration” akin to a mix between “the current -135 and -145 configs”) and they’ll add StarLink internet within a few months (JSX was the launch customer for StarLink in commercial aircraft).
JSX has said this plane potentially opens up “over 1,000 new airports” for them to fly to. We now know the first one they’re planning and it’s a stunner: fresh off of beating Westchester airport in court for the right to operate there, JSX is taking on the one airport that’s been probably the most successful in the country at fighting air service, Santa Monica Municipal (SMO).
ATR HighLine Interior
JSX hasn’t said where they’d fly from Santa Monica. My guesses would be:
- Las Vegas
- Oakland
- Scottsdale
- Napa
Santa Monica is a general aviation airport six miles north of LAX. It was home to the Douglas Aircraft Company, and their DC-1 through DC-7 aircraft were built there. The airport was where the first plane to circumnavigate the world took off from and landed in 1924. During World War II it was disguised as a fake town to throw off enemies who might wish to bomb it.
The city has been fighting for decades to limit and close the airport. Their noise restrictions (95 dBA ‘Single Event Noise Exposure Level’) and curfew rules (no engine starts or takeoffs 11 p.m. – 7 a.m. weekdays, until 8 a.m. weekends) are some of the few allowed in the country since they are grandfathered under the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990.
They even managed to shorten the runway to just 3,500 feet with FAA sign‑off under a 2017 consent decree. And the city has the right to close the airport after Dec 31, 2028 under that decree (upheld by the D.C. Circuit).
The ATR‑42‑600 should be capable of operating there. And at just 30 seats there should be enough of a payload limit that it won’t be challenged in hot temperatures.
I’d expect stiff pushback from the City’s anti‑airport coalitions – groups that have campaigned to limit and close the airport:
- they’ll likely oppose by‑the‑seat service on noise grounds
- and argue that a non-part 139 airport cannot be used for scheduled charters with more than 9 seats, although JSX does this in places like Napa and Taos.
JSX is clear that they have ‘applied’ to offer service. Santa Monica requires any commercial flight activity to hold a City‑issued Operations Permit. The Airport Commission considers the application and it is approved, denied, or conditioned by the City Manager.
Grounds for denial would be compliance with the Airport Plan, and noise and environmental restrictions, or failing to meet federal requirements. If this is approved, they’ll surely be checking noise levels on every flight.
Oh no! 3 years!? The sense of urgency!
Telluride
Activists aren’t shutting it down. The city is.
As long as Harrison Ford is not one of the pilots, it should be ok…
@Gabriel — Yeah, but ‘activists’ sounds more deserving of ‘outrage’ and ‘engagement’ on here, no?
@Thomas — C’mon… he’s only had three (or four) crashes… (1999, 2000, 2015, 2017)… and he’s 83… live a little!
@1990 One of those crashes was at SMO.
Were it not for local “activists” the impending 2028 closure would never be forthcoming. I used to live across the road from SMO and I’m darn proud of my past participation in what will soon be a big, beautiful park for all local citizens to enjoy without the noise and fumes that have been reigning upon the schools and homes for way too long.
@Thomas — Shhh!! You’ll further upset the ‘activists’… (@Albert, the park does sound nice.)
“And at just 30 seats there should be enough of a payload limit that it won’t be challenged in hot temperatures.”
Hot temperatures are not usual for Santa Monica. In fact Wikipedia lists 100 Fahrenheit as the hottest temperature ever recorded. Most other airports in the USA have experienced as hot or hotter conditions. Van Nuys Airport and Hollywood Burbank Airport typically have hotter weather in the summer.
@Albert The city can’t afford a park and housing and zoning laws wouldn’t make it so simple. Keep dreamin’ pal.
The City of Santa Monica owns the airport and is closing the airport that no longer serves the needs of the city.
Fantastic. Anything to stick it to those commies in Santa Monica.
Plus there are many of us who would prefer to avoid LAX to get to the Westside and traffic from BUR is horrible.
You know, I’m a former resident of Santa Monica, grew up there and I always thought there was a future for that airport
All the stupid political commentary aside, the ATR is a great ride, flown it on Aer lingus a few times and it’s surprisingly quiet. Configured like that would be a gas. Flying between SMO and Scottsdale would be amazing.
I got news for you: there’s something about the noise of prop planes that even if the decibels are equal it’s far more annoying than the jets that go in and out right now. I am in the neighborhood right underneath the runway all the time. The Jets are fine. The prop planes are more annoying. The people who live there want a bonus on top of the discount price they paid for their houses. Zero sympathy, and if this actually ever got approved, you’d have to fight me to be the first in line to go to Scottsdale.
I think we need to talk, JSX!
This is a very misleading article. Not only does the City of Santa Monica have “the right to close the airport after December 31, 2028,” the City Council, in fact, has already done so. On February 28, 2017, the Santa Monica City Council voted unanimously (7-0) to close the Santa Monica Airport at midnight on December 31, 2028. In July 2025, the City Council voted 6-1 to convert the airport into a Great Park for our community. For more (accurate) information, go to
https://greatparkcoalition.org/
You forgot to mention how much money Santa Monica has wasted on overpriced consultants to conduct fake surveys of residents on what sort of ‘park’ should be built. Of course Santa Monica’s debt level is out of control — just last week the L.A. Times reported on its dire fiscal crisis (read here: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/once-booming-santa-monica-faces-100000667.html) and actually following through on closing the airport will be a further nail in the city’s coffin.
The problem is that should the airport actually close the city will take in far less revenue in its near-empty coffers, and the pipe dream of this ‘park’ will instead be a giant open-air homeless shelter on the Venice boundary, located precariously close to Penmar Park that for years has had its endless problems with homeless both in the park and living in campers on the edge of the park.
Speaking of homeless, Santa Monica remains the legendary city of 100,000 that spends millions on consultants and not-for-profits to do very little about its homeless problem that have made it a much less attractive destination.
Accordingly expect the local activists to do everything they can to prevent the JSX flights!
The community surrounding the airport has wanted it closed, and ten years ago, they got their wish codified, but the vision of a big green park has faded and people are becoming aware that this will likely be a massive development along the lines of Playa Vista or Century City. That land is just way too precious to ward off the inevitable slew of big-money developers that will line up. Even if it were to be a park, in some fantasy world, the amount of demolition and construction that will be done will ruin the nieghborhood. What’s there now? One of the most historic small airports in the country. A staging area for FEMA in the event of a local catastrophe. A place where dads take their kids on weekends to watch the biplanes take off. Hangars uses for museums and community events. It’s a jewel.
Perhaps JSX should consider service out of Hawthorne as an alternate to LAX and Fullerton to serve those in north Orange County.
SMO creates little revenue with all aviation operations, yet takes up 163 acres of the 227-acre Airport Campus. In fact it only generates the equivalent of a medium-sized strip mall (yet pollutes a heck of a lot more). All the non-aviation uses use far less acreage, yet generate 4 times the economic benefits the airport ever did.
Very few folks use SMO, yet on a typical weekend over 2,000 individuals can use the small Airport Park, playfields, dog park, art studios, Barker Hangar (events venue), and more non-aviation activities that wil thrive and grow and generate more revenue when SMO closes.
So JSX really should embrace Hawthorn, and as one comment correctly stated, the City already voted to close the airport WITH the FAA’s consent. SM residents voted in 2014 to defeat Big Aviation’s Measure D (by 59+%), and approved by 60% the City’s Measure LC – so the voters have decided as well as the City Council.
JSX is a Trojan horse, and we see you coming.
@Mike – (1) SMO fights aviation uses, and lopped off its runway to prevent many planes from using it and (2) SMO creates little revenue – do you think (1) and (2) might be related?
And you know that the 1948 Instrument of Transfer between the federal government and the City of Santa Monica required the land to be kept for aviation use in perpetuity?
During World War II, the U.S. government assumed control of Clover Field (Santa Monica Airport) for wartime use. After the war, the Surplus Property Act of 1944 governed how former military airports would be disposed of.
The federal government conveyed the airport property back to Santa Monica through the Instrument of Transfer. That agreement gave the City title to the land on the condition that it be maintained for public airport purposes “in perpetuity.”
The federal government (later FAA) retained a reversionary right — if Santa Monica stopped operating the land as an airport, ownership could revert to the U.S.
In 2017 Santa Monica got the FAA to agree not to enforce this. That was silly. The condition under which the city gained control of the property was that it would stay an airport. Giving the land to the city to sell off to developers or use as a park wasn’t the deal.
[@Mike – (1) SMO fights aviation uses, and lopped off its runway to prevent many planes from using it and (2) SMO creates little revenue – do you think (1) and (2) might be related?
And you know that the 1948 Instrument of Transfer between the federal government and the City of Santa Monica required the land to be kept for aviation use in perpetuity?
During World War II, the U.S. government assumed control of Clover Field (Santa Monica Airport) for wartime use. After the war, the Surplus Property Act of 1944 governed how former military airports would be disposed of.
The federal government conveyed the airport property back to Santa Monica through the Instrument of Transfer. That agreement gave the City title to the land on the condition that it be maintained for public airport purposes “in perpetuity.”
The federal government (later FAA) retained a reversionary right — if Santa Monica stopped operating the land as an airport, ownership could revert to the U.S.
In 2017 Santa Monica got the FAA to agree not to enforce this. That was silly. The condition under which the city gained control of the property was that it would stay an airport. Giving the land to the city to sell off to developers or use as a park wasn’t the deal.]
Since Santa Monica wants the land so bad, maybe the government could sell it to Santa Monica at full retail value. Santa Monica could issue bonds and raise taxes to pay for it. Then the federal government would be made whole.