The problem is, it's not that simple.
In a discouraging fact of life highlighted this week by a report commissioned by the airport authority, what's good for the airlines isn't necessarily good for Bob Hope Airport, and in fact, what's good for the airlines can put the two parties on two very different business models.
For the airport, the goal is to simply attract as many passengers as possible — more people using paid parking garages, more occupied seat fees to charge airlines, more concessions sales at the terminal.
For airlines, however, the most important goal is to deliver the highest return for shareholders, said Jack Penning, director of market analysis at Sixel Consulting Group, which compiled the report.
"They're trying to drive the highest amount of revenue per flight versus the lowest cost per flight," Penning said. "That balance doesn't always lie in accordance with what's best for an airport."
That means flying fewer, fuller flights in smaller planes — not good for an airport trying to get more passengers through its terminal.
The situation was compounded in February 2012 when American Airlines pulled out of the airfield, taking with it about 7.5% of the total passengers.
A month later, airport Executive Director Dan Feger said they were facing "the most difficult budget year we've seen."
More than a year later, it's only gotten worse. In the first two months of this year, 575,717 passengers used Bob Hope Airport, down 10.4% from 642,789 during the same period in 2012.
Tornek said the source of the problem is simple: Higher fares in Burbank are driving fliers to Los Angeles International Airport.
For example, on March 31, a flight to Las Vegas was $120 out of LAX on multiple carriers. That same flight on the same carriers out of Burbank was $230.