.jpg)
Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitney County Airport. My plane's in the middle!
Last week, USA Today splashed a front-page story with the headline, "Feds keep little-used airports in business." The first thought you have is that this is yet another government boondoggle.
According to the article, an obscure federal program that raises billions of dollars a year through taxes on every airplane ticket sold in the United States is supporting airports that have no scheduled passenger flights and are little-used by private plane owners.
One such facility: Kentucky's Williamsburg-Whitley County Airport, recently built with money from these airplane ticket taxes and is used only by private airplanes. Most days, the airport sees just two or three flights a day and on some days, no flights at all. Recreational planes and corporate jets --that's it.
It's called the Airport Improvement Program, a 28-year-old program has gotten $15 billion of your tax dollars. Some of that money goes to general-aviation and commercial airports, too, for projects such as runway repairs and noise mitigation, but the general impression is that the money is wasted.
Cost to build the airport in Kentucky: $11 million.
The lawmakers also regularly use general-aviation airports to get around their districts and states, sometimes in planes with lobbyists.
...Half of the airports are within 20 miles of another private-aviation airport.
...The funding for such airports soared from $470 million in 1999 to $1 billion in 2007 — even as private flying declined by 19% during that period.
Members of Congress say the general-aviation airports can attract development and provide services such as air-medical transport.
The lawmakers also regularly use general-aviation airports to get around their districts and states, sometimes in planes with lobbyists.
...Half of the airports are within 20 miles of another private-aviation airport.
..The funding for such airports soared from $470 million in 1999 to $1 billion in 2007 — even as private flying declined by 19% during that period.
Members of Congress take hundreds of trips on corporate-owned jets annually.
The paper says these airports are "vastly underused." In looking at 312 "general aviation" airports in in seven states, the paper found that "more than half of them operated at less than 10% capacity. Nearly 90% operate at less than one-third of their capacity, well below the rates of larger airports that serve commercial passengers." Three-quarters of these airports, says the paper, lose money every year. So all this begs the question:
.jpg)
I'm not a pilot. I don't know anything about this subject. However, I like flying; I just hate traveling. Does that make sense? It's the airports. What a mess. For every flight, you have to add at least another hour just to go through all the lunacy at the airport. It doesn't seem to be getting any better and the struggles of commercial carriers seems to get worse and worse. I keep saying that the only way to travel anymore is in your own damned plane. You buy a small jet, go to the small airport, no check in, no security, no hassles.
Of course, I just checked my bank account and, hey look: I don't have $20 million bucks for a jet! So with this article, here's what I'm wondering:
--Is this really just a pork perk for Congressional members who would rather use these small airports for their own convenience rather than land at the big commercial airports we all use? In other words, is this an example of Congress spending our money to serve its own privileged self-interest?
--What do small plane owners and pilots pay in fees to park their plane at a small airport. What's the cost of aviation fuel and is it taxed? And what about maintenance?
--Are there pilots whose business prospers from access to small airport?
--Is spending money on big airports and smaller airports analogous to spending money on highways and rural roads. And aren't we paying federal taxes for roads we'll never use?
--How much do small airports reduce aviation traffic at larger ones? Without the small airports, would that tie up airspace around the larger ones.
I'm just wondering whether this article's headline was a bit misleading, sort of like whether this was a misleading headline:
Click the link and the lede on the Bloomberg News website is:
President Barack Obama said tougher financial regulations are needed worldwide to protect consumers, provide economic stability and prevent future crises.
Not quite the same, is it? I thought you might agree. Then again, that website deals in fear-mongering, hyperbole and exaggeration on a daily basis, so why should anyone be surprised?
Comments
Bruce. I see this one as a tough call to make as it has it's good and bad. Being in the travel industry, I have mixed feelings. I hate the government or the tax payers subsidizing these airports, but I have to assume the reason to have them available, far outways the reason not to. This is on the Henderson Nevada website which is a small airport that has little traffic but is 20 minutes from Las Vegas McCarran Airport:
To help meet the growing demand for aviation facilities and services in Southern Nevada, the Clark County Department of Aviation invested more than $30 million in Henderson Executive Airport to create a premier corporate aviation facility and an attractive, convenient and economical alternative to McCarran International Airport.
The facilities at HND are tailored to the discriminating general aviation pilot and corporate client. As a primary reliever airport to busy McCarran, HND provides all the necessary services and amenities. The airfield has the capacity a
Sorry my friend ran out of space:
The airfield has the capacity and runway length to meet the needs of virtually all general aviation aircraft, saving precious time and money for those choosing HND.
By the way how do old friends get together again? Does the examiner.com have a way? You are a good man Charlie Brown and always have been. Take care..
Thanks for this perspective. I saw the USA Today story and got mad thinking we were wasting a lot of money on small airports but I'm not a pilot so I know next to nothing about them except when I drive by one and think, "Who uses that?" I always figure it's rich folks. I read the USAT article and then thought, oh, private landing strips for politicians. Now I'm not so sure. I hadn't thought about it the questions you asked. I don't have an answer but the questions make sense. So why didn't the newspaper reporter didn't ask those questions? Guess that's what you meant by the Drudge thing.
Mitchell, try brucemaiman@gmail.com. I haven't checked lately but I think that works!
Wait a minute. You’re telling me that tax dollars were used to build and / or upgrade / maintain an airport created and marketed as a “premier corporate aviation facility and an attractive, convenient and economical alternative to (insert Large Airport Here).” And that these “facilities … are tailored to the discriminating general aviation pilot and corporate client … As a primary reliever airport … The airfield has the capacity and runway length to meet the needs of virtually all general aviation aircraft, saving precious time and money for those choosing …”
So I can book a flight in there? No? Didn’t think so, I ain’t got 20mil either. How can this be sanctioned? Taxpayer monies to make sure the rich and connected have an easier time? Wow.
Murph
Bruce, 1 of 2 parts:
--Is this really just a pork perk for Congressional members who would rather use these small airports for their own convenience rather than land at the big commercial airports we all use? In other words, is this an example of Congress spending our money to serve its own privileged self-interest?
Not just them, but yeah, after all the elite shouldn’t have to mix with the masses and remover their shoes before they can get to the gate like us common folk.
--What do small plane owners and pilots pay in fees to park their plane at a small airport. What's the cost of aviation fuel and is it taxed? And what about maintenance? --Are there pilots whose business prospers from access to small airport?
Don’t care, why are tax dollars paying for them?
Murph
--Is spending money on big airports and smaller airports analogous to spending money on highways and rural roads. And aren't we paying federal taxes for roads we'll never use?
Not in my opinion. Cars are not quite as regulated and unavailable to average Joe as a plane.
--How much do small airports reduce aviation traffic at larger ones? Without the small airports, would that tie up airspace around the larger ones.
Probably, but let us all have the chance to hobnob with our rulers! Maybe if they suffered the same treatment as the rest of us, laws might make more sense, (they could use the proposed health care rules too).
I'm just wondering whether this article's headline was a bit misleading,
Of course it was, sensationalism sells! But there looks to be some amount of truth, (check out Murtha's airport in PA ... talk about corrupt)
Murph
Too bad we couldn't trust someone to go through and figure out which of these airports is actually benefiting the economy more than the politicians.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!