RSS
Home
Are the billions spent on small airports a waste of taxpayer dollars?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.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: Is the Airport Improvement Program a waste of taxpayer money?
.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?
Related Articles:
Comments
First lady Michelle Obama launched a federal anti-obesity program yesterday (the same day that Denny's made a free Grand Slam Breakfast available to …
It didn't take long for cynical predictions to come true about the proposed bi-partisan summit on health care. GOP leaders have threatened to …
