News Story Re: Support for GA Airports

PGT said:
Why are you guys debating this? They make a good point (I don't agree with it) but why should a passenger flying from NY to LA help pay for something they won't ever use?

How about they mention how my state's airport fund, which is supported through various aviation taxes, was robbed to balance the state budget?
Click to expand...

Why do I have to pay for roads that I'll never drive on? Same principle.
 
You guys are missing the point and that is the exploitation of ignorance. The public knows three airplanes, Cub, Learjet and 747. The cub is owned by some old guy who flies a machine that is barely airworthy. The Learjet is owned by some guy who has a big boobed blonde and a bottle of champagne opened as they fly to Aspen. The 747 is that big thing that they still don't understand how it gets into the air.

Second point.. small airports are used by a MINORITY of people. They do not connect the plant in their town to the company that may have an airplane and they do not connect life flights, angel flights and businesses that contribute to the economy. What they DO HEAR is some dumba** politician who says, "If we sold that property it would generate x millions in taxes." Okay.. but then who is going to build that property, who is going to lease it and to attract business, they are going to have to offer tax incentives.

The arguments are so stupid it is evident why it appeals to so many uninformed and ignorant voters.

And McPaper... 5 word sentences and 3 sentence paragraphs. Snappy articles to create impressions. Not reasoned thought.
 
"Congressmen are spending millions building runways at these little airports. That is just a complete waste of money," says Jonathan Ornstein, CEO of Mesa Air Group, a regional air carrier. "There is a huge requirement to overhaul infrastructure at major airports."
Click to expand...

I expect nothing else but this type of comment to come out of his mouth. What an ass.
 
PGT said:
Why are you guys debating this? They make a good point (I don't agree with it) but why should a passenger flying from NY to LA help pay for something they won't ever use?

How about they mention how my state's airport fund, which is supported through various aviation taxes, was robbed to balance the state budget?
Click to expand...


Why do I pay taxes for schools when I have no kids of my own?? Because we live in a society that shares responsibility. Absolutely nothing wrong with paying for things that certain individuals will never use, but benefits us all as a whole. Its not always about this 'whats in this for me?' bullcrap.

Should I not have to pay for certain roads, just because I dont drive on them? Freakin ridiculous! This story is so outrageous....the sensationalized biased media machine at work.
 
Reminds me of the "Im in debt up to my eye balls" commercial. No worries for me since the government pays for my living lol.

On a more serious note, I feel this will only be the beginning on the media's so called exposure on wasted tax dollars. The big thing I see on this is the keeping of jobs that was missed completely. I should be an economics major, these are good paying jobs, and the likelihood of new development to go to what? Corporate America or minimum wage service jobs?

Also what if these airports are in fact merged, like in Allentown, how much land is there to expand? Is the mayor able to predict the increase in his main commercial airport? I used to live in Allentown, and their is more than enough land to expand new tax dollars into. But politicians only look to make a quick buck, I forgot.
 
Murdoughnut said:
Some guy on the USAToday comments said something to the effect of "if you're puttering around in a Cessna at 2,000 feet, then you're rich - you just might not want to admit it".

Any of you guys feel rich (financially), cause I sure don't. :)
Click to expand...

I always love to comment on those and explain to them that I earned a pilot's license making less than $40k per year.

I suggest that anyone who complains about private aircraft give up their boats, RVs, etc., that also use roads, lakes, parks, etc., many of which are publicly funded, disproportionally to the amount of money that they generate in taxes. For many of us, aviation is a hobby, and it has been shown time and time again that many (not all) pilots spend a comparable amount of money per year compared to what someone may spend on an RV or boat.

I just tire of the "rich man's hobby" comment because most of the pilots I know are by no means rich.
 
PGT said:
Why are you guys debating this? They make a good point (I don't agree with it) but why should a passenger flying from NY to LA help pay for something they won't ever use?

How about they mention how my state's airport fund, which is supported through various aviation taxes, was robbed to balance the state budget?
Click to expand...
Because everyone flying a big one started in a little one.

The fact of the matter is having a good GA infrastructure makes airline travel safer. Good training = better pilots. Reliever airports = better traffic flow = fewer delays. I doubt the tower controllers and 121 operators want me doing touch and goes at DFW any more than I want to do them with a 757 breathing down my neck.
 
I like how in the video, they drive their point home by bringing education into this and in the first usatoday article they mention how GA airports are underused and then complain at the same time about some wanting to expand runways to accomodate larger aircraft, thus increasing traffic. :confused:
 
Wait, NBC wants me to pay for other people's healthcare, but they don't want other people to pay for my airports? That doesn't seem FAIR! :)
 
AOPA reveals the truth:

USA Today slants coverage to favor airlines

By Chris Dancy
USA Today on Thursday published a slanted, one-sided front-page story designed to whip up negative sentiment against general aviation and to perpetuate public misconceptions about GA. NBC’s "Today" show did a companion story that also ran on the MSNBC cable news outlet which was equally as negative, although it was somewhat more balanced in its presentation.
“The story is completely devoid of journalistic balance and fails to acknowledge the millions of Americans who benefit from the nation's 5,200 general aviation airports every day,” said AOPA President Craig Fuller.

AOPA’s media relations staff learned of the story a week before it was published and had a lengthy conversation with the USA Today reporter, but was not included in the article.

The USA Today article focuses on spending at GA airports but provides absolutely no perspective. The article does not mention how much Airport Improvement Program (AIP) money is spent at air carrier airports, or that in a typical year, Congress allocates $3 for air carrier airport improvements to every $1 to be spent at GA airports.

The USA Today article and its companion Today Show piece both entice the audience to equate airline ticket tax income with airport expenditures. Neither story makes any effort to tell the audience that GA operators contribute to the same trust fund through fuel taxes that are five times higher than the airlines’, or that the fund also pays for the air traffic control system, of which the airlines are the primary beneficiary.

So what are the facts?

Let’s look at 2007, a fairly typical year for AIP funding.

The FAA distributed $3.34 billion in AIP funds to 2,610 airports.

341 primary airports—airports with more than 100,000 passenger boardings each year—received $2.1 billion in AIP funds. That’s an average of $6.17 million per airport.

48 commercial service airports—airports with between 2,500 and 100,000 passenger boardings—received $93 million, or an average of $1.94 million per airport.

139 GA reliever airports received $214 million, or an average of $1.54 million

982 GA airports received $617 million, or an average of $628,000.

Combined, the 389 airline airports divvied up $2,199,335,046, averaging $5.5 million per airport. The 1,121 GA airports shared $831,717,227, averaging $741,942.

An addition, $310 million was distributed through state block grant programs.

Local realities differ from national “perspective”

On the same day that the two stories ran nationally, a number of local news outlets did their own versions of the story and came to radically different conclusions.

“Officials defend role of small airports: Facilities open more areas to business world,” reported Nashville’s The Tennessean newspaper.

“Local airports say fed funds put to good use,” said the Greenville News of Greenville, S.C.

And, “Business taking off,” stated The Record of Stockton, Calif., simply.

Two years ago, when the Associated Press ran a similarly negative article on federal dollars going to GA airports, the same thing happened: local follow-up stories showed that the money was well spent and benefitted the communities.

“Having convenient access to small airports in communities around the country is as vital to our national transportation system as having highway off-ramps in small towns,” concluded Fuller. “To suggest that smaller airports are not needed is just like suggesting that we should have a road system that connects only the country’s 150 largest cities.

“The truth is that small airports do bring business, jobs, and services—including disaster relief, package delivery, firefighting capability, law enforcement, and emergency medical transportation—to thousands of communities nationwide every day. And that’s good for America.”
Click to expand...
 
Ah, ATA is at it again. Whelp, looks like OA is gonna be back at CNN headquarters trying to calm down the dumb cows who write these reports and the dumb sheep that read and believe them.

BTW: It's days and stories like this that make me proudly proclaim, F the media.
 
If they dont like GA. get like 100-200 instrument rated pilots, file for JFK at the same time, come in, land. Have a lunch, then everyone file to get out. I bet the passengers sitting around waiting to be #150 for take off might get the hint. My two cents, where right or wrong, I think it'd be amusing.
 
crazyjeep said:
If they dont like GA. get like 100-200 instrument rated pilots, file for JFK at the same time, come in, land. Have a lunch, then everyone file to get out. I bet the passengers sitting around waiting to be #150 for take off might get the hint. My two cents, where right or wrong, I think it'd be amusing.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yeah, just gotta put up with the $300 landing fee (used to be, '04 ish).
 
I kinda doubt the general public's attention span is even long enough to read the article let alone care enough to doing anything about it. The media probably figured they'd pump another story out with something along the lines of "therrrr taken arrrrr muney!". Seems to be the latest outrage these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top