And USA Today's vendetta against GA continues..

GlenA said:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-31-small-airports_N.htm#uslPageReturn


Gotta love their "journalism"...
Click to expand...

Whats the problem with the article? I actually agree with some of these private "airport communities" or "residential airparks" not getting tons of fed dollars, as many primarily exist to serve those that live there only (its their neighborhood field), and some impose some draconian rules and regs, even though they've become "public use", due to the fed funds.
 
The problem with the article is the fact that a single writer for USA Today has a personal vendetta against general aviation, and continues to write articles bashing general aviation in some way/shape/form.
 
Some might, but the problem is more the the string of articles that USA has put forth that it seems like they have more of an agenda against GA than anything else. This is the first article I believe that isn't quoting an airline transportation committee official (or someone with a title similar to that) as spewing "fact" about GA, but as far as I'm concerned almost anything USA spews forth on this topic is biased and trash.

Now if they are getting fed money I do believe there should be some set rules as to what regs they can enforce, but I don't believe that this money that they are receiving is single-handedly bringing down the airline structure in America.
 
Like I said before, gents. READ an article before immediately bashing it, there might be all, some, or no good info in it. Pilots are SO primed to instantly dismiss out of hand ANY media article before even giving it any degree of credence it may, or may not, deserve.
 
It has a very negative slant to it...

It's basically hinting that since airline passengers don't use those airports, they shouldn't be given federal money.

GA pilots are taxpayers too!
 
Grabo172 said:
It has a very negative slant to it...

It's basically hinting that since airline passengers don't use those airports, they shouldn't be given federal money.

GA pilots are taxpayers too!
Click to expand...

Its talking about a specific type of GA airport, not all.
 
MikeD said:
Whats the problem with the article? I actually agree with some of these private "airport communities" or "residential airparks" not getting tons of fed dollars, as many primarily exist to serve those that live there only (its their neighborhood field), and some impose some draconian rules and regs, even though they've become "public use", due to the fed funds.
Click to expand...

From reading the article, it sounds like most of the money was used for security upgrades (perimeter fences, keeping large aircraft away from a nuclear plant, etc). Now, on the one hand, I think such things are a waste of money at most airports. But it isn't really fair for the FAA/TSA to want such things, but only pay for them at publicly owned fields.

And also, I don't see the government opening airports either. There's nothing inherently wrong with privately owned fields. Some of them do stupid things, but they are the exceptions.
 
MikeD said:
Like I said before, gents. READ an article before immediately bashing it, there might be all, some, or no good info in it. Pilots are SO primed to instantly dismiss out of hand ANY media article before even giving it any degree of credence it may, or may not, deserve.
Click to expand...

I did read it, and like I said, this one is not as bad as the others. What taints it is that it is part of a string of articles that up until this one have been incredibly misleading, so its kind of hard to give this one merit.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
And also, I don't see the government opening airports either. There's nothing inherently wrong with privately owned fields. Some of them do stupid things, but they are the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but they shouldn't be getting a ton of fed money, when their customer base is very limited as is their eventual public use due to the fed money.
 
But many of the privately owned airports have little activity that directly benefits the general public, which provides the funding. Most money comes from airline passengers through taxes on tickets.

Williamson-Sodus is one of three privately owned airports that have received $21 million from the FAA because they supposedly ease congestion at Greater Rochester International Airport, which has little congestion.

These are the paragraphs that makes it all negative... all from the writer.

If you look closely, all the positive statements are quotes from the FAA or others in the article, not the writer.
 
MikeD said:
Didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but they shouldn't be getting a ton of fed money, when their customer base is very limited as is their eventual public use due to the fed money.
Click to expand...

All the airports in this article add to roughy $15.4 Million... I'd hardly call that a "Ton" of federal money. With a total of $240 million, still nothing in the fed budget. I bet they spend more that $240 Million for toilet paper at the capital building...
 
MikeD said:
when their customer base is very limited as is their eventual public use due to the fed money.
Click to expand...

If you build it, they will come! Go the distance!

Maybe I should build an airport in a corn field in Iowa. (Using Federal dollars of course). I'll call it Shoeless Joe Jackson Field.
 
Grabo172 said:
But many of the privately owned airports have little activity that directly benefits the general public, which provides the funding. Most money comes from airline passengers through taxes on tickets.

Williamson-Sodus is one of three privately owned airports that have received $21 million from the FAA because they supposedly ease congestion at Greater Rochester International Airport, which has little congestion.

These are the paragraphs that makes it all negative... all from the writer.

If you look closely, all the positive statements are quotes from the FAA or others in the article, not the writer.
Click to expand...

Does this guy have a general slant against aviation? It would seem so based on his previous articles. But taking him out of the equation personally, there is a point to be made about dumping a fair amount of $$$ into an airport which has little public use, and is intended for a small, private group of people.
 
MikeD said:
there is a point to be made about dumping a fair amount of $$$ into an airport which has little public use, and is intended for a small, private group of people.
Click to expand...

It is a good point, there are other airports that could certainly use the money. We've been waiting for a new control tower here for years. The FAA paid for 95% of it, but the city wouldn't fork over their measly $50K share. It was getting to be a safety issue for the controllers, as it was about to collapse.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
It is a good point, there are other airports that could certainly use the money. We've been waiting for a new control tower here for years. The FAA paid for 95% of it, but the city wouldn't fork over their measly $50K share. It was getting to be a safety issue for the controllers, as it was about to collapse.
Click to expand...

That's the only point I mean. Don't get me wrong, I hate the assault on GA as much as the next guy. But there are public use GA airports that truly serve a greater public function for GA as a whole, who need dollars like this far more than a few homeowners who have their homes next to a runway they built for their own use, but want the taxpayers to pay for a chain-link fence for them.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
From reading the article, it sounds like most of the money was used for security upgrades (perimeter fences, keeping large aircraft away from a nuclear plant, etc). Now, on the one hand, I think such things are a waste of money at most airports. But it isn't really fair for the FAA/TSA to want such things, but only pay for them at publicly owned fields.

And also, I don't see the government opening airports either. There's nothing inherently wrong with privately owned fields. Some of them do stupid things, but they are the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If the federal government demands certain security enhancements, and believes those enhancements serve the common good, then why shouldn't they fork over some money for it. Or should we just spend FAA dollars on projects that line the pockets of airline executives?
 
Only problem I have with this article is it is nearly identical to at least one(pretty sure it's more than that) USA Today article from the past only the airports have changed. Seems to me this particular writer likes to fall back on the "let's list small airports that get federal money" article when he has no material.

I don't necessarily agree that Podunk Airport that exists primarily for the benefit of Acme Sprocket Holdings, LLC should get federal cash to keep it up but it doesn't shock me when you consider all the other countless things our government subsidizes, IE farmer's to NOT plant part of their land, EAS program
 
I always figured private airports in fly-in communities DID have to pay for everything themselves, go figure.

I don't really see an issue with the article, you can't really say they're biast because airlines don't fly there when most of us GA pilots can't even fly into these private airfields.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top