Local airports close as General Aviation wanes

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
GA has been on a steady decline since it's heyday in the 50s/60s/70s. Sadly becoming mostly unaffordable for many anymore, and for a variety of reasons....no longer the hobby for the "every man" it has long been marketed to.

Even my own home field, which used to bristle with light GA traffic, only really has light GA traffic from the Chinese flight school located on field. Other airports around the Valley have GA aircraft present, but which rarely move.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - For the first time in 60 years, airplanes won't be roaring down the runway at the airstrip in Onawa, Iowa, this summer. Racing dragsters will.

Like many small cities across the country, Onawa is closing its airfield largely because of the steady decline in the number of pilots, especially in rural areas. After June 30, dragsters will be using the 3,400-foot-long concrete runway.

"It was a very hard decision for our council, but they decided, it's just not working," said Bradley Hanson, administrator of the western Iowa city, tucked between the Missouri River and scenic Loess Hills.

Many small towns have had airfields almost since the early barnstorming days and expanded them after World War II when military pilots returned home, ready to resume work but eager to keep flying. The number of pilots with private certificates peaked at 357,000 in 1980.

Since then, though, that number has nose-dived to 188,000, and hundreds of local airfields have been closing.

Interest has waned as planes became much more costly. New small planes that cost about $13,000 in the late 1960s now go for $250,000 or more, and owners also must pay more for specialized aviation fuel, liability insurance, maintenance and hangar space.

So few planes touched down at the airport in nearby Hartley, Iowa, that the small community tore up its runway in 2010 and leased it to a farmer who now grows corn on the 80 acres.

"Nobody was buying airplanes, so when the runway and hangers needed work, they decided to do away with it," said Howard Orchard, the town's unofficial historian.

Likewise, officials in the 6,000 person city of Hillsboro, Illinois, also found a more profitable use for their rarely used airfield. They sold it to a company mining coal.

"It was a hard pill to swallow for me to tell these guys we had to do away with it," said Bill Baran, the mayor at the time, who broke the bad news to local flyers. Dozens of pilots had once used the field, but only two planes were still based there when officials agreed to sell it in 2008.

The pilot decline comes even as commercial aviation is drawing more passengers, with the industry expecting to see a record number of travelers this summer.

That success has come with a price, though, as the once-flashy image of flying has been tarnished by hectic airports, packed commercial jets and frequent delays. For many people, there remains little glamour in flying.
"Air travel is not nearly as interesting as it used to be," said Tom Haines, a pilot since 1977 and editor with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

At many small, rural airfields, where decades ago farmers, small-business owners and blue collar workers joined flying clubs and gathered for family barbecues amid the roar of planes, it's now can be pretty quiet.
While some general aviation airports in urban areas remain busy, others have "a little of a ghost town feel," said Haines.

At Martin Field in South Sioux City, Nebraska, owner Gene Martin recalls when teenagers would bike out to the airfield and pay for flight lessons with money they earned from paper routes. Now, young people seem more interested in video games, Martin said.

The number of flight instructors at his field has fallen from 12 to three, and they're not especially busy, he said.

Still, he's turned down offers to sell his 130 acres to housing developers.

"We're trying to hang in there," said Martin, whose grandfather started the airfield in the 1930s.

With the number of public airports having dropped from 5,589 in 1990 to 5,155 in 2013, pilots have more trouble finding places to keep their planes.

When the Onawa airport closes, pilot Ed Weiner will move his airplane to a city 25 miles away. If properly developed, he believes the airfield would provide more economic benefit to the town than the drag strip will.
Weiner, 70, says more people would fly small planes if they knew what the experience was like.

"If you've never had it, you'll never miss it," he said. "It's like trying to describe the taste of chocolate cake."

http://www.kvoa.com/story/29271309/small-town-airports-close-as-fewer-pilots-take-to-skies
 
Last edited:
The other half of this story is property values: it seems like its financially smarter to just build condos than try to keep a small GA airport going. There's a reason the family farm doesn't really exist anymore. The same, it seems, is true with the family-run country air strip.

Private GA survives by recognizing this. Transitioning from airports to airparks, figuring out how to expand to take the jet traffic, or getting that one king-air owner to just buy the field are a few strategies that can keep the doors open.
 
I think the article is taking things a little too seriously. By their own stats, the number of public airports has dropped by only 7% in 25 years, and we still have well over 5,000 airports in a country whose population tends to be concentrated in a few large cities. I think we're doing just fine.
 
I think the article is taking things a little too seriously. By their own stats, the number of public airports has dropped by only 7% in 25 years, and we still have well over 5,000 airports in a country whose population tends to be concentrated in a few large cities. I think we're doing just fine.

Airport wise, yeah we're doing okay. But in general, GA is dying a slow death here in the US. It's not like it was even 10 years ago.
 
Airport wise, yeah we're doing okay. But in general, GA is dying a slow death here in the US. It's not like it was even 10 years ago.

Every weekend I go to the airport, the pattern is filled. We're building new hangars to meet the demand. I'm number 33 on the wait list for a hangar. Rumors of GA's death are greatly exaggerated.
 
Airport wise, yeah we're doing okay. But in general, GA is dying a slow death here in the US. It's not like it was even 10 years ago.

Agreed. And the airports will slowly go with it. I see the traffic decline even where I live, surprised that some of the airports around here are even still open, with as little traffic as they see. And that includes towered airports, albeit NFCTs, but still.
 
Every weekend I go to the airport, the pattern is filled. We're building new hangars to meet the demand. I'm number 33 on the wait list for a hangar. Rumors of GA's death are greatly exaggerated.

I think what you're seeing is a Pareto split where 20% of the fields are accounting for 80% of the piston GA traffic. Here locally it's easy to look at Albert Whitted or Peter O'Knight and say "GA is doing fine!" But these are both urban airports in immediate proximity to high wealth communities. The airports in the outer ring suburbs and rural areas are where I believe you find declining demand.
 
Some small city/county airports are better prepared for lean times than others. The airports in which the local governments retained the fuel concession seem to be doing better than those that struggle to keep an FBO as a renter.

Of course, the most successful of these are 20-50 miles from a large towered field and benefit from defectors.
 
Maybe it's just the passing of time. I'm "healthy" but certainly not as robust as I once was:)

The pattern here at Sky Acres (44N) is full each weekend morning with good weather and you still generally wait for a table at Tail Winds Cafe as folks fly in for breakfast and lunch.
 
Many airports in this country were a result of WWII and sold for $1 to local governments when the war ended. Some thrived being turned into an air-carrier hub, LAX, ORD, ATL and JFK to name a few.

Others local governments were able to keep the airport alive but just barely and year after year the facility has declined. First they closed all but one runway. Then buildings were removed that were falling down and there were no funds to replace them.

At this point it would take a lot of money re-pave runways and ramps. Fixing up old buildings and hangars is cost prohibitive. Many airports also have issues with toxic soils. In the 40's fuel and oil were simply dumped on the ground. Now the petroleum products are seeping into the ground water.

Lastly most airports have taken hits as FBO after FBO have failed, leaving the local government holding the bag on rents, fuel payments and other costly items. One FBO at my airport was finally evicted after falling $500k behind in payments. No wonder they can't slurry the ramps.

The airport below is supported by federal funds and a population of 6,105. How is that even possiable?

345y4ww.png
 
I think the real issue is that GA is perfectly healthy, but people have an unrealistic expectation of it if staying at its peak forever. Nothing ever stays at its peak forever, because the peak is usually built on a faulty foundation.
I think the financial model for a successful small GA airport might have changed. The public-private model might be falling apart.

A couple of months ago, I flew into Cynthiana, Kentucky. I found a very cool little airport. It had a newish terminal building (unattended) and cheap fuel (maintained by county). County-owned hangars were cheap.

Change a few things and this healthy little airport could be in trouble. If the airport had decided to rely on a private FBO, they would have found themselves unable to support one. If they had relied on construction of private hangars on private property, they might be without any hangars.

This small-government guy is second-guessing himself.
 
I would also add that sometimes local airport politics is one of the worst enemies of GA. I have seen few airports in the US immune to it.
The number of people who buy homes near an airport and then are stunned that planes fly over baffles me to no end. I rent a place where there are train tracks a few blocks away, I am not surprised that there are trains that use the track and occasionally blow the horn to get the person/car etc off the tracks.

The airport I fly out of had the Phenom that came up short and took out a home, mother and kids. The news just released a story saying how disappointing it was that the feds and county would do nothing about the traffic coming in an out of the airport and how dangerous it was. The clip was filled with sped up footage of planes taking off (they looked wobbly) and of the crash site.

While the crash was more than unfortunate at the loss of life on the ground and in the air, it misses the true economic impact of the airport on the community (and something I purposely show to everyone who I take flying with me). There are mechanics, restauranteers, line men, etc that all are employed by the airport, and CFIs/staff employed by the flight school. People come there for the food, to watch planes, for lessons, etc. They spend money that keeps the employees, employed. But, I then point out, because I fly there my car needs fuel, so I will stop at local gas stations to fill up that I normally would not stop at, other times I will buy lunch in the community, or shop at other stores there. Beyond me, those who fly in create traffic for taxis when the need rides or for rental cars. I have no doubt they also frequent local stores like me. The airport has more of an impact than what is just observed on the field and can have a very meaningful economic impact to the entire community they serve.
 
The number of people who buy homes near an airport and then are stunned that planes fly over baffles me to no end. I rent a place where there are train tracks a few blocks away, I am not surprised that there are trains that use the track and occasionally blow the horn to get the person/car etc off the tracks.

The airport I fly out of had the Phenom that came up short and took out a home, mother and kids. The news just released a story saying how disappointing it was that the feds and county would do nothing about the traffic coming in an out of the airport and how dangerous it was. The clip was filled with sped up footage of planes taking off (they looked wobbly) and of the crash site.

While the crash was more than unfortunate at the loss of life on the ground and in the air, it misses the true economic impact of the airport on the community (and something I purposely show to everyone who I take flying with me). There are mechanics, restauranteers, line men, etc that all are employed by the airport, and CFIs/staff employed by the flight school. People come there for the food, to watch planes, for lessons, etc. They spend money that keeps the employees, employed. But, I then point out, because I fly there my car needs fuel, so I will stop at local gas stations to fill up that I normally would not stop at, other times I will buy lunch in the community, or shop at other stores there. Beyond me, those who fly in create traffic for taxis when the need rides or for rental cars. I have no doubt they also frequent local stores like me. The airport has more of an impact than what is just observed on the field and can have a very meaningful economic impact to the entire community they serve.
The number of people who buy homes near an airport and then are stunned that planes fly over baffles me to no end. I rent a place where there are train tracks a few blocks away, I am not surprised that there are trains that use the track and occasionally blow the horn to get the person/car etc off the tracks.

The airport I fly out of had the Phenom that came up short and took out a home, mother and kids. The news just released a story saying how disappointing it was that the feds and county would do nothing about the traffic coming in an out of the airport and how dangerous it was. The clip was filled with sped up footage of planes taking off (they looked wobbly) and of the crash site.

While the crash was more than unfortunate at the loss of life on the ground and in the air, it misses the true economic impact of the airport on the community (and something I purposely show to everyone who I take flying with me). There are mechanics, restauranteers, line men, etc that all are employed by the airport, and CFIs/staff employed by the flight school. People come there for the food, to watch planes, for lessons, etc. They spend money that keeps the employees, employed. But, I then point out, because I fly there my car needs fuel, so I will stop at local gas stations to fill up that I normally would not stop at, other times I will buy lunch in the community, or shop at other stores there. Beyond me, those who fly in create traffic for taxis when the need rides or for rental cars. I have no doubt they also frequent local stores like me. The airport has more of an impact than what is just observed on the field and can have a very meaningful economic impact to the entire community they serve.

While that is part of the politics, the other aspect is the often byzantine politics of the airport itself. I've seen some airports cut off their nose to spite their face. Protectionism is often rampant. I know of one airport not far from me that pretty much wrote the rules for flight school operations to protect the local flight school. For example, you must have two airplanes and one must be certified for instrument flight. So the guy who wants to teach tail wheel in a J-3? Sorry. Not here.
I remember another airport where they spent something like $250K of federal money on a hazmat truck. In the five years I lived there it never moved as they had no one who could operate it. But hey, they got a "free" hazmat truck.
Nine times out of ten the airport manager is "Bubba's brother" and dumber than a box of rocks with no knowledge of aviation.
 
Every weekend I go to the airport, the pattern is filled. We're building new hangars to meet the demand. I'm number 33 on the wait list for a hangar. Rumors of GA's death are greatly exaggerated.
Maybe. But where is your airport? Part of my work takes me to a lot of little ones. They are sloooow, and many are struggling. Others are doing well. Seems to me that it largely, but not always, depends on the local economy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
While that is part of the politics, the other aspect is the often byzantine politics of the airport itself. I've seen some airports cut off their nose to spite their face. Protectionism is often rampant. I know of one airport not far from me that pretty much wrote the rules for flight school operations to protect the local flight school. For example, you must have two airplanes and one must be certified for instrument flight. So the guy who wants to teach tail wheel in a J-3? Sorry. Not here.
I remember another airport where they spent something like $250K of federal money on a hazmat truck. In the five years I lived there it never moved as they had no one who could operate it. But hey, they got a "free" hazmat truck.
Nine times out of ten the airport manager is "Bubba's brother" and dumber than a box of rocks with no knowledge of aviation.

This!!! So true. Ugh!
 
GA has been on a steady decline since it's heyday in the 50s/60s/70s. Sadly becoming mostly unaffordable for many anymore, and for a variety of reasons....no longer the hobby for the "every man" it has long been marketed to.

Even my own home field, which used to bristle with light GA traffic, only really has light GA traffic from the Chinese flight school located on field. Other airports around the Valley have GA aircraft present, but which rarely move.



http://www.kvoa.com/story/29271309/small-town-airports-close-as-fewer-pilots-take-to-skies
Base flying clubs have also dried up, a mix of economics and security concerns.
 
Back
Top