USA Today attacks General Aviation ... Again

ZapBrannigan

ZapBrannigan

If it ain’t a Boeing, I’m not going. No choice.
Two articles in the first 2 pages of this morning's McNewspaper vilifying General Aviation airports for accepting funds to improve their facilities.

FAA low priorities get $3.5B in grants
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-13-airports_N.htm

72-passenger-a-day airport gets $7.5M for terminal
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2009-12-13-airports-side_N.htm

The usual comments from readers vilifying "rich fatcats" or misuse of tax dollars with no consideration for the tremendous value that airports bring to a community. You do not need airline service for an airport to provide value. Agriculture, air ambulance, air cargo, multi-modal transportation that attracts businesses, access for charter and, yes, even business aircraft. Hopefully AOPA writes an editorial reply.
 
I dunno man - the question seems fair - why dump federal money into passenger terminals for an airport that services 72 people a day? Wouldn't that money be better spent updating the ATC system?
 
Murdoughnut said:
I dunno man - the question seems fair - why dump federal money into passenger terminals for an airport that services 72 people a day? Wouldn't that money be better spent updating the ATC system?
Click to expand...


GOOD reporting doesn't only ask the question, it also answers it. No where is there any mention of what the total spending is in other FAA programs. That to me would be a good place to start with this article, but the agenda the article has is glaring, and blinds the "reporter".
 
Murdoughnut said:
I dunno man - the question seems fair - why dump federal money into passenger terminals for an airport that services 72 people a day? Wouldn't that money be better spent updating the ATC system?
Click to expand...

One of the best things about aviation in the US is the large number of public use airports we have. Perhaps USA Today should examine what would happen if smaller airports were closed, those operations would still happen, they would just get moved to more congested fields.

And the passenger traffic argument makes little sense. Without gates, operators won't use an airport. And a terminal will get used for 50+ years. You shouldn't be building such things for current demand, but rather what you expect during it's service life. I bet we could save a fortune if we didn't pave highways that serve less populated areas.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
One of the best things about aviation in the US is the large number of public use airports we have. Perhaps USA Today should examine what would happen if smaller airports were closed, those operations would still happen, they would just get moved to more congested fields.

And the passenger traffic argument makes little sense. Without gates, operators won't use an airport. And a terminal will get used for 50+ years. You shouldn't be building such things for current demand, but rather what you expect during it's service life. I bet we could save a fortune if we didn't pave highways that serve less populated areas.
Click to expand...

I agree with your argument except for one thing. Lots of those operations would NOT continue. Most couldn't afford the fees associated with big airfields. Also small 135 freight carriers would cease to exist. Their whole business model is based off moving small freight from small airports to larger ones. The problem is a lot of these people using "Overnight or next day service" on their freight fail to realize that DC-9's, and 747's don't land at their local community airfields.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
One of the best things about aviation in the US is the large number of public use airports we have. Perhaps USA Today should examine what would happen if smaller airports were closed, those operations would still happen, they would just get moved to more congested fields.

And the passenger traffic argument makes little sense. Without gates, operators won't use an airport. And a terminal will get used for 50+ years. You shouldn't be building such things for current demand, but rather what you expect during it's service life. I bet we could save a fortune if we didn't pave highways that serve less populated areas.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't disagree with that - but this article seemed like an attack on how the money was being distributed, not that it was being used to support GA.
 
I think the aurgument in the article is not that they are building terminals in low-demand markets. The complaint is that they are building magnificant marvels of beauty and spared no expense.

USA Today said:
"The result is a 34,500sf, lodge-style building with three stone fireplaces, ticket counters with stone facede and exposed log beams decorating the business center, observation deck and lounge with picture windows."
Click to expand...

I used to always fly into Alexandria, LA and they had a very, very nice terminal with observation decks, a cascading water fall, stone (or marble) and overall it was just a little over the top for the size of the community it supported. I think that is a little wasteful and goes above and beyond providing a functional terminal for air commerce.
 
I think it's very misleading journalism to attack Pellston and show a photo of the terminal Montgomery, Alabama at the top of your article.
 
subpilot said:
I think the aurgument in the article is not that they are building terminals in low-demand markets. The complaint is that they are building magnificant marvels of beauty and spared no expense.
"The result is a 34,500sf, lodge-style building with three stone fireplaces, ticket counters with stone facede and exposed log beams decorating the business center, observation deck and lounge with picture windows."
Click to expand...

I think that is a little wasteful and goes above and beyond providing a functional terminal for air commerce. I used to always fly into Alexandria, LA and they had a very, very nice terminal with observation decks, cascading water falls, stone (or marble) and just over the top for the size of the local community.
Click to expand...

Sounds like KPLN (Pellston, MI)...
 
ljg said:
I think it's very misleading journalism to attack Pellston and show a photo of the terminal Montgomery, Alabama at the top of your article.
Click to expand...
They have two pictures of Pellston and one of Montgomery. The article was not only about Pellston... it sited many different examples of excess spending. It feels weird being on the defending side of journalism but on this article I agree 100% on what it says.
 
subpilot said:
yes
Click to expand...

Haha whoops, I actually didn't read the articles, I just saw the "stone fireplaces, etc" and immediately thought of PLN. I do not, however see their terminal as wasteful. Was just in there a month or so ago....

4026539214_839dde1a67_o.jpg
 
subpilot said:
I think the argument in the article is not that they are building terminals in low-demand markets. The complaint is that they are building magnificant marvels of beauty and spared no expense.
Click to expand...

I've got to agree with you there. Brunswick, GA, is a good example of this. I think it has perhaps one flight in each direction (turns out there were two in each direction when it opened, point is, it isn't a high demand destination), but they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million on a new terminal.

Given the low amount of traffic that serves that airport (and will likely continue to do so) it is just a waste of taxpayer money to spend so much on a terminal like that, when a building costing half as much would have gotten the job done.
 
Barty said:
I've got to agree with you there. Brunswick, GA, is a good example of this. I think it has perhaps one flight in each direction (turns out there were two in each direction when it opened, point is, it isn't a high demand destination), but they spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million on a new terminal.

Given the low amount of traffic that serves that airport (and will likely continue to do so) it is just a waste of taxpayer money to spend so much on a terminal like that, when a building costing half as much would have gotten the job done.
Click to expand...

The key here is how much more will it cost ten-twenty years down the road when there is demand?

The 3,000 airports that cater to private planes raise little if any money from sources that are lucrative at commercial airports.
Click to expand...

And some say this isnt a stab at general aviation? Murdoughnu? Tell me it aint so?
 
Murdoughnut said:
Oh I don't disagree with that - but this article seemed like an attack on how the money was being distributed, not that it was being used to support GA.
Click to expand...

When the author uses the phrase "only open to private aircraft," I think that is a bit misleading.

KPIE has a nice terminal, how many passenger operations do you think would happen without it? I've been in some pretty awful terminals over the years. New, nice ones are necessary if an airport is going to attract business.

We just got a beautiful new one at KSPG, would that be considered a waste too? I have no problem with it, and I'm glad it was built.

I'm going to guess that far more money is wasted on cost overruns with the big hub airports. If you don't want nice terminals at small fields, fine. But then not one penny of fuel tax revenue should go towards projects at larger airports.
 
whew, I know USATODAY was calling trying to get and interview at our airport about our new terminal, looks like they found bigger fish to fry.
The building ryan posted looks pretty modest anyway. Though I do think it is funny/interesting that the flying public wants a jet-way even if it slants up....
I once flew on a BE1900 and the walk on the ramp was a conversation piece for waaay too many of the passengers.
 
Mike H said:
I'm only surpised that anybody even reads USA Today- uninteresting & unreadable
Click to expand...

It's a weird habit.

It's a paper we all complain about but I'll bet you more airline pilots have one stashed away in their flight kit that are willing to admit.

I prefer the IHT when I'm on the road overseas but something about colorful factoids, cheerful diagrams and small topical articles about important, complex issues just brings a little bit of synthetic sunshine when you're bored to death inflight.

And factoids.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top