If I’m catching USA Today writer Thomas Frank’s drift, he thinks that aviation activity beyond the “139 well-known commercial airports that handle almost all passenger flights” isn’t worth the bother of the federal government.It would be interesting, but dangerous and impractical to test his thesis. There are about 5,000 airports in the U.S that are eligible for, and, quite rightly, receive federal funding. By Frank’s metrics, they’re wasting taxpayers’ dollars because they do nothing to ensure he can get from New York to L.A. in the manner to which he is accustomed.OK. So rather than let the slow rot of underfunding do its cruel and painful work, let’s just close the airports that aren’t pulling their weight. God help Frank if he has a heart attack, needs to ship something overnight or wants to cash a check. Fortunately, most people understand the value of general aviation even if they don’t understand how it works very well.Frank’s job is to understand his topics and provide balance. In this case, he does neither.
<i>USA Today</i> Blows It On Airport Funding
Key Takeaways:
- The article refutes Thomas Frank's implied view that federal funding for most of the 5,000 U.S. airports, beyond the 139 major commercial hubs, is a wasteful endeavor.
- It argues that these smaller airports are crucial for general aviation, providing vital services such as emergency medical transport, shipping, and banking, which benefit the public.
- The author criticizes Frank for lacking an understanding of general aviation's value and for presenting an unbalanced perspective on the topic.
See a mistake? Contact us.
