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 critiques Thomas Frank's view that federal funding for most of the 5,000 U.S. airports (beyond 139 major commercial hubs) is a waste of taxpayer money.
- It emphasizes that these smaller, federally funded airports are vital for general aviation and provide essential services, including medical emergencies, overnight shipping, and local commerce.
- The author concludes that Frank misunderstands the broad value and function of general aviation infrastructure, offering an unbalanced perspective.
See a mistake? Contact us.
