Opinion > Editorials
COMMENTARY: Dismayed by USA Today report on airports
Stephen Insalaco/Airport tenant
I was very disappointed in a recent newspaper article published in USA Today (Sept. 17), concerning the supposed wasteful spending of federal funds on general aviation airports across the country. The title of the article in question is Feds keep little-used airports in business, by Thomas Frank.
Frank either didn't do very much research into his topic or had a hidden agenda, because his story painted a very bias and tainted image of the federal airport improvement plan. No doubt, this article was designed to provide backup support to earlier stories of excessive corporate spending on business jets, and of true excessive congressional spending on airports like Williamsburg, Ky. municipal airport while clearly favoring larger municipal airline hubs.
More discouraging than the above statements, of all of the hundreds of general aviation airports across the country to select as an example, Frank chose to execute a hidden sneak attack on the Benson Municipal Airport, by name, and criticize the use of these federal funds in this community at your airport. Therefore, this opinion letter could probably be re-titled Giant national newspaper entity picks on small town USA airport.
Frank deliberately and inadequately describes the value of general aviation airports to small rural communities. General aviation airports provide a wide variety of aviation services to a community, including a staging ground for emergency response aviation aircraft supporting local and governmental law enforcement agencies, aerial fire fighting operations, news reporting platforms, commercial shipping and personnel charter flights, aerial photographic flights, and municipal road and traffic advisories. And yes, general aviation airports provide value in general flight instruction and recreational flying.
General aviation airports also provide a community with the critical economic mass to encourage industry and other business entities to develop and operate out of specific communities. In these cases, just having a municipal airport is the queue card for consideration, and not having one is the recipe for a community being passed over with rejection.
In his article, Frank makes no mention of these ideas, nor does he trespass on the ideas that the majority of the airline taxes that he describes, go to the support the larger class C (Tucson International) and class B commercial airports (Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport): in support of airport improvements on those airports, the construction and continued operation of control towers and ground-based navigational aides, or the salaries and benefits provided to federally employed air traffic controllers. While some general aviation airports have control towers, most do not. Where is Benson's control tower, Frank, why did you pick on this community?
Frank chastised the City of Benson for spending some $82,000 dollars of the taxpayer's money on the Benson airport last year. I spoke with City Finance Director Jim Cox, and he has shared with me that the City of Benson spent $63,423 in fiscal 2008 to support airport operations, and another $15,625 in fiscal 2008 in support of matching airport grant funds, and so there are several things to say about these facts. First, I don't know where Frank is deriving the $82,000 figure from. Second, this community made the choice to have a municipal airport, and become a player in the municipal economics game of bringing outside business and industry entities into the community; and it costs money to operate an airport. Thirdly, the $15,625 expenditure in municipal grant matching funds was required to secure the $625,000 in federal airport grant funds - a bargain deal for the City of Benson, to acquire and continuously improve a major municipal infrastructure in the form of an airport for pennies on the dollar. And the Benson City Council should be commended for continuously providing those matching funds from year-to-year without missing a heartbeat, especially during these economically challenging times. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the council. Fourthly, a slice of those municipal generated funds come from monies collected on the airport from pilots in the form of airport leases and taxes paid by airport operators, parking ramp fees, gas flowage fees, and other lessor sources of airport revenue. Lastly, the presence of the airport within the community has provided additional jobs and technology within the community, brought outside consumers into the community through an additional transportation medium, and provided the community with another source of recreation and community events. There is no mention of any of these ideas in Frank's story, deliberately avoided.
Frank continues to further demonstrate his bias and a clear lack of objectivity in his story. While he clearly favors larger metro airports with numerous airline operations, he states that many community members complain about the noise and pollution created by general aviation airports. Well it's the larger airports that make all of the noise and pollution, not the smaller airports. His statement is like saying that small rural communities such as Benson are contributing more to noise and air pollution than the giant municipalities like Tucson and Phoenix. There is a reason why there are vehicle inspection stations in Tucson and Phoenix.... Frank. And I'm sure that the four cylinders on my Cessna 150 are generating more noise and pollution than an MD-80? Give me a break!
Frank also trespasses on the idea that airport real-estate could be better used for other purposes, and I'm not sure why he goes there, because this claim provides no support for his thesis that federal funds are being wasted on general aviation airports. And in almost every case, the adverse effects of an airport interacting with the surrounding community almost always surmount because the community grew around an existing airport, and not because an airport grew around an existing community. This is why the municipal framers placed Benson's airport so far from the center of town. And quite honestly, how a specific community such as Benson chooses to utilize its real-estate resources, is none of USA Today's business. I recommend that Frank and the editors of USA Today should watch the video One-Six Right, and learn something about the role and cultural heritage of general aviation airports in America, and stay out of politics.
Shame on you, USA Today! Apparently others are equally dissatisfied, as this story has ignited a fury of response from the general aviation community across the county, including pilots and members of the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
Members of this community should realize in most other countries the general populous are not permitted to operate aircraft. This community should also be displeased with the attack on their city government and community dignity.
(Stephen Insalaco is a J-Six Ranch resident and airport tenant)
I was very disappointed in a recent newspaper article published in USA Today (Sept. 17), concerning the supposed wasteful spending of federal funds on general aviation airports across the country. The title of the article in question is Feds keep little-used airports in business, by Thomas Frank.
Frank either didn't do very much research into his topic or had a hidden agenda, because his story painted a very bias and tainted image of the federal airport improvement plan. No doubt, this article was designed to provide backup support to earlier stories of excessive corporate spending on business jets, and of true excessive congressional spending on airports like Williamsburg, Ky. municipal airport while clearly favoring larger municipal airline hubs.
More discouraging than the above statements, of all of the hundreds of general aviation airports across the country to select as an example, Frank chose to execute a hidden sneak attack on the Benson Municipal Airport, by name, and criticize the use of these federal funds in this community at your airport. Therefore, this opinion letter could probably be re-titled Giant national newspaper entity picks on small town USA airport.
Frank deliberately and inadequately describes the value of general aviation airports to small rural communities. General aviation airports provide a wide variety of aviation services to a community, including a staging ground for emergency response aviation aircraft supporting local and governmental law enforcement agencies, aerial fire fighting operations, news reporting platforms, commercial shipping and personnel charter flights, aerial photographic flights, and municipal road and traffic advisories. And yes, general aviation airports provide value in general flight instruction and recreational flying.
General aviation airports also provide a community with the critical economic mass to encourage industry and other business entities to develop and operate out of specific communities. In these cases, just having a municipal airport is the queue card for consideration, and not having one is the recipe for a community being passed over with rejection.
In his article, Frank makes no mention of these ideas, nor does he trespass on the ideas that the majority of the airline taxes that he describes, go to the support the larger class C (Tucson International) and class B commercial airports (Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport): in support of airport improvements on those airports, the construction and continued operation of control towers and ground-based navigational aides, or the salaries and benefits provided to federally employed air traffic controllers. While some general aviation airports have control towers, most do not. Where is Benson's control tower, Frank, why did you pick on this community?
Frank chastised the City of Benson for spending some $82,000 dollars of the taxpayer's money on the Benson airport last year. I spoke with City Finance Director Jim Cox, and he has shared with me that the City of Benson spent $63,423 in fiscal 2008 to support airport operations, and another $15,625 in fiscal 2008 in support of matching airport grant funds, and so there are several things to say about these facts. First, I don't know where Frank is deriving the $82,000 figure from. Second, this community made the choice to have a municipal airport, and become a player in the municipal economics game of bringing outside business and industry entities into the community; and it costs money to operate an airport. Thirdly, the $15,625 expenditure in municipal grant matching funds was required to secure the $625,000 in federal airport grant funds - a bargain deal for the City of Benson, to acquire and continuously improve a major municipal infrastructure in the form of an airport for pennies on the dollar. And the Benson City Council should be commended for continuously providing those matching funds from year-to-year without missing a heartbeat, especially during these economically challenging times. Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the council. Fourthly, a slice of those municipal generated funds come from monies collected on the airport from pilots in the form of airport leases and taxes paid by airport operators, parking ramp fees, gas flowage fees, and other lessor sources of airport revenue. Lastly, the presence of the airport within the community has provided additional jobs and technology within the community, brought outside consumers into the community through an additional transportation medium, and provided the community with another source of recreation and community events. There is no mention of any of these ideas in Frank's story, deliberately avoided.
Frank continues to further demonstrate his bias and a clear lack of objectivity in his story. While he clearly favors larger metro airports with numerous airline operations, he states that many community members complain about the noise and pollution created by general aviation airports. Well it's the larger airports that make all of the noise and pollution, not the smaller airports. His statement is like saying that small rural communities such as Benson are contributing more to noise and air pollution than the giant municipalities like Tucson and Phoenix. There is a reason why there are vehicle inspection stations in Tucson and Phoenix.... Frank. And I'm sure that the four cylinders on my Cessna 150 are generating more noise and pollution than an MD-80? Give me a break!
Frank also trespasses on the idea that airport real-estate could be better used for other purposes, and I'm not sure why he goes there, because this claim provides no support for his thesis that federal funds are being wasted on general aviation airports. And in almost every case, the adverse effects of an airport interacting with the surrounding community almost always surmount because the community grew around an existing airport, and not because an airport grew around an existing community. This is why the municipal framers placed Benson's airport so far from the center of town. And quite honestly, how a specific community such as Benson chooses to utilize its real-estate resources, is none of USA Today's business. I recommend that Frank and the editors of USA Today should watch the video One-Six Right, and learn something about the role and cultural heritage of general aviation airports in America, and stay out of politics.
Shame on you, USA Today! Apparently others are equally dissatisfied, as this story has ignited a fury of response from the general aviation community across the county, including pilots and members of the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
Members of this community should realize in most other countries the general populous are not permitted to operate aircraft. This community should also be displeased with the attack on their city government and community dignity.
(Stephen Insalaco is a J-Six Ranch resident and airport tenant)
Copyright © 2010 - San Pedro Valley News-Sun