USA Today hit piece on GA

It appears that USAToday has shut off all further comment on this article, and has removed the existing comments.

Why am I not surprised?

You have got to be "chitting" me!

The fscking arrogance and blatant bias is incredible! Why is this so-called reporter not being called on the carpet by his management? Seriously...bash USA Today, but come one, someone, somewhere in that organization must still have a love, and sense, for true journalism?
 
whoops, my bad. I went to the wrong page. yes, there are huge numbers of "comments" on the USA Today article.

And 38, none of which are favorable, on the NPR page with the interview with T Frank.
 
whoops, my bad. I went to the wrong page. yes, there are huge numbers of "comments" on the USA Today article.

And 38, none of which are favorable, on the NPR page with the interview with T Frank.


Are you sure about the no access to comments on the article. I just tried to go there and the comments seem to be disabled. Comments worked for me on other pages.
 
When I looked earlier comments were available.

This USA Today writer is an adjunct professor of journalism at University of Maryland. Check out his LinkedIn profile.
 
That article is a total joke, and so is the rest of the mainstream media that worships the left
 
Last edited:
That was kind of my point. ATA has lots of money. AOPA, not so much.
There are also millions more people who buy airline tickets than those who fly small airplanes or work at small airports, and they are very sensitive to hits on their pocketbook.
 
Here is my response. Any suggestions where I should send it?
I'd like to throw a little light on this piece from USA Today reporter, Thomas Frank. He begins by using as his example, a small airport in Williamsburg, Kentucky. This airport is more than an hour's drive from the nearest airport served by the airlines, yet he seems upset that this airport is receiving Federal funding because those airlines do not serve this community.

Is it fair to suppose that only those airports used by airliners are of use to the public?

Small airports that do not see airliner service provide other sorts of service to their surrounding community. Farmers rely upon crop-dusters to keep their fields pest-free and provide a reliable food supply for the rest of the nation. The automated weather reporting system at Williamsburg and thousands of other small airports transmits a continuous stream of detailed weather information to the National Weather Service. You, I, and the airlines benefit.

Police and fire officers use the airport to protect local citizens. Search and rescue flights, forest-fire fighters as well as disaster relief services need these small airports. Life-flights transport accident victims and critically ill patients to urgently needed treatment as well as carrying transplant organs and other vital medical products on very short notice.

Not mentioned in the article, the small Williamsburg airport, owned by Whitley County, which was used as an example, has recently welcomed AirEvac Lifeteam air ambulance that provides free flights to members for life- or limb-threatening emergencies. The article in USA Today also failed to mention the decision of the county to build a replacement on the airport for the old FEMA trailer that has been serving as the base for the county's EMS service.

Local commerce benefits from small airports. Even if you have never had a package delivered by FedEx or another air delivery service to a local airport, the chances are great that the businesses you frequent in your community have. There are industries and companies that insist they will not operate in a community without a nearby airport.

Directly and indirectly, airports provide jobs and sell goods and services that boost the local economy. In addition to flight schools, aviation fuel, aircraft maintenance and parts, airports bring trade to local hotels, restaurants, and sports and recreational businesses. There are also the fun things that airports bring, airshows, banner tows, parachute drops, and animal rescue flights.

General Aviation airports provide essential transportation services to small communities. It is easy to use a broad brush to condemn businessmen and elected officials for using small aircraft to fly from one meeting to another. It is easy to envy them the painless personal service of private aviation. But, really, does it make sense? Sometimes businessmen or officials would have to spend two or three times as long traveling by car.

Is it fair for passenger ticket fees to be used to improve airports not served by airlines?

The USA Today article states that the Airport Improvement Program is funded by passenger airline ticket fees. It fails to mention that General Aviation contributes to the same fund through fuel taxes that are five times greater than those paid by airlines or that the airports used by airlines receive the lion's share of the AIP funds.

The eleven million dollars in grants to the Williamsburg airport sounds like quite a lot until you compare it with the quarter-billion dollars in grants to the Nashville airport or the nearly half-billion dollars granted to the Louisville airport, about 100 miles away. It even pales by comparison with an equivalent length of highway. According to the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, constructing a mile of Interstate highway costs around $10 to $40 million per mile. Williamsburg airport's runway is a little more than a mile long and its taxiway is another mile long. It looks like Williamsburg got a bargain.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association likes to say, "a mile of highway gets you one mile, a mile of runway gets you anywhere."
 
Last edited:
Here is my response. Any suggestions where I should send it?
I'd check on your statement " recently welcomed AirEvac Lifeteam air ambulance that provides free flights to members for life- or limb-threatening emergencies." (emphasis mine.)
http://www.lifeteam.net/ appears to be for-profit. That's not to suggest that it doesn't offer a significant benefit!
 
I'd check on your statement " recently welcomed AirEvac Lifeteam air ambulance that provides free flights to members for life- or limb-threatening emergencies." (emphasis mine.)
http://www.lifeteam.net/ appears to be for-profit. That's not to suggest that it doesn't offer a significant benefit!
The subscription rate for members is $55. Thanks. I'll fix it so that the statement is not so misleading.
 
Back
Top