The USA today guy is at it again http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/ ... orts_N.htm
Inspired buy this ranting episode, I signed up for an account and let them have it. Somehow my rant had an odd numeric error but here is the corrected version. Thanks for the inspiration guys.
TO USA TODAY
This article is part of a one-sided series of hatchet jobs on small airports. They read like talking points from the airline industry lobby trying to scapegoat their woes on communities that don't contribute to their profit margins (i.e. smaller airports that don't land 737s daily).
By cherry-picking a few small airports with trophy homes the author is lazily perpetuating the mythology that small airports are for posh elites and not the rest of us. It is akin to pointing out how much of the Interstate Highway system consists of pavement in the middle of nowhere that people in the big cities shouldn't have to pay for because there are no major cities on either end of Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota or New Mexico.
Its called infrastructure, it is a public good, and we all have to pay for it even if 1 out 10 people live in NYC or LA. Our federal transportation infrastructure NEEDS small airports with low traffic. Ask yourself how FedEx gets overnight service into small Western towns between 5,000 and 50,000 people. How do small communities get critical patients to larger medical facilities? What if your business interests aren't served by the "big airlines?" What if that commercial airliner looses an engine or experiences exploding underwear over Idaho Falls or Richland, Wa? What if you have an accident on a remote stretch of interstate and need to be med-evac'd from a small community?
The author is under the illusion that low use means low importance. If he was actually practicing journalism, he would know there is another side to this story - but he isn't practicing good journalism, apparently he is featherbeading a job with the airline lobby.