by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 05:52 PM


The point is that very remote areas depend on GA for access, but
traffic
volume would likely be insufficient to support the financial operations
of
the airport. If important to access to the outside world (AK and some
MT
airports), some sort of subsidy would be required.

Why should I pay to keep some remote airstrip open if you won't pay to
keep my less-remote airstrip open? People who live far out there
shouldn't depend on me for support. Right?

Jose




Back to form! I think those are legitimate questions. As I mentioned
though, I think if those towns want access THEY should provide local tax
(or state tax) subsidies, not you or I. On the other hand, I do think
there is some national interest in being able to get stuff (people or
supplies) to remote areas of the country that are otherwise inaccessible.


The Reason Foundation (libertarian leanings, in sync with my own political
philosophy) has interesting publications on their view of subsidies
(generally against) that you might be interested in.