"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:19:53 GMT, "Tom Conner"
wrote in t::

Arguing economics as a justification for a GA airport is usually
a losing argument once the facts are clear.

So, in your opinion, what is a winning argument for justifying the
continued existence of the local municipal airport in the face of
its poor revenue generating potential compared to a new housing
development/mall?


You hit the nail on the head. I have racked my brain and I cannot come up
with a winning argument that can stand on its own for justifying an airport.
Sure a GA airport has some benefits for society and some individuals, but
when examined these benefits are on an extremely small micro scale versus
the macro scale benefits of a redeveloped airport site. If there was a
winning argument then I doubt if we would be constantly having these
airport/redevelopment situations. At least there does not appear to be a
one-size-fits-all argument. I get the feeling that we are only postponing
the inevitable when we fight back a closure. Of course that doesn't mean
give up, but it does seem to get harder and harder.

The way I see it, eventually, the international airports will be
located in the outskirts causing the municipal airports to become
gateways to air travel. Unfortunately, if the airport real estate
is abandoned to development, in the future that community will lack
local access and will be unlikely to find a new local airport venue
given the dearth of open space.

If the big airports are moved away the little GA only airports will not be
the gateway to the bigger airports. A high-speed dedicated rail line to the
airport makes more sense in that regard.


So it's a matter of shortsighted greed vs long range planning for
local transportation infrastructure.