Larry Dighera writes:

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport.

What do you mean by the "flying public"?

What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

The absence of that support.

SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
brought to the fore.

How do you ensure security? Do you sterilize every airstrip in the
country and staff it with two dozen TSA screeners and
multimillion-dollar scanners?

Do you upgrade every airstrip so that it allows landings in all
conditions, so that regular air service won't be hindered by weather?
Are you prepared to see private pilots crowded out by corporations?

Just be careful what you wish for. Private pilots have a view of
aviation that the rest of the world does not share, and attracting
attention to their little corner of aviation can backfire, as I have
already explained.

Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
do you feel would be usurped?

Anything that doesn't make money for large corporations providing air
travel.

The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
may be established.

Yes, so?

These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
won't be any more milk.

I don't see any "inestimable harm" in closing a small GA airport. I
might not favor such a closure myself, but I can't really substantiate
any claims that it would harm society at large, and neither can you.

Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion, that
"the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

Why do I need cites to support my opinions, if you don't?

If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
discussion, you will lose my participation.

See above. Except that I'm willing to discuss things without "cites,"
because I know better than to depend on that tired old technique.

That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
comprehend the SATS information.

The absence of an answer implies that you don't have one.

Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
spirit.

Sailors don't ply the seas as they used to.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.