Pilot's Political Orientation

wrote in message ...

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
airport.


I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?



Those users who use it in conjunction with their business or perhaps
for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy.


Don't the users who fly solely for recreation also contribute to the
economy?



The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200
hamburgers these days?) is getting subsidized without his flight
contributing very much to the economy.


How is he getting subsidized?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a
3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches,
represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that
airport.


I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport
name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal
subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport?

Keep looking.

I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The GPS approaches cost
about $60,000 each. If you want verfication for that write to the FAA.

wrote in message ...

Keep looking.


I have concluded it does not exist.



I was not suggesting the feds paid for the runway. The
GPS approaches cost about $60,000 each. If you want
verfication for that write to the FAA.


Is that how you obtained the figure? Why not just post the relevant parts
of your letter from the FAA?