6 ms·

> This is true in the US As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "

• aardvarkr 3y ago
  Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded
  • kunwon1 3y ago
    Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision? Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply
    • leetcrew 3y ago
      I can see the value in operating airports at a loss in truly remote areas. sometimes it's the only way to maintain connectivity to the rest of the world. for example there are communities in alaska that are literally not connected to the contiguous US by road or train. but otherwise yes? I don't think airports like IAD should run at a loss. they are very expensive to operate and primarily serve commercial airlines. the gate fees and retail rents should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.
      • jacobr1 3y ago
        > should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed. Or restructured to be profitable. IAD is a good example of where there is clearly enough demand and example of similar scale airports being run effectively. So if they are running at big losses (no idea, not something I've researched) then that to me implies bad management (or poor political constraints) rather a fundamental business model problem.
    • hajile 3y ago
      No. If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.
      • dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit? Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)
        • leetcrew 3y ago
          why would you assume there are positive externalities though? large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate. smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is worth subsidizing. the only exceptions I can think of are airfields in remote communities (Alaska, islands, etc), and strategic locations that are desirable to the military.
          • dllthomas 3y ago
            The fact that it's made it through a somewhat democratic process is plenty of reason to assume positive externalities in the very weak sense of noticing that you should be looking for them. Relying on the assumption for more than that would be silly, of course.
          • troyvit 3y ago
            Firefighting. Also many municipal airports serve as a beacon to help folks flying at night to get around.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome_beacon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome_beacon
      • unethical_ban 3y ago
    • dahfizz 3y ago
      Municipal airports are nothing like the large international airports you may be thinking of. Municipal airports have like two runways and are only used by tiny private planes, not commercial airliners. The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.
      • troyvit 3y ago
        In Colorado municipal airports serve more "public good" purposes. One purpose is for less rich (but still pretty rich) people to go skydiving. Another is to stage aircraft for fire fighting in places that are closer to the fires. That last one is important, not just for saving the houses of the rich people who build mansions in fire zones, but also to help save whole towns.
• kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Bush planes in Alaska can use active highways. Literally merging with road vehicle traffic for takeoff and landing.
  • vdqtp3 3y ago
    > Bush planes in Alaska can use active highways. That's probably not a useful data point, as bush planes are massively different from warplanes. A Pilatus PC6 is one of the largest "bush planes" and at max weight, is 1/3 the weight of an empty F-18 and needs 1/5 as much runway to takeoff with no jet blast concerns
• HankB99 3y ago
  > urban legend That's disappointing. It sounded so cool! The part of this story I recall is that overpasses were spaced widely enough to avoid interfering with airplanes should they need to find a landing spot.
• ghaff 3y ago
  In general, the military connection to the interstate highway system is almost certainly overplayed. From what I've read, it's something Eisenhower wanted to do and the military aspect made it easier to sell to congress.
  • topkai22 3y ago
    A major military aspect comes from a general logistics perspective. Eisenhower took part in a 1919 cross country motor convoy- it took 62 days to cross the United States, with many difficulties. That experience is regularly cited as a major influence on his desire to establish the interstate highways. It’s not that they were built for the military, but the advantages to the military were also obvious. https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/1919-transcontinental-motor-convoy https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/...
    • ghaff 3y ago
      That's fair enough. I have no doubt that, given his background, Eisenhower understood the value of a large country having a good way to move people and equipment around efficiently--whether for explicit military purposes or otherwise.