Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwthornton | Hacker News Reader

It's probably because a lot of smaller airports in the middle of nowhere would be hard to get coverage for. The current system sends controllers to where they are needed, not to where people want to work.

Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide.

View on HN

"Now, should more productive parts of the country be subsidizing air travel in less productive parts of the country? That's for you to decide."

I would say "no", personally. In the absence of a subsidy, the network of the rural airports would likely become sparser, but the surviving ones would have better economy and, as a result, infrastructure too.

Isn't that arguably want rural communities want, however? I believe they're the strongest advocates of small government, less subsidies and pulling oneself (ie, their community) up by their bootstraps, regardless of what reality is.

I think the issue with many rural Americans is that they don't realize they are the most subsidized people in this country.

Bear in mind you need radar coverage for overflight even if you don't land.

This is true, but do we have a need for random airports in sparse parts of the country that require government subsidies?

There's more of a need to not have planes hit each other and cover areas with wreckage.

I can just imagine the hilarity if air-space was sold off to the highest bidder and then some of the smaller airports may decide to host advertising blimps in their share of the airspace and then charge plane companies extra to navigate around them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com