But Main Criteria Seems To Be 'Paying Passengers' Boarded At Airports

Here we go again. Another report that takes a shot at funding for airports that aren't primarily focused on airlines. According to Subsidyscope, an initiative of the Pew Economic Policy Group, the federal government has funded more than 3,100 airport construction and rehabilitation projects costing nearly $2 billion from 2005-2009, despite the fact they received priority ratings well below the FAA's threshold for projects consistent with national goals and objectives, according to Pew's analysis.

Pew says the data was compiled and released Wednesday from the FAA's new searchable database which shows National Priority Ratings (NPRs) -- self-assigned by FAA -- for every airport that received a grant under the agency's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) over the last five years.

Subsidyscope analysis also reveals that a number of small airports that accommodate as few as one paying passenger each year received significant amounts of federal funding from AIP. The three airports with the highest AIP funding per enplanement, or paying passenger, are Fall River Mills Airport (CA) $271,825, Cecil Field (FL) $270,063 and Marana Regional (AZ) $235,306.

(Editor's Note: Cecil Field (aerial view below), which is practically in ANN's back yard, is hardly a "small airport." It is a former Navy Master Jet Base closed by BRAC and handed over to the city of Jacksonville, Florida. It accounts for hundreds of jobs, a Florida State College aviation educational program, and is often discussed as a critical element in a regional intermodal transportation system that will help sustain the economy in NE Florida for decades to come. Is that "small airport" worth $270,063? We'll let you decide.)

Pew says the AIP funds projects that are meant to enhance safety, protect the environment or otherwise improve the nation's aviation system. Funded principally by revenue from ticket and fuel surcharges, and therefore largely by passengers using large commercial airports, the program disbursed $3.5 billion in grants last year. However in fiscal year 2007, these large and medium hubs received only 33 percent of AIP funding, while smaller commercial and GA airports received 64 percent. GA received nearly 25 percent of the funding.

In terms of sheer dollars awarded, Los Angeles International Airport fared best during the five-year period, receiving $280 million through the AIP. It was followed by Chicago's O'Hare International Airport ($262 million), Seattle-Tacoma International Airport ($235 million) and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport ($209 million).

We would note, again, that the role played by smaller commercial and GA airports in the national airport system is vital to making things run well at those major airports. Without them, either the traffic mix at the majors would cause unbelievable congestion, or GA would be pushed out altogether. In addition, the national airport system allows business people to go places that airlines just can't or won't serve, provide vital training facilities, and in general are a net plus to the nation's economy for a very minor investment on a per-airport basis. The National Airport System is just that, a system. Not simply a handful of large airports served by major airlines -- (Ed).

FMI: www.subsidyscope.org