Comment by ElevenLathe
2 months ago
There's not really a way to have this discussion without being ideological but military contracts, fossil fuel production subsidies (yes there is a tax on the fuel, but also a subsidy to the people pumping and refining it), and municipally-financed airports (including the tax subsidy on muni bonds) all seem to be pretty direct subsidies that the air travel industry would not exist without. Air traffic control is also a 100% governmental function that is necessary for the industry to exist.
On what you would probably term the more ideological side, there is noise pollution, environmental costs (this one is admittedly likely a wash -- it's not as if our airports would be nature reserves if they weren't used for aviation), and presumably a major hit to revenue and quality in major metro areas -- is O'Hare really the best possible use of that extremely extremely valuable piece of Chicago real estate, or could it generate more revenue for the city and happiness for citizens as housing, shops, commercial and industrial space, and parks?
Anyway have a good day. I'm glad you're a fan of motoring and aviation and hope it brings you great joy.
I don't get much joy from long distance travel in any form tbh ;) I keep posting in this thread because people keep making untrue claims about transport economics, and it's important to be realistic here.
So we go unto the breach once more: in the USA the government run parts of the air system are funded by taxes on fliers, not direct subsidies. ATS is a part of the FAA which is funded by such taxes:
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-funds-the-faa-you-whenever...
Airports usually fund themselves via fees charged to airlines, which are then ultimately charged to the flier. You can see them in the fare breakdowns sometimes. I'm sure there are tiny airports in the US that are subsidized because governments love subsidizing uneconomic things for prestige reasons, but it isn't structurally needed.