winter wrote: 


Why can't we just all get along?

 winter wrote:
 
Quite true. But the electorate is too stupid to understand anything beyond 'Us: Good. Them: Bad', so that's how the campaigning works. We have gotten the government we deserve, sadly.

 cc_rider wrote: 
There's no chance for compromise when you've already denounced the other side as evil, reckless, stupid, and anti-American. Who wants to compromise with any of that? As long as people keep insisting on all this black-and-white, yes-or-no, with-me-or-against-me nonsense and calling it virtue, there's not much chance of compromise or reaching reasonable solutions.

 Servo wrote:
 
Absolutely agree. Geography, businesses and communities served, proximity to other airports, et al should all be figured into the equation. Not just a rubber-stamp NO on every instance. It's those crazy concepts of 'compromise' and 'reasonable solution' that are SO out of fashion these days.

 Servo wrote:
Let's see...you have an Air Force base, but for a vital national security mission involving explosives and fissile materials you'll drive the treacherous, deadly interstate highway system? To a civilian airport? That would be an interesting conversation at the TSA kiosk.

It doesn't sound like you've been to New Mexico. The routes you're describing are some of the flattest, boringest driving you'll ever do.

And you reach El Paso from Alamogordo on Interstate 54—not exactly Afghanistan, nor does every car and truck on that route have to stop and show military ID (not that that would be a problem for someone on a vital national security mission, but hey).

Did this post make a loud popping sound when you pulled it out of that orifice?

 Servo wrote: 
Like I said. I have DRIVEN all over it. Get over yourself and stop fronting this nonsense all over the place. You may fashion my credibility in any way that suits your delusions of grandeur, as your credibility continues to set new lows at regular increments.

 Servo wrote: 
I lived out there for years and you could not be more wrong...MegaFail.

 oldviolin wrote: 
No, I'm not mistaken.  My family members who worked there are not mistaken.  You just lost all credibility.   Again.

 Servo wrote: 
I've driven all over it and you are mistaken.

 Coaxial wrote: 
No, the crap is all your doing.

I'm speaking from actual experience.  Everybody who has driven those roads know exactly what I'm talking about.

 Servo wrote: 
Do you make this crap up? It is about 80 miles from El Paso to Alamogordo...It is about 210 miles from Alamogordo to Albuquerque...Fail.

 cc_rider wrote: 
Let's take Alamogordo for instance.  Home of White Sands Missile Range.  Holloman AFB.  The former home of the F-117 fleet.  The place where the first atomic explosion occurred.  An active military base and research facility with a real need for safe and secure transportation.

Driving to Alamogordo from the nearest civilian airport, Albuquerque, is long and treacherous, with steep climbs and mountain passes.  Not the route I'd choose to ship fissile material and high explosives, or the people who work with them.

The next nearest civilian airport in El Paso requires military credentials to enter Fort Bliss in Texas, drive many miles over barren land with no rest stops, gas stations or cellular coverage, and pop out the front gate at White Sands.  And despite the wide open spaces, the speed limit is a strictly enforced 35-55 MPH the whole way.  That route has military protection most (but not all) of the way, but isn't a road I'd send a science geek onto.

Sure, the Air Force could resurrect the old Military Air Transport Service "MATS Mules" to replace the airlines, but the cost per flight would really be something to scream about.

The bottom line is that there is a valid need for air transport to and from Alamogordo, and a small subsidy is the least expensive alternative.  I can imagine that the other airports have equally good reasons to be subsidized.  No, Republicans hurting places and people that happen to be  served by Democratic members of Congress is NOT a valid excuse to put national security in jeopardy.

 sirdroseph wrote:
  The thing is, I can understand the GOP gripes about subsidizing those small airports. The amount of money per ticket is pretty high. So why not... gasp... compromise? Cut the subsidy over time: 10% the first year, then 10% more, etc until it is, say, HALF of what it was before. Lessen the immediate impact, but still realize substantial savings over time. The program itself has some merit, within reason: it is important for people to be able to travel quickly sometimes. But subsidizing a small airport that is, say, an hour's drive from a large airport, that doesn't make sense either. It just shocks me no one in D.C. can grasp the concept of reasonable compromise.

 miamizsun wrote:
politics aside, it is a serious waste of taxpayer money

dc is rotten to the core

the government sponsored crash (through central banking and corruption) is inevitable

regards

 sirdroseph wrote:
politics aside, it is a serious waste of taxpayer money

dc is rotten to the core

the government sponsored crash (through central banking and corruption) is inevitable

regards

 miamizsun wrote: 

That was one of the sticking points to the passing of the FAA funding. The Republicans wanted to get rid of that and some more small airport subsidies and used that as a condtion to fund the FAA. Kind of like a smaller version of the debt ceiling debate. Harry Reids state, I am sure that is just a coincidence.

Gov't pays for empty flights to rural airports
By KEVIN BEGOS and ADRIAN SAINZ
Associated Press
On some days, the pilots with Great Lakes Airlines fire up a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 at the Ely, Nev., airport and depart for Las Vegas without a single passenger on board. And the federal government pays them to do it.

Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107.

more...