Backlash against Vector Airport Systems

[wombat]

On 7/13/2025 at 8:09 PM, Jackk said:

Or six figures for a “airport manager” at a podunk low traffic CTAF field who basically sits at their aircon desk with high speed wifi just checking their email, watching Netflix and occasionally thinks of ways to collect more money 

I am the airport manager for a podunk low traffic CTAF field....   I'm not paid at all although we do have money problems.   

Between snow plowing, mowing, water, power, administrative overhead (town clerk, public works director, etc) as well as repairs and replacement hardware such as sprinkler heads, irrigation pumps and windsocks we spend about 1.5X to 2X what we bring in from hangar land leases.    This doesn't include asphalt maintenance or replacement, which hasn't had any town money in over 15 years.  And maybe didn't get any back then either, I wasn't here then.   

We get some grants from the state but the grants typically require a 5% match and the town won't pay anything so the local pilots cover that percentage.  We don't have any federal money and never have.

I use my own personal string trimmer for all of the spots the lawn mowers don't get, and I replace all of the sprinklers that break, and replace the windsocks when they are too old.   And the parts of the airport that are not irrigated grass, I use my own personal lawn mower to mow.

We're trying to make it work, but it's a hard sell for the city to spend tax money on the airport when most people get effectively zero value out of it.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

I am the airport manager for a podunk low traffic CTAF field....   I'm not paid at all although we do have money problems. 

. . . .

We're trying to make it work, but it's a hard sell for the city to spend tax money on the airport when most people get effectively zero value out of it.

Do medical helicopters ever land in Podunk, WA? How about occasional jet traffic? We get both here in Podunk, AL. How about firefighting? Local companies flying in executives, consultants, parts? These all have local impact. How about firefighting? Aren't you in wildfire country? Tankers, aerial commanders, helicopters, smoke jumpers, etc.

Do you have maintenance, avionics, fuel sales on the field? This is local payroll, which impacts the local economy; they also contribute to the local share of payroll taxes and sales taxes.

But these don't show up on audits of airport income, but they are real economic impact to the area.

[PeteMc]

2 hours ago, Hank said:

Do you have maintenance, avionics, fuel sales on the field? This is local payroll, which impacts the local economy; they also contribute to the local share of payroll taxes and sales taxes.

Very valid reason for keeping the airport open, IF it is just a little in the Red.  But if it is a major draw on the local tax base and roads, schools, etc., are hurting, the revenue you're mentioning won't put a dent in what "Podunk" has to earn on its own. 

And fuel, unless they add a pretty big local tax, is not a lot of profit for the airport.  But you need a lot of volume to really make an impact.  How many people will go to Podunk if they have low volume and are charging $6.50 and the other airport near by (or in my case, just over the boarder with less taxes) is charging easily 50 cents cheaper.  Where do you fill up?  So there's that much less revinue for Podunk. 

I don't like Landing Fees, but I've been paying for 40+ some years when I was back east.  If they're fair/reasonable, no problem.  And I don't have a problem with someone using newer technology to let some "V" company take 20% or even 50% of the fees if there is income to keep a small field open.  ALL of the Fees (Gross Income) collected at these airports probably still would never cover the cost of an individal's salary and (required) benifits.  So there's no way they could have this revenue without a company like "V".   So pay a fee, or loose the airport...

 

[wombat]

5 hours ago, Hank said:

 

• Do medical helicopters ever land in Podunk, WA?
  • Yes.  They sure do.  And an actual helipad at our airport is on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) https://wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-programs/delivering-your-project/statewide-transportation-improvement-program-stip
• How about occasional jet traffic? We get both here in Podunk, AL.
  • At 2701' runway length, with a 5,000' runway less than 5 miles away?  All the jets land at S52 instead of 2S0.
• How about firefighting?
  •  That nearby airport with a much better runway....
• Local companies flying in executives, consultants, parts? These all have local impact.
  • Well, I've been meaning to buy a company to be CEO of, but until then... Chad is the closest thing we have to a CEO coming in and out.   And he's focused on his 912IS powered carbon cub and is selling his SR22T.   But with no landing fees, no services, no fuel, it's not like he's spending any more money here.   There is very little business in the valley, it's just tourism, old broke farmers, and remote workers.
• How about firefighting? Aren't you in wildfire country?
  • Unfortunately while we are in fire country, one of the first smokejumper bases in the world was that same airport 5 miles away..  https://www.nifc.gov/about-us/our-partners/blm/great-basin-smokejumpers/history (S52 == Winthrop, WA)
• Tankers, aerial commanders, helicopters, smoke jumpers, etc.
  •    The same smokejumper base, 5 miles away...
• Do you have maintenance, avionics, fuel sales on the field? This is local payroll, which impacts the local economy; they also contribute to the local share of payroll taxes and sales taxes.
  • Unfortunately, no.   We only have 30 hangars, and with fuel (sigh) only 5 miles away as it is now, even if we did, it would not likely make a profit.   We're not really on the way to anywhere either.  No services.  
• But these don't show up on audits of airport income, but they are real economic impact to the area.
  • The state performs an economic impact study periodically: https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/aviation/aviation-plans-studies/aviation-planning/aviation-economic-impact-study and their assessment of the airport is that it provides about $750/year (Not in thousands or millions) to the local municipality.

What we do have that I think is underrepresented is the several people like myself that live in the valley only because the airport is here.  I buy 90% of my groceries and 80% of my misc. tools, parts, etc in the local municipality but I only moved here because the airport (and the airport car) was here in 2018 when I bought.

Our town's budget is available online: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/twispwa/2025 Final Budget.pdf

While there is stuff on the budget for the airport, they don't show the airport's income.  They have a very aggressive capital improvement plan for airport stuff, but I don't see any of that actually happening with funding from the town.   

 

@PeteMc  Yeah, there is a relatively nearby airport (Mansfield, WA) that is getting sold/leased/shut-down because they just don't have the money to maintain it.  I don't want my airport to be in the same position.

Edited July 18 by wombat

[Pinecone]

I don't understand airports complaining about lack of income, when they are charging hangar rates from the 1980s.

Run it like a BUSINESS, work on the rates to balance between making some money and driving customers away.

[wombat]

@Pinecone At our airport, a new hangar land lease is about $1,250 or $1,300 a year (I don't know what they are after the last rate increase) and you are required to also get insurance of about $1,000 a year.

At Omak (24NM away) the hangar lots are $325/year

At Okanogan (21NM away) they are $300/year

At Chelan (30NM away) they are $525/year

 

So at Twisp, it's at least $1,750/year more expensive than those three places.   

Which isn't a huge deal in terms of aviation costs really.   But out here in the boonies, considering it's 3X the price of nearby airports, people are a little bothered.  The last time a hangar was built here was 2014 I think.

I think our rates are too high.   At the very least they should waive 1 to 5 years of lease or discount it to encourage new tenants.  We've got room for way more than 100 new hangars, but there is no motivation to build.  As long as there are empty lots, I think we should encourage new buildings that can be used as hangars even if they are being used for something else at the moment.   Get some artists in.   Some industrial.   ANYTHING.   

Edited July 18 by wombat

[PeteMc]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

I don't understand airports complaining about lack of income, when they are charging hangar rates from the 1980s.

I don't think most airports are renting hangars.  They do the land lease... which is only at land lease pricing.  Then you build your own hangar for your plane or you build a few hangars and rent/lease them out.  That's where the higher prices come from for the hangars due to the construction, taxes, etc. 

And I'm not saying some airports don't build their own hangars (or had a lease revision) and rent them, just that most don't. 

[Hank]

56 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

I don't think most airports are renting hangars.  They do the land lease... which is only at land lease pricing.  Then you build your own hangar for your plane or you build a few hangars and rent/lease them out. 

Land leases run out, often in 20 years, and the structures revert to airport ownership, and are rented out bybwhiever controls the airport (city, county, etc.).

My home field has recently raised rents by a factor of 4-5X, and will not sign leases longer than one year . . . .

[PeteMc]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

Land leases run out, often in 20 years, and the structures revert to airport ownership

Yea, that's why I mentioned the lease revisions.  For years it wasn't a thing because the airports didn't want to get into managing them.  In recent years it was becoming a big thing, but I'm wondering if they're realizing with the staff and maintenance requirements that THEY are now responsible for, that it is changing back.  Getting rid of staff and overhead is what most businesses are looking at these days.  Much better to make your money with no expenses (e.g. lease the land), and then just put in requirements for maintenance that's on the tenenant that will keep the cycle going. 

 

[Jackk]

On 7/17/2025 at 6:26 PM, PeteMc said:

Very valid reason for keeping the airport open, IF it is just a little in the Red.  But if it is a major draw on the local tax base and roads, schools, etc., are hurting, the revenue you're mentioning won't put a dent in what "Podunk" has to earn on its own. 

And fuel, unless they add a pretty big local tax, is not a lot of profit for the airport.  But you need a lot of volume to really make an impact.  How many people will go to Podunk if they have low volume and are charging $6.50 and the other airport near by (or in my case, just over the boarder with less taxes) is charging easily 50 cents cheaper.  Where do you fill up?  So there's that much less revinue for Podunk. 

I don't like Landing Fees, but I've been paying for 40+ some years when I was back east.  If they're fair/reasonable, no problem.  And I don't have a problem with someone using newer technology to let some "V" company take 20% or even 50% of the fees if there is income to keep a small field open.  ALL of the Fees (Gross Income) collected at these airports probably still would never cover the cost of an individal's salary and (required) benifits.  So there's no way they could have this revenue without a company like "V".   So pay a fee, or loose the airport...

 

 

 I’m guessing there is a reason I hear more people say “when I lived back east” vs “why I moved back east”

 

 It’s like someone who was in a abusive relationship being super impressed their new partner doesn’t beat the snot out of them every night, while the majority of people who are in non violent relationships just take not getting in a fist fight with their partner as expected and normal.

 

 With what everyone pays in federal taxes, any and all “fees” have been paid in full.  If the corruption in gov is causing issues with the distribution of that money that’s a problem with gov not a problem that I should have yet another tax/fee/whatever 

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

I’m guessing there is a reason I hear more people say “when I lived back east” vs “why I moved back east”

Well... Don't equate the Landing Fees I paid at my airport back east as East Only.  True, my airport (FRG) had a $2.50 landing fee.  Still the same amount when I left decades later.  But back in the early days, the majority of the fees I ran into were while I was on Cross US flights. A lot more mid sized airports seem to have either a Landing Fee or some sort of Useage Fee from whatever municipality that owned the airport than I ever ran across "back east" (at least back then).  

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, PeteMc said:

Well... Don't equate the Landing Fees I paid at my airport back east as East Only.  True, my airport (FRG) had a $2.50 landing fee.  Still the same amount when I left decades later.  But back in the early days, the majority of the fees I ran into were while I was on Cross US flights. A lot more mid sized airports seem to have either a Landing Fee or some sort of Useage Fee from whatever municipality that owned the airport than I ever ran across "back east" (at least back then).  

 

"Facility Fees", handling fees, multiple fuel taxes and "fuel flowage fees" are common at towered airports. I've even been charged (and disputed) a Handling Fee when I had landed after the FBO closed, and I taxied myself to a parking spot, chocked my plane, unloaded it, covered it and tied it down in the dark.

Just one more reason to visit small, untowered fields. Plus fuel pricing is lower even before the larger places outs three taxes and a flow age fee on it!

[1980Mooney]

On 7/13/2025 at 10:09 PM, Jackk said:

 Wonder how that will play out, hopefully it brings the whole thing to a legal battle, I mean the airport is federally funded, the yocals arnt providing any real service, funding “administration” for the sake of administration sounds like a loser.

 

22 hours ago, Jackk said:

 With what everyone pays in federal taxes, any and all “fees” have been paid in full.  If the corruption in gov is causing issues with the distribution of that money that’s a problem with gov not a problem that I should have yet another tax/fee/whatever 

Not sure where you get the idea that airports are federally funded.  Almost all GA airports are owned by the City or County (like Kerrville).  A few GA airports are privately owned like Hooks and West Houston in the Houston area.  The Federal Gov't may have provided some funds over time in the form of grants for capital construction.  Or the airport facility may have originally a handout as a decommissioned air force base/airport.  

But the operating cost of public GA airports is the responsibility of the City and County and hence the local taxpayers.  @wombat pointed out that the airport which he manages gets no Federal funds.  If the airport does not collect enough in fuel sales profit and hangar fee profit then the local taxpayers have to make up the shortfall. 

Rather than paying higher property taxes, the voters are happy to elect representatives that will impose landing and other fees (as well as raise airport hangar rents and fuel prices) in order to balance the Airport budget.  In round numbers there are about 200,000 private GA aircraft owners vs about 250 million taxpaying voters.  You do the math......

[1980Mooney]

On 5/4/2025 at 10:25 PM, Mark942 said:

 Using ADSB (Federal System) to enable a private company to convince the local airport this is found money ???  What is the down side to simply refusing to pay that specific fee?? Probably less than a $100 fee. Now the local airport has to put effort into collecting.  Probably the end of the effort. Just my 2 Cents.

How is this any different from Toll Roads using the Motor Vehicle Registration database (in state and out of state) to charge drivers based upon license plate scanners?

Here in Texas toll roads are popular especially around large metropolitan areas.  Not all toll roads are funded an owned by the County or State.  Some are funded and owned by private companies.  All of them use license plate scanners to read every vehicle that passes the various toll points.  If you have a "toll tag" you get charged a lower rate.  If you don't have a "toll tag" they use your license plate to track you down and bill you at a higher rate.  If you don't pay they sic a bill collector on you and then a lawyer.  You pay fees and penalties.

In recognition of the efficiency of using technology and public collected/owned databases, the toll roads in Texas scrapped all the manned toll booths as well as cash/card automated machines (which required the vehicle to stop).   The toll roads exclusively use fully automated license scanners, motor vehicle registration databases to bill anyone (state residents or out of state drivers.)

To encourage Texas users, you get a lower price if you have an RFD toll tag and a funded account. Fees And Charges Page | TxTagStore Site

• Make a mistake and get on a toll road by accident? - your problem and you pay normal price if you have toll tag account and charged higher price if you don't.
• No funds in your account? - your problem and you are charged higher price
• Have an account but buy a new car or get new different license plate numbers and forget to update your toll account? - your problem and you are charged a higher price
• Sell your car and forget to remove toll tag or inform toll authority? - your problem and you get charged
• Rent a car and drive on toll roads? - you get charged because they go after your rental company which charges you.
• Car stolen and you are getting billed for tolls? - your problem.....

This is the future of less government funding and involvement, more efficient use of taxpayer money, and efficient use of technology.

Edited July 20 by 1980Mooney

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

Not sure where you get the idea that airports are federally funded.  Almost all GA airports are owned by the City or County (like Kerrville).  A few GA airports are privately owned like Hooks and West Houston in the Houston area.  The Federal Gov't may have provided some funds over time in the form of grants for capital construction.  Or the airport facility may have originally a handout as a decommissioned air force base/airport.  

But the operating cost of public GA airports is the responsibility of the City and County and hence the local taxpayers.  @wombat pointed out that the airport which he manages gets no Federal funds.  If the airport does not collect enough in fuel sales profit and hangar fee profit then the local taxpayers have to make up the shortfall. 

Rather than paying higher property taxes, the voters are happy to elect representatives that will impose landing and other fees (as well as raise airport hangar rents and fuel prices) in order to balance the Airport budget.  In round numbers there are about 200,000 private GA aircraft owners vs about 250 million taxpaying voters.  You do the math......

Some?
 Federal funds are like 90% of most airports

 

if a private airport wants to have fees, or say only planes painted purple can fly in on mondays, whatever their airport their rules 

 

But when an airport takes 90% of their REAL funding from the federal tax dollars that I’m forced under the threat of violence to pay, I have a right as a pilot to that airport,  their poor yocal local budgeting and financial issues are simply are not my problem.  
 

Maybe if they offered a real and honest product/service that others haven’t already paid for they could make a honest paycheck, but trying to bill me for something I already paid for, el oh el

In my view they are just yet another scammer/bum coming to be with their hand out 

 

The founders would be crying for where their descendants have ended up  

over the price of friggin’ tea

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Jackk said:

Some?
 Federal funds are like 90% of most airports

if a private airport wants to have fees, or say only planes painted purple can fly in on mondays, whatever their airport their rules 

But when an airport takes 90% of their REAL funding from the federal tax dollars that I’m forced under the threat of violence to pay, I have a right as a pilot to that airport,  their poor yocal local budgeting and financial issues are simply are not my problem.  

Maybe if they offered a real and honest product/service that others haven’t already paid for they could make a honest paycheck, but trying to bill me for something I already paid for, el oh el

In my view they are just yet another scammer/bum coming to be with their hand out 
The founders would be crying for where their descendants have ended up  over the price of friggin’ tea

Except that your statement is neither true nor accurate.

The Federal government pays ZERO, ZILCH, NADA of the operating expenses of airports - the stuff that keeps the airport lighting on, the fuel farm/tanks/trucks/pumps working, the line crew working, the runway cleared after weather, the contract tower workers working, tarmac upkeep, painting and repair etc.

A good example is Sugar Land Airport, the busiest GA airport on the west side of Houston - owned by the City.  They have a contract tower.  The audited 2023 financials show it had Revenue of $23.501 million and Operating Expenses of $23.844 million resulting in a LOSS of $(342K).  NONE OF THE OPERATING REVENUE COMES FROM FEDERAL SOURCES OR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.  And that is before paying Interest due of $494K on Sugar Land City Bonds paying for Airport Improvements. (these are not Federal funds for capex). The airport has incurred an Operating Loss in 3 out of the last 4 years.

Local property and sales taxpayers, virtually none of which own planes, operate or fly out of KSGR, have to pay that loss.

 

[Jackk]

38 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Except that your statement is neither true nor accurate.

The Federal government pays ZERO, ZILCH, NADA of the operating expenses of airports - the stuff that keeps the airport lighting on, the fuel farm/tanks/trucks/pumps working, the line crew working, the runway cleared after weather, the contract tower workers working, tarmac upkeep, painting and repair etc.

A good example is Sugar Land Airport, the busiest GA airport on the west side of Houston - owned by the City.  They have a contract tower.  The audited 2023 financials show it had Revenue of $23.501 million and Operating Expenses of $23.844 million resulting in a LOSS of $(342K).  NONE OF THE OPERATING REVENUE COMES FROM FEDERAL SOURCES OR FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS.  And that is before paying Interest due of $494K on Sugar Land City Bonds paying for Airport Improvements. (these are not Federal funds for capex). The airport has incurred an Operating Loss in 3 out of the last 4 years.

Local property and sales taxpayers, virtually none of which own planes, operate or fly out of KSGR, have to pay that loss.

 

So close the tower and sell it as a condo.

Lay off the “line crew”

Modern FAA funded LEDs don’t burn much electrical 

self fuel farm should pay for itself if already established 

there is near ZERO upkeep especially in TX

 

I was up north, lots of plowing, local yocal town got  a VERY nice grader from our fed tax dollars for the airport, it spent most of its hours plowing the town streets and then made a pass at the airport, I’d wager 90% or more of its engine hours were plowing off airport property 

 

 don’t BS a BSer

 

 the amount of scam/fraud in all of these little airports with huge expenses is just silly, as are the small towns themselves where the average “public servant” as a individual makes 2x what the average surrounding HOUSEHOLD makes  

Edited July 20 by Jackk

[PeteMc]

2 hours ago, Jackk said:

 Federal funds are like 90% of most airports

Care to document your source????  I think you're mixing up money for Runways, lighting, etc.  And, maybe at some airports it is paid 100%, but I really doubt it and would want to see the documentation.  And even if the airport(s) you're talking about it was 90%, that additional 10% could be a pretty big chunk of money for some small municipalities.  You see the same thing on Interstate highways when you cross a county or state line.  The materials and construction changes as the local money just isn't there. 

Then there is the Operating budget.  To my knowledge, Federal money CAN NOT be used to cover operating expenses, so that's all on the local taxpayers.  I get you want a free ride and don't want to pay anything.  But those days are over, just like 75cent AvGas.  Look at anything you pay for, the costs everywhere are way up from days gone by....  Some fees are up front, others are just burried in the cost of the item.   

ADDED: And again we're not talking about the JFK, ORD, LAX, etc., airports in major metropolitain areas.  Those are profit centers and that shouldn't surprise anyone.  They're going to jack the prices up to whatever the market will bare, be it shop rents, gate fees to the airlines, rent paid by the car rental companies, etc. 

 

Edited July 20 by PeteMc

[EricJ]

This was discussed a lot locally when a rural AZ airport became one of those using vector, partly to keep the Phoenix flight schools from just showing up to do touch and goes, causing occassional damage, and then leaving.   They'd never land and buy fuel because they have exclusive contracts at their home airports, etc., etc.   At that time several of the affected airports were describing how for smaller airports their federal funding is proportional to how many aircraft they have based there, and for larger airports it was proportional to how many operations they have.   So the smaller airports didn't benefit from flight schools showing up and increasing their opration count, because their federal funding was fixed by the number of based aircraft, so when a runway light gets taken out by a foreign flight school airplane it comes out of the local budget.

Remember that the hangar occupancy restrictions most of us live under, e.g., there has to be an airplane or something aviation-related in the hangar, applies to airports that receive federal funds.   Likewise the restrictions to on-airport living facilities.  Private airports can do what they want, or off-airport hangars, which is why it isn't at all uncommon to see those hangars filled with cars or furniture or anything but aviation stuff, because it is relatively inexpensive storage space for those things.

So fed funding is evidently a significant part of most airport's overall existence, or we wouldn't be subject to things like that, and the explanations we've gotten locally from various airport managers is that the fed funding is a signficant part of the considerations.

It sounds to me like more small airports will be closing because it's just going to get harder to navigate these kinds of problems without more revenue, and small GA is a shrinking pool.   As some airports get plowed under for urban expansion, it's likely going to be impractical to replace it further out in the 'burbs somewhere because of these issues.   The story from the small airports here that were turning to Vector was because it looked like a potential way to stay in existence or buy themselves some time.

[Jackk]

2 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Care to document your source????  I think you're mixing up money for Runways, lighting, etc.  And, maybe at some airports it is paid 100%, but I really doubt it and would want to see the documentation.  And even if the airport(s) you're talking about it was 90%, that additional 10% could be a pretty big chunk of money for some small municipalities.  You see the same thing on Interstate highways when you cross a county or state line.  The materials and construction changes as the local money just isn't there. 

Then there is the Operating budget.  To my knowledge, Federal money CAN NOT be used to cover operating expenses, so that's all on the local taxpayers.  I get you want a free ride and don't want to pay anything.  But those days are over, just like 75cent AvGas.  Look at anything you pay for, the costs everywhere are way up from days gone by....  Some fees are up front, others are just burried in the cost of the item.   

ADDED: And again we're not talking about the JFK, ORD, LAX, etc., airports in major metropolitain areas.  Those are profit centers and that shouldn't surprise anyone.  They're going to jack the prices up to whatever the market will bare, be it shop rents, gate fees to the airlines, rent paid by the car rental companies, etc. 

 

 www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview

 

“The 90% federal, 10% local split for airport grants is common because the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP) sets this ratio for small primary, reliever, and general aviation airports to maximize federal support for critical infrastructure while ensuring local investment. Smaller airports often lack revenue to cover costs, so the high federal share incentivizes development and safety upgrades. The local match, often funded by state grants or airport revenue, ensures accountability and alignment with community needs. This structure balances federal priorities with local commitment, especially for non-hub airports, which rely heavily on AIP funds.”

Edited July 21 by Jackk

[kortopates]

 

[Hank]

25 minutes ago, kortopates said:

 

???

[Bolter]

35 minutes ago, kortopates said:

 

A fool is known by his speech, and a wise man by silence,

[kortopates]

A fool is known by his speech, and a wise man by silence,

lol, and so true!
i simply gave up. When Somebody keeps doubling down on false statements about the FAA funding airport expenses and quotes the Airport Improvement Program page that clearly and un-deniably states only improvements are funded and that expenses to run/operate the airport are ineligible for funding; it’s got to be a lost cause to keep trying. So i deleted it while i was ahead - but tapatalk doesn’t support deleting the post entirely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PeteMc]

6 hours ago, Jackk said:

support for critical infrastructure while ensuring local investment

Exactly what I said.  For INFRASTRUCTURE and the locals have to put up the final 10%.  So you're agreeing with me and not with your original post...  "Some?  Federal funds are like 90% of most airports"

NO Operating Expneses paid by the Federal Government. And even if an airport can get Federal funds to repave, put in new approach lights, etc.  That not what's going to keep them from going under if there is not any revenue for the Operating expenses.  And if the locals do not see local income to warrant them paying to keep the airport open, they'll close it.