The National Business Aviation Association has pulled its advertising from USA Today after the paper published a story, written by Thomas Frank, that stated that more than half of federal grants to U.S. airports since 1998 went to projects that the FAA characterized as low priority.
“‘We didn’t discuss the decision with USA Today; as we said in our initial announcement, we simply decided it’s time to stop spending advertising dollars with a newspaper that has demonstrated such an anti-general aviation bias in recent months. We’ve received positive feedback from NBAA Members about the wisdom of the decision.’
“And, here’s a portion of the organization’s Letter to the Editors of USA Today:
“‘The kinds of projects your story calls into question often support airports in towns with little or no airline service –- airports that provide a transportation lifeline for small businesses, schools, universities and other organizations, and serve as regional development engines that generate jobs and economic activity.’
“The letter continues: ‘It’s unfortunate that your story overlooked these key facts, and failed to explain the many good reasons why investments in community airports provide a tremendous return to us all.'”
Read more here. USA Today has not responded to the group.
Rahat Kapur of Campaign looks at the evolution The Wall Street Journal. Kapur writes, "The transformation…
This position will be Hybrid in the office/market 3 days per week, and those days…
The Fund for American Studies presented James Bennet of The Economist with the Kenneth Y. Tomlinson Award…
The Wall Street Journal is experimenting with AI-generated article summaries that appear at the top…
Zach Cohen is joining Bloomberg Tax to cover the fiscal cliff and tax issues on…
Larry Avila has been named interim editor for Automotive Dive, an Industry Dive publication. He…
View Comments
God forbid that a tiny fraction of total air travelers -- who skew almost entirely to the highest income levels -- should be denied a disproportionate amount of public tax dollars for their little airports. Commercial aviation supports 800,000,000 enplanements annually for domestic and international flights; is it crazy to think that the money should be skewed toward the 800,000,000 number vs. what is, by comparison, almost a rounding error in total passengers for business aviation? For an industry that is being bashed for Fat Cat ways and Extreme Environmental Pollution on a per-passenger basis, business aviation's strategy of pulling ads isn't going to help people think any differently about their industry.