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.
CNBC senior vice president Dan Colarusso sent out the following on Monday: Before this year comes to…
Business Insider editor in chief Jamie Heller sent out the following on Monday: I'm excited to share…
Former CoinDesk editorial staffer Michael McSweeney writes about the recent happenings at the cryptocurrency news site, where…
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…
The Financial Times has hired Barbara Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels. She will start…
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.