Houston to Dallas in 40 Minutes

[TheNiche]

You may be technically correct on that. But the user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money.

According to the Houston Airport System:

In anticipation of a decision by the city to proceed with the development and construction of a new international airport, and knowing that it would play a vital role in Houston's economic future, a group of civic minded businessmen purchased approximately 3,000 acres of land north of Houston. When city leaders decided to go ahead and build the airport, the business group sold the tract of land to the city at cost.

Funny, you'd think that if an airport could be run profitably, that the businessmen would've recognized it and developed it as a private airport. Why do you think that there are no major privately-owned airports (at least that I'm aware of) in the United States? Surely there would be if operating them was profitable?

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

But who pays back the bond issues? In most cases (and certainly in Houston's case) they are not paid back with general tax revenues, but are paid with airport user fees and other airport revenue.

The recently passed Prop G proves nothing. All that did was remove the airport system from the revenue restrictions imposed on the city government. It made no sense to apply revenue restrictions to the airport system because all of their revenue is self-generated, NOT taken out of general tax revenues.

There is a small subsidy implicit here, of course, in that the airports have access to the government bond issues, which will get them a better interest rate. If that's all that you have in mind for a TGV system, I'd be all for it. Establish an railroad authority to build the infrastructure with proceeds from a bond issue and then recoup the costs out of user fees. The problem with that is, at least as of the early 90's when the Texas TGV was seriously attempted, even with that level of subsidy the project was not feasible.

Ah, someone with some actual knowledge. I held out hope that if this thing went on long enough, someone would get it right

You may be technically correct on that. But the user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money.

Good job. You get to wear the smart cap today

[KinkaidAlum]

So true on many, many levels.

But if a train pollutes less it may be a good idea.

And if a US firm could build these trains it might just work.

I doubt we'll give any huge contracts to France at the expense of Boeing. Especially considering the EU still protects thier market under the guise of free trade.

The question is, could this rail make money. Kinkaid loves his Amtrack service but Amtrack's business model is broken.

Ah, yes, the airline business is such a financial success.

Northwest (in bankruptcy protection)

Delta (in bankruptcy protection)

United (fresh out of bankruptcy protection)

Continental (maybe the healthiest but has some debt issues)

American (lots of cash but sitting on a really old fleet without the resources to replace them all)

US Airways (bankrupt and bought out by America West although they use the US name)

Southwest (healthy but no longer the darlings of the aviation industry as their CASM is rising)

Jet Blue (a media darling but didn't declare a profit in the last quarter)

Frontier (a great little airline but not overly successful)

Alaska Air (see Frontier)

AirTran (a craptastic experience)

TWA, Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, Muse, TranStar, Piedmont, Allegheny, Air Cal, NY Air, People Express, Florida Express, Song, Midway, Morris Air, Emerald, Ozark, and a host of others...VANISHED.

[Houston19514]

According to the Houston Airport System:

Funny, you'd think that if an airport could be run profitably, that the businessmen would've recognized it and developed it as a private airport. Why do you think that there are no major privately-owned airports (at least that I'm aware of) in the United States? Surely there would be if operating them was profitable?

How many people do you employ in that straw-man factory you operate? It must keep quite a few people busy to keep you supplied. ;-)

Read my post again. You know very well that I did not say anything remotely like what you have implied. I never used the word "profit", let alone suggested in any way that our airports operate or could operate profitably in a private, free-market operation. That is why I said that I would be supportive of a similar arrangement for a high-speed rail system, where a rail authority can issue government bonds to build the infrastructure and repay those bonds out of operating proceeds and user fees. Hardly a proposal for a private-sector, profitable enterprise.

Regarding the city of Houston having purchased the land for IAH. Do you know what the source of that money was, by any chance? I didn't think so... Could it have been airport department funds (which are derived from user fees and other airport-generated revenues)? Could it have been FAA money (which also comes from user fees, by the way)?

[MidtownCoog]

Oh Kinkaid,

I can name a ton of companies that have bit the dust in a number of industries. People are still flying. And your point is?

All,

Don't underestimate the economic impact of airports.

D/FW hangs it hat on it and IAH aspires to it.

Rail for now is a nice to have but will never generate what the airports do. At best they will compliment it.

I don't see the EU should closing any aiports.

[desirous]

Wait, somebody mentioned closing airports? Three words: WTF?

[wjp3]

You guys take take your trains, planes, and automobiles... What the Houston - Dal/FW corridor needs is a canal and boats!

They can use gambling to subsidize the whole project. And it's romantic... so there's another attraction.

And if you link the canal to the Port of Houston, Dallas/FW would have a port, too!

It's brilliant.

[dbigtex56]

Not by Ford, but by FordS (and Chevys, Dodges and Toyotas, too). Through gasoline taxes and registration fees, the roads are paid for by the road users themselves.

I was of the impression that METRO funds have been used to build and maintain roads. Since these funds are collected by a general sales tax, those who are not road users are also paying for them.

[woolie]

An important external factor to keep in consideration is the energy source.

Planes are dependent on oil, and the price stability and availability of jet fuel. A variety of factors conspire against this, and it's likely we'll see $100+ barrels very soon due to middle east conflict, peak oil, diminishing returns (e.g. saudi arabia), etc. And it will likely rise far above that in the near future.

Trains are neutral because the electricity can be provided by a variety of sources. Coal (ugh...) and nuclear have no supply constraints and are far more likely to have stable prices in the future.

Additionally, nuclear/renewable-powered trains do not emit CO2... it's just the right thing to do, but carbon taxes are likely in the future anyway, so it's also the prudent thing to do. France's electricity generation is 75-80% nuclear, so the TGV is flying across the country more or less emissions free.

Expanding our conventional and high speed rail networks now will also help keep the freight moving when diesel fuel doubles in price...

Trains are a good proposition today, but trends we're observing now make them the only sensible option for the future.

[CDeb]

I was of the impression that METRO funds have been used to build and maintain roads. Since these funds are collected by a general sales tax, those who are not road users are also paying for them.

True, but that is a very recent deal (one quarter of MTERO funds goes towards roads), therefore a miniscule portion of the lane miles in Houston. You could drive around Houston for months and not drive on concrete paid for by METRO.

[TheNiche]

How many people do you employ in that straw-man factory you operate? It must keep quite a few people busy to keep you supplied. ;-)

Read my post again. You know very well that I did not say anything remotely like what you have implied. I never used the word "profit", let alone suggested in any way that our airports operate or could operate profitably in a private, free-market operation. That is why I said that I would be supportive of a similar arrangement for a high-speed rail system, where a rail authority can issue government bonds to build the infrastructure and repay those bonds out of operating proceeds and user fees. Hardly a proposal for a private-sector, profitable enterprise.

Regarding the city of Houston having purchased the land for IAH. Do you know what the source of that money was, by any chance? I didn't think so... Could it have been airport department funds (which are derived from user fees and other airport-generated revenues)? Could it have been FAA money (which also comes from user fees, by the way)?

You stated that "user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money." Clearly, airports in their current form are money-losing propositions, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily have to be. Terminal buildings are usually overbuilt. If government stayed out of the airport industry, it would look a lot different and would be a whole lot less expensive, reflecting the true value that the public places on them.

By the way, I checked the most recent financial report from the Houston Airport System. You are categorically wrong. There is a consistent and massive subsidy provided to airports in our area every year. And although all categories of revenues and expenses are rising, what has driven the HAS to the point that they would be losing more money each year if it were not for subsidy are the rapidly increasing interest expenses, which are incurred from the debt that they hold. As a desperate attempt to shore up their finances, they raised all kinds of fees to try and boost revenue, but it wasn't nearly enough. See below:

But you'll notice that even though they raised all their fees charged to businesses, the fees that you and I experience directly (parking) didn't budge one bit. But how much you wanna bet that every airline and every concession in the HAS raised their prices, passing along their costs to the consumer, and that you and I failed to take notice? Sneaky.

Also consider that there are subsidies that won't ever show up on accounting statements. Every time that debt is issued, the HAS has three big advantages that private airport developers would never have: 1) they issue tax-exempt municipal bonds, which distort the market for loanable funds, 2) they guaranty those funds through the taxpayer, which means that any future subordinate notes will carry a higher interest rate to reflect a higher default risk and of course that the taxpayer is liable to bail them out if necessary, and 3) that lands and improvements owned by government agencies aren't subject to taxation.

Ready to quit with this BS about how airports aren't being subsidized?

[Houston19514]

You stated that "user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money." Clearly, airports in their current form are money-losing propositions, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily have to be. Terminal buildings are usually overbuilt. If government stayed out of the airport industry, it would look a lot different and would be a whole lot less expensive, reflecting the true value that the public places on them.

By the way, I checked the most recent financial report from the Houston Airport System. You are categorically wrong. There is a consistent and massive subsidy provided to airports in our area every year. And although all categories of revenues and expenses are rising, what has driven the HAS to the point that they would be losing more money each year if it were not for subsidy are the rapidly increasing interest expenses, which are incurred from the debt that they hold. As a desperate attempt to shore up their finances, they raised all kinds of fees to try and boost revenue, but it wasn't nearly enough. See below:

But you'll notice that even though they raised all their fees charged to businesses, the fees that you and I experience directly (parking) didn't budge one bit. But how much you wanna bet that every airline and every concession in the HAS raised their prices, passing along their costs to the consumer, and that you and I failed to take notice? Sneaky.

Also consider that there are subsidies that won't ever show up on accounting statements. Every time that debt is issued, the HAS has three big advantages that private airport developers would never have: 1) they issue tax-exempt municipal bonds, which distort the market for loanable funds, 2) they guaranty those funds through the taxpayer, which means that any future subordinate notes will carry a higher interest rate to reflect a higher default risk and of course that the taxpayer is liable to bail them out if necessary, and 3) that lands and improvements owned by government agencies aren't subject to taxation.

Ready to quit with this BS about how airports aren't being subsidized?

You are rapidly revealing yourself to be nothing more than what some of us thought. Good at cutting and pasting. But not so good at actually understanding what you are talking about.

As to getting me to "quit this BS about how airports aren't being subsidized?". Well, as usual, you are a little late to the party. I already said above that they benefit from the implicit subsidy of government financing. And, yea, as a public agency, they don't pay taxes. Quite the astounding discovery there, Einstein. That is exactly the sort of "subsidy" I proposed above for a high-speed rail system.

As to your "categorical" proof that I am wrong on their budget being funded entirely by user fees and airport revenues... Well, you missed again. The "contributions" in the Aviation department budget are from the FAA. The FAA funds are from airport user fees.

[TheNiche]

The "contributions" in the Aviation department budget are from the FAA. The FAA funds are from airport user fees.

Where's the remainder? Even including the FAA contributions to the City of Houston, there is a remaining amount on the order of about $41.3 million. About another $3.2 million from parking revenues (not shown) go the State of Texas. Even with the FAA contributions, but not including the other unknown contributions, it was not enough by itself to balance the airport's deficit.

[Houston19514]

Where's the remainder? Even including the FAA contributions to the City of Houston, there is a remaining amount on the order of about $41.3 million. About another $3.2 million from parking revenues (not shown) go the State of Texas. Even with the FAA contributions, but not including the other unknown contributions, it was not enough by itself to balance the airport's deficit.

Ummmm... according to the chart in your prior post, for 2005 the total airport system:

operating revenue was 353,641,000

operating expenses were 329,863,000

nonoperating net expenses were 56,645,000

FAA Contributions were 63,989,000

That leaves a surplus of 31,122,000 as was shown on your chart.

Now, where are you finding any "remaining amount" or deficit, let alone $41.3 million?

The chart in your most recent post is quite hilarious, as it steps all over your attempted point. You didn't crop it quite closely enough and we can still read on the bottom that that this is a chart showing payment made BY the Airport System TO the City of Houston. And according to your latest post, apparently the airports are not only providing revenue to the City of Houston, but also are subsidizing the state of Texas. Thanks for helping out.

[CDeb]

You may be technically correct on that. But the user fees pay the vast majority of the costs, and the rest of the money is generated by other airport activities (e.g. retail space rent, rent and fees from rental car companies, etc.) At least in the case of Houston, the airports are not supported by any general tax money.

My point is that the highway system can exist on user fees alone while the airport system cannot. Not knocking airports, but it's a fact.

[RedScare]

My point is that the highway system can exist on user fees alone while the airport system cannot. Not knocking airports, but it's a fact.

Actually, only about 56% of highway funding comes from the gasoline tax. The rest is funded by the federal budget.

The fact is virtually no transportation system is entirely privately funded. The public funding may take different forms, such as gas taxes, user fees, tolls, bonds, or general tax revenue, but they are all taxes, and all are paid by the public. These same funding mechanisms can be used for rail transit as well. Cities can build stations, as they do airports, and lease them to the rail company, or charge arrival and departure fees, just like the airports. They can also lease retail space. The state and/or federal government could build tracks, and lease them to the rail companies. Bonds could be issued that are paid by the rail companies.

The important thing is that these issues should be investigated. The question of financial feasibility should be answered. Anti-competitive airlines should be exposed as such, and the studies should be conducted. If we are going to spend billions of dollars expanding over-crowded airports, we should at least know if that money would be better spent on alternative transit measures.

[TheNiche]

Ummmm... according to the chart in your prior post, for 2005 the total airport system:

operating revenue was 353,641,000

operating expenses were 329,863,000

nonoperating net expenses were 56,645,000

FAA Contributions were 63,989,000

That leaves a surplus of 31,122,000 as was shown on your chart.

Now, where are you finding any "remaining amount" or deficit, let alone $41.3 million?

The chart in your most recent post is quite hilarious, as it steps all over your attempted point. You didn't crop it quite closely enough and we can still read on the bottom that that this is a chart showing payment made BY the Airport System TO the City of Houston. And according to your latest post, apparently the airports are not only providing revenue to the City of Houston, but also are subsidizing the state of Texas. Thanks for helping out.

Your reasoning remains screwy, but the point I was trying to make is moot because I had the epiphany while in the shower this morning that one of my charts is data for the HAS and another is data for Bush Intercontinental by itself. Oops.

But further investigation does raise another question. "Contributions" to the HAS total 63,989,000, but FAA documents only account for disbursements to the City of Houston of $38,698,655 and to the State of Texas of $4,000,190 for IAH, HOU, and EFD, which are under HAS' jurisdiction. So who pays for the remainder of the "Contributions", which total $21,290,155, if not the FAA?

[TheNiche]

My point is that the highway system can exist on user fees alone while the airport system cannot. Not knocking airports, but it's a fact.

I don't think that that's quite accurate. Airports can subsist on user fees without any form of outright or implicit subsidy, but airports as we know them today would certainly be different. They're frequently overbuilt in their current state.

Actually, only about 56% of highway funding comes from the gasoline tax. The rest is funded by the federal budget.

The fact is virtually no transportation system is entirely privately funded. The public funding may take different forms, such as gas taxes, user fees, tolls, bonds, or general tax revenue, but they are all taxes, and all are paid by the public. These same funding mechanisms can be used for rail transit as well. Cities can build stations, as they do airports, and lease them to the rail company, or charge arrival and departure fees, just like the airports. They can also lease retail space. The state and/or federal government could build tracks, and lease them to the rail companies. Bonds could be issued that are paid by the rail companies.

The important thing is that these issues should be investigated. The question of financial feasibility should be answered. Anti-competitive airlines should be exposed as such, and the studies should be conducted. If we are going to spend billions of dollars expanding over-crowded airports, we should at least know if that money would be better spent on alternative transit measures.

[APPLAUSE]

Thank you for eloquently and sensibly reconnecting us back to the topic at hand. Much appreciated.

[Houston19514]

Your reasoning remains screwy, but the point I was trying to make is moot because I had the epiphany while in the shower this morning that one of my charts is data for the HAS and another is data for Bush Intercontinental by itself. Oops.

But further investigation does raise another question. "Contributions" to the HAS total 63,989,000, but FAA documents only account for disbursements to the City of Houston of $38,698,655 and to the State of Texas of $4,000,190 for IAH, HOU, and EFD, which are under HAS' jurisdiction. So who pays for the remainder of the "Contributions", which total $21,290,155, if not the FAA?

You post wrong numbers, don't understand the numbers you post, and MY reasoning is screwy? You are too much.

And speaking of screwy reasoning, your having posted numbers for IAH rather than for HAS would not make your point moot; it would just change the numbers. If the numbers supported your point in the first place, adding the entire HAS into the mix would only make the numbers more supportive. (I think the entire HAS payments to the city for FY 2005 was in the neighborhood of 38 Million); Sadly for you, the numbers did not support your point, but undermined it; so adding to the number only further demolished your "point."

If you could provide a link for your FAA numbers, perhaps I could explain it to you (or are these numbers from one of the double-blind, super secret unnamed sources you are famous for?). Just looking at the numbers you typed, my guess is there is a mismatch of numbers to years, perhaps your error, but it's most likely a result of the city (and airport fund) having a different fiscal year than does the federal government.

You are clearly in over your head on this subject. Maybe you should back out of the water before you drown... ;-)

[TheNiche]

You post wrong numbers, don't understand the numbers you post, and MY reasoning is screwy? You are too much.

And speaking of screwy reasoning, your having posted numbers for IAH rather than for HAS would not make your point moot; it would just change the numbers. If the numbers supported your point in the first place, adding the entire HAS into the mix would only make the numbers more supportive. (I think the entire HAS payments to the city for FY 2005 was in the neighborhood of 38 Million); Sadly for you, the numbers did not support your point, but undermined it; so adding to the number only further demolished your "point."

If you could provide a link for your FAA numbers, perhaps I could explain it to you (or are these numbers from one of the double-blind, super secret unnamed sources you are famous for?). Just looking at the numbers you typed, my guess is there is a mismatch of numbers to years, perhaps your error, but it's most likely a result of the city (and airport fund) having a different fiscal year than does the federal government.

You are clearly in over your head on this subject. Maybe you should back out of the water before you drown... ;-)

Don't be an ass. I most certainly do not have intimate knowledge of what is going on, but that doesn't mean that I haven't come across significant inconsistencies between what the numbers say and what you say or that I don't have questions. And so I asked them! If you have an answer, give it to me, even if it refutes me...even if it refutes you. I just want to settle this. So far all you've done is tried to ridicule me by pointing out the $31.1 million surplus, which exists only because of "Contributions", which you claim are entirely related to FAA user fees but the data doesn't seem to account for.

Link to the FAA source.

[CDeb]

Airports can subsist on user fees without any form of outright or implicit subsidy, but airports as we know them today would certainly be different.

Sure, but can they be built in the first place?

[TheNiche]

Sure, but can they be built in the first place?

Of course they can. Aviation is one of those things where the consumer benefit of the product is for many people far in excess of the price that they pay. Without any form of subsidy, the true costs would just be passed on to the consumer. There would be a bit less airline traffic as a result of somewhat higher private prices, but there would nevertheless be a need for the services and facilities.

But I wouldn't imagine that any private airport developer would take on such a large project if there were even the possibility that a local government could come along and decide arbitrarily that they want a bigger facility with elaborate terminals. That's another one of these things that annoys me, is when cities spend a bunch of money to overdesign terminals just so that they look and feel more luxurious and grand so as to try and compete with other cities. All it takes is one city to do something like that, and then the others just line up and march off the cliff.

[Houston19514]

Don't be an ass. I most certainly do not have intimate knowledge of what is going on, but that doesn't mean that I haven't come across significant inconsistencies between what the numbers say and what you say or that I don't have questions. And so I asked them! If you have an answer, give it to me, even if it refutes me...even if it refutes you. I just want to settle this. So far all you've done is tried to ridicule me by pointing out the $31.1 million surplus, which exists only because of "Contributions", which you claim are entirely related to FAA user fees but the data doesn't seem to account for.

Link to the FAA source.

And I answered your questions. You are comparing numbers from a federal government form based on the federal government's fiscal year with numbers on an Houston Airport System report based on the city's fiscal year. The fiscal years do not match up. So the numbers do not match up.

(And with regard to your "Don't be an ass" opening line, maybe you should pay closer attention to the attitude you pitch in your own posts...)

Edit: From a very quick look at the numbers at the site you linked, it appears that the real cause for the "inconsistency" is that you once again totally misunderstood what the numbers were. I'll come back later with a more detailed look and response.

[TheNiche]

From a very quick look at the numbers at the site you linked, it appears that the real cause for the "inconsistency" is that you once again totally misunderstood what the numbers were. I'll come back later with a more detailed look and response.

Please do.

[Houston19514]

Please do.

You told us that: "further investigation does raise another question. "Contributions" to the HAS total 63,989,000, but FAA documents only account for disbursements to the City of Houston of $38,698,655 and to the State of Texas of $4,000,190 for IAH, HOU, and EFD, which are under HAS' jurisdiction. So who pays for the remainder of the "Contributions", which total $21,290,155, if not the FAA?"

At long last, you provided links to "support" these numbers. The numbers can indeed be found there, by adding together IAH, HOU, and EFD. The problem is . . . the numbers do not show how much money was paid, granted, handed over, to the airports by the FAA in a given year. The numbers show how much money each of the three airports paid to the City of Houston and to the State of Texas in a given year for services or property received from those government entities. (I actually explained this to you earlier in the thread, when you posted the numbers and chart for IAH only.) The explanatory language on the reports to which you linked explains it all:

"The information collected on this form facilitates the submission of financial payment data. Financial Governmental Payment Form, section 47107(a)(19),requires airport owners and operators to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and make available to the public an annual report listing all amounts paid by the airport to other units of government and the purpose of payment"

[TheNiche]

"The information collected on this form facilitates the submission of financial payment data. Financial Governmental Payment Form, section 47107(a)(19),requires airport owners and operators to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and make available to the public an annual report listing all amounts paid by the airport to other units of government and the purpose of payment"

Ah, ok. I was just thrown off by getting to the page that I provided a link for through this page, which is titled "FAA - Funding & Grant Data". Not very intuitive.

And I have found some programs, for instance the capital improvement program, that cite funding sources as being user fees. ...of course, at least one document had stated that the funding had only recently shifted to a user fee basis, and that in the past, it had not always been the case. I see that as a good thing, but it does provide historical context. Also, I have not been able to ascertain whether all airport funding is obtained by user fees and I have only your word to go on. This whole mess could've been avoided if you'd just substantiated your claim from the outset, and I would still appreciate evidence to that effect.

[Houston19514]

Ah, ok. I was just thrown off by getting to the page that I provided a link for through this page, which is titled "FAA - Funding & Grant Data". Not very intuitive.

And I have found some programs, for instance the capital improvement program, that cite funding sources as being user fees. ...of course, at least one document had stated that the funding had only recently shifted to a user fee basis, and that in the past, it had not always been the case. I see that as a good thing, but it does provide historical context. Also, I have not been able to ascertain whether all airport funding is obtained by user fees and I have only your word to go on. This whole mess could've been avoided if you'd just substantiated your claim from the outset, and I would still appreciate evidence to that effect.

LOL Man, when you're not manufacturing straw men, you're manufacturing excuses. It's the FAA's fault, it's Houston19514's fault; it's the airport system's fault... ;-)

I'd be interested in seeing the document that said that "in the past [user fee funding] had not always been the case." I suspect you just might have misinterpreted another document.

Since seeing the airport budget and having it repeatedly explained to you apparently is still not sufficient to convince you of your categorical wrongness, here's some more "evidence to that effect." I'll post more as I find it and have time:

From the Airport System's website:

"While the airports represent a significant contribution to Houston and the surrounding communities' economies, they do not burden the local tax base to pay for operations, maintenance or capital improvements. Rather the system accomplishes financial self-sufficiency by deriving income from fees, rentals, and other charges. Surpluses generated are reinvested into capital development and bond retirement."

[TheNiche]

LOL Man, when you're not manufacturing straw men, you're manufacturing excuses. It's the FAA's fault, it's Houston19514's fault; it's the airport system's fault... ;-)

It was an honest mistake, and a gave a reason--there is no straw man. I admit that I've screwed up on this data multiple times, now lay off.

I'd be interested in seeing the document that said that "in the past [user fee funding] had not always been the case." I suspect you just might have misinterpreted another document.

I think it had to do with capital improvements, but I was skimming through pretty quickly.

Since seeing the airport budget and having it repeatedly explained to you apparently is still not sufficient to convince you of your categorical wrongness, here's some more "evidence to that effect." I'll post more as I find it and have time:

From the Airport System's website:

"While the airports represent a significant contribution to Houston and the surrounding communities' economies, they do not burden the local tax base to pay for operations, maintenance or capital improvements. Rather the system accomplishes financial self-sufficiency by deriving income from fees, rentals, and other charges. Surpluses generated are reinvested into capital development and bond retirement."

The statement you quoted used the phrase "they do not burden the local tax base". But we've both agreed that there are several ways in which a burden is placed upon the local tax base.

[Houston19514]

It was an honest mistake, and a gave a reason--there is no straw man.

The statement you quoted used the phrase "they do not burden the local tax base". But we've both agreed that there are several ways in which a burden is placed upon the local tax base.

The straw man reference was in regard to the straw men you threw out earlier in this thread. I thought that should have been fairly obvious.

As to the "they do not burden the local tax base". Really, what is your point? Why can you not just accept that you were wrong from the start, let it go, and stop trying to muddy the water with your pedantry? You surely are intelligent enough to know that when they say they do not burden the local tax base, they mean they do not get revenue from local taxes, nothing more esoteric than that.

[TheNiche]

Why can you not just accept that you were wrong from the start, let it go, and stop trying to muddy the water with your pedantry? You surely are intelligent enough to know that when they say they do not burden the local tax base, they mean they do not get revenue from local taxes, nothing more esoteric than that.

Standard & Poor and Moody's probably won't consider it an esoteric matter. This was something that each of us agreed upon.

I still want to know precisely where those "Contributions" to the HAS come from, and your assurances that they are the result of FAA user fees have yet to be substantiated. The phrase "they do not burden the local tax base" also does not necessarily indicate that they do not burden the state or federal tax base.