I always tell myself I won't get into trading posts with people because I believe in stating your point and moving on, but it seems like people keep stating their opinion or perception and stating it as fact, not as their opinion or perception. I can say that everything stated in my first post was fact.
In these posts, people have repeatedly stated that the reason the airport raised it's parking rates is to cover Wilson Air's shortfall. Are they stating this as fact, opinion, or perception?
I'm not going to say why the airport raised it's parking fees, because the truth is I don't know. But unlike some of the previous posters, I'm not going to state something as fact that's really only opinion. Maybe others should follow.
I'm not sure who the writer of this "editorial" is, but something that separates editorials from actual stories is that editorials don't have to have their facts checked. They can just print what they want with the appearance that it's actual facts with the hope that readers actually believe it.
Here's just a few FACTS that this person fails to explain.
Chattanooga's fares will generally always be higher than Atlanta's, with a few exceptions. (Fare sales, specials, promotions, etc.) It is what it is and almost any airport of this size that's in this close proximity to a hub airport is suffering the same problem.
He states: "But rather than focus on drawing passengers by luring additional airlines and more flights into the Chattanooga Airport to create competition and force down ticket prices, the Airport Authority hopes to advertise its way out of the mess."
The airline industry is driven by market and need. If an airline can't make a profit in that market, they don't even consider going there. (Why would someone go into business knowing they're going to lose money?) Knowing this, you try to attract the potential travelers to use your existing carriers at your airport with....of all things.....wait for it......a marketing campaign.
The writer speaks of the condition of the airport and uses words such as "outdated", "disrepair", "dingy", "shabby", and "dirty". Why did the writer conveniently leave out the fact that the airport authority is currently spending 7.2 million to renovate the terminal? Oh, wait. That's something good the airport is doing and it would clash with all the "bad" things the airport is doing in his "editorial".
He states, "What could've changed the airport considerably, however, would've been the $7.2 million in taxpayer-funded grants from the state and federal government the Airport Authority spent on its crackpot idea of building a private plane service and storage facility -- even though there was already a well-regarded privately owned facility that wasn't operating at its capacity."
This has been touched on repeatedly, and I'm sure it will keep coming up as long as they can use it to rattle the chains of the uninformed. (Maybe I should put it in all caps, so it will stand out.) THE FUNDS THE "WRITER" SPEAKS OF COME FROM SALES OF AVIATION FUEL AND NOT THE GENERAL TAX PAYER. The fact is, if you're not one of these so called "rich" people he speaks of, you've never spent a penny towards the building of this facility.
Dear Mr./Ms. Writer of this "Editorial", please stop the lazy journalism and treat the readers to facts. They pay for it. You owe it to them. Leave your hidden agenda at home.