A1 "Great Lakes, Mesa vie for Prescott air service"

The public contention seems to be focused on which passenger air service to use. But about halfway down we learn why it's a public issue at all: the 1.7 or 1.8 million bucks in public subsidies to provide the service.

I'd have liked to see a declarative sentence stating exactly where this money is coming from. If I recall correctly it's all federal, but readers would be excused for inferring that since the City Council is voting on it, it might involve some from our local coffer.

It would also have been interesting to read a response by Mr Lamerson, for instance, to the question of why he supports federal subsidies for business travelers.

Editorial: Plane boardings are a bright sign

I knew on Friday that we'd see an editorial on this, but I got it wrong: the unnamed Courier editor is very happy to support socialized air service. I'm so surprised.

It occurs to me that the debate over public transit makes an interesting parallel. On the one hand we reject bus service because it would serve only a small portion of the public, people who have other ways to get where they're going, and it will never pay for itself. On the other we love air service even though it serves only a small portion of the public, people who have other ways to get where they're going, and it will never pay for itself. And the editor seems excited about spending another $150 million to expand Prescott's Aeroflot facilities.

I think this disconnect is all about economic class: in Dear Editor's mind, what's good for the rich must be good for all of us.

And don't get me started on bike lanes again.

Letters: Air service

I'll say it again, scheduled air service from Prescott to Phoenix is for rich people who think they're too cool for the bus.

There's some talk about flights to Las Vegas, for example, which might have limited utility, but it's hard to see that happening with runway slots already full. Some numbers in the Courier on this might be informative.

Editorial: "Contact DOT with your say on Love Field's air service"

The Courier calls us to action on the burning issue of which corporation will be allowed to chow down at the public trough while providing luxury service to rich people. Ack.

I'd have been very happy to put in my two cents, but the DOT site gave me no joy from the Courier's docket description.

Editorial: "Mesa Air rekindles its Love connection"

The unnamed Courier editor waxes rhapsodic about the return of the provider of local air service that was always slow, spotty and too expensive, but not quite as bad as the current contractor. Live it up, rubes, and it's only a quarter to see the naked contortionist in the box.

Now can we talk about something important?

Gratuitous dated pop-culture reference: The Love Connection. I'll just go gargle some Drano now.

Editorial: "Commuters, it's time to speak up"

I'm always puzzled why anyone thinks that scheduled passenger air service out of Prescott is important. The economics of flying, whether in terms of cost or time, make no sense against taking one of our several shuttle bus services to Sky Harbor.

All I can see in this is that certain rich people feel too important to sit with the hoipolloi on the freeway. Fine, but let them pay for it, meaning end the federal subsidies.

A1: "Locals come out strongly in support of Mesa Airline"

Cindy Barks summarizes the Council echo chamber about scheduled passenger air service. The missing bit is that Council hosted the same debate and made the same vote last time this came up, but the DOT went with the other guys anyway, so we might like to know why it might go differently this time.

Cindy didn't write the headline that gets the company's name wrong, so no blame there.