The County lost money on the previous air carrier.
In the June 1996 Issue of Airport Business, the previous airport Manager, Hal Wight, is quoted as stating that it cost him "way more to have scheduled [air carrier] service than [he] could get back from the airline."

As far as we can tell from the audited reports on the Airport Enterprise Fund, the most that the Airport collected from air carrier service was $120,000 per year.  Since Mr. Wight did not allow the general public to closely inspect the more complete financial records of the Airport, we cannot guarantee that this number is wholly accurate.

At the time when the airport had air carrier service (5/1986-2/1992), many pilots thought that air carrier service was providing a surplus of money to the Airport Enterprise Fund which could be used to subsidize their hanger rental rates and tie-down rates (a tie-down is a long-term,  on-airport paved parking space for an aircraft).  At least one pilot leader that we have spoken with today believes that the Airport did not negotiate a good deal with the airline in the 1980's, and that a much better deal could be negotiation today.  We point out the last air carrier was a main stream air carrier (PSA/USAir), and the current air carriers are start-up airlines which will be starting with much less capital than the previous air carrier.

The copyright policy of Airport Business precludes us from electronically reproducing the article in the manner that can be read in its entirety on this webpage.  However, U.S. copyright law permits us to provide fact summaries of any newspaper or magazine article, including this article.  We believe that a quotation of a public official commenting on a public policy issue is a fact that can be reproduced by this webpage, and does not fall within the creative content that is intended to be protected by U.S. Copyright law.
 

Given the poor quality of the scanned image, we have reproduced the text in this window:  Q: What do you think about the  expansion of Part 139 to smaller  airports?      "I think it's worth discussing, but it's outrageous that they're trying to expand it to the smallest (commercial) airports.  They've already started back- ing off of it a little bit.      "Some of these people in Washington have to get out and get into the world and take a look around, see what's happening.  This will eliminate services at some places.      "Even at our airport, as busy as we are and as relatively self-sufficient as  we are, when we used to have four or five (commercial) flights a day, it was costing me way more to have sched- uled service there than I could get back from the airline." POP Notes:  1. Part 139 is the section of the Federal Air Regulations that set out the most stringent requirements on airports for providing services to air carriers. 2. The "they" referred to by Mr. Wight is the FAA.