Environmental activists recently caused chaos at Munich Airport in Germany, where members of the environmental group Last Generation smashed up a gate and hung themselves on the runway on May 18 in protest of government subsidies for air travel.
Everything came to a halt at Munich airport, with flights delayed and canceled during the busy Whitsun weekend. Some protesters, anticipating anger from travelers, held up signs that translated as “The problem is the government, not our holidays,” according to Euronews.
Eight protesters were ultimately arrested. The incident prompted German authorities to call for increased airport security and tougher criminal penalties. Under current law, German prosecutors cannot take such actions harshly. Under the proposed bill, protesters could face up to two years in prison.
No glue needed for American runways
Heightened airport security and tougher legal penalties since 9/11 may be the reason why American airports don't generate deep protests, but subsidies are substantial and appear to be growing, so American air travel should at least be subject to peaceful protest and public policy criticism.
But criticism from centre-left policymakers is largely unheard of here, with the exception of criticism of commercial air travel (“tax private jets into oblivion”). Jacobins Despite the headlines advising, concerns about subsidies in the US come mainly from free marketers.
Mark Scribner, a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, explained the scope of the grants, saying the Airport Improvement Program is the “major federal grant program” that pumps money into airports, but other grants match it.
By law, AIP provided $3.4 billion in grant funding per year, which was recently increased to $4 billion per year with the bipartisan Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization enacted by Congress and President Joe Biden. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act created two grants funded through the federal government's fiscal year 2026: $2.89 billion per year for the Airport Infrastructure Grant Program and $1 billion per year for the Airport Terminal Program.
Scribner sees the trend toward more dependency on subsidies for at least the next few years.
“Prior to IIJA, large airports were willing to give up their entire AIP allocation in exchange for removing the cap on passenger facility charges, a federally approved local airport fee,” Scribner said. Washington Examiner“However, airport finance reform has been pushed to the back burner due to the significant increase in IIJA grant funding, and there were few changes in the most recent FAA reauthorization through FY28, as the new IIJA grant program is implemented in part through that authorization.”
Because of this surge in federal spending, he predicted that “the transition to self-sufficiency will not occur until at least FY29.”
Wings of the rich?
Are airport subsidies the equivalent of subsidies to the wealthy? Scribner says the issue is complicated, but that the accusation has merit.
“Large hub airports are more commercialized and self-financed, while smaller airports are more dependent on subsidies,” he said. “That means subsidy programs tend to focus on general aviation airports that serve primarily wealthy commercial air passengers.”
He added that Alaska airports are “somewhat of an anomaly in that we have a lot of bush pilots who aren't well-off.”
Scribner also pointed to the lack of criticism of subsidies in the centre-left transport policy arena.
“If anything, they want to make the aviation system more favorable for the wealthy, because there are a lot of people who want to convert air customers into rail customers,” he said. “The unions also like federal subsidies, regardless of where they are spent.”
While it's still true that the majority of Americans fly at least once a year, they don't fly very often: According to an Ipsos/Airlines for America poll, 49% flew at least once in the last year, and 86% have flown in their lifetime. (Before airlines were deregulated in 1978, 25% of Americans had flown in the past year, and 63% had flown in their lifetime.)
So which is it? Are airports catering to the wealthy, or are they increasingly catering to the middle class? Chris Lehman, author of the book Rich people's thingsWhen asked his opinion on the issue, he believes airports are for the wealthy, even though there is growing middle class participation.
To read more from the Washington Examiner, click here
The airport is “in a period of transition,” Lehman said. Washington Examiner“Hotels next to airports are spaces for poor quality public art. That's pretty well documented. But hotels next to airports are generally dens of lower middle class housing.”
He added that airplane seats are “the one area of American life where class privilege is openly acknowledged,” with the higher-ranking getting to board earlier, having more space and constantly being offered priceless drinks.
