However, here in the 2000's, Congress has been trying to reauthorize the FAA, and some really want to tax General Aviation for use of the ATC system. Right now it is free. Airlines argue they pay for it all, and all these GA planes are causing these delays. Hopefully that never happens. If I had to guess I see a private jet takeoff from JFK 5 or 10 times a day. Also we should note that the Highway Trust Fund is nearly bankrupt and most new highways being built are tollways.
AOPA has been lobbying against new fees for general aviation use of the ATC system. Part of their argument is that if that really must be done, there's less overhead in simply raising the fuel taxes (the fuel taxes are already collected anyway, so the amount of labor spent in doing the accounting for them wouldn't change any).
AOPA has also expressed concerns about safety if there's a financial disincentive to use the ATC system.
And I'm pretty sure AOPA has argued that control towers need to be staffed for peak and not average demand, and that the airline hub system has a much greater effect on what the peak is than any GA traffic.
If GA planes cause congestion at a particular airport, it's possible to set fees high enough to discourage GA pilots from using that airport. If you look at the reviews of Boston Logan Airport on airnav.com, you get the impression that Massport and the FBO have figured out how to do this.
Airlines aren't going to go away and they are still going to fly short hops, I believe. International service will grow, yet to be efficient, you still need feed to those international flights. You will see less 50 seat jets. They don't make money. It only takes 2 more revenue passengers on a 70 seat airplane to break even, than it does on a 50 seater. Turboprops will make a comeback. They are very efficient for short hops. I would not say that air travel in inefficient. It's just we've come to a tipping point in our nations infrastructure, and it needs to be fixed. Chicago O'hare is already making its runways parallel. You'll see less delays there. JFK needs a new runway out in the bay. La Garbage....I mean La Guardia, needs a facelift in general. (btw, LGA has a very efficient operation compared to JFK)
Are turboprops more efficient than trains for short hops?
The other thing to note is that trains seem to be able to serve smaller towns than airplanes. The Lafayette, IN area has daily Amtrak service. They also have an airport. The airport doesn't seem to be able to consistently keep any scheduled passenger service for any great number of consecutive years. You can say the exact same thing for the New London, CT area, except that the trains run through there more often.
The traditional highway and airplane model that was popular 10-20 years ago seems to have be that you'd go down the highway for an hour to get to the airport, probably fly to a hub and change planes, and the second plane would take you to a location an hour's drive from your final destination. I'm wondering if the long term future, if we choose to invest in quality passenger rail infrastructure, is that the typical traveler will have a shorter highway trip, a train ride to an airport that provides direct service to somewhere near the travler's final destination, and then another train ride followed by a short highway trip. That does have the downside of being one leg longer than the current system.
An interesting question is whether something like that would have the potential to make airports like Manchester, NH, T F Green in Rhode Island, and perhaps the Hartford, CT airport all obsolete as far as scheduled passenger service goes.