The political attractiveness of airport lines isn’t about wealth. These lines have a very broad middle-class appeal. Huge numbers of voters like the idea of an airport line because they might use it a couple of times a year. The problem is, even if everyone does use it twice a year, that’s not much daily ridership.

The real issue with airport rail lines is that they are often so micro-designed around the needs of the passenger that they don’t serve airport employees very well. Airport employees often report to work somewhere other than the main terminal. You need these employees to create a solid daily ridership.

… even though, of course, through stations at airports are superior solutions.

This could, indeed, be used as an example of an “industry capture” of “its” federal agency … while more effective through train stations at airports would increase the opportunities to replace fuel inefficient small hop airlines that serve fewer passengers per gate, per take-off and landing and per runway, increasing the capital and operating costs of airports, it would do so by shifting business away from “the FAA’s industry”.