US Airports tend to be subsidised by the city, but in my opinion that is the right thing to do. What the Americans realise is that by subsidising the airport, it generates revenue for the local economy. In the UK everything is run as a business so wants to make as much money as possible, which is why it costs yoy £35++ to fly into Bournemouth. No wonder people don't start a Bournemouth Gatwick airline, it would never work, the fees would cripple the company.
I flew into Tucson Int. a few months ago. Flew in and landed and taxied to Tucson Jet Centre and parked up for a couple of days (in a Twin). The landing fee was....£0 and the FBO charged....£0...Even though I had a couple of flights in between. I suppose they make their money on the Bizjets that need to be serviced, fueled, oxygenated, cleaned and they make a small bit from the fuel I uploaded (which was comparable to elsewhere). I guess the airfield "makes money" from the F16's doing circuit training - i.e. from the Government and local city and ATCOs are employed by the city / government.
I do think it is kind of wrong to have a National Air Traffic Service which has to make a profit, along with a Civil Aviation Authority which has to turn a profit. These things should be solely funded by government IMHO...
PS on the subject of big open spaces - I agree and would always tend to rent an aeroplane which can do 150 kts + when out West. Either that or just stop at as many of the little airports as you can for a coffee or something. That's the beauty, you can be flying over somewhere and just decide to pull in for a coffee on the spur of the moment, no problem.