I'm not sure you've understood the points being made, if you still think that an itinerant GA user of an aerodrome is "heavily subsidised"
And I think you are completely missing the point if you think that an itinerant user of infrastructure such as an aerodrome is
not being heavily subsidised. The operator of an airport a few posts ago said that landing fees alone do not cover the costs. So someone else is paying the rest , thus the provision of the airport facilities to that GA user is subsidised. That is how most councils refer to their funding models for their airports, as a subsidy.
Back in roughly 2004, an Airports Association report to Parliament on the effects of the governments withdrawal from the ALOP some 10 years earlier (ie ceasing of 50-50 funding) found it had immediately rendered most small aerodromes uneconomic to their local councils with the doubling of running costs, and many were struggling back then to keep them operating. I used to go to AA Annual conferences in the late 90's, and I remember how bleak things were. Yes, some money was provided for future needs, but now after 25 years, most of that has gone (and in most cases, it was spent on the aerodrome, not elsewhere). Any capital works, such as reseals, were always beyond the means of most councils, but they are still expected to contribute something towards them (and you don't need heavy traffic for a reseal to be required. Bitumen ages. In fact the worst thing is for it to have no traffic. It turns brittle and loses its flexibility. Traffic "works" it). There were very, very few profitable, or even break even, small airports in 2004. I doubt many would be in a better situation today. Costs have only gone up, and traffic down. The fact that most are still open more likely expresses how much local councils do recognise the value of an aerodrome to their community , irrespective of the facilities they provide.