Both sides ignore the historical implications of tourism and the created tourism industry complex! As acknowledged, of course an airline CEO is pro-tourism, the math is there, sure. And I'm not at all surprised to see a weary yet realistic economist succumb to those numbers as well. But these are colonized islands designed to make money in whatever which way the government sees beneficial: In the past it was sugar cane, today it's tourism. While Hawaii was annexed 60 years ago, the  tethers of colonization are still very much in tact, and when you tie an economy to something as lucrative to tourism it's easy (yet still risky), and most certainly threatens the autonomy to develop other industries. There's a brain drain because beyond hospitality, gov't work, public work, there's not much else. An economy can't dev that way. This article just leaves out that nuance and context and instead is Dunkerley's pitch for air traffic control sys reform, which OK fine, but the hed is abt tourism?