Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Scasd On The Chopping Block  
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

As Per Boyd's hot flash, some pretty interesting stuff.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm Scroll down just a little ways past the Virgin America bit.

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJjbiv From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1226 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

Both programs should be eliminated (or at least severely curtailed). They are nothing but Washington pork designed to buy votes. They skew the market for air service, to boot.

joe


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting Jjbiv (Reply 1):
Both programs should be eliminated (or at least severely curtailed). They are nothing but Washington pork designed to buy votes. They skew the market for air service, to boot.

EAS needs to go, I agree, but SCASD doesn't. Who wants to fly to Cortez? Nobody? Then why pay for the empty seats? The planes are better used elsewhere (like the desert, where they can excellently reduce overcapacity). SCASD on the other hand can be useful. Unlike EAS, SCASD when used correctly results in more than just 2x daily B1900 flights to what someone decides is a hub. SCASD on the other hand brought F9 to fresno and is about to bring COex or AEagle to DRO. SCASD unlike EAS is also a one-time grant from the feds to the local government, not a pay-per-year contract from the feds to the airlines.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Respectfully I have to disagree DLKAPA.

I think it should be the other way around. SCASD is causing things like the Rockford debacle, with throwing money at any airline who'll give them a plane, regardless of where its going and who else is already serving that route.

EAS on the other hand is keeping small communities linked to the nation, which in most cases keeps their fragile economies going. If keeping that B1900 2x daily keeps the county's largest employer in that small town, the tax base alone from the jobs there more than pays for the EAS.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 2):
EAS needs to go, I agree, but SCASD doesn't.

I agree with Tornado (le shock!). EAS needs to stay. It's a national security issue that every US resident be able to reach every other US resident within a day's travel time.

Why Fresno needs the feds to give $1M to Frontier to get an additional flight to Denver when they already have flights to Denver is beyond me. AND, it's anticompetitive.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

I'll use another example then: Pueblo, Colorado. 45 minutes drive from COS, yet having EAS to Denver...why? Ok so maybe CEZ needs EAS, but PUB doesn't, and maybe FAT doesn't need SCASD, but it would definetly help out the local businesses here in DRO.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Hi DLKAPA,

I don't necessarily think that every city that gets EAS needs or deserves it, but there are plenty that do.

I don't think any city needs SCASD. Pork pork pork pork pork.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 6):
Pork pork pork pork pork.

Just as long as Ted Stevens gets his bridge.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 7):
Just as long as Ted Stevens gets his bridge.

Don't get me started. How many dead and displaced in New Orleans vs. how many people live on that little island? But I digress. That thread belongs in non-av.

Just to stir the pot a little more (and I'm looking at you, FATFlyer  Wink, I think the SCASD also needs to go as it is evident now that low cost carriers other than Southwest simply come and go. If Southwest and Jetblue don't want to fly to your little city, maybe the best thing is to drive to a city that they do want to fly to, not lure any number of failing LCCs to your city so they can die there. As in, will FAT *ever* see a 319 from F9 land there? My guess: no - but FAT got $1M to bring them in.

Anybody have the accounting on how they're using it?
Anybody have the accounting on how much UA lost as a result?

Every town needs air service, but you can't bring a low cost carrier to every city. As this article notes, the LCC market is getting saturated even though most locales do not have LCCs. (US doesn't count, imo.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
As this article notes, the LCC market is getting saturated even though most locales do not have LCCs. (US doesn't count, imo.)

I wouldn't so much say that the LCC market is saturated, I'd say the market as a whole is saturated, LCC's aren't making it better, but the majors aren't helping either.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2161 times:

But do you think that the (altered) mission of the SCASD can actually bring more LCCs to small towns?


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN312RC From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 2682 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Just read Boyd's column and argue with him.. The guy makes alot of sense and does this stuff for a living.........while all of you are armchair CEOs.


Just read what the guy says... he's right on ALOT of stuff.


EDIT: And by the way, the small community grant program doesnt target LCC's only.... and by the way, the EAS obviously works when places like Athens, GA send out an average of 12 people a day on THREE Beech 1900s. Yeah, that works.. National security my rear end. The small community grant program has, as Mr. Boyd stated, been highly successful because it is TARGETED at markets that are either underserved due to whatever issue (proximity to other airports, etc... but still have POTENTIAL). Sarasota/Bradenton's traffic jumped immensely because AirTran came in and brought the fare levels down (SRQ was enormously expensive, knowing this from personal experience over 10 years)... If the money is used properly, like the small community program does, and EAS does NOT, its very beneficial.

[Edited 2005-12-14 21:56:38]


Fly Delta's Big Jets!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting N312RC (Reply 11):
all of you are armchair CEOs

Careful there, I know more than you think.

Quoting N312RC (Reply 11):
And by the way, the small community grant program doesnt target LCC's only

I recognize that, but it shouldn't target them at all over any other airlines, and it definitely shouldn't fund duplicative service.

Quoting N312RC (Reply 11):
and by the way, the EAS obviously works when places like Athens, GA send out an average of 12 people a day on THREE Beech 1900s.

The point of EAS isn't full planes. It's access. Mission accomplished.

Quoting N312RC (Reply 11):
The small community grant program has, as Mr. Boyd stated, been highly successful because it is TARGETED at markets that are either underserved due to whatever issue (proximity to other airports, etc... but still have POTENTIAL)

Does Frontier fly 319s into FAT yet? Is it even on the schedule to do so? How long has it been? Successful? No.
Is FAT underserved? No. By their own admission, most people woh want to fly out of FAT want to fly to LAX, PHX, and LAS. So, why the hell did they get money for DEN? FAT wasn't underserved.

Neither was SRQ. SRQ is less than an hour from TPA, a Southwest city. SRQ didn't have a lot of service because nearby there was all sorts of service, including LCCs. Would you support Ann Arbor getting an SCASD grant so that I don't have to drive to DTW and pay their elevated fares? Talk about underserved... we have no airlines here. I'm sorry, but everyone's suburb can't have a LCC.

On top of that, SRQ played *dirty* to get the grant. Knowing that other airlines would be pissed if they were able to get the feds to pay for a direct competitor, SRQ refused to announce in their proposal what routes and what airlines they were trying to get. That way, no airline could contest them with a counterproposal. Dirty.

SCASD is ripe for abuse. Imo, it should be canned. And now you know how I really think.  Smile



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
I recognize that, but it shouldn't target them at all over any other airlines, and it definitely shouldn't fund duplicative service.

In Durango it won't do either. Right now they are targeting AEagle to DFW or COex to IAH, both markets not served.

Quoting D L X (Reply 12):
The point of EAS isn't full planes. It's access. Mission accomplished.

Access not needed, especially since Pueblo proper is 45 minutes from COS yet they get their B1900's to DEN (which can be driven in 2 and a half hours or less). Make sense?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 13):
Access not needed, especially since Pueblo proper is 45 minutes from COS yet they get their B1900's to DEN (which can be driven in 2 and a half hours or less). Make sense?

Fully agree with you for some cities. Pueblo being one of them. Minot on the other hand...



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Quoting Jjbiv (Reply 1):
Both programs should be eliminated (or at least severely curtailed).

SCASD, if used properly, can actually have benefits as long as their is a definitive timetable for moving the money out of the grant, and allowing the service to stand on its own two legs (while it's not one-size-fits-all, I think 12-18 months is more than enough). I believe SCASD already has defined time limits.

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
It's a national security issue that every US resident be able to reach every other US resident within a day's travel time.

Yeah, it is absolutely crucial that Dodge City, Kansas and Bluefield, West Virginia be linked together with two stops and a change of airlines for "national security." Please!

National security has nothing to do with it. What is a national security issue is ensuring that resources are allocated as effectively at possible at the state and federal level, and throwing money (into a deep, dark hole) to ensure that tiny cities with dying economies maintain twice daily Beech 1900C service to a faux hub is hardly what I call a "national security issue." I think it goes much more nicely into the "buying votes for the home district with pork appropriations issue" category.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2083 times:

Here's an EAS success story or two for you.

Clarksburg, WV has EAS service to PIT (for now, but that's a different story).
Some years back, during the RJ craze, Bombardier shopped around for a quiet out of the way airport with a long enough runway for those hogs the CRJ's, and commercial service so that the pilots delivering the planes could get the hell out of town and then get back in when it was time for the pickup, for a heavy maintenance facility. Chosen was CKB, with it's 7000' ILS runway, and the USAirways Express service, courtesy of EAS. If there was no commercial service, many times those pilots running those maintenance ferries in would be relatively trapped in the hills of West Virginia. While many of my future in-laws are from CKB, it's not a place I'd like to be stuck in if I wasn't family. How many well-paying jobs would NOT be in Clarksburg if it wasn't for that EAS service?

A new company just moved into the southern side of Uniontown, PA as well, and chose Uniontown for tax advantages, low cost of living and therefore they wouldn't have to pay what they'd have to pay workers in a place like the DC metro, but still have proximity for workers to drive to Maryland/DC metroplex area where their eastern HQ is, and nearby MGW, where they could get single-connection service to their western HQ, in PHX, without spending half the day driving to the large airports or the expense of having to charter a Lear or something. Since the company is primarily a federal contractor... being located in an area where they can pay less while still affording their employees the same standard of living is a benefit to ALL taxpayers.

In two very depressed economies, an influx of well-paying jobs is always welcome. All together the economic impacts of these two companies to these communities is counted in the milllions... and probably the federal income tax alone paid by their employees offsets the cost of EAS contracts for MGW/CKB. Does paying UA to fly from RFD on a route that was already served bring that kind of benefit to RFD? How about service to a route which admittedly isn't a top O&D route from Fresno?? In cities the size of FAT or RFD, 100 jobs isn't an extremely big portion. In a city the size of Uniontown or Clarksburg, 100 jobs is a huge impact.


User currently offlineFlyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2004 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2059 times:

This is such a sticky subject to me. I think they both do really good for respected communities. The way I look at EAS is like looking at Greyhound and Amtrak. Allowing people the choice of travel at all but funded by the goverment.

Where does the money come from for the SCASD anyways? I would say let the money just go back to respected airports and be done with it. I think there are some cities that do need access to the world, but not as much as they are talking to expand the EAS service.


User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 43
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2040 times:

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 16):
Here's an EAS success story or two for you.

Clarksburg, WV has EAS service to PIT (for now, but that's a different story).
Some years back, during the RJ craze, Bombardier shopped around for a quiet out of the way airport with a long enough runway for those hogs the CRJ's, and commercial service so that the pilots delivering the planes could get the hell out of town and then get back in when it was time for the pickup, for a heavy maintenance facility. Chosen was CKB, with it's 7000' ILS runway, and the USAirways Express service, courtesy of EAS. If there was no commercial service, many times those pilots running those maintenance ferries in would be relatively trapped in the hills of West Virginia. While many of my future in-laws are from CKB, it's not a place I'd like to be stuck in if I wasn't family. How many well-paying jobs would NOT be in Clarksburg if it wasn't for that EAS service?

...pssst...CKB wasn't EAS subsidized until this year. Nice story though, shame it's a load of you-know-what.  Silly



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2017 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 15):
Yeah, it is absolutely crucial that Dodge City, Kansas and Bluefield, West Virginia be linked together with two stops and a change of airlines for "national security." Please!

If you're thinking national security in the 9/11 GWB Cowboy sense, you looking at too narrow a view of what national security means. It in part means not letting the country fall apart. What keeps this country together is the transportation network.

It used to be that the country was held together (even put together) by railroads. Now, it's air travel. (Soon, it will include the internet!) Every area of this country needs to be accessible in a day's time to every other area of the country if this country is going to continue to act as a complete unit. It's vital. It's crucial.

The problem with EAS (and the SCASD) is that it gets tinkered with in the form of pork projects.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2013 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
What keeps this country together is the transportation network.

Let's make a bet. I'm willing to bet you that if EAS (and SCASD, for that matter, but let's just go with EAS) went away completely tomorrow, the economy would not collapse. In fact, I doubt it would even take a dent. Perhaps it would even be helped by a reduction in wasteful government spending and a return of some of the money saved to taxpayers -- who will thus boost consumption -- or to paying down the national debt. That's my bet. Willing to take it?

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
It used to be that the country was held together (even put together) by railroads.

That's right. And what happened to the railroads? They went away, because new, safer, more reliable, and more convenient modes of transportation replaced them. Wait, stop, hold the phone. No, that hasn't happened. That's right! Instead of letting the free market decide whether or not Williams Junction, AZ requires access by rail or air to the outside world, the government spends billions of my taxpayer dollars making sure that towns like Creston, IA have access to the "national security" network. Maybe they bought into your argument, D L X. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious to many (most?) that they more than $1B the U.S. government spends to subsidize Amtrak each year could be much better spent by the government paying down the long-term debt or, even better yet, let the Americans spend it themselves! What a novel idea!

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Every area of this country needs to be accessible in a day's time to every other area of the country if this country is going to continue to act as a complete unit.

I'm sorry, but this country's success and long-term survival hinges on access to Hays, Kansas about as much as the Democratic Party's success hinges on a coherent Iraq policy (i.e., not much).

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
It's vital. It's crucial.

It's stupid. It's wasteful.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
I'm sorry, but this country's success and long-term survival hinges on access to Hays, Kansas about as much as the Democratic Party's success hinges on a coherent Iraq policy (i.e., not much).

Meh, they have I-70, that's all they need.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 21):
Meh, they have I-70, that's all they need.

Exactly. If any particular locale can't support flights on their own, then they don't deserve them. That's life, and yes, they do always have the highway.


User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2916 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

There are definitely times I agree with Boyd, although too often he's more about attitude than actual solutions. But in this EAS verus SCASD grants, he is DEFINITELY not an impartial observer.

The Boyd group very aggressivly sells their services to communities in helping them created proposals for small community air service develompent money.

Boyd's firm has no financial benefit from the EAS program.

What program do you think he's going to trumpet?

And as aviation funds get tighter, what a surprise he'd slam a competing program.

SCASD has funded dozens of programs over the past few years, and yet generally he seems to flaunt the same handful of success stories. He's gotten plenty of mileage from Rhinelander, for example. What about the new service that disappeared when the grant money ran out? What about the money granted for service that never ended up starting? What about the money spent...and seemingly wasted...on "studies" at airports?

Virtually every spending program will have instances that sound successful and others which sound wasteful. But Boyd is skilled and presenting his arguments in the mildly angered tones of ""MY conclusions are obvious, and anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't GET it...duh!" And that includes this particular instance where he clearly has a conflict of interest. SCASD means money in his pocket.

As for EAS, I agree that the program needs change. There are many communities where EAS *does* support flights to a real connecting hub on the hub airline, and fares are competitive. And in these places EAS tends to be realtively successful. Except for notably remote communities, cities that still can't muster modestly decent traffic under good conditions should be dropped. It's not likely that most EAS cities will ever get out from under subsidy, but we subsidize transportation of all sorts in many ways. If we're going to spend money on EAS, it should bring benefit. We spend $350,000 a year for a city that boards 5 people/day. I think we should spend $500,000 a year for better service for that same city to board 20 people/day, and if that improved $500,000 service only boards 6 or 7 people per day, then the city should be dropped unless it is clearly remote.

Those are just made up numbers, but they help to illustrate a big problem with EAS. Some EAS communities are getting service which is destined to fail, but there's never a chance to upgrade service, even in a lose-it-or-lose-it way. So these airports hang on as long as Big Sky, Mesa or others are able to cobble together a subsidy proposal that qualifies for EAS. The staus quo continues.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
Let's make a bet. I'm willing to bet you that if EAS (and SCASD, for that matter, but let's just go with EAS) went away completely tomorrow, the economy would not collapse. In fact, I doubt it would even take a dent. Perhaps it would even be helped by a reduction in wasteful government spending and a return of some of the money saved to taxpayers -- who will thus boost consumption -- or to paying down the national debt. That's my bet. Willing to take it?

I'll first take note that you didn't actually refute my point. I'll also Point out that I did not anywhere say that the national economy would collapse without EAS. That's stupid. The economies of certain areas of the country certainly would. I suppose that you're fine with that. Honestly, it's not an unreasonable position to take. I just happen to believe it is myopic. This country is more than its 10 biggest cities.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
And what happened to the railroads? They went away, because new, safer, more reliable, and more convenient modes of transportation replaced them. Wait, stop, hold the phone. No, that hasn't happened. That's right! Instead of letting the free market decide whether or not Williams Junction, AZ requires access by rail or air to the outside world, the government spends billions of my taxpayer dollars making sure that towns like Creston, IA have access to the "national security" network. Maybe they bought into your argument, D L X. Unfortunately, it is quite obvious to many (most?) that they more than $1B the U.S. government spends to subsidize Amtrak each year could be much better spent by the government paying down the long-term debt or, even better yet, let the Americans spend it themselves! What a novel idea!

1) If the Free market were in charge, Alaska would still be part of Russia. Get the point? The free market is pretty bad at keeping a country whole. The free market says "everyone, let's move down south, and abandon Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, Maine, and wherever else that's cold. Whoever wants to move in can, for all I care." Who do you want to move in?
2) you mock the national security issue, but you've answered you own question about why we pay to keep the railroads. (Also, considering that you're in Texas, consider where your food comes from, and what vehicle it travels on to get there.)
3) Flies, honey and vinegar.




Quoting Commavia (Reply 20):
I'm sorry, but this country's success and long-term survival hinges on access to Hays, Kansas about as much as the Democratic Party's success hinges on a coherent Iraq policy (i.e., not much).

Again, ignored my point.  Yeah sure If you only look at singular examples, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Look at the aggregate. Are you prepared to say this country's long-term survival is not concerned with access to its remote regions?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
25 Post contains links Commavia : Absolutely not, if we're talking about the same point. If the point you are referring to here is that the country depends on its transportation netwo
26 D L X : It's not about making these regions compete. It's about giving them access. Without access, they absolutely cannot comepete. EXACTLY my point. The fr
27 Commavia : Why should I have to pay for it, though? If they can't compete without access, and they can't ever possibly hope to actually economically justify acc
28 FCYTravis : Let's apply your Amtrak logic to the U.S. airline industry. Airlines are pathetically unprofitable, too. They're a gigantic waste of shareholders' mon
29 Commavia : One key difference, though: airlines don't receive billions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government, as Amtrak does. It's quite notable t
30 D L X : Would it be a stretch to guess that you are a Republican? I see that you're trying to set up the trap: if they want to leave, let them leave. If they
31 Commavia : I vote for people who support the policies and beliefs that I do, whether they be Republicans or Democrats. No trap, just my opinion, which -- I migh
32 Tornado82 : Psst.... the story is true, that facility was dependant on that air service. See also Sen's Byrd/Rockefeller's attempt to get Comair running CRJ's in
33 DLKAPA : Enter northeastern arkansas, the only air service (kinda) being a few Beech 1900's into JBR, or (in the case of the communities in Randolph and Lawre
34 Cloudy : Allowing people to face the consequences of their own choices is not coercion. Taking money from some people to allow other people to avoid the conse
35 Tornado82 : This is the logic we typically hear spewed from residents of the largest metro areas, not SPI. In these largest metro areas, Federal dollars pay for
36 Commavia : In these largest metro areas, Federal dollars pay for your subways, your commuter trains, and your buses. Well, the small cities don't have subways, t
37 Tornado82 : I can point to MANY heavily subsidized bus routes here that nobody rides, they just drive around burning fuel and further adding to traffic problems
38 Cloudy : That is wrong also. They should be paid for by local tax dollars. Some of you east cost dudes do not truly realize how many of us live in "flyover" c
39 Post contains images Tornado82 : Really? I didn't know that living in Porter County/Valparaiso, Indiana for my college years... studying geography and demographics among other things
40 Cloudy : These jobs are not created, they are moved. They would have created tax dollars wherever they were. that's why they need to reform the system. Do you
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NW Puts SBN On The Chopping Block posted Wed Feb 1 2006 13:19:16 by Widget1580
GFK, BIS, More On The Chopping Block For NW Cuts posted Wed Aug 17 2005 12:35:00 by AviatorTJ
CRA Officially Put On The Selling Block, Any Bids? posted Tue May 16 2000 04:20:09 by Slawko
Continental Air MIC On The Block! posted Mon May 16 2005 08:43:48 by 9844
ERA Aviation May Go On The Block posted Fri Sep 3 2004 10:58:12 by L-188
New Guy On The Block posted Sun Feb 22 2004 23:29:44 by Aerosvit
FR Is Back On The London - Brussels Route posted Wed Dec 13 2006 11:59:13 by HBDAN
NZ Getting Real On The Tasman posted Mon Dec 11 2006 04:14:35 by Antskip
Why Doesn't AA Have 'Economy Plus' On The 777s? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 20:58:13 by Gh123
Any Comments On The New DL Route? JFK-BOM posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:16:17 by B773ER