DOT is again soliciting grant applications for its Small Community Air Development (SCASD) program as part of FY21 budget.

SCASD is meant to help communities enhance air transportation by providing temporary financial support.

Grants can be utilized to attract new air-service by establishing revenue guarantees, cost offsets, or marketing support. Additionally, grant funding can be utilized to help retain or expand current service, plus for various airport facility upgrades in order to make them more attractive for air service providers.

As in past years, the primary selection criteria the DOT shall consider include:

o Community airfares are higher than the national average
o The community or consortium will provide a portion of the cost of the activity from local sources other than airport revenue
o Communities willing to establish a private-public partnerships to facilitate new or improved air carrier service to the public
o Assitance will be used to restore lost air service
o Provide benefits to a broader segment of the traveling public, whose access to the national air transportation system is limited
o Proposal can be implemented within a reasonable timetable and the grant monies will be used in a timely manner.

Applications are due to the DOT by March 15, 2022.

OST-2022-0003

=

Will be interesting to see what level of support the major airlines offer to SCASD community applications considering their already difficult position in maintaining service in small markets.
Not sure they will be as enthusiastic as in the past to participate.

Wonder how many of the last few approved grants went unspent?
Hopefully these will be for truly small communities. Not the Tulsas of the nation.....

I could look, but has the GAO ever done a study on the effectiveness of the program? How many flights were sustained after the grant period? What was the economic impact? How did airports utilize funds?

I wonder if the current staffing shortages will result in any sort of shift to proposals to support existing service rather than attract new service.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DakotaFlyer wrote:

I could look, but has the GAO ever done a study on the effectiveness of the program? How many flights were sustained after the grant period? What was the economic impact? How did airports utilize funds?

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ice/SCASDP

The DOT provides annual reports, posted with a multi-year lag, it seems.

They blew $950K on GJT-SFO in FY2018, which no longer exists. It doesn't seem Yuma-DEN lasted from that year, either, nor Athens(GA) - CLT.

Allegiant has had some success with the grants.
It is the cities going for secondary services where it seems to fail. They are the first routes to be cut by the secondary operator when a rough patch comes around.

I have found that many of the awards tend to work and stick. Of course with COVID, many of the routes started in the last five years or so have been cancelled or put on hold. I go back and forth on the (SCASD) grant as most of these smaller city's have service and one can make a one stop connection to many of the airports that these city's are asking for. My other thought is there is only so much traffic from city's with say 100 to 200K population, does a second or even a third route from these small airports cut the amount of PAX so that none of the airlines are making enough money to make it worth flying there. Two examples from a few years ago that are still being flown are Billings and Missoula to DFW. Sure its nice to have a non stop to north Texas but both these airports had flights to SLC and DEN with easy connections to DFW. I guess this helps the few PAX that are going to smaller Texas city's that are not served from DEN or SLC but I can't see more then 10 PAX per day total going to places like places like HRL or MAF. Of course this is just my opinion.

I do always look forward to seeing what city's apply and who wins. I also enjoy trying to figure out what the most ridiculous application each year. A few years ago The county that Price UT (Carbon county) applied for a grant for flights to SLC. I live about an hour from Price and there is no way a non EAS subsidy would make money on a route from a county with 20K and a 1hr and 50 minute drive. Moab and Vernal need the EAS subsidy to keep flights going, Price UT had no chance of working but I guess if you don't ask the answer is always no.

There are other cities that got the grant that never started service. Kalamazoo (AZO) won the grant to get American service to Charlotte, but nothing has been heard since they announced the approval of the grant last May.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DakotaFlyer wrote:

I could look, but has the GAO ever done a study on the effectiveness of the program? How many flights were sustained after the grant period? What was the economic impact? How did airports utilize funds?

https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ice/SCASDP

The DOT provides annual reports, posted with a multi-year lag, it seems.

They blew $950K on GJT-SFO in FY2018, which no longer exists. It doesn't seem Yuma-DEN lasted from that year, either, nor Athens(GA) - CLT.

That's not how it works. The flights you mentioned never launched in the first place. The feds don't actually distribute any funds until *after* the flights operate and any contracts are tabulated.

This is your annual reminder that SCASD is not the same as EAS.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

This is your annual reminder that SCASD is not the same as EAS.

For those of us who may be unfamiliar, do you mind going over the differences?

ryanflyer wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

This is your annual reminder that SCASD is not the same as EAS.

For those of us who may be unfamiliar, do you mind going over the differences?

SCASD provides one-time grants to smaller airports to develop or expand air service. Any airport can apply.

EAS is an ongoing program that provides subsidies to airlines for service to a fixed list of airports. That list was established when the airline industry was deregulated; new cities cannot sign up for EAS.

oosnowrat wrote:

ryanflyer wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

This is your annual reminder that SCASD is not the same as EAS.

For those of us who may be unfamiliar, do you mind going over the differences?

SCASD provides one-time grants to smaller airports to develop or expand air service. Any airport can apply.

EAS is an ongoing program that provides subsidies to airlines for service to a fixed list of airports. That list was established when the airline industry was deregulated; new cities cannot sign up for EAS.

Both are a waste of money in today’s world with the exception of Alaska. Let the communities fund it with local dollars and you might see a better result. Most of the markets fail quickly.

I think that Page Arizona deserves more routes. It only has PHX on contour. DEN and SLC would work amazing. Lake Powell is a huge tourist attraction for Utahns and it would be a hit.

SLCaviation wrote:

I think that Page Arizona deserves more routes. It only has PHX on contour. DEN and SLC would work amazing. Lake Powell is a huge tourist attraction for Utahns and it would be a hit.

Page is Alternative EAS. If they want Contour to fly to DEN or SLC they can just use their AEAS to pay Contour to fly there.

However, the fact that the larger Prescott depends on EAS to make DEN viable doesn't bode well for PGA-DEN being viable unsubsidized.

SLCaviation wrote:

I think that Page Arizona deserves more routes. It only has PHX on contour. DEN and SLC would work amazing. Lake Powell is a huge tourist attraction for Utahns and it would be a hit.

You can look back in the data at the performance of PGA when it had DEN. It was terrible. Some of that was ZK, but some was just that the market isn't that big for people that are only going to that area. Anyone looking to see more will rent a car at a major airport and drive.

There are a lot of SCASD routes out there that still exist and others that the funding never was required. A lot of the routes had the demand, it just needed the service and SCASD often serves as that revenue guarantee to de-risk the new service for the carrier.

For example, PHX-ROW was launched in 2017/2018 and AA didn't even pull on the grant money for the first three quarters as the route performance was strong enough to not need it. The fourth quarter there was a total distribution around $35 or $40k (drop in the bucket) and then it was never touched since.

I've found that PHX, DEN, DFW, ORD and CLT tend to perform the best when it comes to the long term viability of the route (not to say every single one performs stellar) as a big part of it becomes all about connection potential.

Hoping HVN is on the list. They need a legacy hub carrier to to augment the Avelo Florida service.

airlineworker wrote:

Hoping HVN is on the list. They need a legacy hub carrier to to augment the Avelo Florida service.

They could put in a service restoration proposal which may or may not be receiving preferential treatment again this year. However, I don't see the DOT looking at HVN specifically all that favorably given the proximity to BDL. The drive time from airport to airport is 60 minutes, 75 with traffic.

One of the many goals of SCASD is addition of low fare carriers to airports above the national average fare level and with Avelo already setting up shop they won't be able to really use that need as a justification.

alasizon wrote:

There are a lot of SCASD routes out there that still exist and others that the funding never was required. A lot of the routes had the demand, it just needed the service and SCASD often serves as that revenue guarantee to de-risk the new service for the carrier.

For example, PHX-ROW was launched in 2017/2018 and AA didn't even pull on the grant money for the first three quarters as the route performance was strong enough to not need it. The fourth quarter there was a total distribution around $35 or $40k (drop in the bucket) and then it was never touched since.

I've found that PHX, DEN, DFW, ORD and CLT tend to perform the best when it comes to the long term viability of the route (not to say every single one performs stellar) as a big part of it becomes all about connection potential.

Before AA began ROW-DFW in 2007, ROW was only served by Mesa (independant) with Beech 1900's and was by far the most isolated area in the mainland 48 States without a major code-share carrier flying RJ's to a major hub. ROW-DFW was an instant success and it was no surprise that a westbound from ROW to PHX would do just as well. This city is a perfect example of what SCASDP is all about.

alasizon wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Hoping HVN is on the list. They need a legacy hub carrier to to augment the Avelo Florida service.

They could put in a service restoration proposal which may or may not be receiving preferential treatment again this year. However, I don't see the DOT looking at HVN specifically all that favorably given the proximity to BDL. The drive time from airport to airport is 60 minutes, 75 with traffic.

One of the many goals of SCASD is addition of low fare carriers to airports above the national average fare level and with Avelo already setting up shop they won't be able to really use that need as a justification.

PVD to BOS is about the same distance. HVN has a good market when one factors in Bridgeport which is 20 miles away. Avelo is good to Florida but HVN needs a legacy carrier to a hub such as UA to ORD or DL to ATL to reach the other 49 states.No reason for shoreline flyers to be dependent on BDL being up almost in Massachusetts. Three daily flights to ORD and ATL would do very well with RJ's. It's been years since HVN received an SCASD grant.

In many cases it would be a lot cheaper to offer minor subsidies to people or companies providing ground transportation to the nearest regional/major airport. The subsidies could be as indirect as providing vehicle/liability insurance, no or low cost licensing and inspections. Subsidize driver's medical unemployment insurance, and L&I are other targets. This is off topic so won't elaborate. It also does not belong in the 'none aviation' forum.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

In many cases it would be a lot cheaper to offer minor subsidies to people or companies providing ground transportation to the nearest regional/major airport. The subsidies could be as indirect as providing vehicle/liability insurance, no or low cost licensing and inspections. Subsidize driver's medical unemployment insurance, and L&I are other targets. This is off topic so won't elaborate. It also does not belong in the 'none aviation' forum.

Is this in reference to EAS or SCASD?

I hope PAH applies to get another destination besides ORD. ATL, DFW, DEN or IAH would all be easily in range of regional jets. If not this year, then in the future to coincide with the new terminal they are building.

btfarrwm wrote:

I hope PAH applies to get another destination besides ORD. ATL, DFW, DEN or IAH would all be easily in range of regional jets. If not this year, then in the future to coincide with the new terminal they are building.

PAH I know has been trying to talk to SkyWest in trying to add a new destination or flight. This was of course before COVID and the Pilot issues.

I think PAH has the best chance of getting Allegiant or Breeze in. PAH, like CGI and MWA have to be very careful about adding another airline in, without affecting their EAS Agreement.

I was hoping MWA would use it to try and get a Chicago flight, MWA in 2021 had been actively working with State of Illinois to get a single flight to Chicago on SkyWest. This may be the time to do it!!!

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

I think PAH has the best chance of getting Allegiant or Breeze in. PAH, like CGI and MWA have to be very careful about adding another airline in, without affecting their EAS Agreement.

Alex

PAH's longest runway is 6500', so it might not be realistic to hope for any service beyond regional jets.

btfarrwm wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

I think PAH has the best chance of getting Allegiant or Breeze in. PAH, like CGI and MWA have to be very careful about adding another airline in, without affecting their EAS Agreement.

Alex

PAH's longest runway is 6500', so it might not be realistic to hope for any service beyond regional jets.

Hasn't stopped Southwest/Allegiant at MDW ( Longest 6,522) or SNA (5,701)

I know before, Allegiant for their MD80's required a longer runway. That's why MWA extended theirs to 8,002 Feet.

Both PAH and MWA see Charter's of 737's and Airbus into their stations for Sports.

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

I think PAH has the best chance of getting Allegiant or Breeze in. PAH, like CGI and MWA have to be very careful about adding another airline in, without affecting their EAS Agreement.

Alex

PAH's longest runway is 6500', so it might not be realistic to hope for any service beyond regional jets.

Hasn't stopped Southwest/Allegiant at MDW ( Longest 6,522) or SNA (5,701)

I know before, Allegiant for their MD80's required a longer runway. That's why MWA extended theirs to 8,002 Feet.

Both PAH and MWA see Charter's of 737's and Airbus into their stations for Sports.

Alex

I guess then my dream would be for WN to add PAH as a stop on a trunk route between hubs on the coasts. I know it's not going to happen, but for locals it would be great to be able to catch a flight to LAS, OAK, PHX or LAX one way and to ATL, TPA, FLL, or MCO the other way. LAS - PAH - ATL (and ATL-PAH-LAS) would be awesome because from either of those you could make connections anywhere in WNs network.

NLINK wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

ryanflyer wrote:

For those of us who may be unfamiliar, do you mind going over the differences?

SCASD provides one-time grants to smaller airports to develop or expand air service. Any airport can apply.

EAS is an ongoing program that provides subsidies to airlines for service to a fixed list of airports. That list was established when the airline industry was deregulated; new cities cannot sign up for EAS.

Both are a waste of money in today’s world with the exception of Alaska. Let the communities fund it with local dollars and you might see a better result. Most of the markets fail quickly.

Most markets fail quickly? Where do you get this data from?

btfarrwm wrote:

I guess then my dream would be for WN to add PAH as a stop on a trunk route between hubs on the coasts. I know it's not going to happen, but for locals it would be great to be able to catch a flight to LAS, OAK, PHX or LAX one way and to ATL, TPA, FLL, or MCO the other way. LAS - PAH - ATL (and ATL-PAH-LAS) would be awesome because from either of those you could make connections anywhere in WNs network.

G4 is your best hope for flights like that, even if there aren't any connections available.

TWA302 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

SCASD provides one-time grants to smaller airports to develop or expand air service. Any airport can apply.

EAS is an ongoing program that provides subsidies to airlines for service to a fixed list of airports. That list was established when the airline industry was deregulated; new cities cannot sign up for EAS.

Both are a waste of money in today’s world with the exception of Alaska. Let the communities fund it with local dollars and you might see a better result. Most of the markets fail quickly.

Most markets fail quickly? Where do you get this data from?

I believe the GAO in 2019 on a report regarding SCASD said the following that half of the 66 projects were successful, so that means 50% were not successful. It also states just over 1/3 of the grants kept the service after 24 months so that means basically 2/3 lost the service within 24 months after the money ran out.

NLINK wrote:

I believe the GAO in 2019 on a report regarding SCASD said the following that half of the 66 projects were successful, so that means 50% were not successful. It also states just over 1/3 of the grants kept the service after 24 months so that means basically 2/3 lost the service within 24 months after the money ran out.

Not all of the grants in the GAO report were for new service. Many were for marketing programs to promote existing service.

What the GAO looked at is how the different types of grants met their application goals.

Part of what the GAO found was how the money was used appears to have made a difference in goal attainment.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-172.pdf

The GAO found grants to establish new service were more successful than grants to simply promote existing service.
** 18 of 37 grants to establish new service were still meeting their goals 24 months later
** Only 5 out of 21 grants to promote existing service were still meeting goals 24 months later.[/list]
(see page 34 and 35 of the report)

It may be better to not give grants to airports looking only to increase passenger counts by marketing their current flights. Instead there may be more value (depending upon more analysis) in grants being used to attract/support new service.

SBN got am SCASD grant to establish service to Denver. After a slow start it went well for Frontier but they changed their business model and no loger used Denver for a connecting hub so they ledft SBN after 9 months. Frontier didn't use much of the grant and the airport used what was left over to get United to fly E145's to Newark. United had a daily Roundtrip and two daily Roundtrips when Notre Dame was in session as the students from the East Coast used the service. Those flights lasted for a couple of years until construction along with congestion forced United to pull down regional jet flying at Newark. In the meantime travel had changed and the DFW/AUS/IAH area is now in more demand and American came back in and established service to DFW and CLT. The business community put up 1 million dollars to bring American back and the service is very profitable and successful for them. The pandemic kind of quashed any kind of new routes like a return to the New York area and a return of flights to Denver which the airport is working on with Delta (LGA.or JFK) and United (DEN). Delta was going to use a possible JFK flight to connect to their International bank but that flying isn't in the demand it was years ago. Denver on United was going to be an alternate to connecting at ORD because of delays ATC and weatherwise.

With the pilot shortage as it now is and the shakeup with OO wanting to pull out of 31 EAS cities, I dont see how success from the SCASD program stands a chance anymore. Let hope for a major change in something (like the 1500-hour pilot rule) and until then, best of luck to all communties out there.

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the applications to be posted on regulations.gov? Even if most of them never go anywhere I find them really fun to read ever year. They were due two weeks ago, so I keep expecting them to show up, though my expectation may be totally wrong.

dfw88 wrote:

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the applications to be posted on regulations.gov? Even if most of them never go anywhere I find them really fun to read ever year. They were due two weeks ago, so I keep expecting them to show up, though my expectation may be totally wrong.

I believe typically 10 to 15 business days after the due date. In 2019 it was about 12 or 13 business days before they began being publicly posted.

dfw88 wrote:

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the applications to be posted on regulations.gov? Even if most of them never go anywhere I find them really fun to read ever year. They were due two weeks ago, so I keep expecting them to show up, though my expectation may be totally wrong.

They are posted.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -0231-0018

Midwestindy wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the applications to be posted on regulations.gov? Even if most of them never go anywhere I find them really fun to read ever year. They were due two weeks ago, so I keep expecting them to show up, though my expectation may be totally wrong.

They are posted.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -0231-0018

How do you go to current ones from this link to 2021 DAB proposal? And under related items are the owoposaks from 2020.

sprxUSA wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

Does anyone know how long it usually takes for the applications to be posted on regulations.gov? Even if most of them never go anywhere I find them really fun to read ever year. They were due two weeks ago, so I keep expecting them to show up, though my expectation may be totally wrong.

They are posted.
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DO ... -0231-0018

How do you go to current ones from this link to 2021 DAB proposal? And under related items are the owoposaks from 2020.

My mistake, I misread the dates

DOT is starting to publicly release applications

https://twitter.com/IshrionA/status/151 ... vxKGhmBn5Q

https://twitter.com/IshrionA/status/151 ... vxKGhmBn5Q

ACV and CRP seem like the most likely to actually happen.

XNA, CMI, DAB and CRW will be reasonably politically attractive.

Funny how IFP talkers up their previous award win and service, yet the termination of it. Who wants to fly a Caravan from IFP to LAX?
As for CRP, SY adds nothing in CRP-DEN. At least try to get someone with good connecting opportunities.