|Quoting ScottB (Reply 83):|
so is that air service really "essential" when almost everyone chooses to drive to a larger airport?
Exactly. For most it is a drive. I would like to know what are the true EAS cities. Not a general description, but an airport code list of those cities that are more than a 4 hour drive from a significant airport. I'll even accept 4 hours on a typical winter day. I'd like to see such a list of cities that might qualify as a 'true EAS' city.
|Quoting tom11 (Reply 84):|
Do you understand how sky-high these ticket prices are anyway? Without the subsidies these people wouldn't be able to afford them. Basically, you're telling them if they want get healthcare to move away from their family and friends, and live in a city like Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Out of curiosity, wouldn't an air-taxi service be cheaper in the long run? The threshold is pretty darn low. But here is the irony, if you take away the subsidy, the remaining service would balance out. Probably with less frequency.
If its just Alaska, why isn't the state paying for the service with the surplus from the oil revenue? I'm having trouble understanding why Alaska needs the lower 48 to subsidize them. A state program would be far more efficient than a Federal program too. Probably more effective in the long run.
I personally wouldn't live far from a doctor. I have two young kids who each need a 'rush visit' to a doctor about once a year: ear aches, pneumonia, and despite full vaccination, one of the vaccinated diseases where the vaccine is only 85% effective. Although with the partial immunity given by the vaccine, it was a trivial disease compared to an anti-vacc individual. I know one individual who had the disease and didn't even realize it for over a month (thanks to a vaccination program that was almost good enough) until I pointed out the diagnosis... that person traveled to Alaska while contagious, on an EAS flight (oops).
|Quoting tom11 (Reply 126):|
They are 2 hours from MSP and 2 hours from DSM. They don't need EAS.
Exactly. That is just wasted money. Mason city might win the appeal, which is a sad fact...
|Quoting mtnwest1979 (Reply 127):|
Seems to me that any member on this site would be for expanding and increasing the reach of scheduled air service in any location even if it is a relatively minor amount of money ( as the EAS program is, in the whole sceme of things).
Why have it expanded in a non-sustainable fashion? I'd rather see new fees to expand impacted airports (LAX
, and a few others).
A.net has always been very political. Sorry to see you go. Every lost user is a lost perspective. But the reality is that air travel is up-gauging. So unless a community is able to support larger airframes, it is likely to lose commercial service. If GA
is able to make up the slack, that is good enough. I would like to see a rationalization of GA
rules to help that grow to fill the gap.
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.