4 Cities Ejected From EAS Program By DOT

LAXintl · Wed May 20, 2015 7:36 pm

DOT is out with its annual scrubbing of EAS cities this week.

Per FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the DOT must conduct annual eligibility reviews to ensure US mainland EAS cities continue to comply with requirements of the program.

One of the criteria - maintaining an average of 10 enplanements or more per service day for airports within 175 driving miles from the nearest hub (per FAA definition) airport tends to catch a few communities each year.

This year the DOT has found the communities of Show Low AZ, Mason City IA, Jamestown NY and Victoria TX as no longer being in compliant with eligibility requirements for YE 2014.

Communities have 30-days to petition the DOT for reconsideration.

EAS Community - Pax/Day - Nearest hub - Distance
Show Low AZ - 7.2 - PHX - 154
Mason City IA - 8.2 - MSP - 133
Jamestown NY - 9.3 - BUF - 76
Victoria TX - 7.8 - SAT - 124

DOT Order 2015-5-14

[Edited 2015-05-20 12:39:37]

AVLAirlineFreq · Wed May 20, 2015 7:49 pm

Does the DOT ever ADD any cities to EAS?

ScottB · Wed May 20, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Communities have 30-days to petition the DOT for reconsideration.

Given the track record, it almost seems like just a formality for these communities to appeal and receive a waiver; the only community which was booted from EAS due to these criteria was IGM and they were under 2 daily boardings.

LAXintl · Wed May 20, 2015 8:00 pm

No program is not open for new communities.

List of eligible cities were based on activity at time of the Deregulation Act of 1978.

Program started with 400+ communities which is down to 163 as of 2014, result of various changes Congress has made to the program since 1990.

LAXintl · Wed May 20, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 2):
Given the track record, it almost seems like just a formality for these communities to appeal and receive a waiver; the only community which was booted from EAS due to these criteria was IGM and they were under 2 daily boardings.

Except the reconsideration criteria was changed in late 2012.

Cities can only appeal on 3 points now.

1) Either the DOT has incorrectly calculated passenger boardings
2) DOT using incorrect road mileage to nearest hub airport
3) Communities experienced special circumstances in the previous year which led to temporary decline in enplanements to fewer than 10/day.

threeifbyair · Wed May 20, 2015 8:29 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Jamestown NY - 9.3 - BUF - 76

Not to mention, Jamestown also has ERI only 61 miles away. Obviously ERI is not a hub, but it does have commercial air service and the drive is all interstate highway. Some suburbs on the "wrong side" of their major city's airport are almost as far away (east of PIT, for example).

Skywatcher · Wed May 20, 2015 9:15 pm

Now that U.S. airlines are finally profitable again is this pork barrel program really still necessary? We don't have a subsidy like this available in Canada even though our country is larger with only a fraction of the American population. I am always amazed at how much state intervention there really is in the states despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

slcdeltarumd11 · Wed May 20, 2015 9:22 pm

I am a huge fan of EAS and i think the program literally keeps communities alive, but some places in the northeast especially never should have been given this. Out West places need this, but Jamestown NY is so close to Erie Pa and Buffalo and no traffic or major obstacle in the way.

MSPNWA · Wed May 20, 2015 9:30 pm

Sad to see what DL did to Mason City. Just three years ago I could take a CRJ to MSP. Before that it was healthy SF3 service with sometimes full flights. Now it's a long ride in a Caravan to ORD with separate tickets. No wonder demand tanked. I know I don't consider it anymore.

32andBelow · Wed May 20, 2015 9:34 pm

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 6):
Now that U.S. airlines are finally profitable again is this pork barrel program really still necessary?

It is not US3 flying most of these routes. Some of these communities would lose air service TOMORROW, without EAS.

[Edited 2015-05-20 14:53:44]

milesrich · Wed May 20, 2015 9:53 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 7):
I am a huge fan of EAS and i think the program literally keeps communities alive, but some places in the northeast especially never should have been given this. Out West places need this, but Jamestown NY is so close to Erie Pa and Buffalo and no traffic or major obstacle in the way.

Good Post. EAS is only ESSENTIAL for towns that are three hours away from the nearest airport. Jamestown, NY certainly doesn't need the service. Macon, GA is another ridiculous EAS city, or it was. MCN is south of Macon and probably a 20 minute drive from downtown Macon. ATL is no more than 60 to 75 minutes from the whole Macon area, that is when they get the lanes added to I-75, because of the awful traffic in Henry County. Much of the Atlanta suburbs are 60 minutes from ATL.

mtnwest1979 · Wed May 20, 2015 10:01 pm

Too bad to see Victoria on there. I was at their airport two weeks ago and watched the 2:40p arr from DFW-AUS and 3:10p dep to AUS.
I was actually amazed that 9, yes 9!, people deplaned off the flight. I was actually more shocked that 3 got on to the flight only going to AUS.
Needless to say, there were more pax than I was expecting.
They have a nice little terminal and certainly seem to promote the service in the area.

As for Jamestown, guess I should make that leisure trip I was bantering around sooner rather than later....

Sevensixtyseven · Wed May 20, 2015 10:46 pm

Quoting milesrich (Reply 10):

Show Low, Arizona deserves an exemption, because route 260/87, the roads to take to get to Phoenix, aren't exactly the easiest drive when a storm comes through. It does have nice scenery as you drive into the Valley though..

Western727 · Wed May 20, 2015 11:08 pm

Quoting mtnwest1979 (Reply 11):
I was at their airport two weeks ago and watched the 2:40p arr from DFW-AUS and 3:10p dep to AUS.

Who flies the route, and with what equipment? I live in AUS and cannot recall seeing anything smaller than a CRJ in recent weeks. While the "DFW" part of your comment suggests that AA flies it with 80s/738s (since I've not seen them fly anything smaller to AUS in a while), I'm thinking that can't be the case. Thanks in advance for any insight.

ETA: answered my own question. Texas Sky on BAE Jetstreams with 19 pax. How have I not noticed those?
http://www.austintexas.gov/news/new-...ces-victoria-austin-dallas-nonstop

[Edited 2015-05-20 16:10:42]

BMI727 · Thu May 21, 2015 12:01 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
4 Cities Ejected From EAS Program By DOT

Good. Now do the rest.

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 6):
Now that U.S. airlines are finally profitable again is this pork barrel program really still necessary?

Trick question. It was never necessary.

32andBelow · Thu May 21, 2015 12:03 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Good. Now do the rest.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Trick question. It was never necessary.

You have no idea what you are talking about. So should Adak, Alaska not be granted EAS?

BMI727 · Thu May 21, 2015 12:07 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 15):
So should Adak, Alaska not be granted EAS?

No they shouldn't. They can either subsidize service themselves or pay what it costs to make it sustainable.

TUSDawg23 · Thu May 21, 2015 12:14 am

Show Low is one of the biggest cities in the White Mountains which is a popular vacation spot for many people in the state who have homes and cabins in the area along with the Sunrise Ski Resort that attracts a lot of visitors from the state. However, it struggles to really get much of a draw from any neighboring states and so PHX is really the only place where air service makes sense. Being a 3 hour drive from PHX, I don't think it's worth it to most folks to board a flight out of SOW just to connect in PHX. You really arent saving a whole lot of time. Even though it does snow in the area and can lead to some ice formation on the roads, they are usually good enough most of the year to get folks to PHX with no problem.

michman · Thu May 21, 2015 12:33 am

MKG is only 50 miles from GRR, but because GRR falls just below the threshold of "medium" sized hub, MKG still gets EAS subsidies. Idiotic.

IMissPiedmont · Thu May 21, 2015 2:14 am

The only people that support this waste are those who live in these towns and want someone else to pay the cost of their travel. This program needs to be ended now.

L-188 · Thu May 21, 2015 2:34 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 15):So should Adak, Alaska not be granted EAS?
No they shouldn't. They can either subsidize service themselves or pay what it costs to make it sustainable.

Dude, do you even know where Adak is or how much it costs to fly out there?

It is a heavy iron airport because of the complete lack of viable alternates. It isn't a service that is going to be run with a flipping Caravan

gdg9 · Thu May 21, 2015 2:34 am

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 9):
It is not US3 flying most of these routes. Some of these communities would lose air service TOMORROW, without EAS.

As they should. EAS is a complete waste of money and should be ended today. If people choose to live in rural areas so be it, not up to the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize flights for them. Drive.

BMI727 · Thu May 21, 2015 3:06 am

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
Dude, do you even know where Adak is or how much it costs to fly out there?

Yes I am and that is entirely irrelevant.

Every spot on this planet has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to living there. Deal with it.

HPRamper · Thu May 21, 2015 3:17 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 21):
As they should. EAS is a complete waste of money and should be ended today. If people choose to live in rural areas so be it, not up to the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize flights for them. Drive.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Every spot on this planet has advantages and disadvantages when it comes to living there. Deal with it.

In my opinion EAS shouldn't be a federal subsidy - it should be left to each individual state to decide if they want to subsidize flying to their own remote towns. I would think if it were coming out of their own state treasury, they'd be more selective as to who gets service.

seabosdca · Thu May 21, 2015 4:00 am

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 21):
As they should. EAS is a complete waste of money and should be ended today. If people choose to live in rural areas so be it, not up to the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize flights for them. Drive.

Many of the communities that actually deserve EAS, or something like it, can't physically be driven to.

But giving it to any place 76 miles from a hub is utterly ridiculous.

L-188 · Thu May 21, 2015 4:07 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 23):
In my opinion EAS shouldn't be a federal subsidy

But the Feds run everything aviation, why shouldn't they also run this program

ec99 · Thu May 21, 2015 1:37 pm

Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 6):
Now that U.S. airlines are finally profitable again is this pork barrel program really still necessary? We don't have a subsidy like this available in Canada even though our country is larger with only a fraction of the American population. I am always amazed at how much state intervention there really is in the states despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

In my opinion, EAS is a tough question. There are certainly reasons why it should and should not exists. Politics are normally a no no on this forum but I dont think there is really anyway to separate this question from politics. It comes down to what size government do you want, what do you want it to do and do you want to pay taxes to fund these programs. I am largely apolitical, viewing current American national politics as just too depressing to get involved in (god knows I can go off on both sides equally). But to me this seems like an enormously expensive big government program for conservative rural America whose elected members in the House continually battle to shrink the federal government. I think there are benefits to both big and small government but I don’t think it’s fair for a community to support limited taxation and small government and then expect to receive big government services.

WA707atMSP · Thu May 21, 2015 2:33 pm

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 21):
As they should. EAS is a complete waste of money and should be ended today. If people choose to live in rural areas so be it, not up to the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize flights for them. Drive.

If we use this logic, then there should also be no federal / state subsidies for mass transit in urban areas. If people choose to live in urban areas, so be it, not up to the rest of taxpayers to subsidize busses and subways for them.

I feel as long as we subsidize mass transit and construction of additional subway lines, such as Manhattan's 2nd Avenue Subway (which I strongly support, even though I'll never ride on it) that are needed to improve mobility for people in big cities, then we should also subsidize air service for rural areas. It's only fair.

FriscoHeavy · Thu May 21, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting mtnwest1979 (Reply 11):
Too bad to see Victoria on there. I was at their airport two weeks ago and watched the 2:40p arr from DFW-AUS and 3:10p dep to AUS.
I was actually amazed that 9, yes 9!, people deplaned off the flight. I was actually more shocked that 3 got on to the flight only going to AUS.
Needless to say, there were more pax than I was expecting.
They have a nice little terminal and certainly seem to promote the service in the area.

Victoria is my hometown and after United pulled out a while back, they do not have any commercial service at this point. There is a little prop service to Houston (IAH), but that's it.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 7):
I am a huge fan of EAS and i think the program literally keeps communities alive, but some places in the northeast especially never should have been given this.

That may be true in some rare cases, but not many. Victoria (town of probably 80,000 now) isn't being kept alive or sustained by having commercial service. Yes, it would be nice, but it won't make any difference to the community. SAT, AUS, IAH & HOU) are all within 2 hours or so and easy drives.

frmrCapCadet · Thu May 21, 2015 2:47 pm

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".[1

Just how extensive this clause is has been controversial from the beginning. Modern civil aviation was utterly dependent upon the US Post Office, and passengers flew on the subsidy of existing flights.

It has struck me that EAS would likely be for cheaper if it subsidized ground transportation to the nearest hub. Areas being provided service should likewise also subsidize that service through a special taxing district. I agree that if a rural area is not interested enough to contribute to such a service neither should the federal government.

maxpower1954 · Thu May 21, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 27):
If we use this logic, then there should also be no federal / state subsidies for mass transit in urban areas. If people choose to live in urban areas, so be it, not up to the rest of taxpayers to subsidize busses and subways for them.

I feel as long as we subsidize mass transit and construction of additional subway lines, such as Manhattan's 2nd Avenue Subway (which I strongly support, even though I'll never ride on it) that are needed to improve mobility for people in big cities, then we should also subsidize air service for rural areas. It's only fair.

Thanks for making this on-target observation. Market based ideas aren't the solution to every problem.

Skywatcher · Thu May 21, 2015 2:55 pm

Some of the subsidy costs per passenger enplaned are outrageous ($300/$400 in some cases). It just doesn't make sense.

JBo · Thu May 21, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 1):
Does the DOT ever ADD any cities to EAS?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
No program is not open for new communities.

I guess that depends on your definition of "add." There are many cities that previously did not receive EAS subsidies that have since entered the program by virtue of their airline services declining to a single carrier, and that carrier in turn petitioning the DOT for EAS subsidies. This is what happened in MKG and several other airports in Michigan and the Great Lakes region where Mesaba was the sole carrier and they decided they wanted subsidies to sustain the routes.

Quoting michman (Reply 18):
MKG is only 50 miles from GRR, but because GRR falls just below the threshold of "medium" sized hub, MKG still gets EAS subsidies. Idiotic.

I'll agree with this. Granted, MKG has historically supported profitable airline service without subsidy, but things change, and I feel like communities like MKG who are "technically" eligible for EAS but within close distance to other airports with commercial services should only be eligible for a limited period of time with the goal that the airport has to either prove they can profitably support service on their own, or rescind commercial service.

ATAIndy · Thu May 21, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 23):
In my opinion EAS shouldn't be a federal subsidy - it should be left to each individual state to decide if they want to subsidize flying to their own remote towns. I would think if it were coming out of their own state treasury, they'd be more selective as to who gets service.

Bingo! Federal Government did that with Amtrak. Any route under a certain mileage or within one state has to be funded by said state now.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 25):
But the Feds run everything aviation, why shouldn't they also run this program

They can still run it while receiving funding from individual states.

[Edited 2015-05-21 09:37:25]

FlyPNS1 · Thu May 21, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 27):
I feel as long as we subsidize mass transit and construction of additional subway lines, such as Manhattan's 2nd Avenue Subway (which I strongly support, even though I'll never ride on it) that are needed to improve mobility for people in big cities, then we should also subsidize air service for rural areas. It's only fair.

Not quite the same analogy though. In general, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds are for capital expenses in the form of block grants used to build infrastructure and improve safety. This is similar to how the FAA uses the Airport/Airways trust fund to give money to airports to build runways, add instrument landing systems, etc.

The FTA does not subsidize operating costs for transit systems, except in the case of some rural markets (e.g. rural bus service). Mass transit systems must use farebox revenues or local/state subsidies to cover operating costs. This is where the EAS program is particularly problematic in that you are subsidizing the operating costs.

So in reality, rural airports get doubly subsidized. They get grants to build/maintain the airport and then they get subsidies to maintain airline serve.

seabosdca · Thu May 21, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 27):
If we use this logic, then there should also be no federal / state subsidies for mass transit in urban areas. If people choose to live in urban areas, so be it, not up to the rest of taxpayers to subsidize busses and subways for them.

Without subsidies for mass transit, the economies of large cities, which contribute a rather large share of the nation's GDP and tax revenue, would grind to a halt. There simply is not enough room in a city for all of the people needed for the city to function to drive or park cars. It may also be true that without EAS the economies of small rural places would grind to a halt, but that would have a less catastrophic effect on the national economy.

Still, I support EAS, but only for those places that have an actual accessibility problem without it. Any place that's 3 hours or less by car from an airport with regular scheduled service doesn't fall into that category.

LAXintl · Thu May 21, 2015 4:15 pm

Quoting JBo (Reply 32):
I guess that depends on your definition of "add." There are many cities that previously did not receive EAS subsidies that have since entered the program by virtue of their airline services declining to a single carrier, and that carrier in turn petitioning the DOT for EAS subsidies. This is what happened in MKG and several other airports in Michigan and the Great Lakes region where Mesaba was the sole carrier and they decided they wanted subsidies to sustain the routes.

MKG received funding from to the program starting in 1985 based on the communities inclusion in the original 1978 deregulation eligibility list.

Program updates in 1990 and later in the 2000s, do not allow for any new communities to be added in lower 48, and once you exit the program there is no coming back.

SunsetLimited · Thu May 21, 2015 4:21 pm

I'm hearing Greenville, MS and Muscle Shoals, AL are in trouble, too, if boarding don't pick up.

greenair727 · Thu May 21, 2015 4:21 pm

Quoting MSPNWA:
Sad to see what DL did to Mason City. Just three years ago I could take a CRJ to MSP. Before that it was healthy SF3 service with sometimes full flights. Now it's a long ride in a Caravan to ORD with separate tickets. No wonder demand tanked. I know I don't consider it anymore.

Caravan? Is like a van ride to ORD? Does it get a DL flight number? How are those regulated regarding 'aviation' security as nothing stops the mixing of pax on the road?

nws2002 · Thu May 21, 2015 5:24 pm

Quoting greenair727 (Reply 38):
Caravan? Is like a van ride to ORD?

I assume it's a Cessna Caravan. It is a small, unpressurized, single-engine turboprop plane.

MSPNWA · Thu May 21, 2015 7:29 pm

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 39):
I assume it's a Cessna Caravan. It is a small, unpressurized, single-engine turboprop plane.

Correct. It's a Cessna 208 Caravan operated by Air Choice One. And Judging by the daily passenger numbers, almost no one is flying them. Not a surprise to me. I wouldn't either.

WA707atMSP · Thu May 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 40):
Quoting nws2002 (Reply 39):I assume it's a Cessna Caravan. It is a small, unpressurized, single-engine turboprop plane.
Correct. It's a Cessna 208 Caravan operated by Air Choice One. And Judging by the daily passenger numbers, almost no one is flying them. Not a surprise to me. I wouldn't either.

I flew Air Choice One three years ago ORD-DEC-STL, and I was really impressed. Air Choice One's aircraft have seats that are about the size of F seats on 737s or A320s, with plenty of leg room. If I had a choice between an Air Choice One Cessna 208 or a Brasilia, I'd take the 208 in a heartbeat.

cbphoto · Thu May 21, 2015 8:24 pm

Most of people who are against EAS really have no clue what they are talking about. A good percentage of the revenue that goes towards the EAS program is collected through other aviation taxes and fees. Unless you fly general aviation a lot, the general public pays little towards the EAS program. That being said, there are many cities that really shouldn't be in the program, as many of the communities are close enough to major hubs and airports that driving is feasible. At the same time, many cities especially out west and in Alaska absolutely need the service and should continue to receive it due to their geographic isolation.

The Issue with EAS today isn't so much the program, but the airlines currently serving it. Service on carriers such as Great Lakes and other airlines is often unreliable and subject to frequent cancellations and schedule changes. Boarding levels and goals are hard to achieve if the passengers cannot rely and trust the service to get them to there destination. If service to the these communities were better and more reliable, I think the program would be better off.

Remember, the average budget for the EAS program for an entire year, was about how much the US spend in an afternoon in the Afghanistan conflict. We have much bigger budget issues then just EAS.

And to the people who b*tch and moan about how they don't want to pay for someone to live in a rural area is again selfish and clueless. Every major city, state, road and highway system receives federal funding in one way or the other. With that being said, If you use a major highway in this country, my tax dollars have likely gone towards a piece of that pavement for your comfort and needs.

WA707atMSP · Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 42):
The Issue with EAS today isn't so much the program, but the airlines currently serving it. Service on carriers such as Great Lakes and other airlines is often unreliable and subject to frequent cancellations and schedule changes. Boarding levels and goals are hard to achieve if the passengers cannot rely and trust the service to get them to there destination. If service to the these communities were better and more reliable, I think the program would be better off.

Perfectly said!

In many cases, marginal operators have won EAS cities because they were the lowest bidder, but then they offered infrequent, unreliable service on non-pressurized aircraft, so people decided they were better off driving to be assured of making their connecting flights.....which causes passenger numbers to decline, and per user costs to rise.

If some of these EAS cities had gone to reliable operators who charged slightly more, passenger numbers would have stayed constant, and the cities would not be at risk of losing air service altogether.

32andBelow · Thu May 21, 2015 8:32 pm

EAS carriers also move a lot of people to doctors appointments, cancer treatments, etc.

DiamondFlyer · Thu May 21, 2015 9:03 pm

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 28):
Victoria is my hometown and after United pulled out a while back, they do not have any commercial service at this point. There is a little prop service to Houston (IAH), but that's it.

No, what he posted is correct, it is no longer a PA-31 to IAH. It is J31 service to Dallas and Austin.

-DiamondFlyer

mtnwest1979 · Thu May 21, 2015 9:20 pm

Quoting FriscoHeavy (Reply 28):
Victoria is my hometown and after United pulled out a while back, they do not have any commercial service at this point. There is a little prop service to Houston (IAH), but that's it.

The Navajos to IAH flown by Sun Air have been gone awhile now replaced by Publoc Chartes dba Texas Sky once a day (except Sat) VCT-AUS-DFW and return, then a VCT-AUS and return MoWeFr via J31/2.
For a city of 60,000+ too bad it can't support more.

tom11 · Thu May 21, 2015 10:22 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 15):
So should Adak, Alaska not be granted EAS?

No they shouldn't. They can either subsidize service themselves or pay what it costs to make it sustainable.

Most of these people were born and raised in these remote places...and didn't just chose to move out to the middle of nowhere. In a lot of places, mostly Alaska, there are not roads...

There are many places that should not have air service through EAS...you are correct...but some places need it.

CIDFlyer · Thu May 21, 2015 10:42 pm

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 40):
Correct. It's a Cessna 208 Caravan operated by Air Choice One. And Judging by the daily passenger numbers, almost no one is flying them. Not a surprise to me. I wouldn't either.

Thats too bad...with their pretty reasonable prices to the hub of the midwest Im surprised more people arent trying them at least for trips to Chicago. My aunt and uncle used to live in BRL and took them to St Louis and said they loved the flight.

Still I suppose after you go from years of having legacy service and even a small amount time time with jet service (even if on a CRJ) by Delta a cessna is most certainly a downgrade. Wonder if UA or AA would have been better for MCW? granted its about 150 miles to MSP and about 75-80 to ALO but I wouldnt want to be driving out and about during the dead of winter when you can get some nasty storms in that neck of the woods.

BMI727 · Fri May 22, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 27):
If we use this logic, then there should also be no federal / state subsidies for mass transit in urban areas.

There shouldn't be. And kill Amtrak too.

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 27):
If people choose to live in urban areas, so be it, not up to the rest of taxpayers to subsidize busses and subways for them.

Precisely.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 35):
Without subsidies for mass transit, the economies of large cities, which contribute a rather large share of the nation's GDP and tax revenue, would grind to a halt.

I doubt things would change that much, and if they did, the economy wouldn't disappear. It would just spread out.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 44):
EAS carriers also move a lot of people to doctors appointments, cancer treatments, etc.

Gee, that sounds important. I bet people would pay the actual airfare for something that important.

Quoting tom11 (Reply 47):
Most of these people were born and raised in these remote places...and didn't just chose to move out to the middle of nowhere.

It doesn't matter how they got there and nobody is forcing them to stay.

Quoting tom11 (Reply 47):
There are many places that should not have air service through EAS...you are correct...but some places need it.

If they really needed the air service, there wouldn't be a subsidy.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net