Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
knope2001 wrote:Here are some links with information:
https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ir-service
https://cms.dot.gov/policy/aviation-pol ... ommunities
Many EAS markets are in Alaska, but there are just over 100 in rest of the country (including Puerto Rico.)
Some of the largest/highest volume EAS markets have subsidies under $100 per passenger on 50-seat RJ's.
Many other EAS markets have subsidies near the $200 per passenger cap. Exceeding this generally gets the community kicked out of the program.
Finally there are some especially-remote EAS markets (more than 210 miles from a medium or large hub airport) which are not subject to the $200 cap -- their subsidy can be as high as $1000 before being terminated. There are not too many left anywhere near that high, but they do make for juicy stories on wasteful government spending.
A chronic issue with EAS is a lack of airlines available to support reliable branded service. EAS airports large enough to get branded RJ flying tend to do well -- some like Sioux City have even stopped needing subsidy. But communities not large enough for an RJ airline often cycle through a series of unreliable small prop airlines, Great Lakes being a big offender. This sort of service kills demand and leads to airports falling out of the program.
There have been a few more successful and reliable small prop operators such as Boutique Air, Cape Aire, Air Choice One. Flying a reliable service with low fares, they restore some of that lost traffic. But subsidies are still high in part because fares are low to attract passengers.
EAS has outlived its original intended life by many years, but it has survived in part because conservatives from rural areas who benefit from EAS that would normally oppose spending like this let EAS alone. As a result it has limped along with periodic screw-tightening over the years, but no real ability to reform, improve or kill it.
BobPatterson wrote:
Hagerstown folks can drive about 76 miles to BWI or about 65 miles to IAD. Or they can use this expensive, taxpayer supported air taxi service.
What a boondoggle. I think the per person subsidies are greater even than for Amtrak (which might be justified).
Thanks again.
JBo wrote:There are definitely a lot of cities currently receiving EAS subsidies that definitely <i>don't</i> need to be in the program due to their proximity to other airports with commercial service. My hometown airport, MKG, is one such example, having fallen into the EAS system in 2009 when Mesaba, the sole remaining carrier after YX left town, decided it needed subsidies to keep serving the airport.
MKG technically qualifies for EAS due to its distance from the nearest hub airports (DTW, ORD), but it's also only 40 miles away from GRR, which has service from just about every major US scheduled carrier.
Granted, MKG's per-pax subsidy is only $86 under the current contract with OO, but it's still a great example of an airport in the EAS system that doesn't technically <i>need</i> the service given proximity to GRR.
However, there are also many airports in the program that aren't anywhere near any other airports with commercial service. The subisides for these cities are legit and should continue.
Some reform of the program is probably in order to adjust the criteria for qualifying cities based on proximity to nearby airports with commercial service.
TUSDawg23 wrote:I think there are many markets that are within a reasonable driving distance for EAS cities, but the program is really a drop in the bucket. If smaller communities can gain some economic benefit from it and there are studies to back that up, then why not?
drdisque wrote:They use the 50 seat RJ has much lower CASM than a 19 or 30 seat prop and because these branded operations already have them in their fleet and paid for.
Aerodynamics Inc. and ViaAir are trying their hand at un-branded 50 seat jet operations (because the cost of acquisition for a 50 seat RJ has fallen so low). Aerodynamics is flying DEN-PIR-ATY and Via is flying SHD-CLT and CKB-BWI/CLT and LWB-CLT both on an ERJ-145 for some of the flights Via is tagging on a flight to SGJ or SFB so they can be sort of a hybrid of a traditional EAS carrier and a carrier like Allegiant (flying small cities to Florida).
ua900 wrote:EAS isn't going anywhere. It's one of the last programs that a GOP controlled congress would cut since rural areas vote overwhelmingly GOP (and voted for Trump) in the last election. As someone who has personally traveled on a number of EAS routes over the years, I can tell you that many communities that see EAS see passengers like dentists and other technical specialists travel into EAS communities to provide their services in cases where they can't find anyone who wants to move there on a permanent basis. These communities are often too small, too poor, too uneducated, too isolated and have too few people in them to warrant full timers, or non-EAS service for that matter. Cut EAS and the lights go out in some of these places. It won't get cut and remaining EAS communities rarely opt out. As someone who traveled a lot of smaller airports that no longer see scheduled service, I miss the days when an E-120 would get me and my family into some small town for the weekend, and if EAS helps to slow or stop the bleeding then so be it.
JBo wrote:There are definitely a lot of cities currently receiving EAS subsidies that definitely <i>don't</i> need to be in the program due to their proximity to other airports with commercial service. My hometown airport, MKG, is one such example, having fallen into the EAS system in 2009 when Mesaba, the sole remaining carrier after YX left town, decided it needed subsidies to keep serving the airport.
frmrCapCadet wrote:"I am less enthusiastic about subsidies for Amtrak because they constitutes unfair competition against airlines who get no subsidies."
The airline industry has a lot of subsidies, but has arranged them so as to be politically correct.
I lived in an Alaskan village for several months, there was no doctor or dentist within a couple hundred miles, let alone a paved road to anywhere. Mail, veggies, medical, name it, it came by air, or a once a year barge.
BobPatterson wrote:TUSDawg23 wrote:I think there are many markets that are within a reasonable driving distance for EAS cities, but the program is really a drop in the bucket. If smaller communities can gain some economic benefit from it and there are studies to back that up, then why not?
I'd love to read a few studies that demonstrate economic benefits from the EAS program. Can you provide links to any?
I realize that there can be differences in economic viewpoints. Certainly, the EAS program benefits the pilots and ground personnel whose jobs depend on it. But those benefits are largely dependent upon transfer payments -- taxes -- payed mainly by those who do not use the service. This really amounts to economic welfare.
If there were truly economic benefits to the local communities, then they should be able to support these programs wholly with local revenues, wholly out of passenger revenue, or some combination of the two.
In my mind I can justify subsidies for mass transit (the Metro bus and rail system of the Wash., D.C. area for example) because the masses benefit from them and it would be extremely difficult for many people to get to work without them.
I am less enthusiastic about subsidies for Amtrak because they constitutes unfair competition against airlines who get no subsidies.
The EAS subsidies run from about $1 million to almost $3 million per city per year. They usually pay the majority (sometimes 2/3 or more) of the cost of airfare for a small number of people.
I find that hard to justify.
michman wrote:The airline "subsidy" argument is also a lot of hogwash as the government is just acting as the middle-man for the PFC's, segment taxes, and excise taxes that passengers pay on their tickets. Do you how many taxes and fees are assessed on Amtrak tickets -- ZERO.
sagechan wrote:I generally agree with you points on EAS, though based on your commentary, I'm assuming you hate drivers as automobile support subsidies far exceed Amtrak (which recoupse ~85% of operating and ~69% of total costs.) Less than 50% or road construction and maintenance is now covered by taxes and fees paid by drivers, and the built environment due to zoning and the insane amount of free parking due to things like parking minimums, make drivers the most subsidized and real cost avoiding mode of transportation.
Please don't assume that I hate anyone.
I would love to pay 2x or 3x the current Federal tax on gasoline if the funds are devoted exclusivly to maintaining the Federal Highway System. Ditto for State taxes on gasoline/diesel/biofuel. Further, those taxes should be mandated to keep pace with inflation.
I'm also not against taxes to support nationwide improvements in infrastructure for the airline industry (ATC, Airports, security that work speedily and effectively).
drdisque wrote:RASM isn't really something that's part of the equation for EAS.
Your fares are part of your bid. Lowest fares goes a long way in winning the bid.
Low fares also keep pax count up and subsidy per pax down.
drdisque wrote:They use the 50 seat RJ has much lower CASM than a 19 or 30 seat prop and because these branded operations already have them in their fleet and paid for.
Aerodynamics Inc. and ViaAir are trying their hand at un-branded 50 seat jet operations (because the cost of acquisition for a 50 seat RJ has fallen so low). Aerodynamics is flying DEN-PIR-ATY and Via is flying SHD-CLT and CKB-BWI/CLT and LWB-CLT both on an ERJ-145 for some of the flights Via is tagging on a flight to SGJ or SFB so they can be sort of a hybrid of a traditional EAS carrier and a carrier like Allegiant (flying small cities to Florida).
AVLAirlineFreq wrote:You won't see EAS go away--we've been having this same discussion for years--but it wouldn't surprise me to see changes to the program.
c933103 wrote:drdisque wrote:They use the 50 seat RJ has much lower CASM than a 19 or 30 seat prop and because these branded operations already have them in their fleet and paid for.
Aerodynamics Inc. and ViaAir are trying their hand at un-branded 50 seat jet operations (because the cost of acquisition for a 50 seat RJ has fallen so low). Aerodynamics is flying DEN-PIR-ATY and Via is flying SHD-CLT and CKB-BWI/CLT and LWB-CLT both on an ERJ-145 for some of the flights Via is tagging on a flight to SGJ or SFB so they can be sort of a hybrid of a traditional EAS carrier and a carrier like Allegiant (flying small cities to Florida).
But weren't aircrafts like ATR-42 or Dash-8-300 only cost about half as much to fly compare to those 50-seats RJ?
And of course 19- and 30- seats aircraft would have higher CASM but if the amount of passengers you're transporting is less than what ATR42 can and would be sufficient to use those 19- to 30- seats aircrafts, then the cost per passenger mile wouold be even higher for RJs.
BobPatterson wrote:Hagerstown is above $300 or $600 depending on how passengers are counted.
Hagerstown has been in the program for quite some time. Back in 2006 they averaged 5.4 pax per flight at a cost to the pax of $77 and taxpaper subsidy of $130.
In 2012 (different destination airport and carrier) costs were $50 per pax plus $176 subsidy for 2.6 pax/flight.
I didn't see the current 2017 pax out-of-pocket cost where the subsidy is $312 (most likely) or $624.
Hagerstown folks can drive about 76 miles to BWI or about 65 miles to IAD. Or they can use this expensive, taxpayer supported air taxi service.
What a boondoggle.
dc10lover wrote:Actually it should not be a "hub". Pendleton, Oregon is vey close to Pasco. PDT should not have tax payer airline service. PSC is not a hub but has a lot of service from 4 airlines. And it's a short drive between both cities.
Skywatcher wrote:EAS is total pork. The ever increasing hypocrisy/alternative facts environment in DC will ensure it's continued existence unfortunately. I love the people who say "it's only a drop in the bucket" as justification for it. I would say you have to start with the easy stuff like cutting EAS before you have any chance of taming Medicaid, Social security or any other massive entitlement programs. Canada has no EAS program and is even larger with further population scatter than the lower 48.
TUSDawg23 wrote:Skywatcher wrote:EAS is total pork. The ever increasing hypocrisy/alternative facts environment in DC will ensure it's continued existence unfortunately. I love the people who say "it's only a drop in the bucket" as justification for it. I would say you have to start with the easy stuff like cutting EAS before you have any chance of taming Medicaid, Social security or any other massive entitlement programs. Canada has no EAS program and is even larger with further population scatter than the lower 48.
Look, I'm all about having a conversation with respect to what EAS routes should be kept or discarded, but to simply eliminate the whole program is mindless thinking. There are many laissez-faire thinkers on this website who have no understanding about the impact that air service can have on a smaller community and that it's just not as simple as, "well if you don't like it then move." Like it or not, the the program is providing economic benefits to communities and at the very least, creating jobs for these communities and the smaller commuter airlines to operate these routes.
Buddys747 wrote:LNS has no reason to be in EAS program.
MDT is a 35 minute drive from Lancaster, and the further east you go, PHL and BWI are an hour to two at the most away. Even ABE for northern Lancaster is under an hour drive.
Amtraks keystone corridor also runs thru Lancaster. If there was a city to be cut, this would be one of them. Surprised as conservative as Lancaster is this stil exists.
flyfresno wrote:VIS later withdrew from the EAS program and took a payout for airport improvements in lieu of the subsidiary, but had they not chosen to, they would still qualify
BobPatterson wrote:.......why do some EASP localities manage to get flights to places like Orlando instead of only to the nearest airport offering a connection via a major airline? Even Hagerstown, MD offers flights to BWI but not to the casinos in Atlantic City or a few miles from Reagan National in D.C.
drdisque wrote:EAS does not subsidize any flights to Orlando.
knope2001 wrote:Lancaster and 22 other cities are on the chopping block for excessive subsidy and/or not hitting 10 daily average enplanements.
They have appealed and received a temporary waiver, but unless their numbers improved they'll be canned.
As for the Orlando question, EAS defines minimal acceptable service for each airport to be to one of a few designated nearby hubs with a minimum level of frequency and capacity. The point is to offer a minimum level of useful connectivity to the national airline network. So Grand Island still gets subsidized service to Dallas even though Allegiant has a few weekly nonstops to places like Vegas.