Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
shantahan wrote:It was reported that the White House proposed a budget that eliminates the Dept. of Transportation's Essential Air Service (EAS) program.
Politics aside and whether or not it will be passed, what effects would this have on US domestic operations? It is my understanding that service to many markets is dependent on these subsidies. I assume it would upend hub economics and regional airlines too.
.
910A wrote:shantahan wrote:It was reported that the White House proposed a budget that eliminates the Dept. of Transportation's Essential Air Service (EAS) program.
Politics aside and whether or not it will be passed, what effects would this have on US domestic operations? It is my understanding that service to many markets is dependent on these subsidies. I assume it would upend hub economics and regional airlines too.
.
I would guess very little impact on US domestic operations? Now for the small communities that have EAS service, such as the towns in Alaska and Montana the effects could be huge.
shantahan wrote:It was reported that the White House proposed a budget that eliminates the Dept. of Transportation's Essential Air Service (EAS) program.
Politics aside and whether or not it will be passed, what effects would this have on US domestic operations? It is my understanding that service to many markets is dependent on these subsidies. I assume it would upend hub economics and regional airlines too.
source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/p ... -cuts.html
End of 4th paragraph.
jmc1975 wrote:States should be given the power to determine if or where airline subsidies are needed.
Wingtips56 wrote:you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFREliminating EAS would cut off extreme Northwestern California/Southwestern Oregon, if CEC loses it's service. We're 300 miles or so from PDX and 350 miles north of SFO. Among other issues, people from here have to travel for medical care, including chemo. 8 hours on the highway is too much for people sick after chemo. Add to that US Highway 101 is falling into the ocean just south of town (the southbound lane fell off last Monday, leaving us with 18 feet width of pavement), with additional failures south and also north above Brookings OR. And we're down to a single lane going northeast.
Air service is an important need in places like this, but the cost and risk is high for any airline. At some point a nation's citizenry need support. EAS is such a tiny part of government spending that it should not be such a political football.
But nobody is getting rich off serving small communities, so there is no impetus for the billionaires to give a rats ass.
BobPatterson wrote:Most interesting thing about the NY Times report is to see a Republican Senator calling the President's budget "Dead Upon Arrival".
32andBelow wrote:you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR[/quote].
32andBelow wrote:]you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR
coronado wrote:What about CMX? Worthy of EAS or not?
Wingtips56 wrote:32andBelow wrote:you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR.
MIflyer12 wrote:BobPatterson wrote:Most interesting thing about the NY Times report is to see a Republican Senator calling the President's budget "Dead Upon Arrival".
EAS isn't a lot of money in the context of the federal budget. There are lots of senators in states that have EAS service today, far disproportional to national population. The president can propose a budget - Congress passes the budget (or doesn't, in a series of continuing resolutions).
Wingtips56 wrote:Eliminating EAS would cut off extreme Northwestern California/Southwestern Oregon, if CEC loses it's service. We're 300 miles or so from PDX and 350 miles north of SFO. Among other issues, people from here have to travel for medical care, including chemo. 8 hours on the highway is too much for people sick after chemo. Add to that US Highway 101 is falling into the ocean just south of town (the southbound lane fell off last Monday, leaving us with 18 feet width of pavement), with additional failures south and also north above Brookings OR. And we're down to a single lane going northeast.
Air service is an important need in places like this, but the cost and risk is high for any airline. At some point a nation's citizenry need support. EAS is such a tiny part of government spending that it should not be such a political football.
But nobody is getting rich off serving small communities, so there is no impetus for the billionaires to give a rats ass.
DfwRevolution wrote:Wingtips56 wrote:
The consequence of living in a rural community is that you will lack close proximity to some services. That's the cost you pay to enjoy the benefits of rural living. You're asking us to financially subsidize your lifestyle choice so you can have your cake and eat it, too. Nah 'ah.
sldispatcher wrote:Only the arrogance of some living in large hub cities do not feel the direct effects of degradation of air service over the years through loss of regional network carriers, turboprops, and combined with incessant pressure applied from short sighted Wall Street analysts to keep capacity steady.
CEC is a neat part of the country that not many people visit in part due to the isolation it has from the rest of the world. But the CEC community, and others like it, should ask their local citizens to support these endeavours. You'd find out quickly just how "essential" most folks think that air service is when you ask for tax dollars.
anrec80 wrote:......but along the coasts in 48 states and especially Alaska there are plenty of communities on the islands or simply not connected to the highway network. Population of such town or a small city can be in tens of thousands. Frequently there are enterprises (fishing, wood, mining) important to the economy, or military bases. Air service is the only lifeline of those communities, and you can't just unthinkably toss that.
Wingtips56 wrote:Add to that US Highway 101 is falling into the ocean just south of town (the southbound lane fell off last Monday, leaving us with 18 feet width of pavement), with additional failures south and also north above Brookings OR. And we're down to a single lane going northeast.
32andBelow wrote:Wingtips56 wrote:32andBelow wrote:you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR.
No, it's 1:40 to ACV, when the highway has two functioning lanes and no elk herds standing in the road. (There are now 3 points down to one lane with up to 20 minute holds at each one. The newest is closing at night 20:00-07:00 with only brief hourly openings. ) There is no alternate if the rest of the 101 "Last Chance Grade" goes down the cliff.
It's up to 2:40 to MFR.
But neither of these are hubs nor large metro areas.
Yes, I certainly agree that some EAS points are questionable, if not truly unnecessary, but the whole EAS system shouldn't be tossed without a good look.
OneSexyL1011 wrote:I am all for keeping SOME EAS markets (Alaska being a prime example.) However, a major review and overhaul is needed to be done. Some states have multiple cities with EAS service. The UP of Michigan for example doesn't need service to CMX, SAW, IMT, ESC and SSM.(if you count SSM, could be Canada) You can easily drop 2 of those, if not 3 of them and still have service within a 150 mile radius of anywhere up there.
32andBelow wrote:
.you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR
flyingcat wrote:The state of Alaska gives a portion of oil revenue's to its citizens, why is that not used to pay for air service. Why are the oil companies not handing out discounted 100LL if the growth of towns is due to their influence. Prior to aviation many of this towns got by on hunting and trading and could not grow substantially for a good reason, the infrastructure could not support it
Does anyone know why Alaskan air routes started getting subsidized in the first place??? Hawaiians do not get discounts on groceries.
BobPatterson wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:BobPatterson wrote:Most interesting thing about the NY Times report is to see a Republican Senator calling the President's budget "Dead Upon Arrival".
EAS isn't a lot of money in the context of the federal budget. There are lots of senators in states that have EAS service today, far disproportional to national population. The president can propose a budget - Congress passes the budget (or doesn't, in a series of continuing resolutions).
Precisely because individual route subsidies are not huge, the states and/or localities can fund them where they are truly needed.
You sound unfamiliar with the Federal budget process. Congress adds to or subtracts from the President's proposals, ignores what they wish to ignore, and substitutes or amends at will.
Get some popcorn. It might be an interesting show.
Wingtips56 wrote:Eliminating EAS would cut off extreme Northwestern California/Southwestern Oregon, if CEC loses it's service. We're 300 miles or so from PDX and 350 miles north of SFO. Among other issues, people from here have to travel for medical care, including chemo. 8 hours on the highway is too much for people sick after chemo. Add to that US Highway 101 is falling into the ocean just south of town (the southbound lane fell off last Monday, leaving us with 18 feet width of pavement), with additional failures south and also north above Brookings OR. And we're down to a single lane going northeast.
Air service is an important need in places like this, but the cost and risk is high for any airline. At some point a nation's citizenry need support.
TransGlobalGold wrote:There is a reason the airlines dropped the cities.
ODwyerPW wrote:Wingtips56 wrote:There is no alternate if the rest of the 101 "Last Chance Grade" goes down the cliff.
Then your State should repair your highway instead
BerenErchamion wrote:This proposed budget is nothing more than the barbarians attacking civilization.
b747400erf wrote:This President was supposed to be fighting for the little people, now his cuts are going to hurt them the most.
Revelation wrote:b747400erf wrote:This President was supposed to be fighting for the little people, now his cuts are going to hurt them the most.
People who believed that are getting exactly what they deserve.
diverdave wrote:BerenErchamion wrote:This proposed budget is nothing more than the barbarians attacking civilization.
Wow, I certainly disagree. Most of the states with a lot of EAS service can easily afford to pay for it.
Alaska could fund its own EAS service at a cost of $23 per resident. That's a mere drop in the bucket of the $1000+ annual dividend paid to state residents.
I looked up the numbers at wikipedia, and it seems that California gets more EAS money than Alaska. CEC alone is over $3 million.
California could fund its own EAS service at well under $1 per resident.
I live in Alabama and we're pretty broke, but there is no need to be funding EAS service in NW Alabama when HSV is not distant.
jmc1975 wrote:As much as I personally hate to see smaller cities lose air service, EAS is a complete boondoggle.
As for Alaska routes, the federal taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for them. However, it would be perfectly acceptable for the State of Alaska to subsidize such routes.
States should be given the power to determine if or where airline subsidies are needed.
Revelation wrote:b747400erf wrote:This President was supposed to be fighting for the little people, now his cuts are going to hurt them the most.
People who believed that are getting exactly what they deserve.
The swamp ain't getting drained, it's just got different alligators in it.
diverdave wrote:BerenErchamion wrote:This proposed budget is nothing more than the barbarians attacking civilization.
Wow, I certainly disagree. Most of the states with a lot of EAS service can easily afford to pay for it.
Alaska could fund its own EAS service at a cost of $23 per resident. That's a mere drop in the bucket of the $1000+ annual dividend paid to state residents.
I looked up the numbers at wikipedia, and it seems that California gets more EAS money than Alaska. CEC alone is over $3 million.
California could fund its own EAS service at well under $1 per resident.
I live in Alabama and we're pretty broke, but there is no need to be funding EAS service in NW Alabama when HSV is not distant.
WaywardMemphian wrote:diverdave wrote:BerenErchamion wrote:This proposed budget is nothing more than the barbarians attacking civilization.
Wow, I certainly disagree. Most of the states with a lot of EAS service can easily afford to pay for it.
Alaska could fund its own EAS service at a cost of $23 per resident. That's a mere drop in the bucket of the $1000+ annual dividend paid to state residents.
I looked up the numbers at wikipedia, and it seems that California gets more EAS money than Alaska. CEC alone is over $3 million.
California could fund its own EAS service at well under $1 per resident.
I live in Alabama and we're pretty broke, but there is no need to be funding EAS service in NW Alabama when HSV is not distant.
Harrison with Bentonville and Springfield nearby and Hot Springs with Little Rock rings the same bell.
Pure wasteful pork.