airzona11 wrote:

This is a lively discussion, if the cities and towns that need the "Essential" Air Service, then no doubt they can prove they need it. We should always be putting all government tax payer funded programs under these reviews. It is good for everyone.

This wont be an all or nothing outcome. Hopefully routes that are wasteful and not necessary will be cut, and those where there is a positive economic impact will be kept.

To the above points about food stamp programs etc, if they were alchemy taking money and turning it into more money, lets just give everyone food stamps and a $100/hr minimum wage. That way we can replace the EAS system with service similar on LAX/SFO-NYC, because we will all be rich.

You are not the first to come here and say this, but they get reviewed all the time, especially each budget with a new administration. Once again people fall back on the "taxpayer waste/government corrupt" talking point without really understanding what they are talking about. Your off topic rant about food stamps and 100 an hour minimum wage is also pointless here. Did the bat signal go out for the Fox News commentators to come here?

b747400erf wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is a lively discussion, if the cities and towns that need the "Essential" Air Service, then no doubt they can prove they need it. We should always be putting all government tax payer funded programs under these reviews. It is good for everyone.

This wont be an all or nothing outcome. Hopefully routes that are wasteful and not necessary will be cut, and those where there is a positive economic impact will be kept.

To the above points about food stamp programs etc, if they were alchemy taking money and turning it into more money, lets just give everyone food stamps and a $100/hr minimum wage. That way we can replace the EAS system with service similar on LAX/SFO-NYC, because we will all be rich.

You are not the first to come here and say this, but they get reviewed all the time, especially each budget with a new administration. Once again people fall back on the "taxpayer waste/government corrupt" talking point without really understanding what they are talking about. Your off topic rant about food stamps and 100 an hour minimum wage is also pointless here. Did the bat signal go out for the Fox News commentators to come here?

What? For starters, there are people talking about that in this thread and was fully contextualized. Where did I say the words waste or government corrupt? You are the one talking anecdotally. Fox News? Before you go around telling me how much smarter than me you are, I would start with reading what I wrote instead of just throwing at me your pathetically veiled vitriol towards my "uninformed" viewpoint.

The current President is by no means of the same lot of predecessors. Having come from the private sector he will look at the P+L and programs with more scrutiny. That is a good thing. They will find waste (in any large or small business / institution/ gov't) and hopefully they will reduce it. Goes both ways, they find a market where it is working, they will keep it and look to replicate. That is a good thing.

airzona11 wrote:

What? For starters, there are people talking about that in this thread and was fully contextualized. Where did I say the words waste or government corrupt? You are the one talking anecdotally. Fox News? Before you go around telling me how much smarter than me you are, I would start with reading what I wrote instead of just throwing at me your pathetically veiled vitriol towards my "uninformed" viewpoint.

The current President is by no means of the same lot of predecessors. Having come from the private sector he will look at the P+L and programs with more scrutiny. That is a good thing. They will find waste (in any large or small business / institution/ gov't) and hopefully they will reduce it. Goes both ways, they find a market where it is working, they will keep it and look to replicate. That is a good thing.

Could you say that all with a straight face? especially the part about Trump being a great businessman capable of seeing the value in things? This is too funny. Way to prove my Fox News joke completely correct by the way.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Do you consider soft drinks, twinkies, candy bars, sugary cereal, ice cream, doritos, energy drinks like Red Bull nutricious? Because billions are spent on those items via SNAP. 20oz bottle of Coke at 2 bucks? Yep, covered. You wonder why our children, particularly the poorer ones are unhealty, obese, and have increasing rates of childhood diabetes and other medical maladies.

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

But, my oh my, what a war there will be over what products get approved.

airzona11 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is a lively discussion, if the cities and towns that need the "Essential" Air Service, then no doubt they can prove they need it. We should always be putting all government tax payer funded programs under these reviews. It is good for everyone.

This wont be an all or nothing outcome. Hopefully routes that are wasteful and not necessary will be cut, and those where there is a positive economic impact will be kept.

To the above points about food stamp programs etc, if they were alchemy taking money and turning it into more money, lets just give everyone food stamps and a $100/hr minimum wage. That way we can replace the EAS system with service similar on LAX/SFO-NYC, because we will all be rich.

You are not the first to come here and say this, but they get reviewed all the time, especially each budget with a new administration. Once again people fall back on the "taxpayer waste/government corrupt" talking point without really understanding what they are talking about. Your off topic rant about food stamps and 100 an hour minimum wage is also pointless here. Did the bat signal go out for the Fox News commentators to come here?

What? For starters, there are people talking about that in this thread and was fully contextualized. Where did I say the words waste or government corrupt? You are the one talking anecdotally. Fox News? Before you go around telling me how much smarter than me you are, I would start with reading what I wrote instead of just throwing at me your pathetically veiled vitriol towards my "uninformed" viewpoint.

The current President is by no means of the same lot of predecessors. Having come from the private sector he will look at the P+L and programs with more scrutiny.

Which is irrelevant, since government is not a business and so the same principles do not apply. A government exists for a completely different purpose than a business. Making a profit isn't important; what's important is that people's needs are met, and you set taxes at whatever level you need to do that.

BobPatterson wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Do you consider soft drinks, twinkies, candy bars, sugary cereal, ice cream, doritos, energy drinks like Red Bull nutricious? Because billions are spent on those items via SNAP. 20oz bottle of Coke at 2 bucks? Yep, covered. You wonder why our children, particularly the poorer ones are unhealty, obese, and have increasing rates of childhood diabetes and other medical maladies.

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

TransGlobalGold wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

IMO, it's a huge waste. Keep Alaska routes for obvious reasons, but if people have to drive 2-3 hours to get to an airport, it's not coming out of taxpayers pockets. Especially when many, if not all of the EAS routes would not exist without subsidies. Just because smaller airports had service 40-50 years ago doesn't mean they should have it now.There is a reason the airlines dropped the cities.

The proposed budget also have massive cuts for Amtrak which provides an alternative to airlines to these communities. With no train service and no air service, pray tell, what are these communities to do?

Given there's not really much of Amtrak remaining, not sure. I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak. Someone else mentioned on this thread I agree with. If the EAS communities feel their economy relies on airline service (which outside of Alaska I say is very few), then let cities and states provide the subsidies. Your taxes will be going up under the new administration despite what they say, so it's just throwing more money at something that is unsustainable.

"not much of Amtrak remaining.I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak."
You absolutely have no idea of what you speak. Such ignorance is clearly endemic in the the great unwashed and definitely in the president.

BerenErchamion wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Do you consider soft drinks, twinkies, candy bars, sugary cereal, ice cream, doritos, energy drinks like Red Bull nutricious? Because billions are spent on those items via SNAP. 20oz bottle of Coke at 2 bucks? Yep, covered. You wonder why our children, particularly the poorer ones are unhealty, obese, and have increasing rates of childhood diabetes and other medical maladies.

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

They also want to get rid of Meals on Wheels. I know there is no such thing scientifically as a "soul" but these people are missing the part of your brain that gives you empathy. Everything is about making money no matter who suffers. Small cities voted Trump and his budget is designed to tear them apart. But her emails...

b747400erf wrote:

The American railroad network is a large subsidy to the freight companies. They control the tracks and have the right of way even though the American taxpayers paid for the network in the first place.

That would be interesting if it was true.

Other than being given right-of-way during the land-grant era, what have the taxpayers ever done to build rail lines (trackage, bridges)?

b747400erf wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

This is a lively discussion, if the cities and towns that need the "Essential" Air Service, then no doubt they can prove they need it. We should always be putting all government tax payer funded programs under these reviews. It is good for everyone.

This wont be an all or nothing outcome. Hopefully routes that are wasteful and not necessary will be cut, and those where there is a positive economic impact will be kept.

To the above points about food stamp programs etc, if they were alchemy taking money and turning it into more money, lets just give everyone food stamps and a $100/hr minimum wage. That way we can replace the EAS system with service similar on LAX/SFO-NYC, because we will all be rich.

You are not the first to come here and say this, but they get reviewed all the time, especially each budget with a new administration. Once again people fall back on the "taxpayer waste/government corrupt" talking point without really understanding what they are talking about. Your off topic rant about food stamps and 100 an hour minimum wage is also pointless here. Did the bat signal go out for the Fox News commentators to come here?

I find it amazing and fascinating that the military just wasted $220B, yet Chump is increasing its budget by a proposed 9% while proposing to eliminate air and train services to communities. It's like I'm living in the twilight zone.

BobPatterson wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

The American railroad network is a large subsidy to the freight companies. They control the tracks and have the right of way even though the American taxpayers paid for the network in the first place.

That would be interesting if it was true.

Other than being given right-of-way during the land-grant era, what have the taxpayers ever done to build rail lines (trackage, bridges)?

It is not true?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... urt-rules/

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/A ... 923268.php

And "except for the fact that tax payers built the railroad tracks in the first place" the freight companies received no subsidies?? that would be like airlines paying nothing for building airports and saying airlines get no subsidies!

If that was not bad enough, Amtrak has to pay freight companies for the right to use their tracks! http://www.cfr.org/infrastructure/us-ra ... ure/p27585

BerenErchamion wrote:

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

I didn't say a word about cutting SNAP benefits. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them increased if limited to nutritional products.

Your point, however, is invalid. Junk foods are not cheap. Not their first cost and not their secondary costs (poor health, which must then also be addressed at taxpayer expense).

We do not permit nutrition poor junk foods in school lunch programs and other welfare-type feeding programs. They should never be tolerated at public expense.

BobPatterson wrote:

BerenErchamion wrote:

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

I didn't say a word about cutting SNAP benefits. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them increased if limited to nutritional products.

Your point, however, is invalid. Junk foods are not cheap. Not their first cost and not their secondary costs (poor health, which must then also be addressed at taxpayer expense).

We do not permit nutrition poor junk foods in school lunch programs and other welfare-type feeding programs. They should never be tolerated at public expense.

Do you find it funny how your persona here is all about "facts are important" and yet every post of yours is just your feelings with no facts to back it up? I liked airliners.net when you had to pay for a basic account, now we have parody accounts that love to waste time by starting arguments about topics they do not have a clue on.

I don't really have a dog inthis fight, but it seems to me that the airlines would be the ones to suffer here or am I not fully understanding the situation. I believe that the routes should be able to sustain themselves without government interference. For the few people it would affect it is not worth it.

BerenErchamion wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Do you consider soft drinks, twinkies, candy bars, sugary cereal, ice cream, doritos, energy drinks like Red Bull nutricious? Because billions are spent on those items via SNAP. 20oz bottle of Coke at 2 bucks? Yep, covered. You wonder why our children, particularly the poorer ones are unhealty, obese, and have increasing rates of childhood diabetes and other medical maladies.

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

Your last line sums it you, yes provide guidance on what they can use it on. There is a wonderful program that does just that, WIC. It not about whether the users feel left out, it is not their money to spend unwisely.

Do you think that one should be able to use tax paye/ borrowed money energy drinks?

I think a major overhaul of the program is in order. You will see SNAP being used at Walmart to buy a 20oz soda for 1.80 when a two liter is 1.05. Staring with cutting out small quantity items like that would be a start. But... a major rework on what is eligible is in order.

Anywho, here's a classic beggars can't be choosers but watch them do it anyway senario concening El Dorado AR.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article ... e-provider

Notice the millions in difference

brilondon wrote:

I don't really have a dog inthis fight, but it seems to me that the airlines would be the ones to suffer here or am I not fully understanding the situation. I believe that the routes should be able to sustain themselves without government interference. For the few people it would affect it is not worth it.

They would lose a small amount of guaranteed profits, not much though. Most flying is done by smaller carriers anyway like Great Lakes and Penair. The losers are the smaller cities that need these flights to help connect them with the air network. This President won the election on the backs of the small cities. So I am so confused first how he could think he gets away with this budget proposal, and second why his vocal supporters are okay with it.

Ah, the common EAS debate. I would be disappointed if it was eliminated. I'm all for eliminating government waste and shrinking the size of the feds, but this one program that I hesitate to support ending. It would be going backwards, away from the progression of society. There's a legitimate need for isolated communities to access air service. Without it the local economy is negatively impacted. There's a cost to that as well. And it's not like society will save every dime of the EAs program if it is cut. The population will pay more in other ways, like transportation, time, local economy impact, etc.

There are some airports that probably should be cut from the program, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. How many in support of ending this program have lived 2+ hours away from an airport in an area with commonly inclement weather? It changes your perspective when you don't live just minutes away from a major airport.

dopplerd wrote:

Using MKG as an example, the annual subsidy is $1.4M for about 30,000 passengers or $46/person. There are other airports that are much worse. Fort Dodge, IA which is a 2 hour drive to Sioux City gets $1.8M for 6,000 passengers. That's $300 per passenger on top of what they paid for a ticket.

I bet FOD's per-passenger numbers were a lot more palatable back when they had good service from NW Airlink. The merger mania severely impacted EAS operations in a negative way. It was another piece of collateral damage.

b747400erf wrote:

BerenErchamion wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

They also want to get rid of Meals on Wheels. I know there is no such thing scientifically as a "soul" but these people are missing the part of your brain that gives you empathy. Everything is about making money no matter who suffers. Small cities voted Trump and his budget is designed to tear them apart. But her emails...

Funny you mention Meals on Wheels. I work with them and have for quite a few years (shocking because people like me can't have empathy). 95+% of the budget comes from individual and corporate donors.

b747400erf wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

The American railroad network is a large subsidy to the freight companies. They control the tracks and have the right of way even though the American taxpayers paid for the network in the first place.

That would be interesting if it was true.

Other than being given right-of-way during the land-grant era, what have the taxpayers ever done to build rail lines (trackage, bridges)?

It is not true?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... urt-rules/

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/A ... 923268.php

And "except for the fact that tax payers built the railroad tracks in the first place" the freight companies received no subsidies?? that would be like airlines paying nothing for building airports and saying airlines get no subsidies!

If that was not bad enough, Amtrak has to pay freight companies for the right to use their tracks! http://www.cfr.org/infrastructure/us-ra ... ure/p27585

No, it is not true. The nation's railroads were built and owned by private enterprise, although with various forms of public support (land grants, eminent domain, etc.) but not with public money.

Two of your links tell you:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... b1a25780d5

Among those powers: Amtrak got priority over the freight rail trains when it came to scheduling. This despite the fact that the freight railroads own and maintain the entire U.S. rail system outside the Northeast corridor.

http://www.cfr.org/infrastructure/us-ra ... ure/p27585

Most of the approximately 22,000 miles of track over which Amtrak runs are still owned by freight railroads. Amtrak pays freight carriers for the right to operate on their (the freight railroad's) tracks and for priority over other customers.

And this one: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/A ... 923268.php does not address rail ownership.

Today, Amtrak does own some trackage where they were able to build parallel tracks, but they are nowhere complete lines between cities and must still share tracks owned and built by private railroads.

They should indeed pay tolls when using privately owned tracks. I'm not sure about this but I would imagine that Federal Government vehicles pay tolls on some highways (although they might get a free ride based on subsidies to maintain those roads). The Federal Government doesn't ride for free on privately owned airlines.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Anywho, here's a classic beggars can't be choosers but watch them do it anyway senario concening El Dorado AR.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article ... e-provider

Notice the millions in difference

Well, whadaya know! DOT at least made the right decision when it came to price/cost.

Can you imagine the gall of people wanting their freebie from the Feds to cost twice as much because they will be more comfortable in larger planes?

910A wrote:

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.

First of all MQT/SAW is not an EAS airport. Second of all it's apparent that you never driven between MQT and CMX in the winter time. SSM is really CIU(Sault Ste Marie, Michigan), and if you used YAM (Sault Ste Marie, Ontario) it would require two border crossings to reach somewhere in the states.

First of all, Yes I know that.

Second of all, yes I know what its like driving in the winter in the UP. I have a lake house up there I visit year around on Lake Michigamme. Almost half way between the two.

My point was there is absolutely NO reason why 6 airports (7 if you count Rhinelander WI) in the area need service. Period. IWD, RHI, IMT and ESC can easily be whacked without much impact to anything. I cant tell you how many times I have flown into some of these airports and were ZERO passengers on the flight. Except me, one of the airline employees on board.

Wingtips 56 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.

IF the state of California gave a rats ass about that area of the stae also, it would have directed millions for "CAEAS"..a California subsidized air service to SFO or SMF.
NO, we blow billions on HSR to nowhere and the real infrastructure is crumbling. You folks up there would be betterf off as the Stae of Jefferson. And those of us in the San Joaquin Valley as the state of Eastern California. Then we could have polticans accountable for local transportation issues of all kinds and get faster, economical solutions.

Sorry, the Feds are done with this leftover Carter era deal..Adios!

AEROFAN wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

The proposed budget also have massive cuts for Amtrak which provides an alternative to airlines to these communities. With no train service and no air service, pray tell, what are these communities to do?

Given there's not really much of Amtrak remaining, not sure. I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak. Someone else mentioned on this thread I agree with. If the EAS communities feel their economy relies on airline service (which outside of Alaska I say is very few), then let cities and states provide the subsidies. Your taxes will be going up under the new administration despite what they say, so it's just throwing more money at something that is unsustainable.

"not much of Amtrak remaining.I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak."
You absolutely have no idea of what you speak. Such ignorance is clearly endemic in the the great unwashed and definitely in the president.

I wasn't saying Amtrak didn't exist. It has shrunk over the years. And they do not stop at everytown they pass. Believe it or not, I know this because I've ridden them several times. Also, if I'm unwashed and you think I approve of the Cheetoh in the WH, Mar Lago, Trump Tower, you are the one with no idea.

if they sack it they are going to get pounded in the next election.

Call your congressman
and
Congressman Don Young (R-AK) (202) 225-5765
Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) (202) 224-2651
Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) (202) 224-2644
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (202) 224-6665
Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) (202) 224-3004
These people are going to be from the areas hit hardest from the cut (EG... Alaska and Montana)

It is a political decision as to where on the spectrum the US operates, somewhat as a community versus very man for himself (Ayn Rand excepted). Most of us aren't total ideologues on this as a few a-netters are. A more proper discussion in civil aviation is how, given limited resources, we should work to ensure connections throughout these United States.

I heartily agree that it should be neutral as to the mode of transportation we subsidize. And have earlier mentioned that the barriers to entry, particularly licensing, insurance, safety might be the first target for subsidies.

while this is off topic and probably better suit my thread in #11, is it ne of the reason why American passenger train service being limited? Although above post mentioned Amtrak have priority over freight transport, but if my understand is correct, that sort of usage priority is still limited and it is unlike rail transport in rest of the road or in aircraft handling in most airports which passenger traffics are guaranteed before freight traffic. Obviously that have to do with the history of American railway development but that is probably what caused the current shape of the coutnry's rail network

TransGlobalGold wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

Given there's not really much of Amtrak remaining, not sure. I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak. Someone else mentioned on this thread I agree with. If the EAS communities feel their economy relies on airline service (which outside of Alaska I say is very few), then let cities and states provide the subsidies. Your taxes will be going up under the new administration despite what they say, so it's just throwing more money at something that is unsustainable.

"not much of Amtrak remaining.I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak."
You absolutely have no idea of what you speak. Such ignorance is clearly endemic in the the great unwashed and definitely in the president.

I wasn't saying Amtrak didn't exist. It has shrunk over the years. And they do not stop at everytown they pass. Believe it or not, I know this because I've ridden them several times. Also, if I'm unwashed and you think I approve of the Cheetoh in the WH, Mar Lago, Trump Tower, you are the one with no idea.

Amtrak does a damn good job of connecting backwater places such as Helper UT or Osceola, IA to civilization.

b747400erf wrote:

BerenErchamion wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

I'm very much aware of the problem, and I can think of ways to remedy it, at least in major part.

Seems to me that manufacturers/ processors of nutritionally approved products could be easily convinced to provide a SNAP logo of some sort on their packaging. Limiting the use of food stamps to those products, plus fresh fruits and vegetables, might do the trick.

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

They also want to get rid of Meals on Wheels. I know there is no such thing scientifically as a "soul" but these people are missing the part of your brain that gives you empathy. Everything is about making money no matter who suffers. Small cities voted Trump and his budget is designed to tear them apart. But her emails...

That's bull.

Meals on wheels gets 3% ($243k) of its budget from a large federal program. Cutting that program will not "get rid of" meals on wheels nor is it even the target.

The reason that that program gives money to meals in wheels is pure departmental self preservation. "If you cut us, seniors will starve! You hate seniors!" But most of the money is a slush fund for inner city politician pet projects and friends.

Trump has been asking around for who he should donate his salary to since he's not allowed to take just $1. I say he gives $250k to mow to shut up disingenuous whiners who equate not giving tax money to pork programs to having no soul.

airzona11 wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

BerenErchamion wrote:

So you want to cut SNAP benefits?

Because that's effectively what that would be.

People on limited incomes choose low-nutrition foods because they're cheap.

They also want to get rid of Meals on Wheels. I know there is no such thing scientifically as a "soul" but these people are missing the part of your brain that gives you empathy. Everything is about making money no matter who suffers. Small cities voted Trump and his budget is designed to tear them apart. But her emails...

Funny you mention Meals on Wheels. I work with them and have for quite a few years (shocking because people like me can't have empathy). 95+% of the budget comes from individual and corporate donors.

Yep. It's 96.7% not federally funded. It's NOT A FEDERAL PROGRAM. It was a private charity and still is, funded by donors such as soulless individuals, evil corporations, and horribly oppressive religious groups. The only reason governments give money is to protect their own backs from cuts because it's discretionary and would be "the first to go." Sort of like how the first cuts from a city budget are cops and fire men and DMV desk hours and everything that could scare you or inconvenience you into kowtowing.

NameOmitted wrote:

c933103 wrote:

while this is off topic and probably better suit my thread in #11, is it ne of the reason why American passenger train service being limited? Although above post mentioned Amtrak have priority over freight transport, but if my understand is correct, that sort of usage priority is still limited and it is unlike rail transport in rest of the road or in aircraft handling in most airports which passenger traffics are guaranteed before freight traffic. Obviously that have to do with the history of American railway development but that is probably what caused the current shape of the coutnry's rail network

Ownership of the track. If I own the track, and am running my trains on it, I can lease you space on my track, but I don't need to give you priority over my own rolling stock.

Yes that's what I was saying... I guess it would be better if either the pax company own the track, or some independent company that does not run train themselves own the track, or some government backed entity own the track just like how many other transportation infrastructures are. Afterall tracks are just like roads that let company run their vehicles on.

ikramerica wrote:

That's bull.

Meals on wheels gets 3% ($243k) of its budget from a large federal program. Cutting that program will not "get rid of" meals on wheels nor is it even the target.

The reason that that program gives money to meals in wheels is pure departmental self preservation. "If you cut us, seniors will starve! You hate seniors!" But most of the money is a slush fund for inner city politician pet projects and friends.

Trump has been asking around for who he should donate his salary to since he's not allowed to take just $1. I say he gives $250k to mow to shut up disingenuous whiners who equate not giving tax money to pork programs to having no soul.

I was just thinking to myself, "you know what this thread needs? more baseless accusations and typical libertarian talking points" thanks!

BobPatterson wrote:

No, it is not true. The nation's railroads were built and owned by private enterprise, although with various forms of public support (land grants, eminent domain, etc.) but not with public money.

"they had NO PUBLIC SUPPORT"

"okay they had a little"

"well okay they had a lot, but not public money!"

And no public money is also wrong. Not only did tax payers subsidise the building of the railroads but they were bailing out all the failed robber baron businesses along the way. But why continue this? You want to take everything out of context and while you couldn't bother to back up any of your claims about this topic, the EAS, suddenly you are interested in finding citations when only talking about railroads? This is a waste of time.

b747400erf wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

No, it is not true. The nation's railroads were built and owned by private enterprise, although with various forms of public support (land grants, eminent domain, etc.) but not with public money.

"they had NO PUBLIC SUPPORT"

"okay they had a little"

"well okay they had a lot, but not public money!"

And no public money is also wrong. Not only did tax payers subsidise the building of the railroads but they were bailing out all the failed robber baron businesses along the way. But why continue this? You want to take everything out of context and while you couldn't bother to back up any of your claims about this topic, the EAS, suddenly you are interested in finding citations when only talking about railroads? This is a waste of time.

At the bottom of your screen is a list of similar topics on a.net. You will probably see listed there an EAS thread I started and in which I posted data Including Amtrak subsidies).

It is : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355667

You need only read the page at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tran ... ted_States to begin educating yourself on who built the railroads in the United States, who financed and owned them.

Whenever you find clear references to taxpayer subsidies being used to build railroads (other than local transit systems), please let us know and post references from your research.

Thanks.

BobPatterson wrote:

At the bottom of your screen is a list of similar topics on a.net. You will probably see listed there an EAS thread I started and in which I posted data Including Amtrak subsidies).

It is : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355667

You need only read the page at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tran ... ted_States to begin educating yourself on who built the railroads in the United States, who financed and owned them.

Whenever you find clear references to taxpayer subsidies being used to build railroads (other than local transit systems), please let us know and post references from your research.

Thanks.

I am not the one who was wrong on every statement and ignored verifiable fact as you have done over and over. So do not try and lecture me about either EAS or the railroads. You have not backed up any of your arguments on either and refused to provide citations when you were challenged on your EAS claims. Land grants alone gave subsidized land to railroad companies allowing them to build the tracks for a very cheap cost. That is one of the many direct subsidies to build the railroad tracks while today railroad companies have help paying for upgrades and upkeep with money from taxpayers through Amtrak who get the pleasure of paying to use the rr company's tracks. This is basic history you cannot sit here and deny it while you pretend to be an expert. For someone priding themselves on how they believe in facts, not feelings, all you have here are feelings not facts.

Folks:
This is a discussion on the merits of cutting/keeping air service subsidies. It is *not* a discussion on:
Food programs
Junk food
Railroads, HSR, and old land grants
Military spending
Politics other than as impacted by this air service
Heath care other than is impacted by this air service

This is a civil aviation thread. Keep it civil and on topic or we moderators will have no choice but to lock this thread.

Lightsaber
Moderator airliners.net

AEROFAN wrote:

TransGlobalGold wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

"not much of Amtrak remaining.I doubt small cities even have stops on Amtrak."
You absolutely have no idea of what you speak. Such ignorance is clearly endemic in the the great unwashed and definitely in the president.

I wasn't saying Amtrak didn't exist. It has shrunk over the years. And they do not stop at everytown they pass. Believe it or not, I know this because I've ridden them several times. Also, if I'm unwashed and you think I approve of the Cheetoh in the WH, Mar Lago, Trump Tower, you are the one with no idea.

Amtrak does a damn good job of connecting backwater places such as Helper UT or Osceola, IA to civilization.

OK, good for Amtrak. Bottom line, EAS is still a waste.

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

910A wrote:

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.

First of all MQT/SAW is not an EAS airport. Second of all it's apparent that you never driven between MQT and CMX in the winter time. SSM is really CIU(Sault Ste Marie, Michigan), and if you used YAM (Sault Ste Marie, Ontario) it would require two border crossings to reach somewhere in the states.

First of all, Yes I know that.

Second of all, yes I know what its like driving in the winter in the UP. I have a lake house up there I visit year around on Lake Michigamme. Almost half way between the two.

My point was there is absolutely NO reason why 6 airports (7 if you count Rhinelander WI) in the area need service. Period. IWD, RHI, IMT and ESC can easily be whacked without much impact to anything. I cant tell you how many times I have flown into some of these airports and were ZERO passengers on the flight. Except me, one of the airline employees on board.

I think CMX could survive because of MTU....But when you have IMT and ESC with in 1-2 hour drive to either MQT or GRB/ATW.

Dear BobPatterson, I am missing your admonishment not to discuss politics on a civil aviation thread. Does it only come when you are uncomfortable with the discussion?

mjoelnir wrote:

Dear BobPatterson, I am missing your admonishment not to discuss politics on a civil aviation thread. Does it only come when you are uncomfortable with the discussion?

Read post # 137 just above. Politics (the partisan stuff) really does belong in the Non-Av Forum.

BobPatterson wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Dear BobPatterson, I am missing your admonishment not to discuss politics on a civil aviation thread. Does it only come when you are uncomfortable with the discussion?

Read post # 137 just above. Politics (the partisan stuff) really does belong in the Non-Av Forum.

I was talking about you personally, who is venting his personal political persuasion here, because in another thread you started crying about politics before anybody started on politics.

This thread's a wreck.

EAS plays an important roll for sub-1500 hour pilots who work for part 135 airlines to time build. If EAS disappears and these 135s go under, regionals could lose a massive source of future pilots.

mjoelnir wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Dear BobPatterson, I am missing your admonishment not to discuss politics on a civil aviation thread. Does it only come when you are uncomfortable with the discussion?

Read post # 137 just above. Politics (the partisan stuff) really does belong in the Non-Av Forum.

I was talking about you personally, who is venting his personal political persuasion here, because in another thread you started crying about politics before anybody started on politics.

Why not be specific and name the thread and the # of the post you are talking about. Post a link to it here so everyone can understand what you are talking about.

Also, if you wish to do so, you might describe my personal political persuasion. Nail me.

Have a nice day.

PDX88 wrote:

This thread's a wreck.

EAS plays an important roll for sub-1500 hour pilots who work for part 135 airlines to time build. If EAS disappears and these 135s go under, regionals could lose a massive source of future pilots.

A massive source of future pilots? Can you report on the age distribution of current EAS pilots?

BobPatterson wrote:

PDX88 wrote:

This thread's a wreck.

EAS plays an important roll for sub-1500 hour pilots who work for part 135 airlines to time build. If EAS disappears and these 135s go under, regionals could lose a massive source of future pilots.

A massive source of future pilots? Can you report on the age distribution of current EAS pilots?

What does the age distribution matter?

I've been a pilot for two part 135 airlines, where every first officer was sub 1500. If EAS disappears, low hour pilots will have much fewer options to time build to ATP mins.

PDX88 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

PDX88 wrote:

This thread's a wreck.

EAS plays an important roll for sub-1500 hour pilots who work for part 135 airlines to time build. If EAS disappears and these 135s go under, regionals could lose a massive source of future pilots.

A massive source of future pilots? Can you report on the age distribution of current EAS pilots?

What does the age distribution matter?

I've been a pilot for two part 135 airlines, where every first officer was sub 1500. If EAS disappears, low hour pilots will have much fewer options to time build to ATP mins.

My reason for thinking about the ages of EAS pilots is that I have read (perhaps anecdotally ?) that a number of them are near or beyond retirement age for major airlines. I do not know the truth of that but, if it is true, then the "training pool" represented by EAS would not be as "massive" as might otherwise be assumed.

I'd like to learn more about this.

BobPatterson wrote:

PDX88 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

A massive source of future pilots? Can you report on the age distribution of current EAS pilots?

What does the age distribution matter?

I've been a pilot for two part 135 airlines, where every first officer was sub 1500. If EAS disappears, low hour pilots will have much fewer options to time build to ATP mins.

My reason for thinking about the ages of EAS pilots is that I have read (perhaps anecdotally ?) that a number of them are near or beyond retirement age for major airlines. I do not know the truth of that but, if it is true, then the "training pool" represented by EAS would not be as "massive" as might otherwise be assumed.

I'd like to learn more about this.

There are a few retired 121 pilots continuing their careers at 135s, but the overwhelming majority are young time building pilots that plan to move on to regionals, especially in the right seat. When SeaPort folded, there were a lot of us who had to find other 135s because we hadn't reached 1500 yet.

EAS routes are a great way for low hour pilots to reach 1500 hours in a little over a year. In the long term, ending EAS would delay hundreds of pilots from joining regionals. It may not be where the most pilots come from, but considering the already happening shortage of pilots, it's pretty massive to the regionals.

PDX88 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

My reason for thinking about the ages of EAS pilots is that I have read (perhaps anecdotally ?) that a number of them are near or beyond retirement age for major airlines. I do not know the truth of that but, if it is true, then the "training pool" represented by EAS would not be as "massive" as might otherwise be assumed.

I'd like to learn more about this.

There are a few retired 121 pilots continuing their careers at 135s, but the overwhelming majority are young time building pilots that plan to move on to regionals, especially in the right seat. When SeaPort folded, there were a lot of us who had to find other 135s because we hadn't reached 1500 yet.

EAS routes are a great way for low hour pilots to reach 1500 hours in a little over a year. In the long term, ending EAS would delay hundreds of pilots from joining regionals. It may not be where the most pilots come from, but considering the already happening shortage of pilots, it's pretty massive to the regionals.

Thanks for the response. Another question or two:

What might be the effect on the new pilots if:

EAS was eliminated or severely cut back in the contiguous 48 states..........

AND

The 1,500 hour requirement was reduced to 1,200 or 1,000 for hiring at the regionals?