BobPatterson wrote:

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?

Fresh commercial pilots will have to find jobs like flight instruction, skydiving, pipeline patrol, or a part 135 that doesn't depend on EAS, which are very few.

Also, dual crew part 135 carriers are great for teaching CRM. Someone at a part 135 has been in a crew environment for most of their time flying an airplane, and has an easier time adapting to a regional flight deck than flight instructors, skydive, etc.

For the second question, if you graduate from an accredited college, you can meet restricted ATP mins at 1250 or 1000 hours depending on your degree. To reduce it for everyone, however, ATP mins need to drop below 1500, since an ATP is a requirement to fly for a 121 carrier. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even if it dropped to 1000, that still requires a time building job for a lengthy amount of time, so the 500 hour drop only eliminates 6-8 months of flying at a job you already have. The main issue isn't the 1500 hour requirement, it's the number of jobs available for pilots to reach 1500.

Here is Sawyer Airport (MQT/SAW) statement on the presidential budget and EAS

SAWYER -- It's been a busy winter so far for Sawyer International Airport.

As of March 1, they added new flights that route through Minneapolis - and have already seen the benefits of the new addition.

Duane DuRay, Airport Manager, explained, "With the additional flight, that is 100 more seats into our airport everyday. That's 50 in, 50 out. And from the onset of the flights, the flights have been relatively full - if not overbooked."

The Essential Air Service program has been applied in rural communities for over 40 years, and has shown promising results in keeping those communities thriving. There are 5 airports in the U.P. alone that rely on EAS funding.

"As the president slated, the current bill for Essential Air Service on an annual basis is 175 million dollars. The U.P. in itself is about 13 million for subsidies to the 5 subsidized airports," DuRay added.

And in light of President Trump's proposed budget cuts, DuRay shared some thoughts on how he thinks it may impact the close-knit communities of the U.P.

"Marquette is the only airport in the U.P. that does not have Essential Air Service. So, this cut would not directly impact us. But indirectly, it could effect us," DuRay said.

"Economically, due to the fact that an airport to a community is an economic engine. Escanaba, Iron Mountain, the surrounding airports that have the Essential Air Service subsidy - if that funding were to go away, it could have serious ramifications on their economies."

http://www.upmatters.com/news/local-new ... /674236076

delete

910A wrote:

Here is Sawyer Airport (MQT/SAW) statement on the presidential budget and EAS

As a Marquette native, thanks for posting this. I've been wondering about what EAS cuts would mean for Marquette's traffic. The statement from the airport seems to indicate it wouldn't be good for anybody- but wouldn't it boost traffic to MQT? Escanaba, Iron Mountain, and to a lesser extent Houghton are all very close to MQT, 1 hour, 1.5hr, and 2hr respectively. If each of them got cut, Marquette would be the closest airport to each with scheduled service, so it would be the best option for people from those cities to drive to MQT instead of GRB, ATW, or DLH. That would mean more people using MQT, and thus a potential for more flights and bigger aircraft. Obviously, this would be hugely annoying for residents of CMX ESC and IMT, but I only see it as a good thing for MQT.

I really think that EAS should be reserved for people in truly isolated areas of the country, like the Aleutian Islands, rural mainland Alaska, or other areas that are a very long drive (7+ hours) from the nearest civilization. Yoopers are used to driving ~2 hours on a regular basis, so I don;t see why losing their local service would be a massive deal.

N415XJ wrote:

910A wrote:

Here is Sawyer Airport (MQT/SAW) statement on the presidential budget and EAS

As a Marquette native, thanks for posting this. I've been wondering about what EAS cuts would mean for Marquette's traffic. The statement from the airport seems to indicate it wouldn't be good for anybody- but wouldn't it boost traffic to MQT? Escanaba, Iron Mountain, and to a lesser extent Houghton are all very close to MQT, 1 hour, 1.5hr, and 2hr respectively. If each of them got cut, Marquette would be the closest airport to each with scheduled service, so it would be the best option for people from those cities to drive to MQT instead of GRB, ATW, or DLH. That would mean more people using MQT, and thus a potential for more flights and bigger aircraft. Obviously, this would be annoying for residents of CMX ESC and IMT, and potentially cause the number of people who fly to drop, but I only see it as a good thing for MQT.

I really think that EAS should be reserved for people in truly isolated areas of the country, like the Aleutian Islands, rural mainland Alaska, or other areas that are a very long drive (7+ hours) from the nearest civilization. Yoopers are used to driving ~2 hours on a regular basis, so I don;t see why losing their local service would be a massive deal. Certainly, having to take a mini road trip that you've taken a hundred times in the past to go shopping or visit friends is a lot less serious than living on a rock in the middle of the North Pacific and getting your only fast, reliable connection to the outside word severed.

lightsaber wrote:

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

Thanks for the effort.

Back to EAS - I don't know enough about all of the airports that receive subsidies. From what I've read elsewhere, this is a program that provides a valuable service, but has also been abused by politicians for pet projects and there are airports that receive subsidies.

I have also read that expenditures have increased by hundreds of percent since 2000, after being almost flat for at least a decade. This leads me to believe that congress through the first 16 years of this century have been in some pork barrel spending.

On a related note, as urbanization continues to accelerate, I wonder what the impact to the EAS communities will be over the next half century or so.

The politics of trains and plains are that enough senators need to gathered to include funding. This does not always result in the best use of money, but that is how politics work. I have wondered if it might not be better to include all transportation modes for our more isolated areas. Seven hours is a little too extreme, I suspect that 2-3 hours is closer to ideal.

Wingtips56 wrote:

EAS is such a tiny part of government spending that it should not be such a political football.

Cutting a lot of little programs, has the same effect as cutting a large one. The deficit is outrageous and we need to cut cut cut. Sure some of these programs are nice, but if you really want to live in the middle of no-where, you might have to face long drives. The country to too broke to keep funding this kind of stuff.

KWexpress wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

EAS is such a tiny part of government spending that it should not be such a political football.

Cutting a lot of little programs, has the same effect as cutting a large one. The deficit is outrageous and we need to cut cut cut. Sure some of these programs are nice, but if you really want to live in the middle of no-where, you might have to face long drives. The country to too broke to keep funding this kind of stuff.

Or you could cut a big program, like the military, a few percent. Or you could stop giving rich people special discounts on taxes. Warren Buffet pays taxes at a lower percentage than his secretary. I could give you a few more ideas. The high deficit is a result of cutting taxes while increasing spending.

If you get rid of EAS, then the government needs to stop subsidizing Amtrak. Win-Win.

This EAS program has been repealed more often than the House has repealed Obamacare, and they're both still here and I'll bet you they'll be here for a long time..

Sure, the EAS is crazy, like funding for most everything for transportation in our country is. And, like cars and driving will take care of everyone's needs. How long will it be that for most people in this country, a 25 mile trip to anywhere, will take you 3 or 4 hours driving, over pothole after pothole, and crumbling bridges.

And those people in small communities, why are people in these small communities, like they had a choice where they were born? Half of Pennsylvania must have moved to the DC area, and look at the mess DC traffic is today, and for those of us here, getting to an airport is just about impossible during rush hour. For those of you who never left Pa., sorry, no airline service for you and if you think you can get to an airport from where you live...good luck!

Do you think States have big money for transportation infrastructure and they will use the money to support anything more than what the crazy local politicians want?

Someday, somebody will have the smarts and the authority to design a truly integrated transportation system for the entire country, without regard to individual State lines, integrating air service, airport connector service, regional and local rail service, highways, roads reserved for trucks, metropolitan transit systems, etc--and have the power to make everyone pay for all of it. Probably not in a thousand years, gotta build a wall and vet the whole world first. Heaven help us!

EAS? Probably every airport in the country, other than the hubs, will be in something like EAS program in a few years. And, for those that are hubs, things change quickly, and then--see you later, then what?

N415XJ wrote:

Yoopers are used to driving ~2 hours on a regular basis, so I don;t see why losing their local service would be a massive deal.

They don't necessarily lose their service. If there are enough passengers willing to pay for service to make it economically viable, the airlines will provide it.

panova98 wrote:

This EAS program has been repealed more often than the House has repealed Obamacare..........

.......... a 25 mile trip to anywhere, will take you 3 or 4 hours driving, over pothole after pothole, and crumbling bridges.

Half of Pennsylvania must have moved to the DC area............

EAS? Probably every airport in the country, other than the hubs, will be in something like EAS program in a few years.

Amazing display of logic and reasoning. Congratulations.

Dutchy wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

N415XJ wrote:

Yoopers are used to driving ~2 hours on a regular basis, so I don;t see why losing their local service would be a massive deal.

They don't necessarily lose their service. If there are enough passengers willing to pay for service to make it economically viable, the airlines will provide it.

brilliant, so basically nothing will change then.

Sure things will change, like the postal service subsidising service to smaller cities, the point is to make it more affordable with subsidies because it is difficult if not impossible to make a profit with air service to smaller cities.

Back to the topic at hand, which is civil aviation.

Here is a link to the airports that have EAS in 2016 in the lower 48.
https://www.transportation.gov/policy/a ... ommunities

Assuming some should be cut, which ones would you cut?

I would start with:

Muscle Shoals
Jonesboro
Hot Springs
Decatur
Marion
Burlington
Sioux City

There are more but don't want to spend time going through entire 100+ list. Actually is seems many of the places are within 90 minutes of an airport in a larger city. So a big cut back to just those more difficult to access areas in places like UP of MI, MT, etc.would at least halve this list.

capitalflyer wrote:

Assuming some should be cut, which ones would you cut?

I would start with:

Muscle Shoals
Jonesboro
Hot Springs
Decatur
Marion
Burlington
Sioux City

While Sioux City (great airport code of SUX) is on the EAS eligible list I don't think they've had subsidized flights for many years. I would agree all of the cities in Iowa should be removed from the list. They are all within driving distance of viable airports at DSM, CID, SUX, MLI, or OMA.

IPFreely wrote:

While Sioux City (great airport code of SUX) is on the EAS eligible list I don't think they've had subsidized flights for many years. I would agree all of the cities in Iowa should be removed from the list. They are all within driving distance of viable airports at DSM, CID, SUX, MLI, or OMA.

Sioux City had subsidized service from American Airlines until approximately May 1, 2016 at a subsidy level of about $25 per pax. When in 2015 DOT called for bids for continuation of the service beyond May 1, 2016, American submitted a bid to continue the service without subsidy. United was prepared to submit a competing bid.

Sioux City still qualifies for EAS under DOT's rules, but subsidies are not required at the present time. They could again be required in the future if costs escalate or passenger demand (revenue) drops.

At present, this is one of the good outcomes of the EAS program.

Source: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0131-0115

b747400erf wrote:

This President was supposed to be fighting for the little people, now his cuts are going to hurt them the most. It might be mismanaged or too large but the purpose it serves is the same as subsidizing the USPS so every inch of America costs the same to send letters.

These EAS flights Do need to be cut way back if not end all of them. Let the states take over the roll they know what cities need it and what don't. With the system now there encouraged to fight for all cities to get service that they can since it from the feds. If the cost comes from there state budget I feel the fat will be trimmed correctly.

I believe he is fighting for the Little guy the ones that need it will be taking the cheapest option most times due to there need to do that to make ends meet and Grey hound I'll be is going to be cheaper. I really doubt the extremely poor are taking these flights. Way better things the federal tax dollars can go to to help the LITTLE GUY I believe then EAS flights.