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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I might add Montana to my prior comment. In Tennessee, the city of Jackson, population 65,000 ish and eighty miles from MEM has EAS. In the 60's and 70's it was served by Southern MEM-MKL-BNA. NW Airlink flew it awhile. It's been EAS for years, bouncing between MEM, STL, and BNA. When it was Nashville, the newspaper her reported they were averaging 2-4 pax per day on 2 flights.

Dropping EAS will have almost zero effect on any hub, as long as we man the mainline carriers hubs (e.g. EWR, PHL, ORD, MSP, etc.) The EAS service by definition didn't have enough traffic to support itself and therefore the number of people who are jumping from one of these cities onto another flight is a rounding error for AA, DL or UA.

DEN serves 20 mountain and rural communities with EAS subsidised routes. Some of those have more than 1 flight a day. Some of the more populated destinations (Cody, WY etc.) get United Express. Others get a PC12 etc with carriers like Boutique Air. You can pick up a ticket from DEN to the San Luis Valley for just over $100. Overall not a huge number of passengers, but it will cut upwards of 20 flights a day from the airport.

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.

That's one program the elimination of which I fully (or almost fully) agree. Alaska might be a special case for exception.

I do think the Federal Government should subsidize, perhaps in partnership with the states, emergency air services such as medevac and fire fighting.

Most interesting thing about the NY Times report is to see a Republican Senator calling the President's budget "Dead Upon Arrival".

When Congress gets done with the budget there might be a lot less of the President's imprint left in it than when it arrived at Capitol Hill.

Get some popcorn........

Thanks everyone!

It seems like the program isn't as big as I imagined.

BobPatterson, I found your previous thread just now and it's quite enlightening. And yea, I guess we'll see if EAS manages to hang on or not, soon!

I am a fan of air travel, but it seems like in the contiguous states, they should eliminate this program. I am not saying it should continue in AK and HI, but the contiguous states seem like an easy place to start. Can anyone come up with a good airport/route in the Lower 48 that is worthy?

I don't know that I'm necessarily in favor of eliminating the program altogether, but when an airport like the one in my hometown (MKG), 45 minutes from GRR, gets an EAS subsidy there's something wrong with the selection criteria. Scale it back and fix the selection criteria, and go from there.

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.

jmc1975 wrote:

States should be given the power to determine if or where airline subsidies are needed.

Of course they have that now. Maryland gives BA 6.5m per year, for example.

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.

you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR

What about CMX? Worthy of EAS or not?

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).

32andBelow wrote:

.

you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR[/quote]
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.

32andBelow wrote:

]you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR

Don't forget RDD and EUG within 4 hours.

coronado wrote:

What about CMX? Worthy of EAS or not?

No. If there are enough people in the upper peninsula to use and pay for air service, airlines will provide it. There is no reason take money from people in other states and use it to pay for air service to the upper peninsula. Just like there is no reason to take money from people in Michigan and use it to pay for air service in Colorado, California, or other places.

Long overdue - barring many places in Alaska I suppose, EAS is a total waste of money. If people choose to live in remote, rural areas, that is their right, but not up to me or others to subsidize their travel to a large airport. Get in the car and drive.

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.[/quote]
I grew up in Los Angeles county and it could easily take 90 minutes with traffic to get to LAX. 45-60 wasn't standard. I don't see what it being a large metro or hub has to do with it. You can still go almost anywhere with 1 connection or everywhere with 2 connections. Same as everywhere else.

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. 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.

Who needs to be a millionaire or billionaire to give a rats ass about your sob story?

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.

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.

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.

Definitely smart to get rid of pork like this.

Aside from medivac + firefighting, how is 'air service' really essential to any community that has a highway within 5 hours drive?

Barrow alaska or something.... I can see that, as there are no highways. But Alaska serves that 3x daily.
I can't imagine a single reason why anyone should subsidize anyone else air travel.

Get rid of it asap.

This program should be a state or local level program with perhaps a few matching federal dollars. Maybe 10% or 20% at most.

My qualifications would be:

1) must be networked carrier with connections/interline agreements
2) must be at least 2 hour drive from nearest airport served by a network carrier
3) must be a revenue guarantee program and not a flat out all $'s in subsidy so that as service is more successful, government $$ become less used

Other posts have alluded to the necessity of rural connections and help versus the larger population centers. 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.

It used to make sense for smaller towns to have air service, back when airlines flew point-to-point. Getting on at a small town airport might mean one or two stops before reaching the large airport. But, it meant that several small towns had commercial air service.

Years ago, Hughes Air West only flew north to BOI and south to SLC out of Twin Falls, ID (TWF). Then, RW introduced one-stop service to SFO via Redding, CA. A one-stop flight via Redding was faster than flying to SLC and connecting, and you didn't run the risk of you checked bags being mishandled at SLC.

Now, Twin Falls and Redding, individually, might not have been able to support 1 R/T to SFO, but they did together.

Likewise, Central Airlines (later merged with the original Frontier), used to have a milk run from MKC to DAL. The first stop southbound was Parsons, KS, followed by Bartlesville, OK, then either TUL or OKC, and then another stop or two before DAL. Presumably, a passenger who boarded at Parsons could have been headed to Tulsa, OKC, or the D/FW Metroplex.

Now, with the hub-and-spoke system, more often than not, a plane is flying out to an EAS city from a hub, then turning around and flying back to the hub.

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.

That's oversimplifying it. I agree that there should not be subsidized services when there is a major airport available within 2-3 hours of drive, 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.

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.

Please explain what CEC means.

Thanks.

Please stuff calling some of us arrogant. You do not know where we live.

Thanks.

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.

Please provide us with some kind of list of these lower-48 places. Your top 10 ought to let us consider your point.

Thanks.

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.

...Road failing seems to be something that should cause the state to offer emergency support? and there are now double daily flight to CEC under the program?

Follow the $$$ most likely a lot of the EAS routes that "make no sense" IE: the Tennessee story mentioned above, those tend to have a direct link to the proponent and supporter in DC. AK, HI, PR & USVI have geographic challenges and a different set of conditions. Lower 48 routes, Not so much.... Perhaps a blanket requirement that there is no land connection will trim the program. Eliminating it or passing to individual States for governance is not the solution.

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.

It's almost like maybe they should use tax dollars to fix the roads, rather than subsidizing your air service. If you're less than 3-4 hours from an airport with sched service, it's not essential air service. It's a taxpayer subsidy to save you time. Even at 4 hours drive, I'd hardly call it essential. Will you suffer a lack of food or other supplies as a result? nope? Then it's not essential. I'll even include the definition of essential for you

es·sen·tial
/əˈsen(t)SHəl/
adjective
adjective: essential
1.
absolutely necessary; extremely important.
"it is essential to keep up-to-date records"
synonyms: crucial, necessary, key, vital, indispensable, important, all-important, of the essence, critical, imperative, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory; More
urgent, pressing, paramount, preeminent, high-priority, nonnegotiable;
informal must-have
"it is essential to remove the paint"
antonyms: unimportant, optional
•fundamental or central to the nature of something or someone.
"the essential weakness of the plaintiff's case"
synonyms: basic, inherent, fundamental, quintessential, intrinsic, underlying, characteristic, innate, primary, elementary, elemental; More
central, pivotal, vital
"the essential simplicity of his style"
antonyms: secondary
•Biochemistry
(of an amino acid or fatty acid) required for normal growth but not synthesized in the body and therefore necessary in the diet.
2.
Medicine
(of a disease) with no known external stimulus or cause; idiopathic.
"essential hypertension"
noun

noun: essential; plural noun: essentials
1.
a thing that is absolutely necessary.
"we had only the bare essentials in the way of gear"
synonyms: necessity, prerequisite, requisite, requirement, need;


You wanna talk essential? How 'bout places in AK that literally have no other way to get to, except air. That's essential. Where I work, we fly in similar conditions. WXX keeps you out for a few days? Stores literally run out of food and supplies. THAT's essential. You not wanting to drive 2 hours, nah, not essential at all. Wanna be closer to an airport? Live somewhere else.

Like another poster said, pro's and con's of where you live. You want the tranquil, rural life? You're gonna sacrifice some things, perhaps having sched service within a few miles. Perhaps your amazon packages take longer. Such is life. Similarly, someone in NYC or another major metro area has great options for air service, but guess what, they also have to put up with traffic on their commute, noise at every hour of the day, etc.


EDIT: Seems the quote function's buggered my quote. Anyways, I was trying to reply to the guy who was complaining that there's elk on the road, in case it wasn't obvious

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.

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.

CEC seems to be everyone favorite whipping boy here. Wingtips is correct, the EAS is an important lifeline to NW California and SE Oregon. They don't even have Greyhound service in that part of the world. When I was stationed there, I was using the service once a month, for a trip to SAN for a meeting it was a double connect CEC-ACV-SFO-SAN..Crescent City/Brookings/Klamath/Pelican Bay Prison just isn't any easy place to get to. Roads are undependable. Someone wrote travel to RDD. Well currently highway 299 (the highway from Eureka to Redding) has been closed more than it's been open. Highway 199 from the Crescent City to Grants Pass is dangerous any time of the year.

32andBelow wrote:
.you're 40 minutes from ACV and not much further to MFR

In the old days you and i might be exchanging autographs if you attempted to make Arcata in 40 minutes. MFR was 112 miles from my house to the airport, which was over an two hour drive. Do away with the EAS in CEC then you will have a federally funded brand new terminal which is being constructed sitting empty.

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.

For the same reason they get roads and bridges subsidized by mainland tax dollars. Hell Alaska has a boat service that's considered to be part of the interstate highway system so it gets federal infrastructure spending as well. Rural areas in the mainland get disproportionate transportation spending as well. That's just how it works. The country doesn't function if there aren't disparate levels of spending based on infrastructure needs.

Also come on, oil companies? Oil companies aren't going to pay for air infrastructure. They're for profit companies. They'll only fund what benefits them. As for the Alaska Permanent Fund from oil tax revenue, you could make the same argument for other petro states like Texas and North Dakota. Why fund infrastructure in either of those for that matter? Have the oil companies pay for it!

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.

States like spending other people's money. Congressmen and senators brag about that endlessly, actually. You can look at the scale of Federal subsidies to Amtrak vs. state subsidies to Amtrak (about 6:1 in 2015) to see how EAS might shrink if it relied on state funding.

Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckonin ... taxes.html

I am quite familiar with the budget process, and, my point, the disproportional count of senators in states that get the bulk of EAS subsidies. What the president proposes on a line-item basis is almost irrelevant, even with majorities in both houses by his own party.

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.

That area isn't all that far from MFR, and US 199 isn't falling into the ocean.

David

TransGlobalGold wrote:

There is a reason the airlines dropped the cities.

There is, but economic efficiency and social value are not the same thing. For example, social welfare programs are a drag on economic efficiency, but we have them because decent people agree that keeping people from dying of starvation is more important than maximizing GDP.

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

And in the meantime?

Because, you know, major highway reconstruction projects don't happen overnight...

This proposed budget is nothing more than the barbarians attacking civilization.

EAS is a tool politicians use to get votes in those communities. Pork. And, of course, we hate someone else's pork, but love pork that helps us.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, but they're bringing decent society down with them.

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.

Alaska has a population less than a medium sized California city. How ridiculous to complain that CA gets more in funding.

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.

I 100% agree. If a state feels it is important enough, they may subsidize. Otherwise, an air taxi will do the job. I see no reason for paying people to live isolated​ lifestyles.

Subsidized by the state airtaxi or air ambulance? Yes!

As to Colorado, I've flown EAS and been 1 of 3 people onboard. The other two were relatives as we went to a wedding in Telluride. Why is services to near resorts subsidized? The shuttle to the hotel was paid.. by the hotel! (And our room rates).

One relative, who hates to fly, drove Denver to Telluride. He didn't take that much longer (our flight was delayed).

Lightsaber

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.

You and I know that, his supporters still do not. These are the people that will be cheering on Trump's budget that gets rid of Meals on Wheels, cuts NIH funding by 20% and more. They still aren't tired of winning.

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.

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.

How do you know? I see the word pork repeated over and over like people have their talking points to fall back on, but not one study that looks at who benefits from these programs, and what total economic benefits they give to the smaller cities. This is a whole lot of Fox News "pork" "wasteful spending" "corrupt politicians" a lot of dogs barking but no real facts. Sort of like the conservatives in a nutshell.