Originally Posted by
Copperhed51
Yes, but when you add the cost of EAS to the cost of our illegal war in Iraq, you just increase the national debt. Just because you aren't adding as big of a chunk doesn't mean it's ok to add it...though most of Congress seems to disagree with that view.........
As you know, we codeshare with United and Frontier. They both have a very very tiny presence in STL. AA also barely has any flights in STL. Southwest has a bunch but nobody codeshares with them. Point is, there are hardly any codeshare connections on us into STL. If we went to ORD, I think we'd have a ton more people flying.
This is a little political and falls into the realm of personal belief, but I, personally, believe you have to look at government spending from an investment standpoint. There are good investments, and bad investments. When the government invests in roads and bridges where they are needed, that is a good investment. It opens up the ability for increased, or better transportation, and the increase in business and opportunity that goes along with that. If we look at all government spending as bad, then building roads and bridges should have never taken place to begin with. They aren't essential, after all. Humanity has existed for thousands of years without the automobile, right? In all seriousness, this country and American business would be crippled and sickly, without our well-established system of roads and bridges. With EAS, it's really hard to quantify the return on investment, but it is there, believe it or not. The question is: is it a good investment, or bad one? Do the returns cover the cost of the investment? Major airlines are provided with passengers they wouldn't normally have; jobs are created; small communities are connected to the rest of the world; businesses are attracted to these communities, because of the airline service, etc., etc... I feel that there are things that should be done, to ensure that the cost of the investment does not exceed the return. They need to tighten up the requirements for EAS city qualification. Example: Pueblo, CO should not be an EAS city, because of it's proximity to Colorado Springs, which has major airline service. Also, two EAS cities in close proximity to each other should not both be able to qualify for EAS funds; only one of them should be able to qualify. The requirements for the size of the aircraft should be changed, depending on the market, as well. A twin-Cessna would be great for a few of our EAS cities. For others, a Beech 1900 isn't big enough to handle the demand. As far as your statement about St. Louis; I was speaking about the entire EAS system. I agree with your feelings about it, and in my opinion, the St. Louis flying is almost completely worthless in every way, shape, and form. We needed a more solid code share, and a worthwhile hub, with that flying. I'm not sure why we didn't line that up, before we bid for it. I'm happy we are discontinuing it. Now that was a bad investment, and a waste of money. I'll agree with that.