Essential Air Service
02-18-2007, 09:27 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Essential Air Service
Well, I started reading this because someone on the regional form posted a link to news about ExpressJet. Anyway, this story is about Essential Air Service (EAS), and I thought it was quite a good read.
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
If it's not the first story, scroll down to February 12th.
What does everyone think?
I think this article is dead on. EAS needs to stop flying to small communities that don't deserve air serve. Take Pueblo, CO. I have spent time in Pueblo, and have several friends from that little town. It does not need air service. It is only 45 minutes from Colorado Springs that has plenty of air service. Both are connected by a major interstate highway (I-25) Load factor is 28% for the PUB-DEN subsidized route on a B-1900. That's about 5 seats! Two flights a day. The government does not need to subsidize this route. Let it die. KCOS is an alternative for a small, not very important town like Pueblo. But people like Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) want to keep this program the way it is (which is pretty much like the 1970's) to suck up to voters in those tiny towns.
On the other end of the spectrum is towns that deserve EAS. The article mentions Presque Isle, Maine. 50 miles from the nearest interstate. 2-3 hour drive to the nearest airport on a good weather day. Service is three S-340's (34 seats) and load factor on the route is 50%. That town deserves EAS. But Bush wants to cut funding for the entire EAS program.
Cutting funding for the program cuts funding for EAS routes that are useful, like the Presque Isle, Maine route.
The real solution is to fix EAS. Cut service to towns that do not deserve it (Pueblo is one). Keep existing funding and service levels at places that need EAS (like Presque Isle, Maine. This solves the problem.
1. Cuts cost by cutting service where it is not needed
2. Keeps EAS funding at 100% for airports that do need it
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
If it's not the first story, scroll down to February 12th.
What does everyone think?
I think this article is dead on. EAS needs to stop flying to small communities that don't deserve air serve. Take Pueblo, CO. I have spent time in Pueblo, and have several friends from that little town. It does not need air service. It is only 45 minutes from Colorado Springs that has plenty of air service. Both are connected by a major interstate highway (I-25) Load factor is 28% for the PUB-DEN subsidized route on a B-1900. That's about 5 seats! Two flights a day. The government does not need to subsidize this route. Let it die. KCOS is an alternative for a small, not very important town like Pueblo. But people like Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) want to keep this program the way it is (which is pretty much like the 1970's) to suck up to voters in those tiny towns.
On the other end of the spectrum is towns that deserve EAS. The article mentions Presque Isle, Maine. 50 miles from the nearest interstate. 2-3 hour drive to the nearest airport on a good weather day. Service is three S-340's (34 seats) and load factor on the route is 50%. That town deserves EAS. But Bush wants to cut funding for the entire EAS program.
Cutting funding for the program cuts funding for EAS routes that are useful, like the Presque Isle, Maine route.
The real solution is to fix EAS. Cut service to towns that do not deserve it (Pueblo is one). Keep existing funding and service levels at places that need EAS (like Presque Isle, Maine. This solves the problem.
1. Cuts cost by cutting service where it is not needed
2. Keeps EAS funding at 100% for airports that do need it
03-03-2007, 10:39 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 828
I agree, in part.
Cutting all funding for EAS is wrong and will cost hundreds of jobs.
Other than Pueblo, there are places like:
Clovis, New Mexico
Ogdensburg, New York
Massena, New York
Plattsburgh, New York
A number of the Big Sky's Montana routes, etc.
The list goes on and on.
Cutting all funding for EAS is wrong and will cost hundreds of jobs.
Other than Pueblo, there are places like:
Clovis, New Mexico
Ogdensburg, New York
Massena, New York
Plattsburgh, New York
A number of the Big Sky's Montana routes, etc.
The list goes on and on.
03-03-2007, 11:20 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by DMEarc
I agree, in part.
Cutting all funding for EAS is wrong and will cost hundreds of jobs.
Other than Pueblo, there are places like:
Clovis, New Mexico
Ogdensburg, New York
Massena, New York
Plattsburgh, New York
A number of the Big Sky's Montana routes, etc.
The list goes on and on.
Cutting all funding for EAS is wrong and will cost hundreds of jobs.
Other than Pueblo, there are places like:
Clovis, New Mexico
Ogdensburg, New York
Massena, New York
Plattsburgh, New York
A number of the Big Sky's Montana routes, etc.
The list goes on and on.
What they are talking about doing is cutting service within 250 miles of a hub or major secondary. That's a 4 and half hour drive on a good day with major interstates. Frankly thats too far, people will simply stop flying or the ones that need too will move out of those communities, either way its not good. A two hour drive should have to be the farthest in my opinion.
For the record I fly out of an EAS city that doesn't need it. But we move 7-19 people a flight. And the people love the convience. It is there tax dollars at work as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
