How are the barriers "artificially high?" Do you think there should be zero standards? I wouldn't consider the currently reasonable standards to be "artificial."

So if I prefer to maximize my paycheck, am I a not decent, terrible, greedy human being? Sorry, I'm a proponent of the free market; I want to maximize my paycheck.

If you're so opposed to free markets, I'm sure places like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea would gladly take you in.

 

When I flew EAS, we had a city that was an hour drive from three other cities that had non subsidized jet service to several large hub airports. I couldn't wrap my head around this route as we served it with 12 flights a day to two different hub cities. I'd say for loads, we were moving maybe 40 people a day out and into this city.

Anyway the gotcha on this route is that the city had the headquarters for a fortune 50 company that was being rumored to move their corporate offices to one of those hub cities. The only reason the EAS route existed was because this company liked the idea of a government subsidized corporate shuttle. If the route ends, well this company has one more reason to move. The city wants to keep the route to keep this company. No private company should get travel on the public dime but this is an incentive that keeps small markets from losing their bread and butter employers. If EAS goes away, I can see a lot of these communities losing the businesses that inject a lot of money into the local economy.

 

So you're saying I should want a low paycheck to avoid "hurting" airline customers and investors? Sorry, I disagree. I want the best paycheck possible.

 

There are lots of other subsidies that directly benefit the transportation industry in remote places, besides EAS. Basically any person that needs a ticket to either perform or get some kind of service. So EAS isn't necessarily the only thing going on.

 

Exactly. If there is demand for profitable airline service in an area, some airline is going to try to make money in that market. If there isn't enough demand from customers for regularly scheduled airline service, at least charter flights or fractionals are available.

Either way, the taxpayers should not be held responsible for spending millions of dollars to fly empty airplanes just so a handful of people can get a cheap airline ticket.

 

It's not the EAS itself flying that's a waste, it's the structure of the flying. A lot of government officials use EAS along with private sector business leaders. Tax payer money buys enough seats for the airline to break even. Government workers also purchase seats with tax payer money that are already paid for with tax payer money.

We the tax payers pay double for many of those seats and the EAS operator rakes in the cheese while flying a plane from point A to point B with half the seats empty.

There are positive economic gains from EAS flying, not doubt. But, it would save tax payer money if a government entity operated the EAS flights with the right equipment, right frequency and most importantly by highly trained and compensated, government employed pilots.

Tax payer money is already funding the cost to operate fixed-wing planes for the highway patrol, department of wildlife and many other government entities. Why can't those planes and pilots be used on the side for EAS routes to generate some revenue that will lower their overall costs and keep the economic benefits of EAS going?

 

Hyperbole. Some very important places are.

 

With your reasoning we need to close DCA.

Your second thought tells me you need to read up on the last time the Army was detailed to carry the mail.

 

The barriers are artificially high because of the 1500 hour rule which is completely arbitrary.

Nothing wrong with maximizing your paycheck, but what you're trying to do in this situation is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

And I am actually a free market guy who supports eliminating the EAS completely, along with the rest of the the FARs that are protectionist in nature. But if the EAS is eliminated and the 1500 hour rule is not, it is going to worsen the pilot shortage at the regionals.

 

I gather you are the same guy in the low time thread asking about next steps. Am I correct?

Do not worry about the poor regionals and their staffing issues. They have paid people working on it. Trust me when I say, in time you will realize that regionals are not a great place to be. Better than they were, but still not great. The 1500hr rule came about because the regionals had some horrible industry practices. Over the years these practices have killed many people. Basically what I am saying is this: the regionals have done this to themselves. Let them worry about keeping themselves above water.

Lastly just keep trying to get flight time. Ya 1500 hrs sux when ure only a thitd of the way there. But once you cross over you will find that even 1500 is not that much. My point is, in addition to gaining the hours to get solid employment, learn as much as you can from those that have done it already. Dont enter this industry with a know it all attitude.