A good point. People have family and jobs that they can't just uproot and take elsewhere. I personally wouldn't want to live in most of the communities served by EAS but that's my personal choice, as living there is their choice. If their choice means they don't get easy and cheap access to air travel, that's one thing, but anyone who just made the argument "if you don't like it then move" never gets to complain about commuting ever again.

Now, I'm not a complete idiot. The country is broke and I agree that some of these cities probably don't need them. My company does two cities. One is fairly isolated, driving wise, and one is within a 45 minute or hour drive of two cities with some non subsidized regional service. The former city usually provides fuller flights. I think it's worth reevaluating which of these routes is really useful and eliminating the ones that aren't. EAS is still valuable to many communities, especially out west, and completely eliminating the program would be a disservice to the communities and to the aviation industry. I also agree that $400 million is a drop in the bucket compared to other massive programs that need to be trimmed down. I think ultimately they'll find a middle ground and keep some of the program.

Either way there needs to be some compromise between "lets subsidize everything" and "the government shouldn't help anybody." It seems like people are so closed minded and opposed to dialogue about any idea's they disagree with. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but I just personally get worried by this "if you don't like it, **** you" mentality that seems to be more and more pervasive. It's the real world and the government is always going to do things you disagree with no matter what your affiliations are. It's no secret that aviation is an industry populated by right leaning pilots (at least in my experience) who want less government involvement in everyday life and that's fine. But I'm just surprised that any professional pilot would want to see money cut from any aviation related programs when there's other needs to be addressed first.

 

I don't have kids but my tax dollars go towards education. What about the two wars being funded by the tax dollars of pacifists? You don't get to pick and choose what your taxes go towards. Everyone pays them and, as we see here, you're never going to get everyone to agree on which social programs are worthwhile. You might donate money to programs that I personally don't agree with. It doesn't mean those programs don't need money or aren't important to the people whose lives they affect. I know we can't pay for everything but do you know how much of "YOUR money" goes towards it. I assure you it's an insanely insignificant amount compared to defense spending, social security, medicare, etc. Aren't there other programs worth rallying against and fixing before we pull money from the industry we all work in?

 

All I can say is I recommend a very informative read. It's called The Constitution.

 

Oh, okay. You can just admit that you have no comeback. I've read the Constitution and I wasn't surprised to learn it doesn't mention federally subsided air travel because airplanes wouldn't be invented for 125 years.

Though, I suppose EVERY single government program or action you support is explicitly stated in the constitution?

 

Senate passes broad aviation bill

By JOAN LOWY Associated Press © 2011 The Associated Press

Feb. 17, 2011, 11:27PM



WASHINGTON — A broad aviation bill that would advance modernization of the nation's air traffic control system and boost airport construction was approved Thursday by the Senate.
The bill was approved 87-8. A similar aviation bill cleared a House committee earlier this week.
Congress has been struggling for more than three years to pass an aviation bill that renews Federal Aviation Administration programs and speeds up the transition from an air traffic control system based on World War II-era radar technology to GPS technology.
"There is more technology in my cell phone than in most aircraft," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said afterward, waving his phone. "We're going to take that technology out of a cell phone and put it on aircraft and make it safer and more efficient."
The new air traffic system will allow planes to fly more precise routes between airports, saving time, money and fuel. The satellite technology will update the location of planes every second instead of radar's every six to 12 seconds. Pilots will be able to tell not only the location of their plane, but other planes equipped with the new technology as well — something they can't do now.
Democrats described the measure as a jobs-creation bill. They estimate the $8 billion in airport construction funds will support 90,000 current or new jobs and have a beneficial spinoff effect on the employment of another 190,000 workers. The estimate is based on a calculation that $1 billion in federal spending supports 35,000 jobs. It presumes a 20 percent match by local airport authorities in addition to the federal dollars.
"The Senate has now done what the House Republicans haven't even tried yet, which is pass a major jobs bill," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
A major hurdle to passage was removed earlier in the day when an agreement was reached to add up to 16 daily round trip flights between Reagan National Airport, the closest airport to the nation's capital, and Western states. The airport, located across the Potomac River in Virginia and within sight of the Capitol dome, operates flights mostly with a 1,250-mile "perimeter" imposed decades ago to foster the growth of nearby Washington Dulles International Airport, west of the capital.
Western senators long have complained that the perimeter rule prevents all but a few direct flights from the West Coast. But Virginia and Maryland senators have opposed the expansion of Western flights out of concern that it would draw lucrative air traffic away from the larger Dulles, located farther away from Washington, and from Baltimore-Washington International Airport in Maryland.
Small airports would lose federally subsidized airline service if they are within 90 miles of a larger airport or serve less than 10 passengers a day under proposals by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that were added to the bill.
One airport that would lose federal subsidies is in Macon, Ga., which is just 80 miles from Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, according to Coburn's office. Hartsfield is one of the world's busiest airports. The 35-minute flight to Macon costs passengers just $39 per seat, but taxpayers pick up $464 bill, according to Coburn's staff.
Other airports that would lose subsidies include Athens, Ga.; Lebanon, N.H.; Jamestown, N.Y.; Hagerstown, Md.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Morgantown, W.Va.; Jackson, Tenn.; Lititz, Pa., and Franklin-Oil City, Pa., according to a list provided by Coburn's staff.
Earlier, the Senate rejected 61-38 a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to eliminate the entire $200 million Essential Air Service program. The program was created to ensure that less-profitable routes to small airports wouldn't be eliminated when airline service was deregulated in 1978. Critics say the airports often serve too few people to merit the amount of money spent in subsidies.
The bill would also:
_Give the FAA one year to develop a plan for broader domestic use of unmanned aircraft. The Defense Department has been pressing the FAA to set aside larger swaths of U.S. airspace for testing unmanned planes. State and local governments, industry and researchers also have been clamoring for permission to use the planes more widely.
Among the many potential uses are tracking criminals for law enforcement agencies, monitoring pipelines and counting cattle.
But the FAA has been slow to grant wider use of unmanned aircraft beyond military testing, a few border patrol planes and limited use by researchers. Agency officials have complained that they lack enough safety data for unmanned aircraft and that they pose risks not associated with planes with onboard pilots.
_Make it a federal law that airlines can't keep passengers trapped in planes on airport tarmacs for longer than three hours without giving them the opportunity to get off. Airlines also would have to provide passengers with water.
The provision is nearly identical to rules already adopted last year by the Transportation Department. But the provision's sponsors said putting the passenger protections into law makes it more difficult to roll them back in the future.
"We don't know what the next president will do," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Airlines oppose the three-hour limit, which they say has led to more flight cancellations and more inconvenience.

Senate passes broad aviation bill | Top AP Stories | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

Ok, fine then I'll give you a response but this is getting overly political.

Education is not supposed to be federally funded according to the constitution. It is a state issue.

Defense IS a federal function and my tax dollars should go toward it.

The point of having a document that spells out what the federal government can and can't do (and by the way, if it's not as up to date as you like, they have conveniently built in an amendment process so you can change it instead of ignoring it) is so that the representatives have some legal basis to make their funding decisions on. Just because a rep here or there likes a specific issue should not mean it gets funding from federal tax dollars. They have to prove it's ok under the constitution. As for each of the other issues you mentioned, I can argue them but this is not the forum.

Finally, if people are so fickle in their principles that they choose to ignore them because it's currently benefiting them at the expense of everybody as a whole, we are screwed and that's exactly why we are where we are right now. I choose to support ending EAS not because I dislike the industry I work in but because I don't change my principles simply because doing the wrong thing is benefiting me at the time.

I have a sound reason for the things I support so I don't appreciate being attacked. Political discussions tend to end up this way though.

Now, we can all prepare for this thread to be locked...

 

It wasn't my intention to attack you personally and I apologize if it came off that way. I don't want to get into a pointless political debate, I was just trying to point out the quantity of the federally funded programs that aren't provided for in the constitution. The fact that I would rather have those other programs cut than the one that affects me is admittedly self serving, but I'm of the opinion that it would serve everyone well to solve the big problems first and then clean up the rest.

I don't necessarily disagree with you and you make valid and logical points that I will concede to. Again, apologies if you felt my comments were an attack. I'll admit I'm a little frustrated by this because I passed my checkride yesterday and now it appears I'll be out of a job in the near future.

 

And I am saddened by how many people say "we need to cut spending...... but not on MY benefits".

 

No, you're right, and I already admitted that it was an emotional reaction on my part. It's the extremity of party separations that frustrates me though, and both sides are guilty. Why is it that when Republicans talk about cutting spending they only go after programs supported by Democrats and vice versa? There's no give and take.

EDIT: Disregard. Sorry. This isn't the place for political discussions.

 

No worries. I was just trying to get away from political talk by not responding directly to your points. Congrats on the checkride. Sorry to hear about the job situation. Lots of people hiring though so hopefully you can cash in on a new opportunity.