EAS cuts could ground rural communities
 

The common scenario of an entire ground ops team plus 8 full-time TSA's standing around all day to handle three (3) pax ovre the course of the day really is pushing the envelope of fraud, waste, and abuse.

Maybe they don't need to cut it entirely, but they should certainly weed out those destinations which have negligible traffic.

My Vote: Dump IYK and IPL

My opinion is to dump all EAS, except places in Alaska. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Palin on something.

Seeing as how I fly for an airline that does several of these routes ... I can say that some of them are worth it, while others' aren't. I can't count the number of times I've flown to VCT, PQI, PKB, AOO, SHD, etc. with 2-3 pax on just one leg. Pretty sure I've done it w/o any pax a number of times as well. Most of these cities are a solid 2 hr drive (there are some exceptions to this of course) from any city with scheduled air service .. so it would be a pain to make that drive when you need to go somewhere ... but at the same time how often do people that live there actually have to travel??

Why should we exempt Alaska? I know that they actually need EAS more than the rest of the states because they don't have roads to a lot of these places, but make the state pay for it.

Alaska as a state is the third biggest welfare queen in the country, they get $1.84 in federal spending per dollar of federal taxes. Plus they have their own oil money. (The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005)

Not to thread hijack but when I looked up this list I couldn't help but notice that the top 10 federal 'welfare' states are all red states... kinda ironic.

IYK does not get the EAS subsidy.

I think EAS should stick around, but frequency, aircraft size, and cities should be cut.

Provide a subsidy that allows for twice daily service in something the size of a Caravan. The airline wants to run something bigger, they're going to have to pay for the difference themselves. If these routes usually only have 2-3 pax, the government shouldn't be subsidizing an aircraft that seats many times that amount.

Making a distance rule. No EAS to any airport which is within 2 hours driving distance from an airport served by scheduled pax flights.


Other than that, for some airports, EAS is just that... essential, and we shouldn't cut it entirely.

EAS needs to go, if not in its entirety, then mostly.

I agree with your assessment of the situation. I have flown in and out of Greenville, MS a few years ago. There were two scheduled flights per day for a total of 62 seats per day. For this there was an operational tower and a TSA crew, in addition to whatever it costs to keep the airport open.

EAS must go unless it is truly 'Essential'. It almost never is.

This EAS stuff is political trading points. Doubtful it will go away. Disguised as something else, maybe. But there's too many dollars / votes being poured into some of the micro communities that any politician can say, "Look what I got fer ya... vote for me!".