A look at EAS in AZ

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Doug, Amber and I's favorite place......Kingman, AZ! Fox 10 Phoenix looks at the EAS program and the money it costs for this route, among others, in AZ..........:)

[Good video at link at bottom]


KINGMAN, Ariz. - Most of us just finished paying our federal income taxes.

How would you feel if we told you some or maybe all of your taxes went to pay for some guy to fly from Ely, Nevada to Denver to the tune of $3,700? You could buy a used car for that price.

Or how about a flight from Lewiston, Montana to Billings for $1,300?

The government is handing out your money to make air service available to all and it's happening in Arizona too.

One of the great things about living in a big city like Phoenix is easy access to air service. You can catch a flight to just about anywhere in the world. But what if you live in a small town, hours from a major airport?

No problem. Washington has you covered with something called Essential Air Service.

We have it in Arizona connecting small towns like Kingman, Page and Show Low to Phoenix with daily flights.

Sound like a great idea until you find out how much it costs taxpayers.

$200 million a year to provide air service to 150 rural communities across the country. An expense you could maybe justify if people actually used it.

Recently, FOX 10's John Hook took a flight from Phoenix to Kingman on a Great Lakes Airlines' twin engine 19-seater. He wanted to talk to fliers about the service, why they like it and why it's necessary -- but there was no one to talk to. All of the seats were empty, except his.

"This is one of weirdest things I've ever seen. There is nobody on this airplane except the pilots. Now FOX 10 paid $215 bucks for my ticket, but do you know what you're on the hook for? For my flight to Kingman as a taxpayer -- $622 bucks. Unbelieveable," said Hook.

That's right. The government handed out $622 for each of the 1,878 passengers who flew in and out of Kingman last year.

In fact, taxpayers spend more than $6 million a year for Essential Air Service in Arizona.

"I don't think it's wise for government to say we're going to take money from taxpayers so that a few people in the outlying areas can ride in an empty plane," said Congressman Trent Franks.

Franks represents Kingman, but he's opposed to Essential Air Service.

"I get hell from a few folks..I do," he said.

Franks is one of a handful of Congressmen who've tried to kill the program, saying it's a big waste of money, but vote hungry politicians from both parties keep it alive.

Politicians like Franks tried to beat this thing over and over again but can't get it done. Why?

"Well because people, you know, look to their member of Congress and say you gotta support, you gotta vote for this and it's tough...and you think I'm doing you a favor. But if we all keep doing this, we are going to make this country bankrupt," explained Franks.

Essential Air Service began in 1978, following airline deregulation. There was the worry that airlines would pull of small cities with less profitable routes. So the government stepped in, spending tax dollars to keep the flights.

It was supposed to be a temporary program -- that's now 34 years old.

On the way to Kingman, the flight passed high desert and beautiful snow peaked mountains. In 55 minutes, Hook arrived. The drive from Phoenix would have taken three hours. Nice service -- to a charming airport that's just a block from the intersection of Mohave Airport Drive and Government Way.

Kingman is home to 30,000 people. Hook asked Mayor John Salem if people in small towns like Kingman have a right to air service.

"Don't think it's an inherent right to have flight service. I think it's a very nice benefit to have though," said Salem.

Salem is a Republican and a fiscal conservative worried about taxes and government spending. But he had no idea how much taxpayers were footing the bill for people to fly in and out of Kingman.

The federal subsidy per passenger is $622 per ticket.

"I didn't know that..that is quite a large number," he said.

On the return flight to Phoenix, Hook went through security and there were three TSA agents. That's another cost. Salaries, pensions and benefits to provide screening for two flights a day out of Kingman.

When he boarded the plane home, Hook was hopeful he could find some passengers and he did. One other man, who is an employee of another airline, flying for free. He didn't want to talk on camera.

During the two flights, there were a total of three passengers and Hook accounted for two of them.
A fluke? No. As it turns out, the average number of passengers on these flights last year was 1.3.
And think about all the precious fuel wasted flying empty planes.

It brings us to the central question. Is Essential Air Service really essential?

"We could probably live without it, but I really think it's an attraction to have it in our area," said Salem.
An expensive attraction. One that Congressman Franks says makes no economic sense.

"I just think it's not government's purpose to provide travel services for us. That's the private sector's purpose and they will do it a lot better," said Franks.

Wheels down in Phoenix. On time and hassle free.

If you care to fly to Kingman, there are four more flights tomorrow with plenty of seats available.
Hook thanked the pilots for the flight and said "that was great. Hardly anybody on..that was mellow."

The only state where you could make a case for Essential Air Service is Alaska where some communities don't have roads -- they need this.

The benefits of living in a small town: less crime, less traffic, less pollution, but on the flip side, you give up things like air service.

The bus industry studied this. You could put people on buses instead of flights and save $89 million.

Story here and video here:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/new...ers-over-6-million-a-year-in-arizona-04112012
 
Kingman: Where my ATRs sit! Poor things... :(

It was my experience with the EAS flights that I worked at Eagle that they were commonly quite full. Even in the mid-late 90s trying to commute out of DBQ was not a cake walk, those flights were commonly well-booked.

I think the government either needs to regulate, or not. If the govt thinks the nation's air travel service is SO essential for the country that they need to dictate where airlines operate to, then we need to see full-scale regulation again. If the govt wants to say, "Okay, airline industry, you're de-regulated and it's a free market out there!" Then they need to back off and let the free market be. A lot of cities will lose air service if that's done, but, that's the "free market".
 
I benefited from EAS in Wyoming for many years, but I think I can be un-biased and say most routes in the lower 48 are probably not cost-effective for taxpayers. Rural fliers complain about the service they get on Great Lakes, etc. (no incentive to be good since subsidized), but they would REALLY complain if they had to pay an unsubsidized market price for a ticket. Same thing that causes our products to be made in China.
 
...but they would REALLY complain if they had to pay an unsubsidized market price for a ticket.

And that's just the issue. They've gotten so used to a $50 ticket (which should cost $200), that suddenly jacking up the price to a fair market value would be a perceived outrage (those greedy 1%ers!). :)

My personal opinion, from earning a living flying EAS for a couple years, was that there were some places it was needed, but much of the money is wasted. The Lancaster, PA subsidy (45 minute drive from Harrisburg, which services most major east coast hubs) is a waste of taxpayer money. Rural Montana may be another story. That said, I do believe that if a city feels that it needs subsidized air service, it should be subsidized at the local level, not the federal level.
 
I support full regulation, the race to the bottom is too easy to fall into. While not ideal, maybe we wouldn't have deferred maintenance for max times and pilot pay at the bottom. Eh, I still want single list too. Maybe if I live to 300, we'll start talking about it.
Kingman: Where my ATRs sit! Poor things... :(

It was my experience with the EAS flights that I worked at Eagle that they were commonly quite full. Even in the mid-late 90s trying to commute out of DBQ was not a cake walk, those flights were commonly well-booked.

I think the government either needs to regulate, or not. If the govt thinks the nation's air travel service is SO essential for the country that they need to dictate where airlines operate to, then we need to see full-scale regulation again. If the govt wants to say, "Okay, airline industry, you're de-regulated and it's a free market out there!" Then they need to back off and let the free market be. A lot of cities will lose air service if that's done, but, that's the "free market".
 
Immense sample size of one route is, without a doubt, statistically significant enough to make determinations about the whole system.

They talk about roads, too. So, speaking of roads, I think any rural community not on the Interstate System (hey, Kingman is exempt, yay) should be responsible for paying the construction and upkeep costs of all regional highways and roads serving their community. I'm tired of paying for their "essential surface service." If farming and whatever little else which is the local economy doesn't provide enough funding, clearly no one who lives there should expect other taxpayers to subsidize their non-offroad auto use.

And, speaking of rural communities, how about them farm subsidies?

But back to EAS: it serves a purpose. It ensures the economic opportunity that exists due to relative ease of movement. This has not only local, direct economic impact, but also regional and indirect impacts. From a non-economic standpoint, freedom of/ease of movement is also a fundamental component of liberty. That said, there are surely routes that could use tweaking, but that's not a reason to eliminate the program--it's a reason to modify the route structure. And, anyway, defunding EAS will in no way to fix the federal budget. That requires some combination of social security, medicare, defense spending and tax reform.

But, hey, it's easy to talk about smaller programs when the associated numbers are big on the familiar Household Budget scale. Never mind that on the Federal Budget scale they are rounding errors.
 
But, hey, it's easy to talk about smaller programs when the associated numbers are big on the familiar Household Budget scale. Never mind that on the Federal Budget scale they are rounding errors.

You know how you solve a big problem? Start with the small things. Because there are thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of "small things" in the Federal budget that need to be axed, and yesterday. Let's say, for random example, you're a first year RJ pilot but you're spending like you're a mainline C/A. Do you head on down to Ruth's Chris because it's "just a few bucks", or do you eat ramen and wear four layers with the heat turned down to 50?

As others have said, you either regulate or you don't. The "middle ground" is really just a nice way of talking about corruption.
 
You know how you solve a big problem? Start with the small things. Because there are thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of "small things" in the Federal budget that need to be axed, and yesterday. Let's say, for random example, you're a first year RJ pilot but you're spending like you're a mainline C/A. Do you head on down to Ruth's Chris because it's "just a few bucks", or do you eat ramen and wear four layers with the heat turned down to 50?

As others have said, you either regulate or you don't. The "middle ground" is really just a nice way of talking about corruption.

All the "discretionary" items, put together--while impactful--would not solve the problem. It's fine that they're addressed, of course, but politicians love to nibble around the edges at little things to obfuscate the fact that they're totally unwilling to deal with the fundamental issues.

To use your RJ pilot example, it's as though he thinks cutting out his weekly Ruth's Chris will make it so he doesn't have to worry about his rent or car payments, either of which, alone, exceeds his monthly income.

I think you're correct, though. It is either one or the other, but it's politically difficult to make all the sacrifices an actual decision requires, so we're left mucking around with (to be kindly) inefficient half-measures.
 
I made this argument before on here, but the government could subsidize the local 135 companies to do a way more efficient job, for a tenth of the cost. Who needs a Beech 1900 to carry 2 passengers 100 miles when a Twin Cessna or Baron could do the same route just as fast.
 
I made this argument before on here, but the government could subsidize the local 135 companies to do a way more efficient job, for a tenth of the cost. Who needs a Beech 1900 to carry 2 passengers 100 miles when a Twin Cessna or Baron could do the same route just as fast.
Or do it a little slower and a lot cheaper on a Cherokee 6 or 206, Alaska style.
 
I'm not opposed to EAS. But it does not make sense to continue flying 19 seat aircraft on routes with 1.3 passengers on the aircraft. What's wrong with rightsizing the aircraft for the routes?

Joe
 
Or do it a little slower and a lot cheaper on a Cherokee 6 or 206, Alaska style.

Here in MT and WY, you would need something IFR capable, Turbo, and boots if you want any reliability. But going on an "as needed basis" with a local 135 operator would save a ton of money, and support the local community at the same time.
 
Here in MT and WY, you would need something IFR capable, Turbo, and boots if you want any reliability. But going on an "as needed basis" with a local 135 operator would save a ton of money, and support the local community at the same time.
Turbo 210 with TKS then.
 
Geeze Mike. There you go again throwing a grenade in a crowded room then walk away. "Explosion? What explosion?". And I'm called a trouble maker.
 
Turbo 210 with TKS then.


I dont believe you can stick a Cessna 210 on a 135/121 certificate IFR. In fact the only piston single I know of that can be used for IFR 135 are the Malibu and Cirrus. Need dual alternators, dual vac pumps etc...Not to mention you wont find any insurance company to insure you even if you did get the STC's to comply with all the regs.

If its EAS, it needs to be a twin ;)
 
I dont believe you can stick a Cessna 210 on a 135/121 certificate IFR. ...Not to mention you wont find any insurance company to insure you even if you did get the STC's to comply with all the regs.

FLX flies a bunch of them for freight, and last time I checked St. Charles Flying Service had a couple on their 135. I think cmill flies or flew one on a 135 as well...
 
Back
Top