Great Lakes lives on...

[FloridaLarry]

jgheggie said, in part:

With the regional airline industry starting to shrink, EAS and 135 airlines seem to be gaining traction. GLA has lost routes, but the demand for their particular industry service seems to be growing...

Whatever you may think of EAS as an unnecessary part of government ( I disagree fundamentally - Government exists to do those things that are necessary for society, AND that can't be done in some other fashion.), it can't effectively be killed. Sure, pruned where it is most egregious. But rural legislators like it, and since they stay in office longer, they accumulate more power with their seniority. EAS serves important portions of their constituencies, folks they don't want to p*&% off.

When I lived in central Kansas, I was 5 1/2 hours from DEN by car, a hour and ten minutes via (then) Great Lakes. Let's see: does home by ten-ish beat home by two-ish?

 

[Itchy]

When I lived in central Kansas, I was 5 1/2 hours from DEN by car, a hour and ten minutes via (then) Great Lakes. Let's see: does home by ten-ish beat home by two-ish?

I'm sure there are a few communities that have a genuine need for EAS. However, there are many EAS flights that fly when there is a major airport an hours drive away. I have a problem when my tax dollar is used to help Aunt Gertrude avoid an hours drive.

 

[hook_dupin]

I find it interesting that funding for EAS has gone from $140M in 2011 to $230M in 2014. In an era of budget battles, it seems both sides like EAS.

At the same time, the entire EAS program is about 1/5th the cost of one F-35.

 

[FloridaLarry]

Itchy said:

I'm sure there are a few communities that have a genuine need for EAS. However, there are many EAS flights that fly when there is a major airport an hours drive away. I have a problem when my tax dollar is used to help Aunt Gertrude avoid an hours drive.

So do I, and these are the airports being pruned from EAS, along with those who board one or two PAX a week. Those flights cost thousands per passenger, and belong nowhere.

Surprising as it seems, every now and then, Government gets it right {;<).

 

[cezzna]

Hey man, people gotta see carhenge. Just sayin'

 

[mshunter]

When I lived in central Kansas, I was 5 1/2 hours from DEN by car, a hour and ten minutes via (then) Great Lakes. Let's see: does home by ten-ish beat home by two-ish?

And that's the rest of the United States problem how? People move to "the city" because that's where the jobs are. If you want to live in the country, then IMO, you have to accept all that comes with it, including having to drive 5hrs to DEN. It takes me a little over an hour to get to my commute. I accept that as part of being where I live.

P.S. Use the proper quote button, and it'll be much easier to have a conversation.

 

[ppragman]

I'm sure there are a few communities that have a genuine need for EAS. However, there are many EAS flights that fly when there is a major airport an hours drive away. I have a problem when my tax dollar is used to help Aunt Gertrude avoid an hours drive.

EAS flights barely even cost you anything, there over 144 million tax-returns filed in 2012. The program costs $241 million this year. Let's assume that there are no more tax-payers this year than there were in 2012 (with lower unemployment there should actually be more tax payers). So you paid about $1.67 for all the EAS flights everywhere if everyone paid an equal share in the tax structure - chances are you paid much less. Now think of how much business EAS facilitates.

I'd be interested in seeing just how much commerce $241 million generated. I would suspect we got our money's worth.

 

[ppragman]

And that's the rest of the United States problem how?

It's not - but it's probably good for everyone else's well being that these services exist. I've not seen an article or publication that discusses how important these programs are, but I'd bet we get more out of them than we put into them.

It's easy to crap on programs like this, but this isn't where your money is going. EAS cost $241 million per year. The F35 (as someone above mentioned) is estimated to cost $1.0165 trillion (yes, trillion) over the 55 year life of the program. That works out to $20 billion per year (that's over 84 times the price of EAS a year) - which is about $140 per tax payer per year for the next 55 years. One you are old, laying on your death bed - you will likely still be paying for the F35, and I'd be willing to bet there will be plenty of people squawking about a replacement. And that's just one program. If you want to reduce your tax burden - I suspect there are better places to look that don't actively inconvenience rural Americans.

 

[FloridaLarry]

Mshunter says, in part:

...It takes me a little over an hour to get to my commute. I accept that as part of being where I live.

And you do it on roads and bridges paid for by tax dollars, drink water subsidized or paid for largely by tax dollars, even your sewage is processed by tax dollars. Urban areas get their share of government subsidies, too.

Who paid to extend your runways? To launch the GPS satellites? Etc, etc, and so forth...

IMHO, life may not be totally fair, but once you start tinkering with it, it usually gets worse.

 

[melltimejr]

And that's the rest of the United States problem how?

Sounds like a very dangerous mindset to have.

 

[gotWXdagain]

Cape already flies GGW, OLF, SDY, GDV, HVR, and I believe also MLS from BIL

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

Cape already flies GGW, OLF, SDY, GDV, HVR, and I believe also MLS from BIL

Yeah, I guess I'm behind the times. I only get back to MT/WY once or twice a year, but I was just in BIL and they were advertising their routes like it was a brand new idea.

 

[jwp_145]

What was that line I heard? Ah yes a fool and is money...


Anyway just put a steak in it's heart and kill this excuse for an airline.

A fool and his misquotes...
It's a Fool and His money

 

[Beep]

Anyway just put a steak in it's heart and kill this excuse for an airline.

Thanks Obamacare!

 

[mshunter]

Mshunter says, in part:
And you do it on roads and bridges paid for by tax dollars, drink water subsidized or paid for largely by tax dollars, even your sewage is processed by tax dollars. Urban areas get their share of government subsidies, too.

Who paid to extend your runways? To launch the GPS satellites? Etc, etc, and so forth...

IMHO, life may not be totally fair, but once you start tinkering with it, it usually gets worse.

Which is all things I and millions of others use. But Uncle Joe Bob living in BFE, that's a choice he has made to live in the sticks. The guy working for a major corporation, who wants his piece of property, that's his choice.

You can't compare the use of roads, bridges and runway extensions to EAS. It's only essential because people choose to live in the middle of no where. If you want to live in the middle of no where, you be living in the middle of no where, with limited services. It's no different than having an FD that you have to pay what basically amounts to as yearly subscription fee for, our they show up sms watch your house burn down, and protect your neighbors house.

 

[mshunter]

It's not - but it's probably good for everyone else's well being that these services exist. I've not seen an article or publication that discusses how important these programs are, but I'd bet we get more out of them than we put into them.

It's easy to crap on programs like this, but this isn't where your money is going. EAS cost $241 million per year. The F35 (as someone above mentioned) is estimated to cost $1.0165 trillion (yes, trillion) over the 55 year life of the program. That works out to $20 billion per year (that's over 84 times the price of EAS a year) - which is about $140 per tax payer per year for the next 55 years. One you are old, laying on your death bed - you will likely still be paying for the F35, and I'd be willing to bet there will be plenty of people squawking about a replacement. And that's just one program. If you want to reduce your tax burden - I suspect there are better places to look that don't actively inconvenience rural Americans.

Defense spending in the same paragraph as EAS. Apples to oranges. Show me some proof that this is more than just local politicians bidding for re-election.

 

[mshunter]

Sounds like a very dangerous mindset to have.

How so? If you want to live in the sticks, deal with all that comes with living in the sticks, or pay a full fair ticket, not one that is government subsidized.

 

[msmspilot]

Cape already flies GGW, OLF, SDY, GDV, HVR, and I believe also MLS from BIL

Just the first 5. MLS isn't on the BIL routes.

 

[gotWXdagain]

Which is all things I and millions of others use. But Uncle Joe Bob living in BFE, that's a choice he has made to live in the sticks. The guy working for a major corporation, who wants his piece of property, that's his choice.

Quite alot of people out in the sticks don't make the choice to live there, they're stuck.

 

[FloridaLarry]

Mshunter said, in part:

...You can't compare the use of roads, bridges and runway extensions to EAS. It's only essential because people choose to live in the middle of no where....

If you ask people who do economic development for a living, they'd tell you that a new employer is much less likely to locate in a city with lousy, or no air service. That employer benefits the municipality with a larger tax base, more / better employed people who also pay taxes, things they buy in the local economy, and more. They locate 'in the middle of no where' for solid economic reasons: access to raw materials, convenience to their customers, the kind of labor force they need at an appropriate cost, tax incentives, quality of life which attracts specialty skilled employees, etc.

These are not stupid choices, any more than where Mshunter chooses to live, and commute to and from his job, is.