Should Airline subsidies end?

M

mshunter

Well-Known Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44117256/ns/travel-news/

Should I be on the hook for $367.00 because Joe Blow wants to live out in the sticks? Funny how when you put an actual dollar amount on it, it seems more real.

Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107.
Click to expand...


Live closer to where business happens, or deal with nothing going on in your commnity. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
 
No. On a similar topic, should you be on the hook for your portion of the $20-billion we pay farmers to grow crops no one wants to buy?
 
Murdoughnut said:
No. On a similar topic, should you be on the hook for your portion of the $20-billion we pay farmers to grow crops no one wants to buy?
Click to expand...


If it serves no useful purpose, no.


Edit to add: How about you pick up my portion of EAS then, so the guy who lives in the sticks can conduct his commerce with little to no delay. If it's that worthwhile, either live closer to your work, or charter. If it's not profitable enough to charter, then find another way to make money. It's not my reponsibility to make sure you can make a living living in the sticks.
 
Sould EAS be cancled? No Should EAS be reviewed and trimmed? Yes

In some rural areas (Liberal KS) the nearest sustainable airline service is over 3 hours away. There simply isn't another option for peopel to travel in and out of the western half of Kansas. Businesses will not stay if they do not have some sort of airline service, and thousands will lose theri jobs, creating less taxes.

In some areas (Beaumont TX), there is another airport with much more traffic not too far away (IAH, 90 minutes). 95% of passengers drive to Houston to catch their flight anyway (It's about as fast once you factor conection times). They really don't need it.
 
USMCmech said:
Sould EAS be cancled? No Should EAS be reviewed and trimmed? Yes

In some rural areas (Liberal KS) the nearest sustainable airline service is over 3 hours away. There simply isn't another option for peopel to travel in and out of the western half of Kansas. Businesses will not stay if they do not have some sort of airline service, and thousands will lose theri jobs, creating less taxes.

In some areas (Beaumont TX), there is another airport with much more traffic not too far away (IAH, 90 minutes). 95% of passengers drive to Houston to catch their flight anyway (It's about as fast once you factor conection times). They really don't need it.
Click to expand...
You have a nuanced perspective. I agree with you.

It creates jobs...
 
USMCmech said:
Sould EAS be cancled? No Should EAS be reviewed and trimmed? Yes

In some rural areas (Liberal KS) the nearest sustainable airline service is over 3 hours away. There simply isn't another option for people to travel in and out of the western half of Kansas. Businesses will not stay if they do not have some sort of airline service, and thousands will lose their jobs, creating less taxes.
Click to expand...

Still not my problem that someone chooses to live in the middle of nowhere. They chose to live there, no one forced them. But I am being forced to pay for it because of their choice to live there. So, the showing up 1 hour ahead of time for your flight, then the 1 hr it takes to get on the plane, taxi out, depart, arrive, then transfer gates. 30 minutes to move bags from one plane to another, blah blah blah, and your still right back at the 3 hours it took to drive to a major hub. Add in the airfare to get to a hub city, and the cost to the consumer is right about the same.


In Places like AK, I can see it being of benefit. So the STATE should subsidize the cost, not the Federal government.
 
mshunter said:
Still not my problem that someone chooses to live in the middle of nowhere. They chose to live there, no one forced them. But I am being forced to pay for it because of their choice to live there. So, the showing up 1 hour ahead of time for your flight, then the 1 hr it takes to get on the plane, taxi out, depart, arrive, then transfer gates. 30 minutes to move bags from one plane to another, blah blah blah, and your still right back at the 3 hours it took to drive to a major hub. Add in the airfare to get to a hub city, and the cost to the consumer is right about the same.


In Places like AK, I can see it being of benefit. So the STATE should subsidize the cost, not the Federal government.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the national defense and interstate system is also not my problem.
 
USMCmech said:
Businesses will not stay if they do not have some sort of airline service, and thousands will lose theri jobs, creating less taxes.
Click to expand...

I agree that EAS should remain in place, but I disagree with this reasoning. If businesses relocate because EAS is terminated, they'll recreate those jobs elsewhere, so the net job loss to the nation would be pretty minimal. The job losses in those specific towns would be huge, but as Tea Partiers and financial conservatives love to point out, that's the free market speaking. If no carrier can profitably serve Liberal, KS, then Liberal doesn't get airline service and the town dies off. Free market in action.

The EAS subsidy should remain in place for the same reason we subsidize many other "unprofitable" things, like farmers, non-pharmaceutical scientific research, and health care for the elderly: because they have value beyond monetary ROI. Believe it or not, small towns in Kansas have value to me, an urban Seattle resident, beyond how much revenue they generate. I don't mind paying taxes so that their inhabitants don't need to drive 3 hours to get to an airport.
 
Truthfully, IMO they should cut most of the EAS routes, but if the money must be spent:

They would be better off taking that money and using it to back up the biggest and most powerful airlines in the country. DL, UAL/CAL, AMR, Southwest, JetBlue, Fed Ex, UPS. Not because of any bone to pick with Great Lakes, but because those companies are some of the largest employers in the country. They should be rewarded for they're success, the major airline industry like the auto industry is a cornerstone of our economy and represents the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of American workers.

Great Lakes laying off a hundred employees would certainly hurt many of those local economies... but not as much Delta or AMR's long term profitability being affected, causing them to lay off and furlough thousands... (as has happened in the past).
 
I made my living between 2008 and 2010 because of EAS subsidies, but I'll say this: Each of those routes served very little purpose. Someone could get in a car, drive 2-3 hours, and be in a major city with air service. Rutland, VT had Burlington (or Albany, or even Boston), Lebanon, NH had Boston (2 hour drive), and Lancaster had Harrisburg (45 minute drive). The list goes on.

There are certainly some remote cities that could certainly benefit from air service (in Alaska, Montana, etc.), but I personally wouldn't want to see that funded at the federal level. Make that state-level if necessary, or better yet, funded at the city level.
 
USMCmech said:
In some rural areas (Liberal KS) the nearest sustainable airline service is over 3 hours away. There simply isn't another option for peopel to travel in and out of the western half of Kansas. Businesses will not stay if they do not have some sort of airline service, and thousands will lose their jobs, creating less taxes.
Click to expand...

But where do we draw the line subsidizing airfare for those who choose to live away from populated areas? Isn't it really a supply and demand issue? The airlines will determine what they need to charge to fly into Liberal, KS and set fares accordingly. If the locals are unwilling to pay that, the airline will simply withdraw from the market. If people / business' chooses to reside in Liberal or other small cities with similar logistical issues, they do so knowing that they will have transportation challenges. If the city chooses to subsidize the airline in some fashion for the sake of local business then so be it, but let it be a local issue and not added to my federal tax bill. I think this country is suffering the effects of trying to provide too much to too many.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Yes, and the national defense and interstate system is also not my problem.
Click to expand...

National and Interstate are the key words here. They are something that everyone is entitled to, and cost you no extra money for your fellow citizen to use. As well, they were developed for the protection of our country. Tell me how giving an airline money to go into a city that may have 3-4 passengers a week is the same?
 
why cant the market place determine who gets air service? If there is enough demand for airline service, wouldnt the airlines already be serving the market? If there is not enough demand to make it profitable for an airline to serve a city, that city doesnt truly need service. If you want to live somewhere without airline service, pay for your own charter, buy your own airplane, or drive. Reliance on the government is what got us in this current debacle with the federal budget!
 
On the subject of business - shouldn't that be where general aviation takes footing? If you want to operate a business in the middle of nowhere, park a plane at KBFE (not Brownfield, TX - but that's not all that bad of an example).
 
USMCmech said:
In some areas (Beaumont TX), there is another airport with much more traffic not too far away (IAH, 90 minutes). 95% of passengers drive to Houston to catch their flight anyway (It's about as fast once you factor conection times). They really don't need it.
Click to expand...

Beaumont doesn't have any EAS service. Colgan flies 4-5 times per day from KBPT to KIAH, but it isn't an EAS route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top