Back to Squawk list
  • 41

GOP bill would cancel rural air service subsidies

WASHINGTON (AP) — Subsidies for air service to small airports, often in remote communities, would be nearly eliminated and spending on aviation programs scaled back under a bill approved Wednesday by a . . . ( 更多...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Greg Peterson 0
Evan you are correct - thanks for explaining it to Mr. Lambert.
Here in Michigan's Upper Peninsula air service will all but end if not for these subsidies.
Evan Grant 0
James, they aren't subsidizing the routes just for you. Contrary to popular belief there are many people who live far from the hubs and these flights usually save more than a "half-hour" usually 3 or 4. The 90 mile and under 10 passengers per day rule is a great start to trimming the program. If you go further than 90 miles it becomes a serious problem for many in rural areas to get out or in. Therefore a loss of economic profit would result. 10 passengers per day results in about 3,600 people per year, that is a waste, I agree. What about the people who actually use the airports? Or the cities that rely on them for income during that areas "busy" season? I think it should be taken slowly just so we know what will happen. I'm sure there is Government waste in other departments and fields. This is the USA after all and it's not just one person's money going into this program, it't the money of many. That's one of the Freedom's of the USA, maybe you receive unemployment or welfare or even medicare...that's my money, but I don't use the programs. Should we shut them down as well?
James Lambert 0
Maybe when we pick a side, especially if we are in an area that either receives or doesn't receive subsidies, we show say how far we live from the hub and how much we receive along with how many passengers are subsidized. I'll start, I live 110 miles from one hup and 210 from another. A near-by city is 155 from one hub and 190 from the other. We receive no subsidies. It takes me 2 hours to drive to the closer airport and there is an airport shuttle available maybe twice a day. I don't have any information on how many passengers a day use the shuttle nor how many have someone else drive them or park at the airport. It might be just me but I sure as hell wouldn't expect the government to subsidize a flight for me so I could save probably half an hour.
Greg Peterson 0
Those of us who live in rural areas will loose lots of air service if subsidies are ended.
It easy for folks living in medium to large cities to proclaim that these subsidies should be dumped.
James Lambert 0
Typical Democrat mentality. The government can solve all your problems with the peoples money which they know how to spend better than the people do. Plenty of Democrats voted to go to Iraq. Personaly I think both parties have to problem of trying to buy votes rather than run the government.
Kudos Allen
Typical Republican mentality. About as smart as the cuts to EPA, education and firing the controllers. Where will this mentality wake up? How about the big $? How about Afghanistan, Iraq adn whatever adventure is next.
James Lambert 0
Life liberty the pursuit of happiness and the right to never be inconvenienced. If you want to fly out of a remote area pay the price of the ticket that will support the service, or take the car, dog sledor whatever. If you want to play you have to pay. But if you want to play, I shouldn't have to pay. $2,000,000 won't balance the budget but no one thing will. 90 miles away from a hub? What a shame. Sounds like a good place to start a Shuttle Service.
Kinda sux if you work for EAS airline. What's the point with this one? Save 200$ billion to create a ripple effect in job losses. Maybe they should concentrate on on getting more funding to jobs that are more important. It's funny how nobody brings up why somebody can play a sport for 2 hours and make 20$ million and a teacher or pilot make 20$ an hour for 2 hours of work. Just want the person juggling with my life to enjoy their job.
morgan brown 0
The bill was defeated last night and the Senate increased EAS funding by $73 million.
David Sims 0
Andrew, Before the deregulation of 1978, the FAA told airlines what routes and what destinations they would serve. After deregulation, many communities that had historically been served lost service, because the smaller routes were less profitable (not all were unprofitable, just not profitable enough to make it worth their while to operate). I do hear there is a proposal now to weed out airports from the system, and this I can agree with, as I know there are some airports that are only on the system because of who their congresspeople are. It sounds like any airport that is within 90 miles of a major hub, or with less than 10 daily enplanements, may lose EAS funding.
Greg Burnett 0
End the subsidies in Alaska first! They don't believe in "big guv'mint" up there, do they?
All communities that benefit from the 'essential air service' subsidies existed before commercial air travel came along, and they will exist after.
mr3gtp 0
I agree with David Sims; this program is but a drop on the budget ocean, and has a very profound effect on some communities. In my (fiscally conservative) mind, it's a good use of public money. Much better than, say, forcing people to buy health insurance and establishing myriad Bureaus to manage it...

Daniel Baker 0
[ This article in a New Hampshire paper] describes how the subsidy pays almost $300 per enplanement.
Yes, I do suppose it would be asking too much for a regional private firm to begin connecting service to anywhere else. Perhaps several of these firms that are actually IN these communties could come up with a plan? Just the fact that they're still IN business means there are some pretty smart people out there. Or perhaps I have too much faith in individuals.
Like closing them and selling the land? Without the air service the communities won't exist anymore.
I'm sure some ingenious entrepreneur will come up with a pretty good use of these airports.
Next we can start on the Postal Service.......... o_O
good post david
David Sims 0
Yes, please cut off the numerous small communities that depend on this vital transportation link in order to save .0006% of the federal budget. I'm sure that $200 million will balance out the billions being spent on other subsidies.
rdzr1 0
Amen to that. Then they'll have more money for the high speed rail...LOL.
brian wright 0
End all subsidies, period.


還沒有帳戶嗎? 現在就註冊(免費),設置諸多客制化功能、航班提醒等等!