effectiveness and cost of the program.
Thirty years and counting
EAS has a lengthy history, dating back to 1978 when the Airline Deregulation Act took effect. The concern was that once the government stepped back from regulating routes and fares, certain areas of the country would lose all airline service. So through a series of temporary measures that eventually became permanent, the government began subsidizing airlines to serve routes they would have abandoned. Today the U.S. Department of Transportation subsidizes commuter airline service to approximately 140 communities throughout the United States that "otherwise would not receive any scheduled air service." A detailed guide to EAS is available on the DOT's website.
When I served on the DOT's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee last year, reform of Essential Air Service was among the recommendations we provided to DOT Secretary Raymond LaHood. Recommendation #13 reads: "First, as an interim measure, limit the communities within the contiguous 48 States that are eligible for air service subsidies to those that were receiving it on a date specified in 2010. Second, update the criteria for EAS eligibility, recognizing there are communities that are or can be efficiently served by other modes of transportation through 'leakage' to nearby airports that provide good connections and often low-fare service, or intermodal transportation services."
Several of us on the FAAC were vocal in noting that many small and rural communities—including but not limited to those in Alaska—still rely heavily on EAS. However, we also acknowledged that in some communities EAS has come to define government pork.
The waste comes primarily from that phenomenon known as "leakage," whereby citizens of subsidized communities drive to outlying airports, primarily served by low-cost carriers, thus negating the need for those subsidies. In discussions with DOT officials, we were told: "There's a lot of leakage." In fact, the DOT estimates it occurs in more than 90% of EAS communities. But while our suggestions were directed to the DOT, another vision of reform was taking place in Congress.
Time to sunset?
Last month Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. If this legislation is approved in its current state, it will terminate the EAS program on Oct. 1st, 2013, in all states except Alaska and Hawaii. In a press release, the majority members claim that sunsetting EAS will provide "savings of approximately $400 million over four years."
As deficit cutting takes center stage in Washington, EAS is somewhat vulnerable, and subsidized airline routes that support light passenger loads are particularly vulnerable. Case in point: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently reported that aircraft have often flown empty on an EAS route between Atlanta and Macon, creating an actual subsidy of $464 per passenger when calculated by ridership. This prompted one Republican congressman to label it as an example of "the most wasteful government spending."
However, there remains support for EAS in both chambers of Congress. In March, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, met with Secretary LaHood to plea for keeping EAS in his home state and throughout the U.S.
Then there's Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who recently stated the bill crafted by Republicans would "break the commitment" made to rural communities: "By cutting off this critical lifeline, rural Americans were told that the FAA now stands for 'Find Another Airport.' I think this is wrong and I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that Congress has made to people in rural America."
As much of the budget debate occurs along party lines, when it comes to EAS it appears that geography often trumps ideology. For example, 28 members of the Alaska State Legislature voted unanimously in February to urge Congress to continue funding, through legislation sponsored by a Republican.
Support for EAS has come from other quarters as well. One is a coalition of four key aviation trade organizations with vested interests: the Airports Council International-North America, the American Association of Airport Executives, the National Association of State Aviation Officials and the Regional Airline Association. In a joint letter to Congressional representatives they wrote: "Cutting EAS would be a deathblow to the economic health of hundreds of small communities across the nation. It is unimaginable that a business would start up in, or relocate to, a community where the closest commercial airport is located over two, four, six or even eight hours away." The letter concluded: "[E]liminating EAS outright in the lower 48 states is the wrong thing to do, and now is the worst time to do it."
Will EAS live?
The fate of the Essential Air Service program seemingly will be decided within the coming months or even weeks. But what of the communities that may lose air service? Do you live in a subsidized town and worry about EAS cuts? Or do you feel that EAS is a waste of taxpayer funds? Please share your thoughts with us.
Read previous columns
Bill McGee, a contributing editor to Consumer Reports and the former editor of Consumer Reports Travel Letter, is an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher who worked in airline operations and management for several years. Tell him what you think of his latest column by sending him an e-mail at USATODAY.com at travel@usatoday. Include your name, hometown and daytime phone number, and he may use your feedback in a future column.
Thirty years and counting
EAS has a lengthy history, dating back to 1978 when the Airline Deregulation Act took effect. The concern was that once the government stepped back from regulating routes and fares, certain areas of the country would lose all airline service. So through a series of temporary measures that eventually became permanent, the government began subsidizing airlines to serve routes they would have abandoned. Today the U.S. Department of Transportation subsidizes commuter airline service to approximately 140 communities throughout the United States that "otherwise would not receive any scheduled air service." A detailed guide to EAS is available on the DOT's website.
When I served on the DOT's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee last year, reform of Essential Air Service was among the recommendations we provided to DOT Secretary Raymond LaHood. Recommendation #13 reads: "First, as an interim measure, limit the communities within the contiguous 48 States that are eligible for air service subsidies to those that were receiving it on a date specified in 2010. Second, update the criteria for EAS eligibility, recognizing there are communities that are or can be efficiently served by other modes of transportation through 'leakage' to nearby airports that provide good connections and often low-fare service, or intermodal transportation services."
Several of us on the FAAC were vocal in noting that many small and rural communities—including but not limited to those in Alaska—still rely heavily on EAS. However, we also acknowledged that in some communities EAS has come to define government pork.
The waste comes primarily from that phenomenon known as "leakage," whereby citizens of subsidized communities drive to outlying airports, primarily served by low-cost carriers, thus negating the need for those subsidies. In discussions with DOT officials, we were told: "There's a lot of leakage." In fact, the DOT estimates it occurs in more than 90% of EAS communities. But while our suggestions were directed to the DOT, another vision of reform was taking place in Congress.
Time to sunset?
Last month Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011. If this legislation is approved in its current state, it will terminate the EAS program on Oct. 1st, 2013, in all states except Alaska and Hawaii. In a press release, the majority members claim that sunsetting EAS will provide "savings of approximately $400 million over four years."
As deficit cutting takes center stage in Washington, EAS is somewhat vulnerable, and subsidized airline routes that support light passenger loads are particularly vulnerable. Case in point: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently reported that aircraft have often flown empty on an EAS route between Atlanta and Macon, creating an actual subsidy of $464 per passenger when calculated by ridership. This prompted one Republican congressman to label it as an example of "the most wasteful government spending."
However, there remains support for EAS in both chambers of Congress. In March, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, met with Secretary LaHood to plea for keeping EAS in his home state and throughout the U.S.
Then there's Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who recently stated the bill crafted by Republicans would "break the commitment" made to rural communities: "By cutting off this critical lifeline, rural Americans were told that the FAA now stands for 'Find Another Airport.' I think this is wrong and I will continue to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to honor the promise that Congress has made to people in rural America."
As much of the budget debate occurs along party lines, when it comes to EAS it appears that geography often trumps ideology. For example, 28 members of the Alaska State Legislature voted unanimously in February to urge Congress to continue funding, through legislation sponsored by a Republican.
Support for EAS has come from other quarters as well. One is a coalition of four key aviation trade organizations with vested interests: the Airports Council International-North America, the American Association of Airport Executives, the National Association of State Aviation Officials and the Regional Airline Association. In a joint letter to Congressional representatives they wrote: "Cutting EAS would be a deathblow to the economic health of hundreds of small communities across the nation. It is unimaginable that a business would start up in, or relocate to, a community where the closest commercial airport is located over two, four, six or even eight hours away." The letter concluded: "[E]liminating EAS outright in the lower 48 states is the wrong thing to do, and now is the worst time to do it."
Will EAS live?
The fate of the Essential Air Service program seemingly will be decided within the coming months or even weeks. But what of the communities that may lose air service? Do you live in a subsidized town and worry about EAS cuts? Or do you feel that EAS is a waste of taxpayer funds? Please share your thoughts with us.
Read previous columns
Bill McGee, a contributing editor to Consumer Reports and the former editor of Consumer Reports Travel Letter, is an FAA-licensed aircraft dispatcher who worked in airline operations and management for several years. Tell him what you think of his latest column by sending him an e-mail at USATODAY.com at travel@usatoday. Include your name, hometown and daytime phone number, and he may use your feedback in a future column.
We thank you & value your time for posting an enquiry and visiting our website. We request you to provide maximum information related to your travel plan in the "Requirements" field This will help us to process your information quickly and accurately
