Lawmaker Accuses White House of Stripping Aid to Rural Airports

AP ^ | Feb. 10, 2004

[nuconvert]

Lawmaker Accuses White House of Stripping Aid to Rural Airports

By Lara Jakes Jordan

Associated Press Writer/Feb.10,'04

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 100 small airports nationwide are facing federal budget cuts that could ground commuter flights and strip rural communities of a crucial connection to airline hubs. The White House budget for the 2005 fiscal year would eliminate aid to 23 airports, and force 82 more to pay part of the costs to continue commuter flights to hub airports. Without the funding, many of the small airports would have to eliminate commuter air service, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., said Tuesday.

In turn, he said, that could stymie economic development efforts in already cash-strapped areas.

"There seems to be nobody looking out for rural America," said Peterson, co-chairman of the 130-member Congressional Rural Caucus, who threatened to block legislation if the money is not restored. "We don't seem to have a defender (who) understands that when a rural area loses air services, it loses a lot of its economic tools to grow."

The budget would cut funding under the Essential Air Service program to $50 million - down from its current $113 million level, a Transportation Department spokesman said. That would force some remote airports to pay part of the costs of commuter flights to hubs, and others to pick up the entire tab on their own.

The budget offers the following breakdown:

-49 airports beyond 250 miles from a hub would have to pay 10 percent of commuter flight costs.

-33 airports between 100 and 250 miles of a hub would have to pay 25 percent of the costs.

-23 airports within 100 miles of a hub would not be eligible for any EAS flight aid, but could qualify for a 50 percent federal funding match for bus or other transit.

Transportation Department spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said the budget avoids a "one size fits all" approach for the 105 small and rural airports seeking funding in the face of a growing federal deficit.

The Bush budget "would direct funding to the communities that need it most, and offer more service options," Alcivar said. "This approach will provide communities with service that is better tailored to their individual needs and at a lower cost."

Peterson, who helped win a one-year delay in cuts to rural airports last fall, said Rural Caucus members planned to team up with about 50 House lawmakers from western states to fight the budget cuts by threatening to block upcoming bills. He did not commit to blocking any particular bill, but said, "If we don't get an agreement on Essential Air Service, and support for rural airports, then we vote no."

"We're just going to have to put a marker down," Peterson said.

[nuconvert]

And here we have stripping of another sort......

[tom paine 2]

If these small airports need money they should sell off their crash equipment. To begin, the local fire dept. can take care of any crashes. Secondly the crap is just sitting there. More Fed boondogles

[68skylark]

In turn, he said, that could stymie economic development efforts in already cash-strapped areas.

This is a good article. But things are actually worse than the article indicates. In fact, if even one dollar is held back from the rate of growth of federal spending then the whole U. S. economy will collapse.

Sheesh.

[ambrose]

You can see why it is so hard to cut the budget. For as much as we scream about W's outta control spending, there are many others screaming at him for not spending enough. Amazing.

[sandbar]

The spending is out of control!!!!!!! We have to cut back!!

But not here..

or here...

or there either...

[nuconvert]

No stripping, please

[Arkie2]

No fire equipment means no commercial service so if the fire trucks go the commuter planes go. As for the local fire dept handling it, fighting an aircraft fire is a specialty. Your local neighborhood fire dept isn't trained or equipped for it.

[DWPittelli]

Funny me, I always thought an "Essential Service" was one that people were willing to pay for (or perhaps a service needed to sustain life or dignity for the deserving poor).

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Let the rich who own planes pay higher fees.

[AntiKev]

Hey, can you ping the GA list?

[Aeronaut]

Ping to the G.A. list.

General Aviation Ping list. FReep mail me if you want on or off this list.

[The South Texan]

Get a car and drive to a big city airport for crying outloud, Congressman! More flights and bigger planes too!

[AntiKev]

Our local FD moved one of it's halls to the airport. It's now co-located with the airport fire hall. The airport has trucks that can be manned by a single person, to fight a large fire. Note that the majority of the traffic to the airport is small stuff, like Cessna Caravans or transient General Aviation. The biggest thing we get on a regular basis is a 737. But I'm sure those guys could help out in an emergency.

The only thing you have to be careful of with an aviation fire, would be the same as a car crash, except a little more delicate. Most aircraft store their fuel in the wings. Normally cars have their fuel tanks buried a little deeper.

[FreedomFlynnie]

What's EAS? From the article, it sounds like this is a federal subsidy to airlines that fly into smaller airports that otherwise wouldn't be worth the business.

But that's not subsidizing the airport itself at all; it's subsidizing airlines (which neither own or are owned by airports). Is there a separate plan to defund airports, or is this just reducing payments to commuter subsidiaries of the airlines that have already gotten $20 billion over the past 2 1/2 years?

Anyone can get to any airport big or small; they just might have to hire a charter (or learn to fly themselves!) But if the airports cease to be, the communities will experience a real negative effect.

[leadpenny]

What's EAS?

Basically, it was supposed to be a 10-year program when Airline Deregulation was signed into law in 1978. Critters from Congress knew that scheduled service would be eliminated from airports that were money losers for the airlines. Think of it as Amtrak in the skies. One of the biggest backers of EAS was (maybe still is) Sen. Robert Byrd (KKK-WV). For years, Morgantown, Clarksburg and Elkins had mostly empty airplanes flying in and out of their airports to Pittsburg and DC. Another airport that had EAS for at least 20 years is Hot Springs, VA. Ninety percent plus of the passengers going into Hot Springs go there to stay at the Homestead. If you ask how what the rates are at the Homestead, you probably can't stay there.

[leadpenny]

Here's a DOT site with an explanation and some figures: http://ntl.bts.gov/data/eas.pdf
It's a bit dated and in PDF format. You have to scroll down after a break at page 4 to see what communities and airlines were getting a few years ago.

[Wright is right!]

Let's see here. 100 aeropuertos nationwide - that's two per state. How many airports does the typical state have? Dozens, many already uncontrolled. And when was the last time you heard about a serious incident at an uncontrolled field? Been a long time for me...

We can't ask the gubmint to rein in gubmint spending unless we are willing to pitch in our share. And we don't need expensive services next to mom-n-pop FBO's at uncontrolled fields.

Michael

[nuconvert]

Agree

[Criminal Number 18F]

Actually, from the GA point of view, the arrival of a subsidized Part 121 operation can really make a mess of things.

As far as subsidizing airlines in general, the well run ones are making money (and bounced back from the post-9/11 trouble handsomely). The poorly run ones are the ones that need subsidies. Why bother?

It's like Amtrak, or a spendthrift child in a candy store. If you give either a nickle it will blow it and have nothing to show for it. If you give it a dollar, same difference.

If you can't actually make a living doing what you make a living doing, it's a hobby, and I don't think I ought to be required to subsidize your avocation.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[verity]

Just Another Special Interest.