Cost of Government Subsidizing Rural Airports? $4,

[EmptyTimCup]

Cost of Government Subsidizing Rural Airports? $4,000+ Per Ticket

Omri Ceren | @mere_rhetoric 08.12.2011 - 5:15 PM

You’ll remember the ironically-named Essential Air Service program from the FAA extension debate. The $200 million program was one of two issues on which Senate Democrats refused to budge, opting to suspend infrastructure spending and revenue generation rather than to let Republicans cut subsidies for 13 airports. Finally a compromise was struck under which Republicans would formally eliminate the program — because Senate Democrats couldn’t really defend paying for empty planes to fly into empty rural airports — but Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood would be allowed to very quietly waive the cuts. Guess how that went.

The Associated Press followed up on the story today, using the town of Ely, Nevada as an illustration. There are plenty of days when the airport gets planes with exactly zero passengers, and across the entire year flights average 1 or 2 passengers per flight. Last year exactly 227 passengers departed from the Ely airport terminals, with each passenger paying between $70 and $90 for their heavily-subsidized one-way tickets. The difference between the full price and what each passenger paid was left for taxpayers to pick up. Average price per ticket: $4,107.

the Demorats never met a subsidy the did not like ..... except takes breaks for OIL Companies ... or one they were willing to cut

The article goes on to quote Prof. Severin Borenstein of the University of California, Berkeley, who helped design EAS and who now thinks that there is a “big problem” with giving subsidies to airports like Ely. That’s one way of putting it.

Defenders of the program insist that, actually, the government funds transportation projects that are even more expensive and even more wasteful. They also emphasize that the subsidized airports boost communities that would otherwise not see activity on account of broad public disinterest. That’s the level of debate we’ve reached. The argument against cutting pork out of the budget is that there’s pork in the budget, and we justify sending money to communities because they’re demographically unsustainable.

You kind of have to admire the shamelessness involved. If these airports weren’t in the states of powerful senators they wouldn’t exist, and everyone kind of knows that. But at some point we really will have to stop letting politicians say things that obviously don’t make sense just because they like spending taxpayer money.

Gov't paying for empty flights to rural airports

Faye Malarkey Black, a vice president for the Regional Airline Association, said she believes few federal programs accomplish as much for $200 million as EAS does.

"They call it essential for a reason," she said. She said her industry group supports "common sense adjustments" for eligibility, but added that rural communities already struggle to attract and keep doctors and other professionals.

"If you take away air service, who wants to live in those communities?" she said.

Chadd Williams, a computer science professor at Pacific University, was flying back to Oregon from Morgantown after visiting family. He said a ticket to Morgantown typically costs him $75 to $100 more than one to Pittsburgh, about 75 miles away, but this time it cost about the same.

"It's very convenient to have this place," Williams said. He said his family sometimes drives to Pittsburgh, to pick him up, but "that's a stress on them, and it's difficult to get up to Pittsburgh on time with all the road construction. So it would be terrible to have this go away."

Flower shop owner Jim Coombs has been to the Morgantown airport seven times so far this summer to shuttle high school foreign exchange students to their host families. He'll be there seven more times to send them home.

The nearest international airport is about an hour and a half's drive north in Pittsburgh, but traveling there means time wasted in traffic and in Interstate 79 construction zones, not to mention the cost of gas and pricey parking versus free. Coombs says the fact that the northern West Virginia city has its own airport is a selling point for people considering jobs there.

"I think the people in Washington are the types that just think if it's not in a big area, it's not worth anything. They don't know what it's like here. They don't know what goes on here," Coombs said.

Oh My ..... life is inconvenient - we are subsidizing lazy here




and how much for the TSA Lusers to monitor the Airports

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Cost of Government Subsidizing Rural Airports? $4,000+ Per Ticket

Omri Ceren | @mere_rhetoric 08.12.2011 - 5:15 PM

You’ll remember the ironically-named Essential Air Service program from the FAA extension debate. The $200 million program was one of two issues on which Senate Democrats refused to budge, opting to suspend infrastructure spending and revenue generation rather than to let Republicans cut subsidies for 13 airports. Finally a compromise was struck under which Republicans would formally eliminate the program — because Senate Democrats couldn’t really defend paying for empty planes to fly into empty rural airports — but Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood would be allowed to very quietly waive the cuts. Guess how that went.

The Associated Press followed up on the story today, using the town of Ely, Nevada as an illustration. There are plenty of days when the airport gets planes with exactly zero passengers, and across the entire year flights average 1 or 2 passengers per flight. Last year exactly 227 passengers departed from the Ely airport terminals, with each passenger paying between $70 and $90 for their heavily-subsidized one-way tickets. The difference between the full price and what each passenger paid was left for taxpayers to pick up. Average price per ticket: $4,107.

the Demorats never met a subsidy the did not like ..... except takes breaks for OIL Companies ... or one they were willing to cut

The article goes on to quote Prof. Severin Borenstein of the University of California, Berkeley, who helped design EAS and who now thinks that there is a “big problem” with giving subsidies to airports like Ely. That’s one way of putting it.

Defenders of the program insist that, actually, the government funds transportation projects that are even more expensive and even more wasteful. They also emphasize that the subsidized airports boost communities that would otherwise not see activity on account of broad public disinterest. That’s the level of debate we’ve reached. The argument against cutting pork out of the budget is that there’s pork in the budget, and we justify sending money to communities because they’re demographically unsustainable.

You kind of have to admire the shamelessness involved. If these airports weren’t in the states of powerful senators they wouldn’t exist, and everyone kind of knows that. But at some point we really will have to stop letting politicians say things that obviously don’t make sense just because they like spending taxpayer money.

Gov't paying for empty flights to rural airports

Faye Malarkey Black, a vice president for the Regional Airline Association, said she believes few federal programs accomplish as much for $200 million as EAS does.

"They call it essential for a reason," she said. She said her industry group supports "common sense adjustments" for eligibility, but added that rural communities already struggle to attract and keep doctors and other professionals.

"If you take away air service, who wants to live in those communities?" she said.

Chadd Williams, a computer science professor at Pacific University, was flying back to Oregon from Morgantown after visiting family. He said a ticket to Morgantown typically costs him $75 to $100 more than one to Pittsburgh, about 75 miles away, but this time it cost about the same.

"It's very convenient to have this place," Williams said. He said his family sometimes drives to Pittsburgh, to pick him up, but "that's a stress on them, and it's difficult to get up to Pittsburgh on time with all the road construction. So it would be terrible to have this go away."

Flower shop owner Jim Coombs has been to the Morgantown airport seven times so far this summer to shuttle high school foreign exchange students to their host families. He'll be there seven more times to send them home.

The nearest international airport is about an hour and a half's drive north in Pittsburgh, but traveling there means time wasted in traffic and in Interstate 79 construction zones, not to mention the cost of gas and pricey parking versus free. Coombs says the fact that the northern West Virginia city has its own airport is a selling point for people considering jobs there.

"I think the people in Washington are the types that just think if it's not in a big area, it's not worth anything. They don't know what it's like here. They don't know what goes on here," Coombs said.

Oh My ..... life is inconvenient - we are subsidizing lazy here




and how much for the TSA Lusers to monitor the Airports

So I think we can all agree that this program is stupid, but you seem to be ignoring a huge indicator of the problem.

Finally a compromise was struck under which Republicans would formally eliminate the program — because Senate Democrats couldn't really defend paying for empty planes to fly into empty rural airports — but Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood would be allowed to very quietly waive the cuts. Guess how that went

So the right says they want to make cuts, but then they participate in this BS. Instead of actualy ending the program they pass a bill they agree will be ignored so they can claim they did something while blaming the left. Crap like this drives me crazy. If you really want to end a program do it.

 

[EmptyTimCup]

If you really want to end a program do it.

because the Dems would not left them so the FAA got shut down fro 2 weeks

 

[BOP]

the Demorats never met a subsidy the did not like ..... except takes breaks for OIL Companies ... or one they were willing to cut












Oh My ..... life is inconvenient - we are subsidizing lazy here




and how much for the TSA Lusers to monitor the Airports

I want a regional airport in Lusby, and I want it now!

Get Pelosi's butt snorkler (Steny) or the castle dwarf on the phone!

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

If you really want to end a program do it.

because the Dems would not left them so the FAA got shut down fro 2 weeks

I know you are good at blaming the other side, but that is bs.
The left certainly wanted to keep the spending on this going, but the right only wanted to APPEAR to want the cuts. They took the political advantage of being able to SAY they voted against it, when they knew their deal meant the spending and waste would continue. Total bs

 

[Rommey]

Wirelessly posted



I know you are good at blaming the other side, but that is bs.
The left certainly wanted to keep the spending on this going, but the right only wanted to APPEAR to want the cuts. They took the political advantage of being able to SAY they voted against it, when they knew their deal meant the spending and waste would continue. Total bs

It is BS, but I don't think either side wanted to continue to fall on their sword, and the publicity of the lost revenue kinda forced their hand to get something done ASAP. Both sides needed to save some political face as it were, and I think that this allowed them to get something done before going on their summer break.

This isn't something that needed to get done in Aug 2011, but they were using the debt ceiling negotiations as a way to draw their respective lines in the sand. The individual airport subsidies are only valid for 2-3 years at a time and the funding needs to be reauthorized. I'm guessing that will be when the 13 airports that were considered for removal from the EASP will actually happen. In other words, they might not have been able to get all 13 at once, but they can deny funding them individually when their current subsidies come up again for consideration.

 

[Larry Gude]

It is BS, but I don't think either side wanted to continue to fall on their sword, and the publicity of the lost revenue kinda forced their hand to get something done ASAP. Both sides needed to save some political face as it were, and I think that this allowed them to get something done before going on their summer break.

This isn't something that needed to get done in Aug 2011, but they were using the debt ceiling negotiations as a way to draw their respective lines in the sand. The individual airport subsidies are only valid for 2-3 years at a time and the funding needs to be reauthorized. I'm guessing that will be when the 13 airports that were considered for removal from the EASP will actually happen. In other words, they might not have been able to get all 13 at once, but they can deny funding them individually when their current subsidies come up again for consideration.

I feel so much better now that the key problems in our economy; energy costs, housing, immigration and the wars have been addre...


Wait.

 

[thatguy]

It is BS, but I don't think either side wanted to continue to fall on their sword, and the publicity of the lost revenue kinda forced their hand to get something done ASAP. Both sides needed to save some political face as it were, and I think that this allowed them to get something done before going on their summer break.

This isn't something that needed to get done in Aug 2011, but they were using the debt ceiling negotiations as a way to draw their respective lines in the sand. The individual airport subsidies are only valid for 2-3 years at a time and the funding needs to be reauthorized. I'm guessing that will be when the 13 airports that were considered for removal from the EASP will actually happen. In other words, they might not have been able to get all 13 at once, but they can deny funding them individually when their current subsidies come up again for consideration.

so all this BS about needing to make cuts, thats all just talk?

If they really wanted cuts they would have gotten something, instead they effectively voted to continue spending. If the end game is to deny their funding individually, then why not start with one now?

Like i said, the only difference between the right and the left on this issue is that the right wants to CLAIM they didn't approve it.