View From The Wing - Why the Best Small Community Airport Subsidies Reveal We Should Shut Down...

Discussion in 'Blogstand' started by BoardingArea, Aug 20, 2012.  |  Print Topic

  1. BoardingArea

    BoardingArea News Feed

    Messages:
    73,877
    Likes Received:
    463
    Status Points:
    20
    Today Cranky Flier takes up the task of defending the undefendable — highlighting ‘worthy’ investments this year by the federal government’s Small Community Air Service Development grants. There were 61 applications from communities for money from the government, 33 were...
    ©View From The Wing, a BoardingArea Blog

    Continue reading...
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  2. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    Not one case of EAS represents good value in the world of today IMHO. Every single one has other alternatives. Even remote Alaska cities can pay for the services they want/need, or have charter services. I am not opposed to the concept if the concept actually worked, but it seems not to. Better to eliminate it completely and deal with Hawaiian islands and Alaska towns in other ways if those States really want to subsidize people who choose to live remotely . As for the continental US stop it all, and do nothing at all to subsidize.

    Disclosure: I have lived remotely, on an island with the nearest commercial airport 1 1/2 water and road hours away and in a village two road hours from the nearest commercial airport. Both had facilities that could have been used for EAS-like services be we had nothing like that. We all worked out how to live where we wanted to be and still have some access to services we wanted also. Thus, I see no conceivable reason why everyone else cannot do the same. If they cannot, change location of residence.
     
  3. gleff
    Original Member

    gleff Co-founder

    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    Status Points:
    4,670
    For what it's worth, the Essential Air Service program is different from the small community grants program.

    EAS was a buy-off of members of congress who thought their communities might lose out under deregulation. And it persists 34 years later.

    These grants are silly as well.

    But I could imagine if the US is going to maintain sorts of empire like dominion over American Samoa and the Northern Mariana islands that it will incur some costs of empire like subsidizing flights to other parts of the US.
     
    jbcarioca likes this.
  4. jbcarioca
    Original Member

    jbcarioca Gold Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    Likes Received:
    57,455
    Status Points:
    20,020
    I know they are different, but IMO the two differ only in the blatancy of the pork involved. As for Polynesia, the costs of diminished empire weigh heavily on the British Exchequer for the Malvinas Falklands. The US is hardly better off to pay so much for the convenience of so few, including the tax breaks to companies that fake making things there. Of course I also am opposed to capital gains preferences, nice as it is for my US taxes, as well as depletion allowances and accelerated depreciation.

    It seems to me that all these things fit together as distortions of a system structured to hide what is actually being done to subsidize whom. IMO if there is to be a subsidy I think it should be very, very obvious so people know what they pay. Waste will reduce, regardless of political preference, when citizens see what they pay for.

    Sorry if I am going OT.
     

Share This Page