USA Today has an article on three cities losing airline service after subsidy cuts.
On October 1st, Hagerstown, MD, along with Lancaster, PA and Brookings, SD lost scheduled commercial service because they were deemed ineligible for subsidies because they are too close to bigger airports.
The article goes into the calculations…but we are not surprised the federal government is reluctant about subsidizing essential air service. Perhaps it is time to be more realistic about this.
Take Rutland, VT. Cape Air, which operates nine-seater props, got special permission to get an EAS subsidy to operate service to Boston. The hope is that nine-seater planes, being less expensive to operate, will make the service more profitable, and we fully support Cape Air’s efforts.
But the question is: Is Essential Air Service so essential? If it isn’t…then what should we be spending that money on? We pondered that some years ago. If the government feels that investing in EAS in certain regions is not cost-effective, then we believe that the money should be diverted to intermodal efforts…
If it is not cost effective to run service out of smaller communities…the money should be diverted to make access to these communities more efficient by means of public transport. Subsidize a bus to a larger airport…restoration of regional train service, and other options.
These options are not as good as air service….but if you cannot fill a 19 seat plane consistently…then you have to try other options…and remain committed to review demand later. What do you think?