[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Index]
"Trump Budget Ends Subsidies for Rural Airports, Promising $175Million in Savings"
Friday, March 17, 2017
Trump Budget Ends Subsidies for Rural Airports, Promising $175 Million in
Cutting those subsidies makes a lot of sense, and could be done without cutting
rural communities out of the nation's transportation networks.
By Eric Boehm
The Reason Foundation
Every year, taxpayers buy hundreds of tickets on otherwise empty flights from
places like Ely, Nevada; Lewistown, Montana; and Paducah, Kentucky.
Those vacant seats are bought, at a cost of about $200 million annually, by the
federal government as a way to subsidize twice-daily service to 175 rural
airports that airlines may not otherwise choose to serve. President Donald
Trump's first budget plan, released Thursday, would do away with those
subsidies by shutting down the federal government's Essential Air Service
"EAS flights are not full and have high subsidy costs per passenger," the White
House budget proposal states. "Several EAS-eligible communities are relatively
close to major airports, and communities that have EAS could be served by other
existing modes of transportation."
Eliminating the EAS is one part of an overall $2.4 billion budget reduction for
the Department of Transportation proposed Thursday by the White House. Other
budget savings would come from reducing subsidies for Amtrak, eliminating some
local government grant programs, and privatizing the nation's 14,000 air
It's hard to find any proposal in the budget that makes more sense than cutting
the Essential Air Service program, which is anything but essential.
The EAS program has its roots in the deregulation of the airline industry in
the late 1970s. Before deregulation, carriers were required to serve smaller,
rural airports in order to obtain government permission to operate. After
deregulation, the federal government created the Essential Air Service program
to subsidize those rural routes so airlines would continue to serve them even
without being required to do so. It was supposed to be a 10-year program to
help those regional airports transition into the new deregulated air market.
More than 35 years later, it's still with us, another testament to the
permanence of temporary government programs.
The Department of Transportation says there are 115 airports in the lower 48
states (and another 60 in Alaska) receiving subsidies through the program. Any
airport more than 70 miles from another commercial airport is eligible for
subsidies, which are capped at $200 per passenger. Airports in the EAS program
get at least two round trips a day with 30- to 50-seat aircraft-although
sometimes those planes have as few as nine seats, as Reason has previously
reported-to nearby hub airports. Without the EAS subsides, the department says,
those communities "would not receive any scheduled air service."
But those supposedly far-flung places won't be cut off from the rest of the
world if the EAS program were shuttered. In fact, many of them aren't so
far-flung at all, and some might find better, more cost effective ways to get
people where they need to go if the subsidies were killed.
For example, the airport in Hagerstown, Maryland, gets subsidies through the
EAS program, even though it's less than a 90 minute drive from there to Dulles
International Airport. Taxpayers pay more than $800 to subsidize each and every
departure from Jonesboro Regional Airport in northern Arkansas, despite the
airport being less than 70 miles from Memphis, Tennessee. It would be more cost
effective to reimburse travelers leaving from Jonesboro or Hagerstown for the
cost of fuel and mileage to drive to the larger airport.
Those two aren't unique. In all, 38 of the 153 airports subsidized through the
EAS program are within 150 miles of another, larger airport. A 2011 report
published by the Reason Foundation (which publishes this blog), the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the American Bus Association, and Taxpayers for
Common Sense found that 79,000 one-way flights leave those 38 airports each
year, carrying 615,000 passengers who pay $70 million in fares. The federal
government's subsidies for those flights totals nearly $60 million.
Replacing those flights with a bus service to shuttle passengers to larger,
nearby airports could save $89 million annually, the report found. Yes, buses
don't travel as fast as planes, but the average trip would be only 45 minutes
longer on the ground than through the air, the study found.
That's fine for the EAS airports near bigger cities, but what about the rest? A
2009 report by the Congressional Budget Office suggested that states and local
governments could pick up the tab for airport subsidies if they were truly
essential to the local economy. In many places, such service might not be
needed at all-or the number of flights could be reduced from two per day to
perhaps a few flights each week, depending on demand. Indeed, some EAS-eligible
airports operate with fewer than five passengers per day, the Government
Accountability Office found in 2011.
Trump's budget, like all presidential spending proposals, is more of a
political document than a fiscal roadmap. Congress gets the final say on
federal spending, and, if history is any guide, we haven't heard the last from
the EAS program. President George W. Bush tried three times to reduce or
eliminate funding for it during the mid-2000s, only to be rebuked each time by
Congress. Funding for the program actually increased during the Obama
administration, from about $136 million annually to the current level of $200
Cutting back on those subsidies-or eliminating them entirely, as Trump
proposes-makes a lot of sense, and could be done without cutting rural
communities out of the nation's transportation networks.
Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at firstname.lastname@example.org