Taxpayers Shell Out For Near-Empty Flights

"Essential" Air Service Pays Airlines Millions To Fly To Cities You Probably Haven't Heard Of

(CBS)  Essential Air Service was set up during the Carter Presidency to prop up rural airports until they could make it on their own. It was supposed to be temporary, but as CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports, it's now bigger and costlier than ever-$127 million dollars this year alone.

Government watchdog Evan Sparks says airlines and airports are no closer to making it on their own. They're just hooked on the public dole.

"The Essential Air Service is neither essential, nor is it much of a service," Sparks says.

The government's Essential Air Service pays airlines millions to serve more than 100 small towns-many can barely scrounge a few passengers even after years of trying.

A million dollars a year keeps planes flying into Lewistown, Montana-often empty. The subsidy works out to $843 dollars a passenger.

How about the $2 million a year to fly a handful of people from Macon, Georgia to Atlanta-just 83 miles away?

Attkisson booked tickets from Washington Dulles Airport to the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia.

She didn't have to fight a crowd at the gate, there was no line to board, and with just four other passengers, there were plenty of empty seats.

Yet the government pays Colgan Air $1.3 million dollars a year to fly this route three times a day.

Most of the planes fly more empty than full, but the government still pays for it even when they're completely empty.

After Attkisson landed, her plane went on to Beckley West Virginia-with no passengers at all.

Essential Air Service does have its supporters-the lucky few passengers enjoy low fares and lots of elbow room.

But its biggest fans are in Congress. Representative John Peterson says the program, run by the Department of Transportation, is crucial to keeping rural America "connected."

"The Department of Transportation paid for 2.4 million empty seats in 2006. Is that a problem?" Attkisson asks.

"Well sure it's a problem," Rep. Peterson says. "But proper administration, hooking them up to an airport where there's someplace to go, some place to connect to, those have been the problems. Those have been administrative problems."

As it happens, it's thanks to Essential Air Service that Peterson can fly right into his tiny hometown airport in Oil City, Pennsylvania-population 11,000. And he's not the only member of Congress with subsidized flights going to their small towns.

Which may be partly why, when the Department of Transportation recently tried to cut back Essential Air Service, Congress just made it bigger: all those millions paying for flights that are often running on empty.

[phoolish1]

the program was set up in the late 70's. thirty years later and it isnt close to accomplishing its goal. axe it.

[Justme1331]

New comment on old issue: These flights are no where near "free", nor is this service even affordable for a working person. I needed a short flight from Me. to Mass. for my father's funeral and the cost was an astronomical $600 each way. That was more than 13 years ago and the price now is even more outrageous! So, why, if these airlines are getting so many tax payer dollars, do they still feel the need to charge the same tax payer an exorbitant amount of money?

[indianmade1]

We can''t have school funding, we can''t have country wide medical coverage, we are losing social secruity, and congress got a raise. How can afford to pay congress and fund idiot programs like this and still expect people to believe in their government?
Politicains make more money than the average family and get perks from their job as well as from lobbist, yet they still feel the need to spend even more on wasted programs and justify it by saying we need to stay connected. Let the airlines make money from their cutomers. what they don''t have any customers...that tells me their isn''t a real market for the business and maybe the government shouldn''t fund it. those who wish to fly 83 miles should pay for it and those who choose to drive shouldn''t have to waste their taxes on a flight to no where. You could take a bicycle 83 miles and really do well for yourself and the environment

[ermarhick-2009]

And this is more government waste.
The "Fleecing of America" at it''s finest.

[ermarhick-2009]

HevyHed, your comments horrify me.
"...Let them all die...i''m talking about those who love America, not the leftist welfare animals who pollute our great American city streets"...

I hope you never, ever end up in situation ( if you already haven''t ) where you''ll have to ask for and accept help from an outside source.
I say that because you imply that those who are on welfare are also apparently junkies and criminals.
You then imply that we should just let people die.
Everyone has their own problems, but that doesn''t mean that we stop giving entirely because we know there are those who abuse the welfare system.
I can compare that to saying that you, and every other person with a right-wing ideology is a racist, bigoted, intolerant, undereducated country-bumpkin.
Though i would love to throw you all into one box, i know better.
And don''t you dare imply that any of us hate our country-you don''t know me, you don''t have a lepton''s worth of a clue.
It''s not our job to judge people.
It''s our job to care.
What happened to caring for each other? Looking out for our fellow citizens?

[chad55555]

I would rather see money being spent this way then overseas,it stays in America and takes you to places a few may need to go. GOOD FOR AMERICA AND OUT OF THE WAY PEOPLE.

[pfd572]

diatreme: you are hysterical in your nonsense. No one said to cease flights were they are the ONLY method of safe travel, but an 83 mile trip on the eastern coast of the continental US? That is insane. I live in the desert, should I get door to door service because its too hot to drive? Some people are exchanging food for gas or prescriptions, but a wealthy member of Congress needs a door-to-door flight? Puh-leeze

[pfd572]

artison004: What a crock. How many Republicans, who haven''t met a tax-payer support of business it doesn''t like, have fought to keep these flights? The Congress has been controlled by Republicans for years! During the time it was proposed to end it. It never ceases, the attempt by desperate people to find some insane way to blame Democrats/liberals for the continued folly of Republicans/conservatives (sic)

[prinzowhales]

I suspect the planes are leased from the banks and the banks are making a killing off of the program... kind of an indirect subsidy to the banks.

[hevyhed]

Quote from previous member.......

Due to changing circumstances---huge national debt, crumbling infrastructure, rising homelessness, joblessness, uninsured, foreclosures, food, medical, and insurance costs, among other things,--- the continuation of this program in the future may not be practical.

It''''s one of MANY outmoded, inefficient, overly-expensive programs that will probably need to be cut to pay for much more critical needs.

As time goes on, it definitely will be harder to justify!


My response.......
You are correct. There is a huge problem. Let us end all socialist welfare programs. Stop feeding the crack heads and compensating them for having babies. Let them all die!

Viva EAS (essential air service)! Money well spent, a reward for our productive American citizens who live in rural America. I''m talking about those who love America, not the leftist welfare animals who pollute our great American city streets.

[cowboy9994]

Mark Longshore says fly Delta

Just more brilliant thinking from the Dems glorious leader Jimmy "Terrorists Love Me" Carter.

[lorinkundert]

This is what happens when you let the Government operate outside of it''s Constitutional limits, and that will only get worse.

[b-easy63]

Finally, for many people who live in the Alaskan bush country, abolishing EAS subsidies would be a disaster, since air transport is the only link to the "outside world."

Posted by US_310_Wyom at 02:25 AM : May 03, 2008


They could always MOVE to be closer to the real world--that is what the rest of us unfortunates do--we move to where the jobs are, move to be closer to hospitals or schools or whatever--either move or don''t pretend to rough it--really rough it and be cut off from the outside world. Nobody is making them live in the wilderness now are they? We don''t compensate people with public funds for decisions that are there own personal choice.

[b-easy63]

towns are 3 to 6 hours drive from a major airport. Where I live, in northwestern Wyoming, winter weather can, sometimes, make roads impassable, or very treacherous at the least. Posted by US_310_Wyom at 01:26 AM : May 03, 2008

There are several problems with your post.

1. How many people are you? If you state needs to keep "you" linked, let your state and your state taxes pay for it--NOT the rest of the entire country

2. If bad weather makes the car travel unsafe--you can bet your sweet, isolated azz that the airways are unsafe too. Try that line somewhere else

3. There are not enough of "you" to justify the rest of us footing the bill for this. every little bit hurts or helps. You want this--because it is a benefit and convenience to "you" but the "yous" are not the rest of us and cannot justify why the rest of "US" have to pay so the few of you can have this perk.

I''d like an airplane to take me directly to my door--but it is not going to happen. We have to drive over 45 minutes to the nearest airport and to go anywher significant have to take a commuter flight to a hub--but I drive 45 minutes just to get to the smaller flights and I don''t use no name companies to do this. I PAY. the biggest problems with subsidies is that is encourages a welfare mentality and as your post indicates, a feeling of inevitability and entitlement from those of you who benefit---no matter what the cost is to all of us who will NEVER benefit.

[b727100bear]

attention slim1h2o: clearly, you are not familiar with the realities of airline operations. Having an airplane sit idly on the ground until passengers show up is an enormous expense for the airline, not to mention having a crew sitting doing nothing which could be more productive flying. Airlines are one of the few businesses (yes! businesses which must earn a profit in order to survive) that have been virtually unable to pass their costs (fuel, etc.) along to the consumer as others have - i. e. railroads, trucking firms. Fares need to increase and our country desperately needs to overhaul the Air Traffic System - a system which currently employs 1950''s technology.

[stn_sage]

Due to changing circumstances---huge national debt, crumbling infrastructure, rising homelessness, joblessness, uninsured, foreclosures, food, medical, and insurance costs, among other things,--- the continuation of this program in the future may not be practical.

It''s one of MANY outmoded, inefficient, overly-expensive programs that will probably need to be cut to pay for much more critical needs.

As time goes on, it definitely will be harder to justify!

[slim1h2o]

Posted by NonayaBiness at 04:43 AM : May 03, 2008

They certainly could carpool,,or take a bus. For sure, that would be cheaper, and save valuable fuel.

[slim1h2o]

Posted by NonayaBiness at 04:37 AM : May 03, 2008

I agree,,they should eleminate flight times, or consolidate times, and fly out of airports one time a day. If there is no one to fly, then the plane should sit there till there''s enough people to fly. This service is probably useful, but we could spend less money on it, and still keep it in service.

[nonayabiness]

"How about the $2 million a year to fly a handful of people from Macon, Georgia to Atlanta-just 83 miles away?"

-Utterly ridiculous. I''m glad someone broke this story. Perhaps something will be done about this, like ELIMINATING 83 MILE FLIGHTS? It would take more gas to get the plane off the ground than it would for a handful of people to drive the 83 miles. What a waste!