The E.A.S.: Bad for Airlines, Good for Me

I'm boarding a flight later today for the beautiful Upper Peninsula of Michigan with mixed emotions.   It's great that I can fly within a few miles of the rural town where I'm headed, but on the other hand I know my flight is part of the problem for airlines.   Let me explain.

The last time I flew there it was just me and two other people on the flight.   Its a 30 seat plane (seen above).   27 empty seats.   I remarked to the crew that while it was great for me the flight existed, I didn't know how this flight could continue with these passenger levels.    It was then I learned about the Essential Air Services Program.   This is a government mandated program that provides air service to 106 rural communities around the country.   The airlines enter into the two year contracts for service, receive government subsidies to cover their costs, and cannot exit those deals unless they find another carrier to take their slot or go bankrupt.  

The problem is that as fuel prices have risen, the subsidies haven't kept pace.  This means the airlines providing the services are getting hammered in losses on these routes but have no flexibility to stop flying.    Government subsidies on these these 106 routes is more than $131 million dollars per year.

As a traveler I love having the service.  The other option is flying into Green Bay and driving a few hours north.    But as a believer in free markets, its tough to know that my route is just another part of the big problem airlines are facing.   No doubt many communities rely on this service for essentials.   More than 20 of the 106 protected markets are in Alaska, where there are few roads.  No question about the necessity there.   But on the whole it may be time to take a look at the E.A.S. and balance the $131 million in taxpayer money against the option of merely driving a few more hours to make the trip.