Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funding a resource few people can use........like giving tax credits to people who buy jets (Bush implemented after 9/11 to help the aircraft industry) -- entitlement program in disguise. I would rather give out money for Meals on Wheels than for someone to have access to less costly flights.
We've used EAS flights a few times, but I'm not sure they are really essential. I don't know, I probably wouldn't support defunding it, but it's not something I would fight over. The money could probably be better used in other ways.
Things dont exist in a vacuum, it is past myopic to say, we don't need airports (infrastructure) we need jobs, those things go hand in hand, companies prefer to be able to flight in people, resources etc, not a hard concept to grasp.
Not everyone can or wants to drive 12 hours. Trump is eliminating access to travel. The fly over states will literally be flyover states. People will have no way to go on vacations or visit family in middle states.
Trump is eliminating access to things people need like food and clean water and basic health. He is horrible.
Didn't he run on fixing airports? Guess there will be none to fix if they shut down.
OMG. Will there be no more airports? We have to drive a car to our VACATION destiny and to visit our famiily!
There is no more food!
No more clean water!
No more basic health!
OMG
OMG
OMG
You suppose once the auto was introduced and more people purchased them that private roads would have followed? Or do you really believe that we'd still have the horse and buggy as a primary mode of travel if govt didn't build roads?
At least you didn't argue that the auto replaced the horse and buggy because politicians thought it was a good idea.
Cars run on subsidized roads, yes including yours. Urban airports are also subsidized.
If it can't survive on it's own it's useless and not needed. Just like Amtrak
Tell that to a burn victim who has to be flown to the nearest hospital with a critical burn facility. Or prepare to be brave enough to go watch the victim die, screaming in agony instead.
Talk is real cheap when the speaker has easy access to life and death matters. It's not so cheap when someone who lives far away runs into very serious trouble. You could need an emergency airlift yourself someday, if you ever leave the confines of your basement and venture out of the city limits.
Tell that to a burn victim who has to be flown to the nearest hospital with a critical burn facility. Or prepare to be brave enough to go watch the victim die, screaming in agony instead.
Talk is real cheap when the speaker has easy access to life and death matters. It's not so cheap when someone who lives far away runs into very serious trouble. You could need an emergency airlift yourself someday, if you ever leave the confines of your basement and venture out of the city limits.
As usual, your analyses are pragmatic & reality-based, thanks & respect, appreciated.
You're right, having worked in an emergency room, I've seen for myself that the time it takes to get the patient to treatment is a crucial factor in their outcomes. I've seen people come in with multiple bullet wounds who survive & also people arriving with much less serious injuries who didn't & solely because they didn't get to treatment in time.
Tell that to a burn victim who has to be flown to the nearest hospital with a critical burn facility. Or prepare to be brave enough to go watch the victim die, screaming in agony instead.
Talk is real cheap when the speaker has easy access to life and death matters. It's not so cheap when someone who lives far away runs into very serious trouble. You could need an emergency airlift yourself someday, if you ever leave the confines of your basement and venture out of the city limits.
And.......here we go.
Do burn victims flown to the nearest hospital usually fly out of commercial, rural airports?
President Trump’s budget would end federal support for air service in rural communities, many of which voted for him in the election.
The spending blueprint, released Thursday, proposes entirely eliminating funding for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, arguing that EAS flights “are not full and have high subsidy costs per passenger” and that “several EAS-eligible communities are relatively close to major airports.”
The 40-year old program, which costs taxpayers about $175 million per year, gives small towns and communities access to air service, providing better access to businesses in those areas. Some local officials have said they could not continue air service without federal subsidies.
As a rural resident that has taken advantage of this subsidy, I agree with this move. The government shouldn't be subsidizing air travel. I'm sure urban residents don't want their tax money going to a subsidy like this and I can't say I blame them.
If it can't survive on it's own it's useless and not needed. Just like Amtrak
Federal highway funds pay for most of the interstates going through sparsely populated states like Montana, Utah, etc. Let's cut them off too, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
