As the federal shutdown drags on and Trump’s Department of Transportation prepares airlines to “walk away,” the fate of the Essential Air Service program is suddenly in serious jeopardy.
As Washington Feuds, Small-Town Airports Face Extinction – Is The End Of Essential Air Service Coming?
Because of the ongoing shutdown, the U.S. Department of Transportation has warned that EAS subsidies could expire as early as this coming Sunday. Reuters reports that DOT has already dipped into FAA funds in advance to keep the program alive, but those reserves are nearly exhausted.
Meanwhile, DOT has issued a notice to airlines that, beginning October 13, it will no longer guarantee subsidy payments under EAS contracts if funding isn’t restored. Carriers operating EAS flights beyond that date may face nonpayment or contract relief, meaning they fly at risk.
If the department is unable to pay EAS carrier subsidies beyond October 12, 2025, by this Notice, we will relieve all EAS carreirs of their obligations under all EAS orders beginning on October 13, 2025, until such time as funding is restored. Air carriers that continue to operate EAS flights beyond October 12, 2025, would do so at their own risk as the Department may not be able to pay the contracted subsidy.
View From The Wing notes that dozens of small town airports could see service cut if carriers walk away. Many communities, especially in Alaska, depend entirely on EAS for connectivity. The program currently supports roughly 177 communities nationwide, with annual funding of about $350 million. Toughly 65 Alaska communities and 112 in the contiguous U.S. and territories rely on it.
This program is beloved by members of Congress who can boast about bringing air service to their districts, but maybe it’s time to rethink this entire program altogether. And as the Trump administration tries to reorient federal spending, could we see this program die altogether?
Arguments For Letting EAS Die
I count at least four arguments for letting EAS die as a consequence of the current federal government shutdown:
- Cost control: The program is expensive per passenger and often subsidizes near-empty flights. Is it really necessary?
- Market discipline: Some argue that pushing markets to evolve rather than rely on subsidies forces more efficient service or alternative transport options. Yes, people will have to drive farther, but is that actually the better alternative?
- Redundancy: With improved regional air networks and infrastructure, some small communities may already have viable alternatives by ground transport.
- Political leverage: Who benefits from EAS? It is just the political leaders and the very few who use it versus the communites at large?
Arguments For Saving EAS
But there are fairly strong arguments for saving EAS as well:
- Essential lifeline for remote communities: Many towns in Alaska and some in the contiguous USA lack viable roads or winter access; air service is the only realistic connection to the outside world.
- Economic impact: Loss of EAS can isolate communities, reduce commerce, deter investment, and harm local businesses (the story is more complex than just whether flights are full).
- Bipartisan support: Historically, EAS has had support across both parties, especially in rural states that vote Republican, even those pushing cuts now.
- Reputation risk: Letting the program collapse during a shutdown may damage the credibility of DOT and the federal commitment to rural America.
I’m Somewhat Conflicted Over This…
I am admittedly ambivalent about the need for EAS. I think subsidizing service to tiny communities is probably money that could be better spent elsewhere, especially in places where viable air transport exists within 100 miles. Even so, I recognize there is something American about EAS…the idea, like USPS’s rural free delivery program, that we are all Americans and that a well-connected nation not only helps economic growth, but fuels unity.
We might not be at 1860 yet, and I’m too young to remember the Vietnam years, but never in my life have I seen such disunity, with division exponentially magnified thanks to echo chambers on social media and cable news. I do wonder whether we are seeing this country collapse before our eyes, not in a sudden breakup, but like the fall of the Roman Empire.
CONCLUSION
The government shutdown may indeed kill the Essential Air Service program, not through a grand reform, but through neglect, nonpayment, and fear of risk. That would leave dozens of small airports dark, further disconnect rural America, and tarnish the promise that federal service extends beyond big cities.
While there are strong arguments for ending this service altogether, it still strikes me as a program that has a far greater impact on national unity than tepid flight loads may suggest.
My home base in an EAS airport. Sort of. SkyWest gets a subsidy October-May for two flights per day on a CRJ-550/700/900 operated by SkyWest for Delta. From May-October, it’s unsubsidized. Flights increase to 4-5 per day. Outside the dead of winter when the only people flying are leaving the area for vacations somewhere warm, we generally fill up about 35-40 seats on the 50-seat planes any day of the week.
There are four other airports within two hours. Two of the airports are EAS-subsidized the whole calendar year and have as few as one flight per day. At these two airports, one airport fills around 30-35 seats any day of the week, all year with no problem because they’re on the Canadian border and most of their passenger traffic are Canadians flying to places in the USA because it’s significantly cheaper than Air Canada.
The other two airports are both two hours driving distance each year and are wholly unsubsidized.
EAS makes sense, although what I see is laziness. Airports and local governments become lazy with the EAS subsidy and don’t make an effort to attract flights without a subsidy. SkyWest is one of the biggest EAS carriers for Delta and United. They exploit the fear of losing service and in some cases receive a local government subsidy on top of the EAS subsidy.
I’m curious to know what customers get in terms of compensation or what are passenger rights in this situation. Let’s say I’m flying United or Delta mainline but have a connection on a United or Delta regional carrier on an EAS route. If they stop flying the EAS route and I’m stuck somewhere trying to get home, what are my rights?
I think you would only be entitled to a full refund assuming it’s all one ticket.
I’m guessing you’re at RHI, IMT, or ESC?
What’s funny about the EAS markets a lot of them as you noted are within a few hours of a major airport. People that live in those markets often just drive to the major airport for schedule and convenience (non-stop or one stop) reasons. A distance to major market requirement would really cut down a lot of these routes.
For the contiguous US, I’d love to see a study on if it makes better sense to devote funds to improved rail service over EAS. It may make sense in many places to just invest in rail as a part of a larger national rail modernization project.
For the Alaska communities, we may still need some sort of lifesaving service to get people the healthcare they need in an emergency. That being said, living in those communities is a lifestyle choice and comes with tradeoffs such as limited access to many conveniences.
I guess it comes down to a philosophy of whether government should be run like a business or should be run like a service provider/utility. Depending on someone’s point-of-view, what may be a fiscal waste to some may be a vital service to others.
In much of the country, railroad tracks have been removed and the railroad grades converted to trails. Train stations have been closed or demolished. The cost to re-create the kind of passenger rail network that existed before World War II would be enormous. Just imagine the environmental permitting to build new railroads.
The more likely alternative to EAS subsidized flights in some of these airports are the chartered buses that American experimented with recently. Maybe American still does this.
But in my case, if the three local EAS-subsidized airports within two hours of my house lose their flights then I have to drive two hours each way in snow to the closest airport that isn’t EAS. That’s a significant expense with gas at $3.25 per gallon. It also means I likely have to get a hotel on both ends of every trip due to flight times.
I fly two or three times a month. I don’t want to be driving two hours each way two or three times a month. It would be a nightmare. And it would cost me a lot of money with my car lease alone.
Or you could move closer to the airport if you fly alot…
I’ve been to Alaska. They need it. The lower 48 generally doesn’t need it. Maybe a few areas might have a good argument but most do not.
I’ve trekked from the East Coast to Alaska maybe 15 times and have been to tiny airports like Gustavus, Ketchikan, King Salmon, Barrow and Lake Minchumina. No doubt those areas need air service. They do not need taxpayers in the lower 48 to pay subsidies which at times exceed $300 per seat to operate. Living in Alaska is a lifestyle choice, and was a choice even before passenger service existed. I will not interfere with these choices, but draw a small line when told that I must subsidize it.
I would love to see a study on how EAS communities voted in 2024. My guess is they are overwhelmingly red communities.
Saying the money could be better spent elsewhere is a useless thought. The money won’t be directed elsewhere, it will be given back to the wealthy and corporations in the form of tax breaks. In a country with a comprehensive public transportation system EAS might be less necessary, but we don’t have that. Why many people can (and do) drive 100 miles to get to an airport, EAS is for those who can’t. $350M just isn’t much, and I’d be sad to see it go.
EAS is a drop in a very large bucket that provides reliable transportation service to smaller communities (versus waiting hours and hours for a Greyhound bus or whatever to decide to arrive), and it’s nice to have a country dotted with some smaller staffed airports, you know, just in case.
Meanwhile here in NYC the leading mayoral candidate wants to spend more than twice that amount to make buses free (which given bus fare evasion rates of 44-48% in the last 12-24 months, uh… yeah.).
Apparently this shutdown is little more than a meme war to many, but the knock on impact on transportation is about to get more “real”. This is what “ended” the last shutdown, and public outcry will eventually end this one as well.
EAS is welfare for rural areas. Get rid of it. Let those welfare queens hitchhike.
How exactly does this system work, and has it ever been benchmarked against international equivalents? It seems super wasteful having all those regional jets hopping around half-full, and quite ironic that it’s happening in the country where the 14-seater Cessna Grand Caravan is built for Azul Conecta to do small town flying in a country which happens to be a major producer of regional jets!
Well thr disunity you’re seeing is not something that just popped up. It has been brewing for decades with the hateful policies primarily pushed by the Republicans.
Hell, you went charging into Iraq to spread democracy, and anyone questioning the rationale of that misbegotten invasion was deemed a traitor.
The same Republicans are standing silently by while democracy is beingmurdered in the USA.
You reap what you sow.