
Small Communities Are Losing Air Service. It's Not All Bad News.
Loss of scheduled airline service.
Small and rural communities have been experiencing it for the past 30 years. It is not a mirage. It is not a temporary situation. It is a fact that airports at a number of small communities have lost scheduled airline flights.
It is also a fact that with the evolution of airline economics, the changing value of air transportation as a communication channel has changed.
With the expansion of digital modalities, this is not a trend that will be reversed. Point: this is just part of a tectonic shift in how Americans communicate. It is not a situation that can revert to the1980s. Resistance is futile. What is now imperative is the accommodation and optimization of the communication modalities that have made a lot of air service obsolete.
Communication channels have shifted, and their relative economic viability has changed as well.
The shrinkage in small community air service is part of this, regardless of how many desperate consultant studies are done, or how many local citizen air service task forces are engaged. Or how many obsolete and useless federal programs to resuscitate air service are implemented.
Face it: air travel is no longer the fastest or most efficient channel to move information and data between humans. In the last 40 years, this is probably the most unnoticed logistical trend in history, even though we are today living in very different social, business and commercial environments.
This evolution has taken place in every communication channel. It just seems that when it comes to air service access programs for small and rural communities, the narrative is to ignore it. From the perspective of local civics, that is understandable. But civic leaders have the responsibility to recognize the future.
So, let's review the overall changes in how people in the USA communicate.
The Headlines Delivered to The Doorstep. Anybody remember the importance of the 'morning paper?' At one time, it was a communication channel most relied upon to reveal what was going on in the world. Got it right at the front doorstep.
How about Walter Cronkite at 6PM on television? Or the Huntley-Brinkley team? Folks couldn't wait to hear what they were going to report. Along with newspapers, a few TV networks – contained in small time-limited segments -were prime communication portals to tell us what was going on in the world.
For more in-depth information there were weekly magazines such as Time and Newsweek.
Today, these channels of communication have been entirely replaced as first-access sources of data and information. By the time the morning newspaper arrives, consumers already have knowledge of whatever important information might be printed above and below the fold.
As for electronic news, the plethora of flows such as websites, instant notification, cable and satellite have rendered the network 6PM shows to be mostly recaps of what the viewer already knows.
Time and Newsweek? Essentially not in the game, for all intents.
Air Transportation Also Has a Different Role. Airports Need to Tumble to It. Okay. Let's take a look at another communication channel: air transportation.
Until the mid-1980s, across America there were a score or so of independent 'regional' airlines, each with their own turf and geographical route systems, boarding passengers at lots of small rural airports. They had their own identities, their own ticket stock, their own reservations systems, and their own route networks which they defended from one another.
These were airlines like Cascade and Wings West and Gem State and maybe half a dozen more on the West Coast. Then we had others like Britt Airways, Simmons, Midstate, Precision, ASA, Trans-Colorado and more.
They operated small 15-seat to 30-seat turboprop airplanes on routes like Shreveport to New Orleans, or Albany to Boston, or Abilene to Austin, and hundreds more. They also connected small community airports to major airline hubs, facilitated by interline agreements that allowed connections with virtually all of the airlines operating there. For example, when a Bar Harbor Airlines flight arrived at Boston, it connected passengers to a dozen other airlines.
Today, these airlines and the air transportation system they represented are essentially gone. Starting in the mid-1980s, these 'regionals' tended to be subsumed into specific major carrier systems, and eventually they became what they are today: companies that merely lease airplanes and crews to major airlines. Just a part of the fleet. The independent route systems are gone. The intra-regional flights are gone, too.
At the same time, however, emerging new communication modalities actually eliminated a lot of the air traffic that these 'regionals' once was generated to and from small and rural communities. Add in the skyrocketing costs of airline operations, and the results are what we have today.
The Most Important Metric Is Speed. The point here is that like the morning paper and the 6PM first-information television news, this sector of the air transportation system was once live, robust, and had strong consumer demand. But now, the financial and market value underpinnings that supported this sector are gone.
Today, the throngs of business passengers flying between places like Albany and Islip in the early '80s are gone. The documents and information they were transporting between the Capital and the county seats at Riverhead and Mineola no longer need to be physically delivered.
Spending a whole day doing a business roundtrip from Hartford to New York – a major commuter route back then – is today not only inefficient but more and more unnecessary.
Short-haul business markets have atrophied because there are faster and more efficient modes of moving the data and information that air passengers once transported.
Then there are pressures of raw economics. The escalating costs of moving small units of capacity – 15-seat to 50-seat turboprops – have now eliminated any chance of providing flights in thin market routes. These airliners and the economics they represented are gone for good.
Wake Up & Smell the Opportunities in The New Environment. The real 'solutions' for future economic growth in rural America are found in focusing on how to capitalize on the new communication channels and technologies that have made local air service untenable. The silly canard that every rural airport needs scheduled air service has only diverted local economic planning and resources from analyzing the future and instead wallowing in the past.
The success of small community commerce and business are no longer dependent on whether people can physically fly to the local airport. Actually, that's positive.
Instead, the main determinant is whether the region has the infrastructure to support recruitment of new investment. Quality of life, regulatory issues, cost of living, and incentive programs for new investment are the future in regard to building local economies. Local air service is great, but more and more often air service can be accessed at other airports where the drive time is likely less than consumers in Nassau County Long Island need to allocate to get to LaGuardia Airport.
Regionalization of economic development is the name of the game.
This is not to say that research regarding potential air transportation options should not be accomplished. But when facts are known, another study won't change them.
This is the future for rural America: capitalize on the dynamics that have marginalized or killed of traditional communication channels. The represent the future.
The downside is for communities to continue to fight it, instead of embracing new economic development programs that accommodate it.
Again, resistance is futile.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
15 hours ago
- Forbes
How President Trump's 'AI Action Plan' May Impact Corporate Boards
getty The July 23 release of President Trump's comprehensive 'Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan' presents technology opportunities and challenges for corporate leadership. On the one hand, the Plan commits the Administration to the admirable goal of expediting American efforts to establish global leadership in artificial intelligence and its critical infrastructure. On the other hand, its plan to achieve this goal by limiting what it regards as burdensome government regulation may prompt corporate leaders to compensate by adding new, more comprehensive internal risk-related guardrails. The Plan encompasses over 90 Federal policy actions across three policy pillars – 'Accelerating Innovation', 'Building American AI Infrastructure', and 'Leading in International Diplomacy and Security' – that will be rolled out by the Trump Administration over time. The pillars focus on exporting American AI; promoting the rapid buildout of data centers; removing 'onerous' Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment and updating Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that artificial intelligence models procured by the Federal government prioritize truthfulness and ideological neutrality. The New York Times described the Action Plan as 'opening the door for companies to develop the technology unfettered from oversight and safeguards', while assuring that A.I. be free of 'partisan bias.' The perception of the Plan is that in order for America to achieve global pre-eminence in AI, its development must not be hindered by a broad regulatory scheme. This represents a change in approach by the United States and reflects a departure from the approach of other governments (e.g., the European Commission) to implement regulatory standards for AI. Simultaneously with the rollout of the Action Plan, President Trump signed three related Executive Orders: one prohibiting the federal government from purchasing AI tools it perceives as ideologically slanted; another accelerating certain AI infrastructure projects and a third relating to the exporting of American-developed AI products. Corporate boards are likely to follow two parallel paths in responding to the AI Action Plan. One path could involve thorough conversations between the board and management concerning the impact of the Plan on the company's AI strategy. These conversations will likely focus on establishing internal mechanisms to monitor the roll-out of the Plan, and on identifying opportunities under the Plan to enhance the company's approach to AI acquisition and deployment. The other, more challenging path could also involve board/management conversations, but on the opposite end of the spectrum ‒ whether the limited commitment to federal AI regulation could create increased liability and reputational exposure for the company. Any such conversation would be grounded in an honest self-evaluation of the current degree of board proficiency in artificial intelligence related matters. Is the board prepared to accelerate and monitor the company's use of AI? In such an exercise, the National Association of Corporate Directors' 2024 Blue Ribbon Commission Report, 'Technology Leadership in the Boardroom' might be an effective measuring stick. The more direct conversations about liability and risk would evaluate the need to enhance the board's AI oversight mechanisms and whether to add specific review standards in order to assure reliability, safety and trust. In addition, the board may consider whether additional oversight may be necessary in order to responsibly manage issues historically associated with 'irresponsible use' of AI (e.g. societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; anti-competitive behavior, and the displacement and disempowerment of workers). The board will also likely consult with its advisors on whether to expand compliance programming to address possible government enforcement policies regarding the objectivity of AI systems in general, and their possible treatment of such controversial topics as diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change and misinformation. The board's pursuit of this parallel path will most certainly require an investment of time, review, evaluation, internal discussion and external consultation beyond that which it may already be contributing to AI. The ultimate governance question arising from the AI Action plan is whether boards will find it necessary to compensate for the absence of comprehensive AI regulation with increased internal oversight ‒ and whether it can do so without creating an expensive internal bureaucracy.


Forbes
16 hours ago
- Forbes
To Win Or Not To Win The AI Race. The Question To End All Questions
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during the ... More "Winning the AI Race" summit hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) When President Donald Trump announced Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan yesterday, he said something we should all remember: 'America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.' These are important words to remember because it may be the last time, Trump and his Big Tech partners in Silicon Valley acknowledge that AI wasn't always a question of winning or losing a race. To Win Or Not To Win Is Not The Only Question Once AI was a philosophical question – one that religious and spiritual thinkers from ancient cultures asked to better understand the laws of nature. Later it became a scientific question – one that English mathematicians and computer scientitsts asked to transcend the laws of nature. And lately, it has become everyone's question – one that ethicists, policy makers, journalists, educators, you, and I ask to protect the nature in and around us that AI threatens to replace. But – Trump claims – AI is no longer a question. It's a race. A race started by America that America is going to win. Why? Because, as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, puts it, 'winning the AI race is non-negotiable.' And once something is non-negotiable, all questions about it ends. So what are the questions America's AI Action Plan is designed to end? And why is it important that we keep asking them? The AI Race Ends Questions About Regulations The plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security. One key policy is enabling innovation and adoption by 'removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' In yesterday's summit Trump commented on this initiative, saying the AI industry is 'a beautiful baby that's born.' 'We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics, we can't stop it with foolish rules,' Trump said. Talking about AI development as something that cannot be stopped is one thing. Comparing the tech industry with a baby whose growth and well-being we are responsible for is another. And maybe that's where our questions should start: Where our understanding of nature meets our understanding of technology. Is it the same to be 'born to think' and to be 'built to think'? Do babies and AI technologies follow the same laws of nature? Do they have the same constraints? And can the questions asked by philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists in the past guide us in navigating the need for restrictions and regulations in the future? At the AI Action Plan summit, President Trump said the tech industry is 'a beautiful baby" that we ... More have to grow and let thrive. (Photo by Joe Mahoney) The AI Race Ends Questions About Existential Risks According to the White House's website, 'winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people.' But it doesn't say what this golden age of human flourishing should look like. In fact, the Trump administration's understanding of AI seems to built on the idea that technology can and should be neutral. No human ideas and ideals. Just pure innovation. Or, as it says in the plan's 'upholding free speech in frontier models' section: Federal procurement guidelines must be updated to 'ensure that the government only contracts with frontier language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias.' But this idea that technology can and should be neutral can and should be questioned. For decades the developers of first the internet and then social media have promised us free speech and systems that are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias. And for decades, we have seen an increase in mental health problems caused by misinformation and polarization. So, maybe that's the questions we must ask: How does it impact humans to think and talk about technology as something that doesn't impact humans? Is it possible to let the tech industry grow and thrive and at the same time take responsibility for human growth and well-being? Or will a country that prioritizes to be front runners in building technological systems eventually lose sight of what it takes to build human systems, e.g. in terms of education, health, and ultimately democracy? The AI Race Ends Questions About Global Collaboration 'Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself,' Trump said at the AI Action Plan event. To prepare for this future, the government will partner with US tech companies to make 'full stack AI export packages' — AI models, hardware and software — available to American ally countries. As reported by CNN, this partnership aims at making US technology the global standard, something Silicon Valley leaders have called for to ensure the United States remains an AI leader. But if AI really is this 'groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself', other countries are not looking to the US for a 'full stack AI export package'. And they are certainly not looking to Silicon Valley for global leadership and standards. Dealing with a groundbreaking technology that will determine the future of civilization itself calls for everyone to work together. And that calls for all of us to ask: Should staying ahead of China be the top priority for the American administration right now? Or does AI call for an intergovernmental organization like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that promotes the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology? Established in 1957, IAEA was not influenced by Big Tech. The Agency's genesis was President Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1953. Is that what the world needs from the president of the United States? Not a declaration that America is going to win a race it started itself. And not a full stack AI export package. But an 'AI for Peace' address that crystallizes the hope that the groundbreaking development of AI 'may lead to the unifying of the entire divided world' (Eisenhower's words about the splitting of the atom)? To win or not to win the AI race is not the only question. There are many questions and none of them should be answered by one president of one country. Least of all in a plan designed to be non-negotiable.


Fast Company
18 hours ago
- Fast Company
Trump rollback on clean energy subsidies stalls major solar, wind projects and manufacturing plans
Singapore-based solar panel manufacturer Bila Solar is suspending plans to double capacity at its new factory in Indianapolis. Canadian rival Heliene's plans for a solar cell facility in Minnesota are under review. Norwegian solar wafer maker NorSun is evaluating whether to move forward with a planned factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And two fully permitted offshore wind farms in the U.S. Northeast may never get built. These are among the major clean energy investments now in question after Republicans agreed earlier this month to quickly end U.S. subsidies for solar and wind power as part of their budget megabill, and as the White House directed agencies to tighten the rules on who can claim the incentives that remain. This marks a policy U-turn since President Donald Trump's return to office that project developers, manufacturers and analysts say will slash installations of renewable energy over the coming decade, kill investment and jobs in the clean energy manufacturing sector supporting them, and worsen a looming U.S. power supply crunch as energy-hungry AI infrastructure expands. Solar and wind installations could be 17% and 20% lower than previously forecast over the next decade because of the moves, according to research firm Wood Mackenzie, which warned that a dearth of new supplies could slow the expansion of data centers needed to support AI technology. Energy researcher Rhodium, meanwhile, said the law puts at risk $263 billion of wind, solar, and storage facilities and $110 billion of announced manufacturing investment supporting them. It will also increase industrial energy costs by up to $11 billion in 2035, it said. 'One of the administration's stated goals was to bring costs down, and as we demonstrated, this bill doesn't do that,' said Ben King, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice. He added the policy 'is not a recipe for continued dominance of the U.S. AI industry.' The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has defended its moves to end support for clean energy by arguing the rapid adoption of solar and wind power has created instability in the grid and raised consumer prices – assertions that are contested by the industry and which do not bear out in renewables-heavy power grids, like Texas' ERCOT. Power industry representatives, however, have said all new generation projects need to be encouraged to meet rising U.S. demand, including both those driven by renewables and fossil fuels. Consulting firm ICF projects that U.S. electricity demand will grow by 25% by 2030, driven by increased AI and cloud computing – a major challenge for the power industry after decades of stagnation. The REPEAT Project, a collaboration between Princeton University and Evolved Energy Research, projects a 2% annual increase in electricity demand. With a restricted pipeline of renewables, tighter electricity supplies stemming from the policy shift could increase household electricity costs by $280 a year in 2035, according to the REPEAT Project. The key provision in the new law is the accelerated phase-out of 30% tax credits for wind and solar projects: it requires projects to begin construction within a year or enter service by the end of 2027 to qualify for the credits. Previously the credits were available through 2032. Now some project developers are scrambling to get projects done while the U.S. incentives are still accessible. But even that strategy has become risky, developers said. Days after signing the law, Trump directed the Treasury Department to review the definition of 'beginning of construction.' A revision to those rules could overturn a long-standing practice giving developers four years to claim tax credits after spending just 5% of project costs. Treasury was given 45 days to draft new rules. 'With so many moving parts, financing of projects, financing of manufacturing is difficult, if not impossible,' said Martin Pochtaruk, CEO of Heliene. 'You are looking to see what is the next baseball bat that's going to hit you on the head.' About face Heliene's planned cell factory, which could cost as much as $350 million, depending on the capacity, and employ more than 600 workers, is also in limbo, Pochtaruk said in an interview earlier this month. The company needs more clarity on both what the new law will mean for U.S. demand, and how Trump's trade policy will impact the solar industry. 'We have a building that is anxiously waiting for us to make a decision,' Pochtaruk said. Similarly, Mick McDaniel, general manager of Bila Solar, said 'a troubling level of uncertainty' has put on hold its $20 million expansion at an Indianapolis factory it opened this year that would create an additional 75 jobs. 'NorSun is still digesting the new legislation and recent executive order to determine the impact to the overall domestic solar manufacturing landscape,' said Todd Templeton, director of the company's U.S. division that is reviewing plans for its $620 million solar wafer facility in Tulsa. Five solar manufacturing companies – T1 Energy, Imperial Star Solar, SEG Solar, Solx and ES Foundry – said they are also concerned about the new law's impact on future demand, but that they have not changed their investment plans. The policy changes have also injected fresh doubt about the fate of the nation's pipeline of offshore wind projects, which depend heavily on tax credits to bring down costs. According to Wood Mackenzie, projects that have yet to start construction or make final investment decisions are unlikely to proceed. Two such projects, which are fully permitted, include a 300-megawatt project by developer US Wind off the coast of Maryland and Iberdrola's 791 MW New England Wind off the coast of Massachusetts. Neither company responded to requests for comment. 'They are effectively ready to begin construction and are now trapped in a timeline that will make it that much harder to be able to take advantage of the remaining days of the tax credits,' said Hillary Bright, executive director of offshore wind advocacy group Turn Forward.