With rising fuel costs prompting airlines to seek much larger government payments to serve airports, Congress needs to rethink the Essential Air Service program, which provides subsidies to support air service to rural areas. Congress should downsize the program and pay larger subsidies to airports in isolated communities that really need the assistance while working with airports that can become self-sustaining so they can leave the program.

Earlier this year, Colgan Air Inc. petitioned the federal Department of Transportation to end its EAS contract to serve the Northern Maine Regional Airport in Presque Isle. It said it could no longer afford to provide the service under the existing arrangement because of the rapid rise in fuel prices. It was allowed out of the contract and the DOT put the contract out to bid. Colgan was the only bidder and regained the contract – with more than twice the government subsidy. Under the old contract, Colgan was paid $1.2 million a year by the federal government. Now it will be paid $2.6 million a year. Presque Isle did secure a commitment for flights on 34-seat planes. Previously the airline could have used 19-seat planes to serve the airport.

Colgan is currently going through the same process with the state’s three other EAS-subsidized airports in Augusta, Rockland and Bar Harbor.

With 102 EAS-supported airports in the United States outside Alaska, these contract renegotiations are going to add significantly to the cost of the program, which was begun in the late 1970s to gain the support of lawmakers from rural states for airline deregulation.

To keep EAS affordable, Congress must shrink that number of airports that get the subsidy. It should do this in two ways. The first is to stop subsidizing airports that are a short distance from larger ones.

The New York Times reported two years ago that many EAS-supported airports saw little traffic, costing taxpayers up to $677 in subsidies per one-way ticket. The airport in Pueblo, Colo., for example, averaged just five passengers a day. Area residents likely conclude it makes more sense to drive 40 miles to Colorado Springs where they can connect to flights across the country. Airports like this should be transitioned out of the program.

At the other end, Scott Wardwell, director of the Northern Maine Regional Airport, suggests incentives to move airports like his off the subsidy. He suggests the DOT offer substantially larger subsidies to airlines at these airports with a requirement that they keep fares in line with those at the nearest larger airport and commit to using comparable equipment. The airline would bear little risk for improving service to attract more customers. If the service were not profitable in a couple years and the airport risked losing its service, it could re-enter the EAS program.

Mr. Wardwell’s plan addresses the chicken-or-egg question that bedevils small airports. The circular argument is that these airports need more passengers to attract better service, but better service is needed to gain more passengers. He would ensure better service for a couple of years to build a passenger base to sustain the airport.

Such an approach is worth a try as the current EAS system becomes unaffordable.