As this thread has drifted to a crash fire rescue thread...
Quite simply (and sensibly in my opinion) the government looked at aviation statistics and said - the money it costs isn't worth it.
Anywhere I read the word "government" I ask myself if I should substitute the word "people", as the government is most commonly using the people's money.
So the people make a considered decision about funding CFR (or not) at a certain place. Okay, the people make a decision about services, other people can then decide if they want to fly in or not. It's not just airplanes that we're talking about, there are many times that an assumption one might make about emergency services available to them is overly optimistic - will someone come to my rescue if I need them? As a retired volunteer firefighter, I have given consideration to emergency services throughout my various travels and activities. I recall staying in a tropical resort, in a twenty storey hotel, for which the local fire department had only on small pumper truck, with very limited equipment, and only two storeys worth of ladders. If my hotel were on fire, most occupants would be mostly on their own. But the hotel accommodation was low cost compared to my home nation.
I landed as a passenger on an A330 at a less common airport. I happened to visit the CFR station during my visit. They were okay equipped. The firefighter who hosted me told me that he'd worked there for five years, and the only fire they had ever attended was a kitchen fire at a nearby house. The was an expensive place to fly into.
The people will fund emergency services to the level they can afford, and feel satisfactory. Then it's the choice of other people to accept that or not. Sitting in judgement of CFR services is not of much use, unless you would like to fund the service.