### APPENDIX B Page 1

APPLICATION UNDER
SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
DOCKET DOT-OST-2013-0120

SUMMARY INFORMATION

All applicants must submit this Summary Info rmation schedule, as the application coversheet, a completed standard form SF424 and the full application proposal on www.grants.gov. For your preparation convenience, this Sum mary Information schedule is located at http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/ small-community-rural-air-service/SCASDP

A. P ROVIDE THE LEGAL SPONSOR AND ITS DUN AND BRADSTREET 

### (D&B) DATA UNIVERSAL

NUMBERING SYSTEM 

### (DUNS) NUMBER 

### , INCLUDING 

### +4, EMPLOYEE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 

### (EIN)

OR TAX ID


### . Legal Sponsor Name:
DUNS Number:
EIN/Tax ID:

B. L IST THE 

### N AME OF THE COMMUNITY OR CONSOR TIUM OF COMMUNITIES APPLYING 

### :
1.

__________________________________________________ 2.

__________________________________________________ 3.

__________________________________________________ 4.

__________________________________________________

C. P ROVIDE THE FULL AIRPORT NAME AND 

### 3-L ETTER 

### IATA A IRPORT 

### C ODE FOR THE APPLICANT 

### ( S 

### )

AIRPORT 

### ( S 

### ) (O NLY PROVIDE CODES FOR THE AIRPORT 

### ( S 

### ) THAT ARE ACTUALLY SEEKING SERVICE 

### ).
1. 2.

3. 4.

### APPENDIX B Page 2

D. L IST THE 

### 2 -DIGIT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CO DE APPLICABLE TO THE SPONSORING
ORGANIZATION, AND IF A CONSORTIUM, TO EACH PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY.


### 1. 2.
3. 4.

E. A PPLICANT 

### I NFORMATION: 

### (C HECK 

### A LL 

### T HAT 

### A PPLY)



### □ Not a Consortium □ Interstate Consortium □ Intrastate Consortium 

## D

□ Community now receives subsidized Essential Air Service

□ Community (or Consortium member) previous ly received a Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant
If previous recipient: Year of grant(s): ___________

F. P UBLIC 

### /P RIVATE 

### P ARTNERSHIPS: 

### (L IST 

### O RGANIZATION NAMES) 

### PUBLIC PRIVATE 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5.

G. P ROJECT 

### P ROPOSAL: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 

# □ Marketing j— j 

### Upgrade Aircraft 

# □ New Route 

# □ Travel Bank j_] Service Restoration 

# □ Subsidy 

# □ Surface Transportation □ Regional Service 

# □ Revenue Guarantee 

# □ Launch New Carrier □ Start-up Cost Offset 

# □ First Service 

# □ Study □ Secure Additional Service 

# □ Other (explain below)
H. E XISTING 

### L ANDING 

### A IDS AT 

### L OCAL 

### A IRPORT:



### □ Full ILS □ Outer/Middle Marker

□ Localizer □ Other (specify)

□ Published Instrument Approach

### APPENDIX B Page 3

describe the source(s) of fund(s) and the value ($) of each. L INE 

### D ESCRIPTION 

### S UB 

### T OTAL 

### T OTAL 

### A MOUNT 

### 1 Federal amount requested 2 State cash financial contribution Local cash financial contribution 3a Airport cash funds 3b Non-airport cash funds 3 Total local cash funds (3a + 3b) 4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING (1+2+3) In-Kind contribution 5a Airport In-Kind contribution** 5b Other In-Kind contribution** 

# 1
5 TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION (5a + 5b) 6 TOTAL PROJECT COST (4+5) J. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS**

For funds in lines 5a (Airport In-Kind contributi on) and 5b (Other In-Kind contribution), please I. P ROJECT 

### C OST 

### : D O NOT ENTER TEXT IN SHADED AREA

### APPENDIX B Page 4

K. I S 

### T HIS 

### A PPLICATION 

### S UBJECT 

### T O 

### R EVIEW 

### B Y 

### S TATE 

### U NDER 

### E XECUTIVE 

### O RDER 

### 12372

P ROCESS 

### ?

□ a. This application was made available to the state under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on (date) __ .

□ b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the state for review.

□ c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.

L. I S 

### T HE 

### A PPLICANT 

### D ELINQUENT 

### O N 

### A NY 

### F EDERAL 

### D EBT 

### ? (I F 

### "Y ES 

### ", P ROVIDE


### E XPLANATION 

### )

□ No □ Yes (explain)DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120



# Proposal for A Grant Under The Small Community Air Service Development Program

Submitted by 

# Springfield-Branson National Airport

DUNS # 024706756 Congressional District #7Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 3 

# Contents

1. Proposal Overview ........................................................................... 4 Airport Name and Contact Information 4 Official Sponsor of Proposal 4 Community Partner for Application 4 Grant Eligibility 4 Project Description 4 

### 2. SGF Service Area and Air Service Deficiency ........................................ 7 SGF Service Area 7 Air Service Deficiency at SGF 8 Addressing the Air Service De ficiency: Southeastern US Access 9



### 3. SCASD Grant Admini stration Plan .................................................... 13 Requested Term of Grant 13 Funding and Revenue Sources 13 Revenue Guarantee 13 Marketing and Advertising Plan 13 In-Kind Funding 14 Previous Air Service Development Efforts 15 Ensuring Self Sufficiency 15Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 4 

# 1. Proposal Overview

A. Airport Name and Contact Information
Springfield-Branson Na tional Airport (SGF)

Brian C. Weiler. A.A.E. Director of Aviation 2300 N. Airport Blvd. Springfield, MO 65802 BWeiler@flyspringfield.com 417-868-0500 x2000



### B. Official Sponsor of Proposal

The Springfield-Branson National Airport is the official legal sponsor of the Small Community Air Service Development Program application.



### C. Community Partner for Application

The Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce join s the Airport in the submission and support of this application, and is participating in the community matching portion of the funding request for the grant.



### D. Grant Eligibility

The Springfield-Branson National Airport is fully eligible based on the criteria put forth in the Department of Transportati on Docket DOT-OST-2013-0120.



### E. Project Description

The plan for grant implementation is to addre ss considerable air service deficiencies due to
a lack of southeastern US access from the greater Springfield regi on. SGF is a market characterized by high fares, and increased competition and capacity will allow for more options for SGF travelers, and potentially brin g fare discipline to the market. The community believes that targeting increased capacity to Delta’s Atlanta hub, or new nonstop service on US Airways to its Charlotte hub, would provide increased options for the traveling public,
both business and leisure travelers alike.Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 5 The southeastern US is a major market for the Springfield-Branson National Airport, capturing over 28% of all passengers traveling to and from SGF. This is the top region for SGF passenger traffic, and increased capacity would be a great benefit to the community.


# SGF Passenger and Revenue Distribution CY 2012

SGF Scheduled Air Service Re view: Declining Capacity

Further adding to the limited access to the so utheastern US is the fact that since CY 2007, available seat capacity at SGF has decrea sed by approximately 30%. Several nonstop routes have been discontinued during this time period, which includes Memphis, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Detroit.



# SGF Scheduled Air Service: CY 2013 vs. CY 2007

Carrier Dest 2007 2013 Change % Change 2007 2013 Change % Change American 4,721 3,724 (997) -21.1% 234,771 180,603 (54,168) -23.1% DFW 3,247 2,486 (761) -23.4% 166,706 121,553 (45,153) -27.1% ORD 1,095 1,238 143 13.1% 52,560 59,050 6,490 12.3% STL 379 (379) -100.0% 15,505 (15,505) -100.0% Delta/Northwest 3,527 1,703 (1,824) -51.7% 176,020 85,150 (90,870) -51.6% ATL 1,080 1,702 622 57.6% 53,420 85,100 31,680 59.3% CVG 654 (654) -100.0% 32,700 (32,700) -100.0% DTW 364 (364) -100.0% 18,200 (18,200) -100.0% MSP 359 (359) -100.0% 18,000 (18,000) -100.0% MEM 1,070 1 (1,069) -99.9% 53700 50 (53,650) -99.9% Allegiant 479 527 48 10.0% 71,850 84,342 12,492 17.4% AZA 112 112 17,904 17,904 LAS 237 128 (109) -46.0% 35,550 20,496 (15,054) -42.3% LAX 24 24 3,840 3,840 PIE 105 131 26 24.8% 15,750 20,982 5,232 33.2% SFB 137 132 (5) -3.6% 20,550 21,120 570 2.8% United 3,003 2,032 (971) -32.3% 155,302 99,494 (55,808) -35.9% DEN 1,234 713 (521) -42.2% 62,436 34,588 (27,848) -44.6% ORD 1,769 1,319 (450) -25.4% 92,866 64,906 (27,960) -30.1% 11,730 7,986 (3,744) -31.9% 637,943 449,589 (188,354) -29.5% Total Departures SeatsProposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 6 The cancelation of these nonstop routes exacerba tes the air service defi ciency at SGF, which is why increased capacity would greatly aid the overall air service levels in the region.



### SGF Enplanement Trends Are Concerning

Enplanement trends have generally declined at SGF in concert with the elimination of approximately 30% of the capacity since CY 2007. Enplanements have decreased by approximately 15% since CY 2007, but it is impo rtant to note that they increased between CY 2011 and CY 2012, and are on a positive trajectory. Additional capacity to the southeastern US will aid in the continuation of this growth trend at SGF, and grant funding will go a long way to gainin g this additional capacity.


# SGF Enplanement Trend CY 2007 – CY 2012

The grant funding request is for $450,000 with a community match of $80,000, for a total of $530,000 in cash contributions to aid in risk mitigation fo r increased air service access
to/from the southeastern US. In addition to th e many letters of support from the community that are attached, a letter of support from US Airways is also en closed. The City of Springfield and the Springfield-Branson National Airport respectfully appreciates the Department giving consideration to its grant application. 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

SGF Enplanements

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SGF Enplanements 441,347 390,626 407,089 398,026 365,495 376,294Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 7 

# 2. SGF Service Area and Air Service Deficiency

SGF Service Area

The Springfield-Branson Na tional Airport is a critical component to the economic vibrancy of the region, which is characterized by approx imately 550,000 people within a sixty minute drive time and 1,000,000 people within a ninety minute drive time. Beca use Springfield is in a somewhat geographically isolated region, much of the population finds it most convenient to utilize SGF for their travels. The closest commercial airports that provide higher levels of air service than SGF include Kansas City Inte rnational Airport (MCI), Lambert – St. Louis International Airport (STL), and Tulsa International Airport (TUL). However, these airports range between 2.5 – 3.5 hours away from Spring field, and make for an onerous drive for all travelers, business and leisure. SGF is the more efficient and logical option. 

# SGF Primary and Extended Service AreaProposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 8 

### Air Service Deficiency at SGF

In addition to being geographically isolated, SGF is an airport which has significantly higher airfares than its neighboring airp orts in the region. The presence of low cost carriers at the larger airports in the region allows for greate r competition, an d therefore lower airfares for the public. Increased capacity at SGF woul d allow for greater competition among the incumbent airlines, and thus create a benefit for the travelers to have more options to choose from when deciding how to travel to and from the Springfield region.

The following graph and table illustrates that SGF not only has a higher average one way gross fare than the national average, but al so its neighboring airports in Missouri.


# SGF Fare Premium vs. National Average and Other Missouri Airports CY 2011 – CY 2012

$150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00

SGF Avg. OW Gross Fare MCI Avg. OW Gross Fare STL Avg. OW Gross Fare Nat'l Avg. OW Gross Fare

Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2012 SGF Avg. OW Gross Fare $257.45 $266.46 $246.31 $250.62 $256.86 $274.98 $266.31 $262.24 MCI Avg. OW Gross Fare $193.52 $195.88 $189.92 $195.75 $200.12 $211.13 $204.66 $204.56 STL Avg. OW Gross Fare $192.88 $200.15 $196.42 $198.96 $206.93 $214.85 $204.16 $202.75 Nat'l Avg. OW Gross Fare $209.14 $217.87 $214.86 $215.53 $219.71 $227.24 $219.13 $219.65

SGF Fare Premium vs. MCI 33.0% 36.0% 29.7% 28.0% 28.4% 30.2% 30.1% 28.2% SGF Fare Premium vs. STL 33.5% 33.1% 25.4% 26.0% 24.1% 28.0% 30.4% 29.3% SGF Fare Premium vs. Nat'l Avg. 23.1% 22.3% 14.6% 16.3% 16.9% 21.0% 21.5% 19.4%Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 9 The deficiency is clear: An av erage one way fare that is appr oximately 20% higher than the national average, but 30% high er than both MCI and STL.

While the airport and community understand that increased capacity at the airport may not necessarily directly lower airfares at SGF, it will increase competition and bring greater fare discipline to the market. At a mi nimum, it will allow for increased options for travelers to choose from when traveling to and from the Springfield region.


### Addressing the Air Service Defici ency: Southeastern US Access

Currently, Springfield-Branson Na tional Airport has scheduled ai r service from three network carriers – Delta, United, and American – in addition to nonstop leisure flights on Allegiant Air, which flies to vacation destinations such as Las Vegas, Orlando, and Tampa/St. Petersburg. While the air service Allegiant pr ovides is outstanding and a benefit to the community, it is strictly vacation traffic, an d does not provide connectivity to the broader national transportation system.



# SGF Network Carrier Air Service Access CY 2013

While a look at the SGF air service map may seem like there is adequate access to the southeastern US, there is actually quite a challenge accessing this region. While Delta’sProposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 10 Atlanta hub provides excellent access, there is limited available capacity on the current flights, with Delta’s load factors being a pproximately 87% for the CY 2012. Furthermore, the most recent load factor totals from April – May 2013 indicate that the average load factors are over 92%. With the average load factor being so high, and with several summer months being over 90%, increased available seats would be benefici al for the community.



# Delta Load Factor Performance at SGF June 2012 – May 2013

*Load Factors are based on Delta data and compiled by SGF. 2012 figures include MEM and ATL, while 2013 includes only ATL
Because there is limited capacity available to conveniently travel to and from the southeastern US, passengers either need to take inefficient and circuito us routings for their travels or simply not travel at all. These indi rect routings are inconv enient and burdensome for the traveler. To this end, it is clear that there are both business and leisure travelers who decide to use alternative airports to a ccess the region or do not fly at all due to difficulty accessing the re gion. Increased capacity to either Delta’s ATL hub or US Airways’
CLT hub would address this de ficiency for the community.

Based on the top SGF O&D markets in the southe astern US without nonstop service (ATL), it is clear that that passengers are taking cumber some and indirect methods to travel between SGF and these markets. Based on routing effi ciency, which is defi ned as the difference
between the number of miles flown between SG F and the market and the number of miles 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0%

DL SGF Load Factors LF averaged over 92% for Apr/May 2013Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 11 nonstop flights would provide, passengers are traveling an additional 239 miles on average (1,062 miles vs. 824 miles). This results in a 77.5% routing efficiency rating, which is low and illustrates the inefficiency with which passengers must travel between SGF and these
southeastern US destinations.


# Top SGF Southeastern US O&D Markets – High Fare Levels and Circuitous Routings CY 2012

In addition to the circuitous routings that tr avelers must use to access the southeastern US, or for inbound passengers from the southeast to access the greater Spri ngfield region, there are clear fare differentials that encourage trav elers to consider alternative airports rather than SGF. For these markets combined, th e average one way gross fare for SGF is approximately $305 as of CY 2012, which is over 50% higher than MCI and STL and 10% higher than TUL. Again, this is a clear sign th at there is an air serv ice access deficiency, one in which increased capacity at SGF can help aid in alleviating. M arket P sgr P DEW % Originating @ SGF Gross OW Fare Avg. Ticket M iles Routing Efficiency MCO 8,402 11.5 76.2% $320.14 1,152 80.4% FLL 6,495 8.9 65.9% $284.77 1,328 82.3% CLT 5,842 8.0 39.6% $300.66 916 77.1% MSY 5,398 7.4 61.9% $270.78 799 66.6% RDU 5,255 7.2 41.5% $293.56 1,033 78.8% MIA 5,222 7.1 77.4% $292.33 1,414 77.9% TPA 3,804 5.2 56.9% $344.77 1,125 79.7% RIC 3,429 4.7 36.5% $310.01 1,107 79.5% JAX 2,967 4.1 50.9% $299.77 979 83.4% ORF 2,791 3.8 53.5% $314.38 1,215 77.8% RSW 2,701 3.7 68.4% $331.85 1,220 82.2% GSO 2,489 3.4 54.4% $272.85 936 79.9% TYS 2,220 3.0 50.3% $328.66 705 75.1% PNS 2,117 2.9 59.5% $285.43 893 65.8% CAE 1,893 2.6 46.0% $315.99 892 81.2% GSP 1,526 2.1 47.5% $328.45 825 78.1% VPS 1,426 1.9 79.6% $290.53 929 64.9% BHM 1,271 1.7 42.9% $379.84 654 69.0% Total 65,249 89.1 58.0% $304.59 1,063 77.5%Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 12 

# SGF Fare Levels Compared to Alternative Airports in Region CY 2012

The over $100 difference in a one way ticket is significant to any trav eler, whether business or leisure. Of the markets above, SGF had the highest fares in all bu t three, where TUL had higher average fares. For some markets, such as Orlando (MCO), Tampa (TPA), and Birmingham (BHM), the fare differential is closer to $150 one way, which would clearly discourage travelers using SGF as their airport of choice. M arket SGF M CI STL TUL

MCO $320.14 $183.30 $172.47 $269.89 FLL $284.77 $187.09 $197.93 $270.89 CLT $300.66 $208.19 $222.75 $343.92 MSY $270.78 $173.12 $214.44 $242.83 RDU $293.56 $217.76 $188.33 $262.22 MIA $292.33 $228.29 $214.43 $249.06 TPA $344.77 $195.43 $190.66 $264.72 RIC $310.01 $232.43 $237.44 $305.62 JAX $299.77 $225.62 $232.65 $290.80 ORF $314.38 $219.85 $237.93 $296.99 RSW $331.85 $194.50 $212.74 $311.00 GSO $272.85 $245.34 $216.92 $318.65 TYS $328.66 $297.80 $306.32 $337.75 PNS $285.43 $183.83 $194.78 $274.34 CAE $315.99 $256.80 $278.57 $304.31 GSP $328.45 $244.98 $235.10 $272.71 VPS $290.53 $210.65 $222.37 $263.89 BHM $379.84 $219.64 $144.48 $311.00 Total $304.59 $198.89 $199.23 $275.54

53.1% 52.9% 10.5% SGF Fare PremiumProposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 13 

# 3. SCASD Grant Administration Plan

Requested Term of Grant

The Springfield-Branson Na tional Airport respectfully requests that the term of the grant be for two years from the start of service.



### Funding and Revenue Sources

The amount requested in this proposal is $450,000, with the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce contributing an additional $80,000 in cash for a total of $530,000.



### Revenue Guarantee

The primary purpose of the reve nue guarantee portion of the gr ant funding is to offset the
risk of the carrier in either en tering the market (US Airways), or for an incumbent carrier to increase capacity (Delta). The ag reement will be based on a spec ific contract that details the revenues per flight and the determination of how the revenues are to be computed. The airline will agree to operate a specific pattern of flights.



### Marketing and Advertising Plan

The airport and community understand that a cr itical component to ensuring the successful start-up period for new service or increased capacity will be a comprehensive marketing and advertising plan. This will include:

 Extensive usage of social medi a outlets, including Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest in
order to build awareness of the new air service Category SCASD Grant Community Funds TOTAL

Revenue Guarantee $420,000 $70,000 $490,000 Marketing/Advertising Support $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 TOTAL $450,000 $80,000 $530,000Proposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 14  Print media advertisements in local newspapers

 Billboards along major roadways to cr eate awareness within the community

 Television and radio advertisements in order to reach as many people in the community as possible

 Banner advertisements on website

 Utilization of extensive networking resources to spread the word, including public speaking to civic and other groups



### In-Kind Funding

In addition to the cash contributions from the community, the Springfield-Branson National Airport has a competitive incentive program that can be utilized in addition to the cash
contribution. The details are as follows:

Air carrier incentives are available in the following areas for a period not to exceed one year for each City added. Incentives available to New or Incumbent Carrier
Service to City not currently served from S GF ● Marketing support
◌ $10,000 per departure
◌ $25,00 maximum

● Abatement of landing fees

● Abatement of exclusive use rents for ticket counter, office and operations areas

● Utilization of Airport assets, such as FIDS/BIDS, IT assistance, ground equipment (as available), etc.

● Ground handling services are available to carriers on a standard fee basis

Service to City already served from S GF ● Marketing support
◌ $5,000 per departure
◌ $15,000 maximum

● Abatement of landing fees

● Abatement of exclusive use rents for ticket counter, office and operations areas

● Utilization of Airport assets, such as FIDS/BIDS, IT assistance, ground equipment (as available), etc.

● Ground handling services are available to carriers on a standard fee basisProposal under the Small Communit y Air Service Development Program

DOT Docket OST – 2013 – 0120 15 

### Previous Air Service Development Efforts

Springfield-Branson Nati onal Airport has been very active in its air service development efforts over the last two year s. The actions taken include:

 Participation in Air Service Development Conferences such as ACI Jumpstart

 In the last 24 months, SGF has met at th e corporate airline headquarters with Delta, American Airlines, US Airways, and United Airlines to discuss potential opportunities. The meetings were produc tive and the airlines receptive to meeting with the airport.

 Each year the airport updates a five year Air Service Master Plan (last completed in January 2013 for years 2013 – 2017). The purpose is to outline current airline performance and future oppo rtunities. It is an excellent tool for the airport to understand air service economics, and if concerns exist for them to address them proactively.

 The airport works closely with an aviation consultancy to keep abreast of current trends at the airport, airlin e performance metrics, and potential opportunities or threats to air service at SGF



### Ensuring Self Sufficiency

SGF is fully aware that there can be extenuati ng circumstances which have the potential to impact ridership on a new route or increased ca pacity. Just as the airport has been diligent in its air service development efforts described above, they will be equally as attentive to the necessity of the new service to be successful. To this end, the airport plans to take the following actions:

 Stay in close contact with the airline on a monthly basis to fully communicate the performance of the new service, and to sw iftly address any issues that may arise that is having a negative impact on passe nger traffic and/or financial performance

 Re-focus targeted marketing an d advertising is it is deemed that this will aid in increased ridership

### u s

AIRWAY S

400 0 E

. Sk y Harbo r

Blvd

. Phoenix
, A Z 8503 4 480.693.080 0 Brook e Chapma n Associat e Directo r Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Departmen t Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U.S

. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave.
, S E Washington
, D C

2059 0 Roo m W86-30

7

Dea r Ms

. Chapman
,
I a m writin g i n suppor t o f th e Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Gran t applicatio n tha t

ha s bee n submitte d b y th e Springfiel d Branso n Nationa l Airpor t (SGF)

. I

Th e purpos

e o f th e airport' s

applicatio n i s

fo r ris k abatemen t

fund s to addres

s th e ai r servic e deficienc

y i n availabl e seats

fo r passenger

s travelin g t

o an d fro m th e greate r Springfiel d region

. Specifically
, th e airpor t ha s identifie d tha t

th e U S

Airway s

Charlott e (CLT ) hu b woul d provid e increase d eas t coast/southeast

acces s i n additio n t

o enhance d internationa l acces s fo r passengers

. W e agre e wit h th e airport' s assessment

. j U S Airway s ha s evaluate d th e potentia l fo r nonsto p ai r

servic e betwee n SG F an d CLT
, an d believe s tha t a Smal l Communit

y Ai r Servic e Gran t fo r ris k abatemen t

woul d assis t

i n furthe r

evaluatio n o f

thi s potentia l opportunity

.

I Therefore
, w

e urg e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n t

o giv e th e Springfiel d Branso n Nationa l Airport' s applicatio n favorabl e consideration

. Pleas e fee l fre e to contac t

m e wit h an y

questions

. ^

Sincerely
,

U S Airway s 11 1 W

. Ri o Salad o Pkw y Tempe
, A Z 8528 1 Jason.George@usairwavs.co m 480-693-510

9

### July 10, 2013

Brooke Chapman, Associate Director Small Community Air Service Development Office of Aviation Analysis 8th Floor, Room W86

- 307 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
Dear Ms. Chapman : I am writing in support of the Small Community Air Service Grant application being submitted by the Springfield

- Branson National Airport

. The S pringfield

- Branson National Airport provides critic al air service for state government and regional businesses in Southwest Missouri

. In the past few years the airport has experienced the loss of five destination cities resulting in a significant loss of seats and connectivity.
I am impressed by the efforts of the Springfield

- Branson Airport as they continue to mark et the airport and meet the needs of the community. I hope yo u will give their proposal strong consideration.
Sincerely,

Joseph Reynolds VP & CFO