Order: 2010-3-22

Served: March 17, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

 on the 17th day of March, 2010

Essential Air Service at

CRESCENT CITY, CALIFORNIA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET OST-1997-2649

ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary

By this order, the Department is requesting proposals by April 19, 2010, from carriers 

interested in providing essential air service (EAS) at Crescent City, California, for a new 

two-year period, beginning August 1, 2010, with or without subsidy. 

Background

By Order 2008-4-23, April 15, 2008, the Department selected SkyWest Airlines, Inc., d/b/a 

United Express (SkyWest), to provide subsidized EAS to Crescent City, California, through 

July 31, 2010. Under that order, the Department authorized subsidy for SkyWest consisting 

of twelve nonstop round trips per week to San Francisco, California, and six one-stop round 

trips to Sacramento. All of the service was to be with 30-seat Brasilia aircraft for an annual 

subsidy of $1,136,896. 

Request for Proposals

As the end of the current rate term approaches, we are hereby requesting proposals from 

carriers interested in providing service at Crescent City, with or without subsidy, for the 

two-year period beginning August 1, 2010. Carriers should file their proposals by April 

19. Staff will then docket proposals, thereby making them public, and direct each carrier 

to serve a copy of its proposal on the civic parties and other applicants. Shortly 

afterwards, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the community and State and 

ask them to submit their final comments. We will give full consideration to all proposals 

filed in a timely manner.1 

Interested carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial 

proposals will also be their final and only proposals. We retain the discretion to negotiate 

 1 Carriers should not expect the Department to accept late filings. In cases where a carrier proposes to 

provide essential air service without subsidy and we determine that service can be reliably provided without 

such compensation, we do not proceed with the carrier-selection case. Instead, we simply rely on that 

carrier’s subsidy-free service as proposed.
-2-

proposals with carriers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to reject 

outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and, if necessary, solicit a new round of 

proposals. However, we anticipate that negotiation or rejection will remain only 

occasional exceptions to the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to serve as 

guidance when they prepare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for 

their proposals. We expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed 

and the annual amount of subsidy being requested. The applicants can make their own 

judgments as to the level of detail they wish to present; however, they might want to 

include proposed schedules as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as 

projected block hours, revenues and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, welldocumented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected community and 

the Department. We do not anticipate any change in our selection criteria, or in the 

general provisions governing subsidy payments for essential air service.2 

In order to assist carriers in making their traffic and revenue projections, we have 

included historical traffic for the community in Appendix B. As can readily be seen from 

Appendix B, passengers overwhelmingly use the nonstop flights to San Francisco 

compared to the one-stop service to Sacramento. The San Francisco flights average 15

passengers while the Sacramento service averages only 4 passengers per flight. Carriers 

may propose service corresponding to the historical service pattern, service to both San 

Francisco and Sacramento, but we will look closely at substituting two more round trips a 

week to San Francisco (14 a week) in lieu of the little-used service to Sacramento. 

Service should be to San Francisco or any other suitable hubs with connections to the 

national air transportation system. 

Service should be with two-pilot, twin-engine aircraft, with at least 15 passenger seats. 

We request proposals for up to two nonstop round trips a day (14 per week), with 30-seat 

or larger aircraft. If the seats are shared with another community, 3

 2 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service, 49 U.S.C. 41733(c) (1) directs us to 

consider four factors: (1) service reliability; (2) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger 

carrier at the hub; (3) interline arrangements with a larger carrier at the hub; and (4) community views. In 

addition, The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, provides that when selecting a 

carrier to provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy requirements, thus codifying a 

factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. Interested carriers should also be aware 

that our general provisions governing essential air service will be included in the selection order as part of 

our authorization of subsidy for the selected service. Appendix C of this order contains those general 

provisions. 

we would consider 

three round trips a day (18 per week). If service is with 19-seat aircraft and does not 

share seats with another community, we would consider proposals for three round trips a 

day (18 a week). We would also consider proposals with eight-or nine-seat aircraft and 

five or six round trips a day (30 or 36 a week), and service should be nonstop to the hub. 

If such a proposal is submitted and the community ultimately supports the service and 

waives their right to 15-seat or larger aircraft, we would consider the waiver to apply only 

to the two-year carrier-selection at hand, i.e., rather than for all time. As always, we will 

formally solicit the community’s views on any service options we receive before making 

a long-term, carrier-selection decision. The community and air carriers are encouraged to 

3 Crescent City currently has a total of 12 nonstop round trips a week to a hub and six one-stop round trips 

per week to another hub. 
-3-

work together in advance of the due date for proposals to craft a service pattern that is 

both desirable to the community and meets the operational needs of the airline.

We encourage proposals that meet these requirements in an efficient manner. As we 

have mentioned, carriers are welcome to propose more than one service option, if they 

choose; they need not limit themselves to those requirements if they envision other, 

potentially more attractive service possibilities – different hubs, for example – with 

subsidy requirements that remain competitive.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing 

lobbying activities, drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination.4 Consequently, all 

carriers receiving Federal subsidy to support essential air service must certify that they 

are in compliance with Department regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and 

nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of 

the rate term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing 

lobbying activities. All carriers that plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should 

submit the required certifications along with their proposals. Interested carriers requiring 

more detailed information regarding these requirements, as well as copies of the 

certifications, should contact the Office of Aviation Analysis at (202) 366-5903. The 

Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these 

documents.5

Community Comments

Civic officials and the State are welcome to submit comments on the proposals at any 

time. As noted earlier, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the civic parties 

and ask them to submit their final comments shortly after April 19, the due date for 

carrier proposals.

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f) and re-delegated to the 

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. The Department requests proposals from carriers interested in providing essential air 

service at Crescent City, California. Carriers should submit their proposals, with subsidy if 

necessary, by April 19, 2010. Proposals should include all the data required by section 

204.4 of the Department’s Regulations (14 CFR 204.4). Proposals should be emailed to 

EAS@dot.gov, with the title “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Crescent City, 

California, Docket DOT-OST-1997-2649.” Questions regarding filings may be directed to 

Kevin Adams at 202-366-1047 or Kevin.Adams@dot.gov;

2. This Docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3. We will serve this order on the service list for this Docket.

 

5 The certifications are also available on the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html.
-4-

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the 

Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) days 

after the date of service of this order.

This order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By: 

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
Appendix A

Nonstop, Great Circle Miles from Crescent City (CEC)

San Francisco 304

Eureka 56

Sacramento 255

Portland 276

Medford 81

This map is provided by Sabre® AirVisionTM Profit Essentials and is being used with express permission of the 

copyright holder, Sabre Airline Solutions®.
Appendix B

Historical Passengers and Departures, Nonstop Service, T-100 Segment Data

Crescent City to Eureka Crescent City to San Francisco

Year Qtr. Deps. Pax. Pax./Dep. Deps. Pax. Pax./Dep.

2006 1 154 961 6.2 89 1,707 19.2

2006 2 152 890 5.9 91 1,843 20.3

2006 3 143 799 5.6 85 1,976 23.2

2006 4 83 372 4.5 161 2,912 18.1

532 3,022 5.7 426 8,438 19.8

2007 1 86 437 5.1 152 2,342 15.4

2007 2 87 460 5.3 158 2,831 17.9

2007 3 88 474 5.4 172 3,238 18.8

2007 4 85 500 5.9 172 2,858 16.6

346 1,871 5.4 654 11,269 17.2

2008 1 88 469 5.3 154 2,220 14.4

2008 2 90 478 5.3 166 2,601 15.7

2008 3 88 405 4.6 178 2,957 16.6

2008 4 85 372 4.4 168 2,599 15.5

351 1,724 4.9 666 10,377 15.6

2009 1 83 345 4.2 160 1,997 12.5

2009 2 86 338 3.9 167 2,460 14.7

2009 3 79 382 4.8 171 2,876 16.8

2009 4 80 499 6.2 172 2,547 14.8

328 1,564 4.8 670 9,880 14.7

Eurkea to Crescent City San Francisco to Crescent City

Year Qtr. Deps. Pax. Pax./Dep. Deps. Pax. Pax./Dep.

2006 1 150 776 5.2 89 1,718 19.3

2006 2 155 561 3.6 91 2,058 22.6

2006 3 146 423 2.9 89 2,033 22.8

2006 4 81 391 4.8 161 2,853 17.7

532 2,151 4.0 430 8,662 20.1

2007 1 82 364 4.4 156 2,394 15.3

2007 2 86 437 5.1 161 3,018 18.7

2007 3 84 344 4.1 177 3,337 18.9

2007 4 86 320 3.7 170 2,975 17.5

338 1,465 4.3 664 11,724 17.7

2008 1 85 345 4.1 158 2,371 15.0

2008 2 86 366 4.3 172 2,763 16.1

2008 3 84 281 3.3 179 2,938 16.4

2008 4 85 343 4.0 172 2,757 16.0

340 1,335 3.9 681 10,829 15.9

2009 1 81 163 2.0 159 2,119 13.3

2009 2 84 266 3.2 169 2,536 15.0

2009 3 77 235 3.1 176 2,987 17.0

2009 4 76 419 5.5 177 2,701 15.3

318 1,083 3.4 681 10,343 15.2
Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensation for any flights that it does not 

operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the 

service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required 

service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and 

landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; absent an explanation 

supporting subsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain 

weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In 

addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the 

order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in 

question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order 

during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation 

Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of 

full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may locate and select 

a replacement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all 

flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will not be 

compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be 

adjusted or disallowed, the Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the 

program are met and the extent of access to the national air transportation system 

provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or completely, terminates or reduces 

payments for service or changes service requirements at a specific location provided for 

under this order, then, at the end of the period for which the Department does make 

payments in the stipulated amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may 

cease to provide service to that specific location without regard to any requirement for 

notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels of subsidy and/or service that 

are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total 

or partial reduction or cessation of payment.

Funds are not currently available for performance under this solicitation beyond 

[DATE]. The Government’s obligation for performance under this solicitation beyond 

[DATE], is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment 

for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any 

payment may arise for performance under this order beyond [DATE], until funds are 

made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for 

performance beyond [DATE], the carrier will receive notice in writing by the 

Department.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and 

Department regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. However, any such 

statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing 

paragraph.

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service 

provided under this order.
Appendix D

Page 1 of 3

Distribution List Name: Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Sunshine, Inc.

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili

Air West, Inc., John Raatz

Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly

Airline Associates, Bill Mishk

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick

Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft 

American Airlines, Carl Nelson

American Eagle, Jeffrey Hartz 

Atlantic Southeast, Jon Lindlief

Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude 

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney 

Cape Air, Dan Wolf 

Cape Air, J.Flaherty

Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan 

CommutAir, Andy Price

CommutAir, Joel Raymond

Consultant, Robert Silverberg

Continental, Bruce Keiner

Continental, Dan Weiss

Continental, Lorry Halloway

Delta, Amy Martin 

Delta, Dan Shuman

Delta, Jeff Morgan 

Delta, Joe Esposito 

Delta, Karen Zachary 

Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen

Dorato Jets

Dorato Jets, Mark McKenna

Era Aviation, Mike Lenorman

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled

Frontier Flying, Bob Hajducovich

Gem Air, Dan Schroeder

Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters
-2-

Appendix D

Page 2 of 3

Distribution List Name: Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Great Lakes, Chuck Howell

Great Lakes, Doug Voss 

Great Lakes, Greg Stephens

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett

Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman

Gulfstream, T. Cooper 

Homeland Security, Bill Ragan

Homeland Security, David Bernier

Homeland Security, Randy Webb 

Horizon Airlines, Dan Russo

Horizon Airlines, Jennifer Thompson 

Horizon, Jeff Cole

ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Intrepid Interntl Air, Rick Eyk

Island Air Charters, Linda House

Jet Air, Daniel Wolford

Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks 

McCall Aviation and Salmon Air, Dan Scott

McCall Aviation, Michelle

Mesa Air, Jonathan Ornstein

Mesa Air, Michael Lotz 

Mesa Air, Mike Holcomb

Mesaba, John Spanjers 

Mesaba, Max Shemesh

Midstar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner

Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia 

Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis

Midwest Airlines, J.C. Augustson

MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado 

Multi Aero, Darnea

Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Northwest, Tim McDonald

NYDC, Henok Araya

OST, Brian Swanson

OST, Dennis DeVany

OST, Kevin Adams

OST, Kevin Schlemmer

OST, Michael Martin 

OST, Renee Williams

Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf
-3-

Appendix D

Page 3 of 3

Distribution List Name: Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

PenAir, Danny Seybert

PenAir, Scott Bloomquist

Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams 

Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

Public Charters, Jim Gallagher

Scenic, Mary Schneider

Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D'Amico

SeaPort Airlines, Jim Day 

SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney

Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano 

SkyWest, Eric Christensen

SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Tradewind, Eric Zipkin 

TransStates, Fred Oxley

Transtates, Gerry Wigmore 

United, Alicia Gabriel

United, James Starnes

US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

US Airways, Howard Kass

US Airways, Jason Reisinger 

Warbelows Air Ventures, Art Warbelow

Wings Air (Air Greco), Aaron Goerlich