Order 2011-6-25

Served: June 27, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 27th day of June, 2011

ORDER RE-SOLICITING PROPOSALS

Summary

By this order, the Department is requesting proposals for a second time from carriers interested 

in providing essential air service (EAS) at the four Arkansas communities from November 1, 

2011, through October 31, 2013, with or without subsidy, by July 12, 2011 (See Appendix A for 

a map.)

Background

By Order 2009-6-25, June 26, 2009, the Department selected Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. 

d/b/a SeaPort Airlines (SeaPort) to serve all four communities for a two-year period, at a 

combined first-year subsidy rate of $6,046,789 (El Dorado/Camden [El Dorado]: $2,095,517, 

Harrison: $1,695,929, Hot Springs: $1,419,102, Jonesboro: $836,241). The combined secondyear subsidy rate is $5,740,363 (El Dorado: $2,060,725, Harrison: $1,591,119, Hot Springs: 

$1,288,527, Jonesboro: $799,992). Service was to consist of 18 weekly nonstop round trips 

between each community and Memphis, with 9-seat Pilatus PC-12 aircraft. SeaPort inaugurated 

service at all four communities on October 26, 2009, thus making the expiration date of its 

contract October 30, 2011.

In anticipation of the expiration of the current contract, the Department issued Order 2011-4-15, 

April 15, 2011, requesting proposals for any or all of the four Arkansas communities to be 

submitted no later than May 25. In response to that Order, the Department received proposals 

from three carriers, SeaPort, the incumbent, Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One (Air Choice

One) and Gulfstream International Airlines (Gulfstream). Gulfstream’s proposal was for service 

Essential Air Service at

EL DORADO/CAMDEN, ARKANSAS

HARRISON, ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS, ARKANSAS

JONESBORO, ARKANSAS

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

 Docket DOT-OST-1997-2935

 Docket DOT-OST-1997-2935

 Docket DOT-OST-1997-2935

 Docket DOT-OST-1997-2935

 

 
- 2 -

to El Dorado/Camden and Harrison only, while SeaPort and Air Choice One proposed service to 

all four communities. Subsequently, on June 1, Gulfstream withdrew its proposal.

In the request for proposals, Order 2011-4-15, we discussed the high subsidy per passenger at 

Hot Springs and Jonesboro. Specifically, we noted that based on the most recent 12-month 

period for which data were available (February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011), 1,602

passengers were enplaned and deplaned at Hot Springs, while 952 passengers were enplaned and 

deplaned at Jonesboro. The current annual subsidy1 amount for Hot Springs is $1,288,527 and 

Jonesboro’s is $799,992. Therefore, the subsidy per passenger at Hot Springs is $804 and $840

at Jonesboro. The Department is prohibited from subsidizing air service at a community where 

the subsidy per passenger exceeds $200, unless the community is more than 210 highway miles 

from the nearest large or medium hub airport2. Hot Springs and Jonesboro well exceed the $200 

per passenger cap and both are fewer than 210 miles from a large or medium hub. Hot Springs is 

198 miles and Jonesboro is 82 miles, both from Memphis International Airport (MEM), a 

medium hub airport.

Both communities experienced a hiatus in service between Air Midwest’s cessation of operations 

on June 30, 2008, and the inauguration of service from SeaPort on October 26, 2009. We noted

that these four communities suffered the longest service hiatus of all the communities affected by 

four EAS carrier shut downs and, while we allow for traffic to rebuild after such a hiatus, 

enplanements at both communities remain extremely low, averaging 2.6 enplanements per day at 

Hot Springs and 1.5 per day at Jonesboro.3 As stated above, the per-passenger subsidy exceeds 

the $200 cap by over four times, with both communities having a per passenger subsidy in 

excess of $800. However, rather than terminate service eligibility at either community, the 

Department solicited proposals for EAS at both, and we stated that the Department would

evaluate all proposals submitted before committing to a two-year contract or making a final 

determination on Hot Springs and Jonesboro’s continuing eligibility. During the window prior to 

the due date for proposals, we asked both communities to work aggressively with all potential 

applicants to mitigate some of the risks that the carriers may face in an attempt to lower their 

subsidy levels and/or increase passenger traffic.

Further, we stated, “Regarding proposals for Hot Springs and Jonesboro, as stated above, we will 

evaluate all proposals submitted before committing to a two-year contract or making a final 

determination on those two communities’ continuing eligibility. Proposals including Hot 

Springs and/or Jonesboro should acknowledge the per passenger subsidy as stated above, and 

describe specific plans to address the issue, including, but not limited to, lower annual subsidy 

levels, marketing plans, such as advertising or fare promotions, enhanced access to connections 

to the national transportation system, codeshare agreements with major airlines, and/or wider 

access to distribution in reservation systems or consumer websites.”

 1 Annual subsidy rates listed here are second-year rates, lower than first-year rates, as proposed by SeaPort.

2 Congress first established the $200 ceiling under P.L. 101-164 for fiscal year 1990, and reestablished it in fiscal 

years 1994-1999. The ceiling was made permanent by P.L. 106-69, the Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000.

3 See Appendix B for traffic history.
- 3 -

Neither Air Choice One nor SeaPort addressed the per passenger subsidy, either with lower 

subsidy requirements or specific plans to address the issue at Hot Springs or Jonesboro as we 

requested. SeaPort, the incumbent, proposed greatly higher subsidies at both communities over 

what the carrier is currently receiving. Air Choice One also proposed higher subsidy 

requirements than the current rates and forecast passenger traffic that is unrealistic. For example, 

at Jonesboro, Air Choice One forecast 7,900 annual passengers; however, in the last 12 months, 

SeaPort carried only 952. Similarly exaggerated forecasts were proposed for the other 

communities.

Decision

After carefully reviewing the proposals, we have decided to reject all proposals and solicit a new 

round of proposals from carriers interested in providing EAS at any or all of the Arkansas 

communities discussed here, from November 1, 2011, through October 31, 2013, with or without 

subsidy. Respondents to this second request should submit their proposals no later than July 12, 

2011. Jonesboro and Hot Springs are currently over the $200 per passenger subsidy cap, as 

described above, and rather than terminate eligibility for both communities, we again request that 

carriers address the cap issue. If, after receiving proposals from this second round of solicitation, 

we do not receive proposals that adequately address the issue, we will consider whether to

terminate Hot Springs and Jonesboro’s eligibility from receiving subsidized air service because 

their subsidy per passenger levels exceed $200.

Request for Proposals

Carriers interested in filing proposals, with or without subsidy requests, should file them no later 

than July 12, 2011. Staff will then docket the 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 ask it to submit 

their final comments. We will give full consideration to all proposals that are timely filed.4

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

proposals will represent their final and only proposals. However, we retain the discretion to 

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

reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and re-solicit a new round of proposals. 

However, negotiation and rejection are 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 

 4 Carriers should not expect the Department to accept late fillings. 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 subsidyfree service as proposed.
- 4 -

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, well-documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by 

the affected community and the Department.5

With respect to each community, we expect proposals consisting of service with two-pilot, twinengine aircraft with at least 15 passenger seats, and offering two round trips each weekday and 

weekend (12 total round trips per week) to a suitable hub airport (e.g. Dallas/Fort Worth, 

Houston George Bush Intercontinental, Kansas City, Memphis, or St. Louis), that offers

numerous connecting opportunities to the national air transportation system. Two communities 

may be served on a linear basis, where traffic demand and aircraft size are appropriate (e.g. 

Harrison – Hot Springs – Dallas/Fort Worth). If aircraft with fewer than 15 passenger seats are 

contemplated, service patterns should consist of three nonstop round trips each weekday and 

weekend (18 total round trips per week). If such a proposal is submitted and the community 

ultimately supports the service, in effect waiving 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. we would 

not assume that the community waives their rights for all time. Harrison and Hot Springs have 

requested that we solicit proposals that include at least one option to a specific hub, but service 

proposals to other hubs will also considered. The list below summarizes the hubs that those two 

communities have noted are of high interest to them.

• Harrison – Dallas/Fort Worth International, Kansas City, or Memphis

• Hot Springs – Dallas/Fort Worth International or Dallas Love Field

Regarding proposals for Hot Springs and Jonesboro, as stated above, we will evaluate all 

proposals submitted before committing to a two-year contract or making a final determination on 

those two communities’ continuing eligibility. Proposals including Hot Springs and/or 

Jonesboro must acknowledge the per passenger subsidy as stated above, and describe specific 

plans to address the issue, including, but not limited to, lower annual subsidy levels, marketing 

plans, such as advertising or fare promotions, enhanced access to connections to the national 

transportation system through electronic ticketing and baggage agreements or codeshare 

agreements with major airlines, and/or wider access to distribution in reservation systems or 

consumer websites. In the proposal, we also expect to be informed of what plans the 

communities have to address the cap, in a joint effort either with the carrier or independent of the 

carrier.

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

factors: (a) scheduled service reliability; (b) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier to ensure 

service beyond the hub; (c) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a larger carrier at the hub; and 

(d) community views, giving substantial weight to the views of the elected officials representing the users. 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.
- 5 -

Communities and air carriers are encouraged to work together in advance of the due date for 

proposals to craft a service pattern that is desirable to the community and meets the operational 

needs of the airline interested in submitting a proposal. In addition, carriers should be very clear 

as to whether a specific community’s proposal is on a stand-alone basis, or whether it is part of a 

larger, inseparable package with other communities.

We encourage proposals that meet these requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers are also 

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.

Service and Traffic History

For the 12-month period ended January 31, 2011, the most recent period for which traffic data are 

available, El Dorado averaged 4.0 enplanements per day, Harrison 5.7, Hot Springs, 2.6, and 

Jonesboro 1.5.6 In order to assist carriers in making their traffic and revenue forecasts, we have 

included historical traffic data in Appendix B.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying 

activities, drug-free workplaces, and nondiscrimination.7 Consequently, all carriers receiving 

Federal subsidy for 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. Because the Department is 

prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these documents, all carriers that 

plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should be aware that the selected carrier will be 

required to complete the required certifications. Interested carriers requiring more detailed 

information regarding these requirements should contact the Office of Aviation Analysis at 

(202) 366-5903.8

 6 See Appendix B for historical traffic data. Enplanements represent one-half of total origin-and-destination traffic, 

and average enplanements per day are based on 313 days per service year.

7 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 20 -- New restrictions on lobbying; 

(2) 49 CFR Part 21 -- Nondiscrimination in federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation --

Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR Part 27 -- Nondiscrimination on the basis of 

disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance; and 14 CFR Part 382 -

- Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29 -- Government-wide debarment 

and suspension (non-procurement) and government-wide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

8 The certifications are also available on the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html.
- 6 -

Community and State Comments

The communities and State are welcome to submit comments at any time. We encourage 

prospective applicants to contact the community before they submit their proposals so that they 

can tailor them to the community’s needs, as they will not be able to amend it after the due date. 

As noted earlier, we will provide a copy of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to 

submit their final comments shortly after July 12, 2011, the due date for proposals.

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f).

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at El Dorado/Camden,

Harrison, Hot Springs, and/or Jonesboro, Arkansas, submit their proposals, with or without

subsidy requests, no later than July 12, 2011. The proposals should be e-mailed to

EAS@dot.gov, with the title “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at (community or

communities of interest), DOT-OST-1997-2935”;9

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

3. We will serve copies of this order on the mayors of El Dorado, Camden, Harrison, Hot

Springs, and Jonesboro, and the airport managers of South Arkansas Regional Airport/Goodwin

Field (El Dorado/Camden), Boone County Regional Airport (Harrison), Hot Springs Memorial

Field Airport, and Jonesboro Municipal Airport, and the parties listed in Appendix C.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

 Assistant Secretary

 for Aviation and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov

 9 Questions regarding filings in response to this order may be directed via e-mail to Kevin Schlemmer at 

kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov or via phone at (202) 366-3176
Appendix A

AREA MAP

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

Page 1 of 2

Traffic History*

Stn Year Month Inbound traffic Outbound traffic Totals

ELD 2009 10 23 2 25

ELD 2009 11 70 59 129

ELD 2009 12 77 66 143

ELD 2010 1 77 72 149

ELD 2010 2 44 76 120

ELD 2010 3 88 82 170

ELD 2010 4 96 94 190

ELD 2010 5 99 102 201

ELD 2010 6 101 119 220

ELD 2010 7 116 127 243

ELD 2010 8 126 115 241

ELD 2010 9 200 120 320

ELD 2010 10 136 144 280

ELD 2010 11 89 69 158

ELD 2010 12 102 100 202

ELD 2011 1 92 83 175

2,520 (12-months traffic ending 1/31/11)

Stn Year Month Inbound traffic Outbound traffic Totals

HOT 2009 10 27 19 46

HOT 2009 11 34 38 72

HOT 2009 12 30 32 62

HOT 2010 1 34 41 75

HOT 2010 2 50 53 103

HOT 2010 3 51 54 105

HOT 2010 4 79 68 147

HOT 2010 5 56 56 112

HOT 2010 6 58 72 130

HOT 2010 7 62 71 133

HOT 2010 8 54 59 113

HOT 2010 9 115 105 220

HOT 2010 10 78 75 153

HOT 2010 11 52 47 99

HOT 2010 12 86 79 165

HOT 2011 1 60 62 122

1,602 (12-months traffic ending 1/31/11)
Appendix B

Page 2 of 2

Traffic History (continued)

Stn Year Month Inbound traffic Outbound traffic Totals

HRO 2009 10 19 22 41

HRO 2009 11 128 111 239

HRO 2009 12 103 112 215

HRO 2010 1 94 113 207

HRO 2010 2 107 104 211

HRO 2010 3 113 116 229

HRO 2010 4 157 153 310

HRO 2010 5 112 103 215

HRO 2010 6 125 132 257

HRO 2010 7 121 110 231

HRO 2010 8 153 163 316

HRO 2010 9 253 242 495

HRO 2010 10 170 197 367

HRO 2010 11 130 144 274

HRO 2010 12 193 198 391

HRO 2011 1 158 143 301

3,597 (12-months traffic ending 1/31/11)

Stn Year Month Inbound traffic Outbound traffic Totals

JBR 2009 10 9 9 18

JBR 2009 11 21 28 49

JBR 2009 12 24 29 53

JBR 2010 1 24 37 61

JBR 2010 2 19 38 57

JBR 2010 3 28 45 73

JBR 2010 4 28 36 64

JBR 2010 5 36 37 73

JBR 2010 6 36 38 74

JBR 2010 7 29 43 72

JBR 2010 8 34 33 67

JBR 2010 9 65 58 123

JBR 2010 10 39 40 79

JBR 2010 11 36 61 97

JBR 2010 12 51 49 100

JBR 2011 1 43 30 73

952 (12-months traffic ending 1/31/11)

ELD=El Dorado/Camden; HOT=Hot Springs; HRO=Harrison; JBR=Jonesboro

*Source – T-100 Market Report, Passengers in Scheduled Passenger Service; Traffic figures 

reflect SeaPort Airlines only
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

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Greco/Wings Air Horizon Air, Jeff Cole

Air Sunshine, Inc. ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Intrepid Internatl Air, Rick Eyk

Air West, Inc., John Raatz Island Air Charters, Linda House

Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly Jet Air, Daniel Wolford

Air Wisconsin, Jim Rankin Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks

Airline Associates, Bill Mishk McCall Aviation, Dan Scott

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole McCall Aviation, Michelle

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Mesaba, John Spanjers 

Allegiant Air, Brian Davis Mesaba, Max Shemesh

American Airlines, Carl Nelson MidStar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner

American Eagle, Gary Foss Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis

American Eagle, Robert Emrich MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado 

Atlantic Southeast, Jon Lindlief Multi Aero, Darnea

Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Aviation Technologies/Charter Air Transport Northern Air Cargo, David Karp

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude Northern Air Cargo, Eric Van Andel

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger NYDC, Henok Araya

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney OST, Brian Swanson

Cape Air, Dan Wolf OST, Dennis DeVany

Cape Air, J. Flaherty OST, Kevin Adams

Chautauqua, Josh Pascoe OST, Kevin Schlemmer

Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson OST, Michael Martin 

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan Pacific Aviation Group, Craig Garrick

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott Pacific Aviation Group, Ron Pye

CommutAir, Andy Price Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf

Consultant, Michael Mooney PenAir, Danny Seybert

Consultant, Robert Silverberg PenAir, Scott Bloomquist

Continental, Bruce Keiner Pinnacle Airlines, Jennifer Gammill

Continental, Dan Weiss Pinnacle Airlines, Megan Rosia 

Continental, Lorry Halloway Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

Delta, Anthony Canitano Planemasters, Inc. John Kessler

Delta, Dan Shuman Planemasters, Inc. Paul Berliner

Delta, Dana Debel Planemasters, Inc. Todd DeSimone

Delta, Jeff Davidman Raytheon, Mike Scheidt

Delta, Jeff Morgan Saab Group, Polly Prelinger

Delta, Joe Esposito Scenic, Mary Schneider

Delta, Kristal Murphy Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen Seaborne Airlines, Shawn Lewis

Delta, Stephen A. Hedden SeaPort Airlines, Daniel Helland

DHS, Bill Ragan SeaPort/Wings of Alaska, Rob McKinney

DHS, David Bernier Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano 

Dorado Jets SkyWest, Brad Rawson

Dorado Jets, Mark McKenna SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Era Aviation, Lori Goodman SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Frontier Flying, Bob Hajducovich Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Frontier Airlines, Daniel Shurz Tatonduk, Robert Everts

Frontline Aviation Tatonduk, Robert Ragar

Gem Air, Dan Schroeder Tradewind, Eric Zipkin 

Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters TransStates, Fred Oxley 

Great Lakes, Chuck Howell TransStates, Gerry Wigmore

Great Lakes, Doug Voss Transport Azumah, Joel Anabilah-Azumah

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett United, Alicia Gabriel

Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman United, James Starnes

Gulfstream, T. Cooper US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Horizon Air, Dan Russo US Airways, Howard Kass

Horizon Air, Jennifer Thompson US Airways, Jason Reisinger 

Horizon Air, Mike McQueen Warbelows Air Ventures, Art Warbelow