### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA **DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY**  **WASHINGTON, D.C.**

__________________________________________) In the matter of the ) ) **INTRA -** **ALASKA BUSH MAIL RATES** ) **Docket OST -** **2003 -** **14694** ) __________________________________________)

**RESPONSE OF THE CONSOLIDATED CARRIERS TO THE AUGUST 3, 2011 FILING OF**  **PENINSULA AIRWAYS, INC.**

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: Hank Myers MTC P.O. Box 7142 Bellevue, WA 98008

- 1142 (425) 830

-4265 (office) hank@mtcworld.com August 11, 2011

### 1 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**  **OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.** 

__________________________________ _______ ) In the matter of the ) ) **INTRA -** **ALASKA BUSH MAIL RATES** ) **Docket OST -** **2003 -** **14694** ) __________________________________________)

**RESPONSE OF THE CONSOLIDATED CARRIERS TO THE AUGUST 3, 2011 FILING OF**  **PENINSULA AIRWAYS, INC.**  The Consolidated Carriers (Carriers) respond to the filing of Peninsula Airways (Penair) dated August 3, 2011 , and request that this filing be accepted although otherwise unauthorized. Penair materially misstates the position of the Carriers in regard to the calculation of the long runway Part 135 rate. Further, Penair raises entirely new arguments which raise the question of whether any Penair large aircraft data should be included in the Part 135 rate.

**OVERSTATED?**
Penair says that the Carriers have overstated the impact of the Metroliner data on the mail rate. To begin with, all data quoted by the Carriers came directly and completely from the T

- 100 reports. What are the configurations used for the Metroliner by Penair? The data in the Carriers’ July

18, 2011 response show it completely and accurately. What is the difference in the cost per revenue ton mile for the Metro compared to other aircraft,

### 2

Attachment B to the DOT Orders shows that. Itis not that Penair’s differences are overstated, it is that they

are fully described.
Penair then repeats its claims that the extremely long legs it operates sometimes require technical (fuel) stops which increase costs. All technical stops are recorded in the T

- 100 segment reports, and all expenses f rom the F

-2 reports are included in determining unit costs. What Penair seems to be complaining about is that operating low cost, long flight segment service is not all strawberries and cream. Penair already shows varying payloads for its long runway

aircraft depending on the seating configuration. If it wishes to reflect the reduction in commercial payload due to fuel loads, it can do that as well. The BTS accepts whatever payload data the carrier provides. Again, ATM’s and payload data are unimportant in any

case because those data are not used to determine mail rates. Essentially

Penair is arguing that its overall load factor on the T

- 100’s is understated, and that on numerous flights it packs as much commercial traffic onto the aircraft as it can legally carry, and still has leftovers to support the next flight.
Penair then argues that the costs for YE 6

-30

- 10 are not really reflective of the current and future costs because they have gotten rid of all the aircraft used in the rate study. In the f uture, it is the SAAB 340 costs that will be included in ratemaking. Attachment A, Appendix C1A to Order 2011

-6

- 14 clearly shows that the costs per revenue ton mile for the two series of Metroliners used by Penair was $3.9908 and $4.3672 per ton mile. The corresponding costs for the SAAB 340 versions used by Penair are $3.6621 and $4.3658 per ton mile, even lower. It is hard to overstate the impact of the costs of the Metroliners

### 3

on the mail rate when the costs of the SAAB’s are lower still. Essentially, Penair confirms that the Part 135 mail rate is not based on aircraft actually in use, and represents a situation that no longer exists.

Ironically, Penair claims that the Carriers overstate the impact of the SAAB and Metroliner aircraft on mail rates, and then goes on to say that the compensatory

rates proposed by the Carriers would cost the Postal Service substantially more. The rates proposed in Order 2011

-6

- 14 are not compensatory, and Penair agrees. Certainly it is possible to imagine a rate that is less costly to the Postal Service if it is not compensatory

. Federal law and regulation require the Department to establish compensatory rates, however. Penair cannot argue that inclusion of its long runway aircraft is not a big deal while at the same time arguing that excluding those aircraft increase Postal costs significantly.

**HOW AR E METOLINER AND SAAB COSTS RELEVANT TO THE PART 135**  **RATE?**
The Carriers have examined the market and segment T

- 100 data for the 12 months ended April, 2011. These data include six months of Metroliner data and six months of SAAB data. Attachment C shows the data for the SAAB aircraft. As Penair itself notes, one of its twelve SAAB’s is configured as a freighter. Attachment C compares the operations of the zero seat (Part 135) freight aircraft in bush markets, with the passenger configured SAAB’s. All of the passenger carrying SAAB flights had at least ten seats, and

### 4

assumedly

were operated under FAR 121. In each of the bush markets, Penair offers many times the number of flights in Part 121 aircraft as it does in Part 135 aircraft.

Penair operates some Part 135 freighter flights in mainline markets as well. In both cases, the prevailing mail rate in the markets is not the Part 135 rate, but the Part 121 rate or the Mainline rate. According to DOT orders and the PO

-508 Postal Service procedures manual, all mail transported in a market served by mainline aircraft or Part 121 aircraft moves at the lower mail rate. (see, e.g. Order 2003

- 10

- 10 discussion of Issue 5 at page 8 ff) The costs of Penair’s Metroliners and SAAB’s are irrelevant because none of these aircraft transports mail at the Part 135 rate. Penair is equalizing. It is improper to include costs for an aircraft that is not transporting mail in that rate class. All of the service by the Metroliners and SAAB’s is in markets where a lower mail rate prevails and applies to all service.
The big benefit from operating under Part 135 is greater operational flexibility and lower unit costs. In return for gaining these benefits, Penair also wants a higher mail rate.

**INCLUDING LONG RUNWAY AIRCRAFT DOES NOT PROVIDE EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES** 
Penair does not want a separate rate for its long runway aircraft, and quotes Order 2004

- 6

-3 in support. Unfortunately, Penair cuts the sentence short and excludes the most telling argument for an inclusive rate. The complete sentence in Order 2004

-6

-3 is,

### 5

“However, different unit costs are not by themselves sufficient grounds for establishing a separate mail rate, or in this case a subset of the Part 121 rate, because a class rate aims to use the pressure of having all comparable costs included in a class rate average to encourage carriers to lower their operating expenses.” (emphasis added to excluded content) In this case, the long runway aircraft do not provide any pressure for lower operating expenses because, 1. they cannot be operated at the vast majority of Alaskan bush airports, and 2. their breakeven payload is so high as to preclude their use within the frequency

requirements of the Postal Service and the DOT.

Attachment A shows the longest runway length for each of the 153 bush airports served with scheduled wheelplane service in Alaska. Only 31% of the airports (53) have a runway long enough to accommodate the SAAB and other aircraft with 19 or greater authorized seats. Of that 53, only 20 airports (13% of total) actually received or have received Part 121 bush service. Having a long runway does not necessarily encourage large aircraft service. Of the 53 airports with long runways, 33 of the points (62%) have not received Part 121 bush service under the RSIA.
Market demand is the primary determinant of whether a large aircraft is used. Attachment A shows that the average number of revenue ton miles inbound to the 20 airports receiving or having received Part 121 service was 321,465./year for the year ended April, 2011. For the 33 airports than have never received Part 121 service, that
average inbound rtm’s was 36,261

. This amount is only 11% of the Part 121 markets,

### 6

and very similar to the 29,909 average inbound rtm’s for the bush airports with runways less than 4,000 feet

.
Clearly the SAAB 340 and other long runway aircraft do not increase pressure to reduce operating costs for the Part 135 class of carriers. They cannot be legally operated into 69% of the bush airports, and are too large to provide economic service to 87% of the bush markets. In order for these aircraft to be included as comparable, they must be a viable option for a significant sector of the market, and clearly they are not.

**PENAIR MISSTATES THE CARRIERS’ POSITION ON THE LONG RUNWAY RATE** 
Penair says that the Carriers only propose two alternatives for setting the long runway, large aircraft rate, and both involve a regression analysis with mileage taper. It was a large aircraft operator, Frontier, that suggested the mileage taper. The regression formula produced by the Carriers was to illustrate two points. First, the regression method did not create a compensatory

rate that covers all of the recognized costs of transporting mail. Second, the more accurate regression line requires the use of payload as a factor as well as segment length. The basic problem in setting a long runway, large aircraft rate is the operations of Penair are significantly different from the rest of the long runway, large aircraft industry

in Alaska. Perhaps it is possible to adjust the regression line to creat a compensatory

rate for the operators of those aircraft, and perhaps the mileage taper is a desirable thing for those aircraft.

### 7

In any case, the Carriers proposed a third alternative, creating a long runway rate using traditional rate making procedures. This rate computation is illustrated in Attachment B, and uses data straight from Order 2010

- 12

-28
. This is a fully compensatory

rate for the class, and still gives Penair a substantial windfall compared to the Part 121 rate. The Carriers agree that the regression methodology proposed by

the Department is flawed, and that other regressions have similar problems. The Carriers did provide a method for a long runway, large aircraft rate that is fully compensatory

and uncontroversial. Penair cannot use the shortcomings of the regression methodology to oppose a separate rate for its unique aircraft.

**THE RE LEVANCE OF THE PART 135**  **LARGE AIRCRAFT RATE**
As shown above, the long runway, large aircraft are a unique class of service. The R.S.I.A. clearly assumed that all of these aircraft would be operated under FAR 121. In recent months, however, Part 121 operators have proposed to convert more of their long runway, large aircraft service to Part 135. There is service by Part 135 only carriers using these larger aircraft as well. In these cases, all of the service is in markets where the Part 121 rate either a

pplies now or has in the past with the same aircraft. As Penair has clearly stated, it is now a management decision about which set of rules to operate under. Given that this trend toward 135 operations will continue, it appropriate to have a subclass for these aircraft regardless of whether the Department includes Penair’s Metroliner and SAAB aircraft in the mix.

### 8

**CONCLUSION**
This case is really

about how much of a windfall Penair will gain for the carriage of mail on its large aircraft, and at whose expense that windfall will come. While it is unclear whether the SAAB 340 is a comparable aircraft to the other long runway, large aircraft operating under Part 135, it is clearly not comparable to the vast majority of aircraft and markets where the SAABs cannot be physically operated or are much too large for the market.
The Rural Service Improvement Act sought to encourage operations under Part 121, and to that end created incentives to operate aircraft certificated for 19 seats or more. Penair previously insisted that it is not actual seating capacity but certificated seating capacity that must decide the class. While the Act did not anticipate downgrading Part 121 capacity to Part 135 rules, it was very specific in terms of defining the mail rates based on operating rules.
The Carriers have clearly showed that the long runway, large aircraft are a unique segment. Including their costs with those of true Part 135 aircraft created rates that are not compensatory

for the vast majority

of markets and carriers where the long runway aircraft are not an option. There is no incentive in a combined rate, only punishment for all but one carrier.

### 9

For the long runway, large aircraft (those with a maximum certificated passenger capacity of 19 or more), the Department has several choices. It can modify the regression analyses to create a compensatory rate for the aircraft involved, or it can use traditional methods (Attachment B). In any case, the Department needs to determine whether an aircraft that does not actually carry mail at the 135 wheel rate should be included in the calculation of that rate. All of Penair’s scheduled SAAB 340 service is in markets where either Part 121 or mainline rates control. It does not provide any true Part 135 service, where that rate is actually paid, with its large aircraft.

**WHEREFORE**, the Consolidated Carriers hereby request that this filing be accepted, and that the Department adopt the Part 135 mail rate proposed by the Carriers in the July 18, 2011 filing ($12.2338 updated for anticipated inflation plus current fuel costs)

. Furthermore, the Carriers request that a separate mail rate be established for aircraft certificated for a maximum passenger capacity of 19 or more, but operated under FAR 135. Finally, the carriers assert that inclusion of Penair’s Metroliner and SAAB costs in the Part 135 wheel rate is improper because those aircraft are used exclusively in scheduled service in Part 121 or Mainline mail rate markets.
Respectfully

submitted,

____________________ Hank Myers August 12, 2011

### 10 **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**
I hereby certify

that I have this date served a copy of the Response of the Consolidated Carriers to the August 3, 2011 Filing of Peninsula Airways, Inc. upon all parties to Docket DOT

-OST

-2003

- 14694 by electronic mail.

____________________ Hank Myers August 11, 2011

### 11 **Attachment A Page 1 of 4**  **CITY RNWY '**  **SURF. <4,000'?**  **121 SVC? INB RTM'S**  **AVG/MKT** ALLAKAKET 4000 GVL FALSE 77,629 ANAKTUVUK PASS 4800 GVL FALSE YES 203,947 ARCTIC VILLAGE 4500 GVL FALSE 83,524 ATKA 4500 ASP FALSE YES 38,273 ATQASUK 4400 GVL FALSE 32,995 BARTER ISLAND 4800 GVL FALSE YES 136,650 BETTLES 5200 GVL FALSE 38,933 BIRCH CREEK 4000 GVL FALSE 4,024 CHALKYITSIK 4000 GVL FALSE 18,107 COLD BAY 10400 ASP FALSE YES 602,852 DUTCH HARBOR 4300 ASP FALSE YES 2,643,662 EGEGIK 5600 GVL FALSE 18,269 GAMBELL 4500 ASP FALSE YES 190,735 GOLOVIN 4000 GVL FALSE 25,846 HAINES 4000 ASP FALSE 74,463 HOLY CROSS 4000 GVL FALSE 17,157 HUSLIA 4000 GVL FALSE YES 120,1 93 KAKE 4000 ASP FALSE 16,989 KALTAG 4000 GVL FALSE YES 76,144 KOTLIK 4400 GVL FALSE 51,229 KOYUKUK 4000 GVL FALSE YES 49,710 LAKE MINCHUMINA 4200 GVL FALSE 3,054 NELSON LAGOON 4000 GVL FALSE 11,311 NIKOLAI 4000 GVL FALSE 2,406 NOATAK 4000 GVL FALSE 46,485 NOORVIK 4000 GVL FALSE 44,753 NUIQSUT 4300 GVL FALSE YES 68,364 NULATO 4000 GVL FALSE YES 93,113 POINT HOPE 4000 ASP FALSE YES 224,666 POINT LAY 4500 GVL FALSE YES 95,253 PORT ALSWORTH 4200 GVL FALSE 1,961 PORT HEIDEN 5000 GVL FALSE 39,983 RED DEVIL 4800 GVL FALSE 1,483 RUBY 4000 GVL FALSE YES 63,242 SAND POINT 4000 ASP FALSE YES 405,492 SAVOONGA 4400 GVL FALSE YES 178,994 SHAKTOOLIK 4000 GVL FALSE 24,433 SHISHMAREF 5000 ASP FALSE YES 115,468 SHUNGNAK 4000 GVL FALSE 71,880 ST. MICHAEL 4000 GVL FALSE 48,508 ST. GEORGE 5000 GVL FALSE YES 158,463 ST. PAUL 6500 GVL FALSE YES 642,630 **321,466** TANANA 4400 GVL FALSE 59,492 TIN CITY 4700 GVL FALSE 6,001 TOGIAK 4400 GVL FALSE 79,782 VENETIE 4100 GVL FALSE 77,112 WALES 4000 GVL FALSE 37,511 **36,262**

### 12 **Attachment A Page 2 of 4**  AKK AKHIOK 3300 GVL TRUE 8,486 KKI AKIACHAK 1600 GVL TRUE 4,765 AKI AKIAK 3200 GVL TRUE 4,247 AUK ALAKANUK 2200 GVL TRUE 24,480 WKK ALEKNAGIK 2100 GVL TRUE 524 ABL AMBLER 3000 GVL TRUE 82,466 ANV ANVIK 2900 GVL TRUE 13,577 ATT ATMAUTLUAK 2000 GVL TRUE 5,919 WBQ BEAVER 3900 GVL TRUE 15,442 BKC BUCKLAND 3200 GVL TRUE 83,207 CEM CENTRAL 2700 GVL TRUE 1,527 VAK CHEVAK 2600 GVL TRUE 199,375 CKX CHICKEN 2500 GVL TRUE 671 CYF CHIFORNAK 2500 GVL TRUE 83,655 KCQ CHIGNIK 2600 GVL TRUE 20,483 KCG CHIGNIK FISHERIES 1600 GVL TRUE 22,915 KCL CHIGNIK LAGOON 1600 GVL TRUE 19,490 CZN CHISANA 3000 GVL TRUE 1,909 CHU CHUATHBALUK 1500 GVL TRU E 1,941 IRC CIRCLE 3000 GVL TRUE 4,747 CLP CLARKS POINT 2600 GVL TRUE 872 CKD CROOKED CREEK 2000 GVL TRUE 8,342 DRG DEERING 2600 GVL TRUE 16,405 DIO DIOMEDE ISLAND 0 HELIPORT TRUE 5,900 EAA EAGLE 3600 GVL TRUE 33,310 EEK EEK 1400 GVL T RUE 24,218 KEK EKWOK 2700 GVL TRUE 3,833 ELI ELIM 3000 GVL TRUE 56,947 KEB ENGLISH BAY 1800 GVL TRUE 12,829 KFP FALSE PASS 2100 GVL TRUE 2,220 GNU GOODNEWSBAY 2800 GVL TRUE 44,201 KGX GRAYLING 2300 GVL TRUE 29,889 HKB HEALY LAKE 2900 ASP TRUE 692 HNH HOONAH 3000 ASP TRUE 30,444 HPB HOOPER BAY 3300 ASP TRUE 265,293 HUS HUGHES 3400 GVL TRUE 50,825 IGG IGIUGIG 3000 GVL TRUE 3,055 KLG KALSKAG 3200 GVL TRUE 51,155 KYK KARLUK 2000 GVL TRUE 4,627 KUK KASIGLUK 3000 GVL TRU E 16,379 IAN KIANA 3400 GVL TRUE 40,190 KVC KING COVE 3300 GVL TRUE 10,117 KPN KIPNUK 2100 GVL TRUE 116,255 KVL KIVALINA 3000 GVL TRUE 59,464 OBU KOBUK 2500 GVL TRUE 39,080

### 13 **Attachment A Page 3 of 4**  KNK KOKHANOK 2900 GVL TRUE 8,898 KGK KOLIGANEK 3000 GVL TRUE 12,370 KKH KONGIGANAK 1900 GVL TRUE 58,146 KKA KOYUK 3000 GVL TRUE 52,935 KWT KW ET HLUK 1700 GVL TRUE 3,819 KW K KW IGILLINGOK 2500 GVL TRUE 56,952 KLL LEVELOCK 3300 GVL TRUE 3,145 MLY MANLEY 2900 GVL TRUE 1,437 KMO MANOKOTAK 2700 GVL TRUE 7,481 MLL MARSHALL 3200 GVL TRUE 54,797 MYK MAY CREEK 2700 TURF TRUE 314 MXY MCCARTHY 3500 GVL TRUE 1,657 MYU MEKORYUK 3100 GVL TRUE 66,130 MNT MINTO 2000 GVL TRUE 992 MOU MOUNTAIN VILLAGE 2500 GVL TRUE 56,602 WNA NAPAKIAK 3200 GVL TRUE 2,704 PKA NAPASKIAK 3000 GVL TRUE 1,454 KNW NEW ST UYAHOK 1800 GVL TRUE 20,076 WWT NEWTOK 2200 GVL TRUE 48,722 NME NIGHTMUTE 1600 GVL TRUE 43,753 IKO NIKOLSKI 3500 GVL TRUE 9,521 NNL NONDALTON 2800 GVL TRUE 2,422 NUP NUNAPITCHUK 2000 GVL TRUE 8,059 OLH OLD HARBOR 2700 GVL TRUE 18,402 KOZ OUZINKIE 2100 GVL TRUE 3,028 PDB PEDRO BAY 3000 GVL TRUE 1,249 KPV PERRYVILLE 2400 GVL TRUE 29,298 PIP PILOT POINT 3300 GVL TRUE 16,667 PQS PILOT STATION 2500 GVL TRUE 35,746 PTU PLATINUM 3000 GVL TRUE 31,166 PVY POPE VANOY TRUE 184 PGM PORT GRAHAM 2000 GVL TRUE 10,790 ORI PORT LIONS 2200 GVL TRUE 3,154 PML PORT MOLLER 3500 GVL TRUE 11,050 KW N QUINHAGAK 2600 GVL TRUE 92,795 RMP RAMPART 3500 GVL TRUE 1,999 RSH RUSSIAN MISSION 2600 GVL TRUE 39,694 SCM SCAMMON BAY 3000 GVL TRUE 132,916 WLK SELAW IK 3000 GVL TRUE 103,941 SOV SELDOVIA 1800 GVL TRUE 11,603 SHX SHAGELUK 3400 GVL TRUE 14,431 SXP SHELDON POINT 3000 GVL TRUE 9, 038 SGY SKAGWAY 3500 ASP TRUE 61,892 SKW SKW ENTNA 3400 GVL TRUE 1,665 SLQ SLEETMUTE 3100 GVL TRUE 20,461

### 14 **Attachment A Page 4 of 4**  WS N SOUTH NAKNEK 3300 GVL TRUE 1,091 WB B STEBBINS 3000 GVL TRUE 46,880 SVS STEVENS VILLAGE 2100 GVL TRUE 7,332 SRV STONY RIVER 2600 GVL TRUE 3,366 TCT TAKOTNA 1700 GVL TRUE 510 TLJ TATALINA 3800 GVL TRUE 55 TEK TATITLEK 3700 GVL TRUE 845 TLA TELLER 3000 GVL TRUE 18,795 KTS TELLER MISSION 3000 GVL TRUE 37,039 OOK TOKSOOK 3200 ASP TRUE 124, 793 TLT TULUKSAK 2400 GVL TRUE 10,585 WTL TUNTATULIAK 1800 GVL TRUE 27,351 TNK TUNUNAK 2000 GVL TRUE 61,899 TWA TW IN HILLS 3000 GVL TRUE 3,933 AIN WAINW RIGHT 3000 GVL TRUE 105,641 WMO WH IT E MOUNTAIN 3000 GVL TRUE 20,382 **29,910**

### 15 Attachment B LARGE AIRCRAFT Appendix C

- 1 Page 1 of 2 System Parameters for Each Carrier **"Actual"** PenAir PenAir **"Trend"** A.Circle 1
. Capacity Related Expense (CR) $334,712 2
. Direct Expense, I nclude Fuel $4,663,861 3
. Indirect Expense $456,836 4
. CR Markup 105.59% 105.59% 106.99% 5
. Return and Tax Markup 109.46% 109.46% 109.46% 6
. T
- 100 Mail RTMs, Segment, F & G 56,397 7
. T
- 100 Mail RTMs, Mkt., F&G 54,229 8
. Circuity Markup 109.03% 109.03% 104.00% Aircraft Type Metro Metro Shorts 330 Aircraft Code 467

- 1 467

-2 487 9
. Direct Expenses, I ncludes Fuel $758,960 $3,066,749 $1,850,567 10
. Less Passenger Liability I nsurance $107,549 $0 $13,815 11
. Linehaul Expense Allocable to Mail $651,411 $3,066,749 $1,836,752 12
. Cost per Block Hour (R11÷R18) $1,062.66 $1,050.26 $2,336.83 13
. Marked Up Costs (R11*R4*R5*R8) $820,879 $3,864,582 $2,237,085 14
. Eligible Expense (R13*R32÷R18) $599,925 $3,532,387 $2,037,854 15
. Cost per RTM (R14÷R36) $9.8610 $7.1795 $17.5426 16a
. Percentage of Eligible Mail RTMs 100.00% 19.850% 17a Cost, Wtd. by Mail RTMs, I ncludes Fuel (R15*R16a) **$13.3665** $3.4822 16b Percentage of Eligible Mail RTMs 100.00% 3.924% 64.850% 6.198% 1 7b

. Cost, Wtd. by Mail RTMs, I ncludes Fuel (R15*R16b) **$9.2167** $0.3869 $4.6559 $1.0873 Scheduled + Nonscheduled 18
. System Blk. Hrs., T

- 100 Segment 613 2,920 786 19
. Pax. RTMs 66,619 80 0 20
. Freight RTMs Wtd. @ 0.75 250 0 76,955 21
. Mail RTMs 31,153 549,537 48,156 22
. Total RTMs 98,022 549,617 125,111 23
. Aircraft Miles 156,027 708,218 129,965 24
. Available Ton Miles (ATMs) 301,655 1,343,592 454,878 25
. Departures Performed 350 1,417 695 26
. Wtd. Departures (GTOW) 5,600 22,672 15,916 27
. Ton Load Factor 32.49% 40.91% 27.50% 28
. Stage Length 446 500 187 29
. ATMs per Mile 1.93 1.90 3.50 30
. RTMs per Mile 0.63 0.78 0.96 31
. RTMs per Hour 159.91 188.23 159.17 Eligible (See Appendix E for basis of calculation) 32
. Block Hours 448 2,669 716 33 Pax. RTM 30,955 80 0 34
. Freight RTM, Wtd. @ .75 116 0 69,147 35
. Eligible Mail RTM 758,567 29,767 491,927 236,873 47,019 36
. Total RTM 60,838 492,007 116,166 37
. Aircraft Miles 115,878 651,814 118,400 38
. Available Ton Miles (ATMs) 220,158 1,234,862 414,400 39
. Departures Performed 272 1,266 633 40 Wtd. Departures (GTOW) 4,352 20,256 14,496 41
. Ton Load Factor 27.63% 39.84% 28.03% 42
. Avg. Stage Length 426 515 187 43
. ATMs per Mile 1.90 1.89 3.50 44 RTMs per Mile 0.53 0.75 0.98 45 RTMs per Hour 135.80 184.34 162.24

### 16 Attachment B LARGE AIRCRAFT Appendix C

- 1 Page 2 of 2 Bering Bering Hageland Warbelow

103.55% 103.55% 103.06% 104.23% 109.46% 109.46% 109.46% 109.46%

105.09% 105.09% 105.68% 111.49% B
- 1900 Casa 212 B
- 1900 B
- 1900 405 412 405 405 $2,878,335 $954,251 $2,239,132 $1,397,093 $63,259 $18,310 $37,514 $26,024 $2,815,076 $935,941 $2,201,618 $1,37 1,069 $1,859.36 $1,742.91 $1,396.97 $1,121.07 $3,353,182 $1,114,847 $2,624,704 $1,743,988 $2,017,668 $589,603 $834,376 $1,481,606 $12.0377 $13.5354 $13.4004 $10.4231 31.176% 14.779% 19.040% 15.155% $3.7529 $2.0004 $2.5514 $1.5796 9.735% 4.615% 5.946% 4.732% $1.1719 $0.6247 $0.7968 $0.4932 1,514 537 1,576 1,223 189,653 723 9,728 114,360 10,391 28,620 49,434 13,901 73,849 35,008 195,528 35,898 273,893 64,351 254,690 164,159 352,282 86,754 311,892 222,868 880,705 227,729 586,414 401,093 2,085 681 1,347 1,457 35,028 11,577 22,630 24,478 31.10% 28.26% 43.43% 40.93% 169 127 232 153 2.50 2.62 1.88 1.80 0.78 0.74 0.82 0.74 180.91 119.83 161.61 134.23 911 284 501 1,039 86,150 0 9,252 92,987 7,616 8,552 7,912 13,262 73,847 35,008 45 ,101 35,898 167,613 43,560 62,265 142,147 205,182 45,877 86,260 185,463 512,955 120,427 153,321 334,030 1,497 398 658 1,289 25,150 6,766 11,054 21,655 32.68% 36.17% 40.61% 42.56% 137 115 131 144 2.50 2.62 1.78 1.80 0.82 0.95 0.72 0.77 183.99 153.38 124.28 136.81

### 17 Attachment C Page 1 of 3
**YR MO**  **ORI ORI CITY**  **DEST DEST CITY**  **A/ C**  **TYPE DEPS**  **AVG**

**PA YLOA** **D AVG** 

**SEA TS**  2010 5 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 9 6350 0 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 6 6350 0 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 2 6350 0 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 1 6350 0 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 20 7499 0 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 16 7499 0 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 19 7499 0 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 12 7499 0 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 10 7499 0 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 59 9 7499 0 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 59 1 7499 0 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 59 1 7499 0 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 1 6350 0 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 1 6350 0 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 1 7499 0 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 3 7499 0 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 1 7499 0 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 5 7499 0 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 4 7499 0 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 59 1 7499 0 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 1 6350 0

### 18 Attachment C Page 2 of 3
**YR MO**  **ORI ORI CITY**  **DEST DEST CITY**  **A/ C**  **TYPE DEPS**  **AVG**

**PA YLOA** **D AVG** 

**SEA TS**  2010 5 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 26 6350 30 2010 6 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 42 6350 30 20 10 7 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 50 6350 30 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 47 6350 30 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 40 6350 30 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 35 6350 30 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 43 6350 30 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 31 6350 30 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 66 6501.515152 30 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 CO LD BAY 4 56 39 6350 30 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 36 6384.722222 30 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE CDB 20320 1 COLD BAY 4 56 39 6350 30 2010 5 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 33 6350 30 2010 6 ANC 3291 1 ANCHO RAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 35 6350 30 2010 7 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 14 6350 30 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 29 6350 30 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 36 6350 30 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 49 6350 30 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 97 6350 30 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 33 6350 30 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 10 6600 30 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 11 6463.636364 30 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 64 6369.53125 30 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE DUT 25740 1 DUTCH HARBOR 4 56 112 6383.482143 30 2010 5 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 17 6350 30 2010 6 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 22 6350 30 2010 7 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 20 6350 30 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 17 6350 30 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 19 6350 30 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 28 6350 30

### 19 Attachment C Page 3 of 3
**YR MO**  **ORI ORI CITY**  **DEST DEST CITY**  **A/ C**  **TYPE DEPS**  **AVG**

**PA YLOA** **D AVG** 

**SEA TS**  201 0 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 23 6350 30 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 27 6350 30 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 26 6350 30 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 22 6406.818182 30 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 28 6396.428571 30 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SDP 79590 1 SANDPOINT 4 56 30 6393.333333 30 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 11 6350 27 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCH ORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 11 6350 27 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 9 6350 28 2010 5 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 3 6350 28 2010 6 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 5 6350 28 2010 7 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 3 6350 28 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 2 6350 28 2010 9 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 7 6350 28 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 2 6350 28 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 3 6350 28 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE SNP 78660 1 ST. PAUL 4 56 12 6350 28 2010 8 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 26 2010 12 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 3 6350 27 2010 7 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 28 2010 10 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 28 2010 11 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 28 2011 1 ANC 3291 1 AN CHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 2 6350 28 2011 2 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 28 2011 3 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 2 6350 28 2011 4 ANC 3291 1 ANCHORAGE STG 78220 1 ST. GEORGE ISLAND 4 56 1 6350 28