### Order 2010

- 2

- 5 Served: February 3, 2010



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

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 3 rd 

### of February, 2010

Essential Air Service at

ADAK , ALASKA ATKA , ALASKA NIKOLSKI, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET OST

- 200 0

- 8556 DOCKET OST

- 1995

- 363 DOCKET OST

- 1995

- 363

ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS Summary By this order, the Department is requesting proposals by March 10
, 2010
, from carriers intereste d in providing essential air service (EAS) at Adak, Atka, and Nikolski , Alaska
, for a new two

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

Background By Order 200 8

- 3

- 36
, March 31 , 200 8 , the Department selected Alaska Airlines , Inc., to provide subsidized EAS to Adak , Alaska, through June 30 , 2010

. Under that order, the Department authorized subsidy for Alaska Airlines consisting of two nonstop or one

- stop round trips per week year round to Anchorage , Alaska (A NC )

. All of the service wa s to be with 737

- 400 jet aircraft for an annual subsidy of $ 1,483,122

.

That order also selected Peninsula Airways, Inc., (PenAir), to provide subsidized EAS to Atka and Nikolski , Alaska, through June 30, 2010 . Under that order, the subsidy at Nikolski was set at $469,786 for two nonstop round trips per week to Dutch Harbor with 9

- seat Grumman Goose aircraft

. At Atka, the Department authorized subsidy for PenAir consis ting of four nonstop round trips per week with Piper T

- 1040 s

-- a 9

- seat, unpressurize d, turboprop aircraft

-- to Dutch Harbor for $513,803 annual subsidy. On June 11, 2009, PenAir proposed as an alternate schedule for Atka to substitute larger, faster, and pressurized Metro III aircraft and reduce the frequency to two round trips per week . On June 23, 2009, the city of Atka endorsed PenAir ’s alternate service plan with an amended three round trips per week , noting the following:

“The Metro

- Line r [Metro III] is twice as big, can operate in weather the [T

- 1040] Navajo cannot and is noticea bly faster. With service 3 times per week, Atka will experience more reliable mail service as well as passenger service. The

### - 2

-

community of Atka would like to express its full support of this change and the continued support of PenAir to communities such a s our own.”

By Order 2009

- 6

- 28 , the Department approved PenAir’s alternate service pattern because it

was equal to or greater than that determined to be essential, the community d id not object, and it would not increase the level of subsidy.

Request fo r Proposals As the end of the current rate term s approach, we are here by requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing service at either Adak
, Atka and /or Nikolski
, with or without subsidy, for the two

- year period beginning July 1, 2010 . Carr iers should file their proposals by March 10

. S taff 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 o f the proposals to the communit ies and S tate and as k 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 i nitial proposals will also be their final and only proposals. We retain the discretion to negotiate proposals with carriers when we deem it desirable; in such cases, of course, we will give all applicants the same opportunity. We also retain the discreti on to reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and 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 req uested. 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 e xpenses. We strongly encourage clear, well

documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected communit ies and the Department. We do not anticipate any change in our selection criteria, or in the general provisions governing subsid y payments for essential air service. 2

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 witho ut 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 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service in Alaska , 49 U.S.C. 41733(c) (1) dir ects us to consider f ive 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; (4) community views ; and (5) experience of the applicant i n providing, in Alaska, scheduled air service or significant non

- scheduled air service. 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 rela tive 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.

### - 3

-

At Adak, carriers may propose either one or two round trips a week to Anchorage with jet aircraft

. In addition, we will entertain proposals for more frequent, non

- jet service from Adak to Anchorage, Dutch Harbor, or Cold Bay. Likewise, carriers may propose service at Atka and Nikolski to either Dutch Harbor or Adak. We note that if Atka and/or Nikolski connected at Adak instead of Dutch Harbor, all their traffic flowing over Adak to Anchorage would defray the expen se of Adak’s subsidized jet service.

In determining which carrier(s) to select at these three communities, we intend to focus on the overall subsidy request at all three communities combined

. 3 

### We hereby make Alaska Airlines and all potential applicants aware of the possibility of additional feed from Atka and/or Nikolski, so that they can prepare options that anticipate additional, connecting revenue from Atka and Nikolski.

Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical traffic levels at reasonable load factors, considering the directional imbalance of freight and mail, and some peaking of traffic, as shown in Appendix B. Service for Adak should be to either Anchorage or Dutch Harbor , and for Atka and Nikolski to either Cold Bay or Dutch Harbor , unless it is linked with Adak’s service to Anchorage

. At Atka, carriers too may propose service corresponding to the historical service pattern

– three round trips a week with a Metro III

. In addition, we request that PenAir submit a proposal with two round trips per week as it did on June 11 , 2009, when it requested an alternate service pattern

. It appears that two round trips with a Metro III aircraft would accommodate Atka’s historical traffic and may cost considerably less subsidy , and we wish to examine that possibility

. We encourage proposals that meet th e se requirements in an efficient manner. As we have mentioned, c arriers 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.

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 another communit y or communities

. We encourage the carriers to work with the communities as they are preparing their proposals so that they can craft them to best meet th e communities’ needs.

3 As noted in Order 2006

- 5

- 21, footnote 1, Alaska Airlines proposed to reduce its annual subsidy need at Adak by $493,831, for the s ame level of service, if the Department selected a carrier to connect Atka and Nikolski with its subsidized jet service at Adak. Because no carrier proposed to connect Atka and Nikolski with Adak, such a three

- city package was not available for considerat ion. 3 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 Righ ts 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).

### - 4

-

As always, we will fully consider the communities’ views before making a long

- term carrier

- selection decision.

Historical Traffic In order to assist carriers in making their traffic and revenue projections, we have included histor ical traffic for the communit ies in Appendix B

. The only two carriers to provide scheduled service to these two communities have been PenAir and Alaska Airlines

. Other Carrier Requirements The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal s tatutes 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

- f ree 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 prop osals 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 Aviat ion 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 earl ier, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to submit their final comments shortly after March 10 , the due date for carrier proposals.

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

- delegated to the Directo r, Office of Aviation Analysis.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. The Department requests proposals from carriers interested in providing essential air service at Adak
, Atka , and/or Nikolski , Alaska

. Carriers should submit their proposals, with subsidy if necessary, by March 10
, 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 Adak
, A tka
, and /or Nikolski
, Alaska , Docket s DOT

- OST

- 200 0

- 8556 and 1995

- 363

. ” Questions regarding filings may be directed to Kevin Adams at 202

- 366

- 1047 or Kevin.Adams@dot.gov ;

2

. Th ese D ocket s will remain open until further order of the Department; and

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

### - 5

-

3 . W e will serve this order on the s ervice l ist for th ese Docket s

. 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.govAppendix A

Nonstop, Great Circle Miles

Adak (ADK) ADK

- AKB 106 ADK

- DUT 445 ADK

- CDB 616 ADK

- ANC 1,192 ADK

- BET 835

Atka (AKB) AKB

- ADK 106 AKB

- IKO 231 A KB

- DUT 340 AKB

- ANC 1,101

Nikolski (IKO) IKO

- ADK 337 IKO

- AKB 231 IKO

- DUT 116 IKO

- ANC 905Appendix B Page 1 of 3

T-100 Market Report, Traffic in Scheduled Passenger Service Reported by Peninsula Airways, Inc.

Adak, Alaska (ADK)

Origin Destination Origin and Destination

Total Total Total Year Qtr. Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs 2005 4 289 32.9 8.9 330.8 234 217.9 244.1 696.0 523 250.8 253.0 1,026.8 2006 1 346 18.2 17.2 381.4 419 329.1 283.0 1,031.1 765 347.3 300.2 1,412.5 2006 2 405 101.5 18.6 525.1 364 370.8 322.6 1,057.4 769 472.3 341.2 1,582.5 2006 3 622 37.8 15.7 675.5 615 503.5 357.9 1,476.4 1,237 541.3 373.6 2,151.9 Total 1,662 190.4 60.4 1,912.8 1,632 1,421.3 1,207.6 4,260.9 3,294 1,611.7 1,268.0 6,173.7

2006 4 465 90.6 19.6 575.2 390 412.9 390.6 1,193.5 855 503.5 410.2 1,768.7 2007 1 522 21.3 19.4 562.7 705 773.6 194.2 1,672.8 1,227 794.9 213.6 2,235.5 2007 2 512 126.8 24.7 663.5 407 662.3 450.4 1,519.7 919 789.1 475.1 2,183.2 2007 3 642 111.6 24.2 777.8 582 838.8 252.4 1,673.2 1,224 950.4 276.6 2,451.0 Total 2,141 350.3 87.9 2,579.2 2,084 2,687.6 1,287.6 6,059.2 4,225 3,037.9 1,375.5 8,638.4

2007 4 421 95.4 21.9 538.3 342 589.2 344.1 1,275.3 763 684.6 366.0 1,813.6 2008 1 410 30.8 23.7 464.5 514 578.8 308.8 1,401.6 924 609.6 332.5 1,866.1 2008 2 528 41.9 25.8 595.7 573 524.3 523.4 1,620.7 1,101 566.2 549.2 2,216.4 2008 3 626 94.6 85.7 806.3 485 599.2 447.7 1,531.9 1,111 693.8 533.4 2,338.2 Total 1,985 262.7 157.1 2,404.8 1,914 2,291.5 1,624.0 5,829.5 3,899 2,554.2 1,781.1 8,234.3

2008 4 424 115.9 26.6 566.5 347 401.5 261.9 1,010.4 771 517.4 288.5 1,576.9 2009 1 309 66.1 18.6 393.7 462 961.8 269.7 1,693.5 771 1,027.9 288.3 2,087.2 2009 2 507 113.0 13.7 633.7 456 426.2 299.9 1,182.1 963 539.2 313.6 1,815.8 2009 3 601 202.2 29.5 832.7 558 532.5 365.8 1,456.3 1,159 734.7 395.3 2,289.0 Total 1,841 497.2 88.4 2,426.6 1,823 2,322.0 1,197.3 5,342.3 3,664 2,819.2 1,285.7 7,768.9

Note: 200 lbs. of mail or freight is one passenger equivalent, i.e., PEQ.Appendix B Page 2 of 3

T-100 Market Report, Traffic in Scheduled Passenger Service Reported by Peninsula Airways, Inc.

Atka, Alaska (AKB)

Origin Destination Origin and Destination

Total Total Total Year Qtr. Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs 2005 4 86 0 12.2 98.2 72 36 151.8 259.8 158 36 164 358.0 2006 1 53 0.8 5.6 59.4 57 29.2 116.1 202.3 110 30 121.7 261.7 2006 2 75 1.4 11.1 87.5 75 32.8 120.8 228.6 150 34.2 131.9 316.1 2006 3 86 0.2 16 102.2 72 38.1 133.2 243.3 158 38.3 149.2 345.5 Total 300 2.4 44.9 347.3 276 136.1 521.9 934 576 138.5 566.8 1,281.3

2006 4 71 0 10.4 81.4 72 30.7 90.2 192.9 143 30.7 100.6 274.3 2007 1 66 0 6.3 72.3 62 48 118.8 228.8 128 48 125.1 301.1 2007 2 81 0.3 8.1 89.4 80 34.9 112 226.9 161 35.2 120.1 316.3 2007 3 82 1.8 8.8 92.6 83 38.7 134.5 256.2 165 40.5 143.3 348.8 Total 300 2.1 33.6 335.7 297 152.3 455.5 904.8 597 154.4 489.1 1,240.5

2007 4 94 0.1 10.5 104.6 90 67.7 107 264.7 184 67.8 117.5 369.3 2008 1 75 0.4 5.1 80.5 74 21.5 109.8 205.3 149 21.9 114.9 285.8 2008 2 82 0 12.3 94.3 87 53.7 224.1 364.8 169 53.7 236.4 459.1 2008 3 54 1.4 7 62.4 50 29.5 115.3 194.8 104 30.9 122.3 257.2 Total 305 1.9 34.9 341.8 301 172.4 556.2 1029.6 606 174.3 591.1 1,371.4

2008 4 109 4.3 9.8 123.1 92 27.4 137.3 256.7 201 31.7 147.1 379.8 2009 1 47 8.1 5.7 60.8 65 23.2 114.9 203.1 112 31.3 120.6 263.9 2009 2 108 8.8 10.3 127.1 110 28.9 171.3 310.2 218 37.7 181.6 437.3 2009 3 131 6.6 4.1 141.7 124 58.9 163.9 346.8 255 65.5 168 488.5 Total 395 27.8 29.9 452.7 391 138.4 587.4 1,116.8 786 166.2 617.3 1,569.5

Note: 200 lbs. of mail or freight is one passenger equivalent, i.e., PEQ.Appendix B Page 3 of 3

T-100 Market Report, Traffic in Scheduled Passenger Service Reported by Peninsula Airways, Inc.

Nikolski, Alaska (IKO)

Origin Destination Origin and Destination

Total Total Total Year Qtr. Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs Pax. Frt. Mail PEQs 2005 4 72 0.2 6.7 78.9 65 38.6 51.5 155.1 137 38.8 58.2 234.0 2006 1 37 1.9 5.8 44.7 42 35.7 31.4 109.1 79 37.6 37.2 153.8 2006 2 66 4.8 6.0 76.8 59 44.8 57.1 160.9 125 49.6 63.1 237.7 2006 3 73 1.8 10.3 85.1 76 33.1 60.0 169.1 149 34.9 70.3 254.2 Total 248 8.7 28.8 285.5 242 152.2 200.0 594.2 490 160.9 228.8 879.7

2006 4 30 0.0 4.5 34.5 40 43.4 54.4 137.8 70 43.4 58.9 172.3 2007 1 55 0.5 4.0 59.5 60 24.3 47.8 132.1 115 24.8 51.8 191.6 2007 2 93 5.4 20.5 118.9 89 52.3 64.7 206.0 182 57.7 85.2 324.9 2007 3 72 2.9 4.9 79.8 81 28.8 50.2 160.0 153 31.7 55.1 239.8 Total 250 8.8 33.9 292.7 270 148.8 217.1 635.9 520 157.6 251.0 928.6

2007 4 46 2.1 6.0 54.1 47 20.4 59.3 126.7 93 22.5 65.3 180.8 2008 1 35 0.0 8.2 43.2 31 23.8 61.1 115.9 66 23.8 69.3 159.1 2008 2 43 0.5 7.5 51.0 47 16.2 39.0 102.2 90 16.7 46.5 153.2 2008 3 25 2.9 3.5 31.4 32 7.9 39.1 79.0 57 10.8 42.6 110.4 Total 149 5.5 25.2 179.7 157 68.3 198.5 423.8 306 73.8 223.7 603.5

2008 4 60 0.0 5.2 65.2 55 28.1 68.0 151.1 115 28.1 73.2 216.3 2009 1 30 0.9 4.8 35.7 29 35.6 63.6 128.2 59 36.5 68.4 163.9 2009 2 65 1.3 15.6 81.9 68 26.3 55.0 149.3 133 27.6 70.6 231.2 2009 3 49 2.7 8.3 60.0 48 20.2 34.7 102.9 97 22.9 43.0 162.9 Total 204 4.9 33.9 242.8 200 110.2 221.3 531.5 404 115.1 255.2 774.3

Note: 200 lbs. of mail or freight is one passenger equivalent, i.e., PEQ.

### Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essen tial 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 signif icant 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 th at 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 ass ured 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 September 30, 2010

. The Department’s obligation for performance under this solicitation beyond September 30, 2010 , is contingent upon the availability of appropriat ed 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 September 30, 2010 , until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond September 30, 2010 , 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 t his order.Appendix D

Alaska Bush Distribution List

Adams, Kevin, Work LAB Flying Service, Eric Bennett Aero Twin, AACA, Tony Cestnik Larrys Flying, Jean Chenaille Alaska Air Carriers Association, Joy Journeay Michael Duffy (Michael.Duffy@dhs.gov) Alaska Airlines, Joe Sprague Myers, Larry (OST) Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Northern Air cargo, Dave Squier Alaska Central Express, John Seamon Northern Air Cargo, Keven Schlosstein Alaska Central Express, Mike Bergt OST, Dennis DeVany Alaska Central Express, Steve Endlich Pacific Airways, Steve Montanus Alaska DOT, Christine Klein PenAir Consultant, Patrick Rizzi Alaska DOT, Rebecca Cronkhite PenAir, Danny Seybert Alaska DOT

- Medicaid Passenger Fares PenAir, Kim Kawaguchi Alaska Seaplanes, Craig Loken PenAir, Orin Seybert Alsek Air, Les and Debra Hartley PenAir, Robert Cohn Arctic Circle, Donald Singsaas PenAir, Scott Bloomquist Arctic Circle, Kelly Harris PM Air, d/b/a Promech, Marc Sessoms Arctic Transportation Services (ATS), Wilfred Ryan R ITA, Benard Stankus Arctic Transportation Services, (ATS), Jim Hjelm Salmon Air, Ron Salmon Bering Air, Allen Haddadi SeaPort Airlines, Jim Day Bering Air, Jim Rowe SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney Bob Stanford (Islairbk@Alaska.com) Servant Air, Wes O sowski Congressional, Begich, David Ramseur Skagway, Ben Lingle Congressional, Begich, Megan Foster Smokey Bay Air, Claire McCann Congressional, Begich, Tiffany Zulkosky Spernak Airways, Mike Spernak Congressional, Murkowski, Arne Fuglvog Tanana Air Service, Brian Martin Congressional, Young, Jeremy Price Taquan Air Service, Brien Salazaar Consultant, Hank Myers Taquan, Beckie Allen Consultant, Ken Acton Tatonduk, Controller, Tina Paylor Consultant, Norm Israelson Tatonduk, Marketing, Robert Ragar Dorato Jets Tatonduk, Owner, Robert Everts Dorato Jets, Mark McKenna USPS, Greg Garcia Ellis Air Taxi, Lynn Ellis USPS, Leonard Kilburn Era Aviation, Mike Lenorman USPS, Mary Tobias ERA, David M. Richards USPS, Steve Deaton Frontier Flying, Bob Haj ducovich USPS, Tina Campbell Grant Aviation, Bruce McGlasson USPS, William Jones Hageland, Mike Hageland Warbelows Air Ventures, Art Warbelow Hageland, Patrick Thurston Ward Air, Ed Kiesel Hageland, Steve Wahrnke Wings of Alaska, Mike Steadman Ha rris Air, Fly Hackett Wright Air Service, Bob Bursiel Harris Air, Scott Yute, Tim Vottis Harris Air, Scott Harris Homer Air, Andy Smircich Iliamna Air, Tim LaPorte Inland Aviation, Stephen Hill Island Air, Bob Stanford Island Air, Jennifer S tanford Katmai Air, Sonny Peterson