Order 2010

- 10
- 5 Served: October 7 , 20 10


### UNITED STA

TES OF A MERICA DEPA RTMENT OF TRA NSPORTA TION OFFICE OF THE SECRETA RY WASHINGTON, D.C. Is sued by the Department of Transportation on the 7 th day

of October, 2010

ORDER SELECTING CA RRIER , ESTA BLISHING SUBSIDY RA TE S AN D REQUESTING PROPOSA LS Summary By this order, the Department is select ing Pacific Wings, L .L .C. d/b/a Georgia Skies ( Pacific Wings ) , to continue provid ing subsidized essential air service (EAS) at Athens, Georgia , for the two - ye ar period beginning October 1, 20 10 , at the annual subs idy rate of $ 1,051,386 ; 1 and requesting proposals from carriers i nterested in providing EAS at Macon, Georgia, with or without subsidy , for a new two

- ye ar period. (See Appendix A for a map of the service area

. ) Background Athens and Macon are guaranteed to receive at least a minimum level of air service under the EAS program by

virtue of the fact that they appeared on a certificated carrier’s Civil Aeronautics Board

- issued certificate on October 24, 1978, the date the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was signed into law. (See 49 U.S.C. 417 3 1
- 41744 for the EAS program’ s governing statutes.) By Order 2008

- 5
- 43 , May 2 9 , 2008, the Department selected Pacific Wings to provide EAS at the communities for the two

- ye ar period through September 3 0 , 2010. That order established the annual subsidy

rate of $1, 051 , 386 for A thens and $1, 386 , 306 for Macon for nonstop service to Atlanta (12 round trips a week at Athens and 26 round trips a week at Macon) , operated with 9
- seat Cessna 208B aircraft

. Inanticipation of the end of the rate term, the Department issued Order 20 10
- 5
- 33 , May 28 , 20 10 , requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing replacement service at the

1 Such subsidy is calculated and distributed on a fiscal year basis, subject to the availability of ap propriated funds. Essential Air Service at AT HENS, GEORG IA MA CON, GEORGIA Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq . DOCKET DOT - OST - 2002 - 11348 DOCKET DOT - OST - 2007 - 286712

communit ies , with subsidy support if necessary , for the two

- ye ar period beginning October 1, 2010
. Carrier Proposal s Inresponse to our request, we received p roposals from Pacific Wings (the incumbent), Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort Airlines (SeaPort), Gulfstream International Airlines (Gulfstream), Charter Air Transport, Inc., (Charter Air), and Sovereign Air, Inc. (Sovereign). Due to the larg e response, we have summarized the proposals in the table below: Carrier Options Subsidy Hub Round Trips Per W eek Aircraft Pacific W ings Athens $1,051,386 ATL 12 nonstop Cessna 208B (9 seats) Macon $1,386,306 ATL 26 nonstop Cessna 208B (9 seats)

SeaPort Athens $1,004,979 1 / BNA 12 nonstop Pilatus PC
- 12 (9 seats) Athens $1,028,049 2 / BNA 12 nonstop Pilatus PC
- 12 (9 seats) Gulfstream Macon $2,733,975 MCO/TPA 6 nonstop to each hub Beech 1900D (19 seats)
Charter Air Transport Macon only $1,492,700 ATL 11 nonstop* Jetstream 32 (19 seats) Athens only $1,315,062 ATL 11 nonstop* Jetstream 32 (19 seats) Macon/Athens $2,011,728 ATL 11 nonstop & one
- stop* Jetstream 32 (19 seats) Macon/Athens $2,500,457 ATL 11 nonstop & one
- stop* Embraer EMB
- 120 (30 seats)
Sovereign Air 3 / Athens $670,749 ATL 21 nonstop 4 / King Air (9 seats) Macon $571,949 ATL 14 nonstop King Air (9 seats)

1 / First year rate. 2 / Second year rate. 3 / Sovereign Air does not have the requisite authority from ei t her the Federal Aviation Administration or the Department to perform its proposed service, although it has applied for such authority. 4 / Sover eign's schedule shows 19 round trips per week, however subsidy calculations appear to be based on 21 round trips per week. * Plus o ne non - subsidized r/t to Hilton Head per week. Community

Comments Inresponse to our request for com ments , we received responses from both communities. Mayor Robert Reichert of Macon noted that Pacific Wings’ and Gulfstream’s interline and baggage agreements with major carriers are a “top consideration for ensuring passengers can connect to their destin ations at the hub airport.” Mayor Reichert believes that Gulfstream would be capable of providing quality

service to the region and that the carrier’s Orlando service would provide numerous domestic and international connections for travelers. Inadditio n, the Mayor notes that Pacific Wings’ proposal to continue its service to Atlanta could also be recommended , provided a code

- share agreement with a major carrier could be attained. Finally , Mayor Reichert say s that3

Pacific Wings’ gate access at Atlanta and its low fares demonstrate the carrier’s continuing efforts to improve service to the community

. Mayor Heidi Davison of Athens also submitted a letter stating that the citizens of Athens have expressed an interest in continuing EAS at the community , as well as improving the level of s ervice provided. She notes that the Athens Airport Authority established a set of goals for evaluating carrier proposals, including the carrier’s proven customer service/marketing program, affo rdable fares, interline or cod e - share agreements, as well as other criteria. After a majority vote, according to Mayor Davison, the Airport Authority Board recommends that the EAS contract be awarded to SeaP ort Airlines and notes that “Sea P ort Airlines has agreed to amend their propos ed destination of Nashville International to Atlanta In ternational

. ” 2 Decision The EAS program’s governing statute ( see 49 U.S.C. 41732(b)) guarantee s certain service minimums . W hen selecting a carrier to provide EAS, we must also take into consideration certain statutory

factors , such as service reliability , interline and baggage arrangements with a larger carrier to allow for seamless connections beyond the hub, as well as community views (49 U.S.C 41733(c)). Innarrowing the field of options, we first turned to Charter Air 3 and Sovereign. Neither carrier has any community

support or interline baggage arrangements. While Sovereign’s subsidy rates would offer savings over the other three carriers (Pacific Wings, SeaPort and Gulfstream), it does not hav e the requisite operating authority from either the Department or the Federal Aviation Administration. Thus, we will not consider either carrier’s proposal further. The options remaining on the table are Gulfstream to serve Macon, SeaPort to serve Athens , and Pacific Wings with separate proposals for each community . At Macon, Gulfstream proposes to provide one nonstop round trip a day (six a week) to Orlando and one nonstop round trip a day (six a week) to Tampa with 19

- seat aircraft at an annual subsidy rate of $2,733,975. Gulfstream, currently operating as Continental Connection, would operate this service as Gulfstream, i.e., without a code

- share. Pacific Wings would continue 26 round trips a week for $1,386,306 (no increase in subsidy

from the curre nt two - ye ar period). While the community supports Gulfstream, it also indicates that Pacific Wings has interline baggage agreements and is committed to the Macon market. At hens At Athens, Pacific Wings proposed to operate 12 nonstop round trips a week to Atlanta with nine

- seat Cessna caravans for an annual subsidy of $1,051,386. SeaPort proposed 12 nonstop round trips a week to Nashville with nine

- seat Pilatus PC

- 12 aircraft for a subsidy of $1,004,979 the first year and $1,028,049 the second year. With the subsidy rates so close, we look to other statutory factors to be decisional. First, Pacific Wings has interline baggage agreements in place and appears in most of the major GDSs

-- Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity , etc. On the other hand, a web search o f the major GDSs for the four communities in Arkansas where SeaPort has served

2 We must note that Seaport proposed to provide service betw een Athens and Nashville International Airport. The Department was only made aware of the carrier’s agreement with the community to amend the terms of its proposal by way of th e letter submitted by Mayor Davison. 3 See Order 2010

- 9
- 26 for a complete discussion of Charter Air Transport’s authority to provide EAS.4

for nearly a year did not yield any

results. SeaPort did state in its proposal that it would have full GDS visibility

in August 2010, but as of late September , this still has n ot been accomplished. Regarding community

support, Mayor Davison states “SeaPort has agreed to amend their proposed destination of Nashville International to Atlanta International.” Indeed, in its proposal SeaPort touts the benefits of the “tremendous ap peal for quick trips to and from Nashville.” We did not receive any

thing from SeaPort about a proposed hub change until August 9, well after we learned of the hub change from the Mayor and, more importantly , well after SeaPort had an opportunity

to see al l the other carriers’ proposals. The EAS program operates on a “sealed bid” basis. That is, all the proposals are sent to the EAS staff, which holds them until the day after the due date at which time they are entered into the docket sy stem, thereby maki ng them all public at the same time to ensure a level playing field. In the RFP, we specifically asked carriers to work with the communities during the 30

- day window between issuance of the order and when proposals were due, not afterwards, and that we wo uld not accept late

- filed proposals. Allowing such late filings would be procedurally unfair to the other applicants, as the late

- filer would have had an opportunity

to view the docketed proposals before filing or making alterations to its own. Finally , we are not in a position to judge the reasonableness of SeaPort’s subsidy request, as it is premised on service to the much more distant Nashville hub

-- the nonstop air miles from Athens to Nashville is 242 miles; 67 to Atlanta. Therefore, after taking a ll of the above into careful consideration, w e have decided to select Pacific Wings to continue to provide subsidized EAS at Athens, as proposed, for a new two

- ye ar period beginning October 1, 2010. We find that the proposed service and subsidy levels are reasonable. Pacific Wings has been providing reliable service at both communities since 2008 and the carrier’s interline ticketing and baggage

- handling agreements with most major carriers will continue to ensure convenient connecting opportunities beyond the hub. We shall make this selection contingent upon the Department’s receiving properly executed certifications from Pacific Wings that it is in compliance with the Department’s regulations regarding drug

- free workplaces and nondiscrimination, as well as the regulations governing lobbying activities. Macon Gulfstream proposes to provide one nonstop round trip a day (six a week) to Orlando and one nonstop round trip a day

(six a week) to Tampa with 19

- seat aircraft at an annual subsidy rate of $2,733,97 5. Gulfstream, currently operating as Continental Connection, would operate this service as Gulfstream, i.e., without a code

- share. Pacific Wings would continue to provide 26 round trips a week for $1,386,306 (no increase in subsidy from the current two

- ye ar period). While the community

supports Gulfstream, it also indicates that Pacific Wings has interline baggage agreements and is committed to the Macon market. We try to accede to community

views whene v er possible and are even willing to pay a somewhat higher short

- term subsidy rate if there are prospects for long

- term subsidy savings. In this case, however, Gulfstream’s proposal requires $1.35 million more subsidy than Pacific Wings’. In addition, Gulfstream’s subsidy request of $2,733,975 would res ult in a subsidy per passenger in excess of $900. On the other hand, Macon has not waived its right to service with 15

- seat or larger aircraft. Given these facts, we have decided to reject the current proposals and rebid the case in an effort to obtain p roposals offering service that would satisfy Macon’s EAS needs at subsidy levels that are competitive.5

Special discussion concerning Macon Based available data for 2009, there were 2 , 98 7 passengers enplaned and deplaned at Macon
. The annual subsidy

amoun t for Macon is $1,3 86 , 306 . Therefore, the subsidy per passenger at Macon is $ 464 . 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 f rom the nearest large or medium hub airport

. 4 Macon exceed s the $200 per passenger cap and it is fewer than 210 miles from a large or medium hub , i.e., it is 82 miles from Atlanta

- Hartsfield In ternational Airport

. Rather than terminate Macon’s service el igibility , at this stage, the Department will solicit proposals for EAS, but the Department will evaluate all proposals submitted before committing to a two - ye ar contract or making a final determination on Macon ’s continuing eligibility . During the 30

- day window for proposals, we expect the community to work aggressively with all potential applicants to mitigate some of the risks that the carriers may face in an attempt to lower subsidy levels. Inthis regard, Pacific Wings is entitled to fair compensatio n while we continue to process the carrier

- selection case. It s current contract expires on September 30. Effective October 1, we will compensate Pacific Wings at the service and subsidy levels contained in its prospective bid

-- $1,386,306 for 26 nonstop round trips a week to Atlanta

-- that was submitted under competitive conditions. We find both the service and subsidy levels t o be reasonable. Request for Proposals W e are again requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing service at Maco n , with or without subsidy

support, for a new two - ye ar period. Carriers should file their proposals no later than November 1. After that date , our staff will docket proposals, thereby making them public, and direct each carrier to serve a copy of its pro posal on the civic parties and other applicants. Shortly afterwards, we will provide a summary of the proposals to community officials and ask them to submit their final comments. We will give full consideration to all proposals filed in a timely manner. 5 In terested 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 proposals with carriers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and solicit a new round of proposals. We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to serve as guidance when they prepare their proposals, but we will no t 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.

4 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 w as made permanent by P.L. 106

- 69, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000. 5 Carriers should not expect the Department to accept late filings. In cases where a carrier proposes to pr ovide essential air service without subsidy and we determine that service can be reliably provided without such compensation, we do not proceed w ith the carrier

- selection case. Instead, w e simply rely on that carrier’s subsidy

free service as proposed.6

We strongly

encourage clear, well

- documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected community

and the Department. 6 Inorder to assist carriers in developing traffic and revenue projections for their proposals, we have summarized historical passengers in Appendix D
. During 2009, Macon generated a total of 2,987 O&D passengers, drastically lower than the previous year during which there were a total of 19,460 passenger s , or an average of 31 daily enplanements. As stated above, we will evaluate all proposals submitted before committing to a two

- ye ar contract or m aking a final determination on Macon ’s continuing eligibility

. Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical levels of traffic. Specifically

for Macon , we request proposals for service consisting of at least two nonstop round tri ps per day . Service should be with two

- pilot, twin

- engine aircraft with at least 15 passenger seats, unless the community agree s to smaller aircraft. In that event, we would also consider proposals for more service with eight

- or nine

- seat aircraft. I f aircraft with fewer than 15 seats are contemplated, service patterns should consist of nonstop service between the community and the proposed hub airport

. If a proposal offering aircraft fewer than 15 seat s is submitted and the community support s the serv ice, as it ha s previously , in effect waiving its right to 15

- seat or larger aircraft, we would consider the waiver to apply only to the two

- ye ar carrier

- selection at hand, i.e. we would not assume that the community waive s it rights for all time. Of cours e, as alway s, 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 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. We encourage proposals that meet these requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers are also welcome to propo se more than one 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. Ne w Filing Procedures Carrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials merged into a single document. In addition, because the document will be published on Regulations.gov, each page should be formatted to be viewed online. Other Carrier Requirements The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying

6 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 w hen 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 aw are that our general provisions governing EAS will be included in the selection order as part of our authorization of subsidy for the se lected service. Appendix C of this order contains those general provisions.7

activities, drug

- free workplaces and nondiscrimination. 7 Consequently , all carriers receiving Federal subsidy

to support essential air servi ce 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 wi th the regulations governing lobbying activities. All carriers that plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should submit the required certifications along with their proposals. In terested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these r equirements, as well as copies of the certifications, should contact the Office of Aviation Analy sis at (202) 366
- 5903. The Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these documents. 8 Community

and State Comments Civic o fficials 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 November 1 , the due date for carrier proposal s. Carrier Fitness 49 U.S.C. 41737(b) requires that we find an air carrier fit, willing, and able to provide reliable service before we may

subsidize it to provide essential air service. Pacific Wings is subject to the Department’s continuing fitness req uirements, and no information has come to our attention that would cause us to question the carrier's fitness at this time. We have contacted the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has raised no concerns that would negatively affect our fitness findi ng. We therefore conclude that the carrier remains fit to conduct the operations proposed here. This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f). AC CORDINGLY, 1. The Department selects Pacific Wings, L .L .C
. d/b/a GeorgiaSkies , to conti nue to provide EAS at Athens , Georgia , and establishes the subsidy rate , as detailed in Appendix B , for the two

- ye ar period beginning October 1, 20 10 ; 2
. We set the final rate of compensation for Pacific Wings for the provision of essential air service at A thens , payable as follows: for each month during which EAS is provided, the amount of compensation shall be subject to the weekly ceiling set forth in Appendix C and shall be determined by

multiplying the subsidy

- eligible arrivals and departures complet ed during the month by $ 860 ; 9

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 o n the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html. 9 See Appendix C for the calculation of this rate, which assumes the use of the aircraft designated. If the carrier reports a significant number of aircraft substitutions, a revision of this rate may be required.8

3. We set the rate of compensation for Pacific Wings for the provision of essential air service at Macon, payable as follows: for each month during which EAS is provided, the amount of compensation shall be subject to the we ekly ceiling set forth in Appendix C and shall be determined by

multiplying the subsidy

- eligible arrivals and departures completed during the month by $ 523 ; 10 4 . The Department finds that Pacific Wings continues to be fit, willing and able to operate as a commuter air carrier and capable of providing reliable EAS at Athens , Georgia ; 5
. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at Macon, Georgia, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, no later than November 1 , 2010 . The proposals should be emailed to: EAS@dot.gov with the title “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Macon, Georgia, Docket DOT

- OST
- 2007
- 28671” ; 11 6 . We direct Pacific Wings to retain all books, record s, and other source and summary documentation to support claims for pay ment, and to preserve and maintain such documentation in a manner that readily

permits its audit and examination by representatives of the Department. Such documentation shall be retai ned for seven years or until the Department indicates that the records may

be destroyed, whichever comes first. Copies of flight logs for aircraft sold or disposed of must be retained. The carrier may forfeit its compensation for any claim that is not su pported under the terms of this order; 7 . Docket s DOT
- OST
- 2002
- 11348 and DOT

- OST
- 2007
- 28671 will remain open until further order of the Department; and 8 . The Department will serve a copy of this order on the m ayor s and airport managers of Athens and M acon , Pacific Wings, L .L .C . d/b/a GeorgiaSkies, Alaska Jun eau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort Airlines, Gulfstream International Airlines, Inc., Charter Air Transport, Inc., Sovereign Air, Inc. , and the parties listed in Appendix E. By :

SUSA N L. KURLA ND Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (SEAL ) An electronic version of this document is available on line at www.regulations.gov

10 See Appendix C for the calculation of this rate, which assumes the use of the aircraft designated. If the carrier reports a significant number of aircraft substitutions, a revision of this rate may be required. 11 Questions regarding f

ilings in response to this order should be directed to Renée Williams at 202

- 366
- 1058, or via email at renee.w illiams@dot.gov

.

### Appendix A
Area Map

### Appendix B PACI FIC WIN GS , LLC . d/b/a GEORGIASKI ES ANNUAL COMPENSATI ON REQUI REMENT FOR ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AT ATHENS, GEORGIA

### Appendix C Page 1 of 3 PACI FIC WINGS , LLC . d/b/a GEORGIASKI ES ANNUAL COMPENSATI ON REQUI REMENT FOR ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AT ATHENS, GEORGIA Effective period: October 1, 20 10 , through September 3 0 , 201 2 Service: 1 2 non stop round trips per week to Atlanta Aircraft ty

pe: Cessna 208B aircraft ( 9 seats) Timing of flights: No upline or intermediate service is permitted without prior Department approval. Flights must be well

- timed and well

spaced in order to ensure full compensation. Annual compensation: $ 1, 051 , 386 Subsidy Rate Per Arrival/Departure: $ 860 1 Weekly Compensation Ceiling: 2 $ 20 , 640 3

___________________________ 1 Annual compensatio n of $ 1, 051 , 386 divided by 1, 223 annual arrivals and departures calculated as follows: 24 flights per week x 52 weeks x 9 8 % completion = 1, 223
. 2 This rate assumes an annual completion factor of 9 8 percent. A compensation ceiling is to be applied per ca lendar week such that service above that ceiling in one week cannot make up for service shortfalls in another week. 3 Subsidy rate per arrival/departure of $ 860 multiplied by 24 eligible arrivals and departures.

### Appendix C Page 2 of 3 PACI FIC WINGS , LLC . d/b/a GEORGIASKI ES A NNUAL COMPENSATI ON REQUI REMENT FOR ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AT MACON, GEORGIA Effective period: October 1, 2010, until further Department action. Service: 26 nonstop round trips per week to Atlanta Aircraft ty

pe: Cessna 208B aircraft ( 9 seats) Timing of flights: No upline or intermediate service is permitted without prior Department approval. Flights must be well

- timed and well

spaced in order to ensure full compensation. Annual compensation: $1, 386 , 306 Subsidy Rate Per Arrival/Departure: $ 523 1 Weekly Compensation Ceiling: 2 $ 27 , 196 3

___________________________ 1 Annual compensation of $ 1,386,306 divided by 2,650 annual arrivals and departures calculated as follows: 52 flights per week x 52 weeks x 98% completion = 2,650. 2 This rate assumes an annual completion factor of 98 percent. A compensation ceiling is to be applied per calendar week such that service above that ceiling in one week cannot make up for service shortfalls in another week. 3 Subsidy rate per arrival/dep arture of $523 multiplied by 52 eligible arrivals and departures.

### Appendix C Page 3 of 3 Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential A ir Service The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance wi th 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 sch eduled 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

. Inadditio n, 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 Analy sis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may l ocate 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. Indetermining whether subsidy pay ment 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 sy stem provided to the community

. If the Department unil aterally , either partially or completely , terminates or reduces pay ments 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 pay ments in the sti pulated 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 mutu ally agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of pay ment. Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they

may be am ended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. Funds are not currently

available for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE]. The Department’s ob ligation for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE], is contingent upon the availability

of appropriated funds from which pay ment for services can be made. No legal liability

on the part of the Government for any pay ment may arise for performan ce 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. All claims for pay

ment must be submitted within 60 day s of the last day of service provided under this order.

### Appendix D

Historical O&D Traffic and Average Daily Enplanements 1



### At Macon, Georgia

Average Daily O&D Traffic Enplanem ents 2 

### 1Q09 721 4.7 2Q09 821 5.3 3Q09 655 4.1 4Q09 79 0 5.0 2009 Totals: 2,987 4.8 1Q08 4,857 31.1 2Q08 6,554 42.0 3Q08 5,852 37.0 4Q08 2,197 13.9 2008 Totals: 19,460 31.0

________________________________ 1 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; TranStats Form 41, Schedu le T

- 100. 2 Daily averages are based on one - half of the O&D passengers , divided by 3 13 service days (314 during leap years).

### Appendix E Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico Air Sunshine, Inc. Jet Air, Daniel Wolford Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adi li Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks Air West, Inc., John Raatz McCall Aviation and Salmon Air, Dan Scott Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly McCall Aviation, Michelle Airline Associates, Bill Mishk Mesa Air, Jonathan Ornstein Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Mesa Air, Micha el Lotz Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Mesa Air, Mike Holcomb Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft Mesaba, John Spanjers American Airlines, Carl Nelson Mesaba, Max Shemesh American Eagle, Jeffrey Hartz Midstar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner Atlantic Southeast , Jon Lindlief Midw est Airlines, Anthony Intravia Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston Midw est Airlines, Greg Aretakis Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude Midw est Airlines, J.C. Augustson Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado Cape Ai r, Andrew Bonney Multi Aero, Darnea Cape Air, Dan Wolf Multi Aero, Shane Storz Cape Air, J.Flaherty Northw est, Tim McDonald Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson NYDC, Henok Araya Colgan Air, Mike Colgan OST, Brian Sw anson CommutAir, Andy Price OST, De nnis DeVany CommutAir, Joel Raymond OST, Kevin Adams Consultant, Robert Silverberg OST, Kevin Schlemmer Continental, Bruce Keiner OST, Michael Martin Continental, Dan Weiss OST, Renee Williams Continental, Lorry Halloway Pacific Wings, Frank Ford De lta, Amy Martin Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf Delta, Dan Shuman PenAir, Danny Seybert Delta, Jeff Morgan PenAir, Scott Bloomquist Delta, Joe Esposito Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams Delta, Karen Zachary Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen Public Charters, Jim Gallagher Dorato Jets Scenic, Mary Schneider Dorato Jets, Mark McKenna Scenic, Mitzi Daines Era Aviation, Mike Lenorman Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D'Amico Executive Airlines, Kate Soled SeaPort Airlines, Jim Day Fronti er Flying, Bob Hajducovich SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney Gem Air, Dan Schroeder Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters SkyWest, Eric Christensen Great Lakes, Chuck Howell SkyWest, Michael Thompson Great Lakes, Doug Voss Sovereign Air, Bob Karns Great Lakes, Greg Stephens Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Tradew ind, Eric Zipkin Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman TransStates, Fred Oxley Gulfstream, T. Cooper Transtates, Gerry Wigmore Homeland Security, Bill Ragan Unit ed, Alicia Gabriel Homeland Security, David Bernier United, James Starnes Homeland Security, Randy Webb US Airways, Benjamin Slocum Horizon Airlines, Dan Russo US Airways, Howard Kass Horizon Airlines, Jennifer Thompson US Airways, Jason Reisinger Horizon, Jeff Cole Warbelow s Air Ventures, Art Warbelow ICEPR, Luis Irizarry Wings Air (Air Greco), Aaron Goerlich Island Air Charters, Linda House