Order 20 1 1

- 1

- 5

Served: J anuary 7 , 2011



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 7 th of January , 20 1 1

ORDER APPROVING ALTERNATE SERVICE PATTERN

Summary By this order, we are approving an alternate service pattern for Jonesboro , Arkansas ’ s subsidized essential air service (EAS), operated by Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort Airlines ( SeaPort ) . Service to Kansas City International Airport will now be permitted

.

Background By Order 200 9

- 7

- 8, July 9, 2009 , the Department finalize d its selection of SeaPort to provide

subsidized EAS at El Dorado/Camden

, H arrison, H ot Springs, and Jonesboro , Arkansas

, 1 for a

two

- year period beginning when SeaPort inaugurate d full service at all communities. SeaPort inaugurated service on October 26, 2009. Jonesboro ’ s service consists of 18 nonstop round trips per week to Memphis with 9

- passenger Pilatus PC

- 12 aircraft

. The annual subsidy amount for the first year was $836,241 (months 0

- 12). The annual subs idy amount for year two (months 13

- 24) is $799,992.

Proposal and Community Comments

In a December 2 7 , 2010, letter to the Department, SeaPort proposed to “alter the current service from three round trip flights per day from Jonesboro to Memphis to two round trips per day from Jonesboro to Memphis, and one round trip per day from Jonesboro to Kansas City.” SeaPort

1 The Order tentatively selecting SeaPort was 2009

- 6

- 25, June 26, 2009. Essential Air Service at

JONESBORO , ARKANSAS

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. D ocket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2935- 2

-

states that it is basing its request “on the overwhelming success of the similar service change for Harrison, Arkansas.” 2

In an e

- mail to the Department, Philip Steed, Manager of Jonesboro Municipal Airport said the “proposal from SeaPort Airlines is terrific news for air service in Jonesboro.” Further, he would appreciate the Department’s “strong support in their request adding Kansas City.”

Decision We will approve the alternate pattern , which meets the three conditions necessary for approval under authority assigned under 14 CFR 3 8 5.12(k)(3 ) of the Department ’s Regulations: (1) the alternate service pattern is equal to or greater than that determined to be essential; (2) the community do es not object to the alternate service pattern; and (3) the alternate ser vice pattern

will not increase Se aPort ’ s subsidy.

Because we are simply allowing the alternate service pattern and not requiring it, SeaPort may revert to the original service pattern at any time.

The weekly compensation ceiling and subsidy rate per flight amounts remain the same as issued

in Order 200 9

- 7

- 8

.

This order is issued under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.12(k)(3).

ACCORDINGLY, 1. We approve the alternate service pattern for Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort

Airlines ’ essential air service at Jonesboro, Arkan sas, to substitute one round trip to K ansas City,

Missouri , in lieu of Memphis, Tennessee ;

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

3. We will serve a copy of this order on the mayor of Jonesboro, the manager of Jonesb oro Municipal Airport

, and Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort Airlines

.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, must file such petitions within ten days after the d ate of service of

this order.

2 Order 2010

- 4

- 3, April 7, 2010, approved an alternate service pattern at Harrison, allowing SeaPort to serve Kansas City, in addition to Memphis. Further, Order 2010

- 6

- 7, June 3, 2010 , approved an alternate service pattern at El Dorado/Camden and Hot Springs, allowing SeaPort to serve Dallas Love Field, in addition to Memphis. The alternate service at El Dorado/Camden and Hot Springs has not yet been implemented.- 3

-

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 at http://www.regulations.gov