### Order 2009-10-8



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Served: October 16, 2009 Issued by the Department of Transportation on the16th day of October, 2009

Essential Air Service at

Alpena, Michigan Hancock/Houghton, Michigan Muskegon, Michigan Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Eau Claire, Wisconsin International Falls, Minnesota Paducah, Kentucky, and Tupelo, Mississippi

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160
Docket OST 2009-0160

ORDER SELECTING CARRIER, AND REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary By this order, the Departm ent (DOT) is selecting SkyWest Airlines, Inc., d/b/a United Express, (SkyWest) to provide subsidized essential air service (EAS) at Hancock/Houghton and Muskegon, Michigan, Paducah, Kentucky, and Eau Cl aire, Wisconsin. DOT is also re-soliciting proposals at the remaining four communities -- Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, International Falls, Minnesota, and Tupelo, Mississippi. At this time DOT defers setting final

rates 1 

### for the hold-in service provided by Mesaba Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Delta Connection (Mesaba), at all of these communities until after staff has discussed its costing of those proposals with the carrier. As a final matter, DOT will require Mesaba to continue to provide EAS at each community until replacement service is fully in place at each community.

1 Such subsidy is calculated and distribut ed on a fiscal year basis, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

### - 2 -

Background On July 14, 2009, Mesaba filed 90-day notices of intent to suspend its subsidy-free service at the eight aforem entioned communities, effective October 12. By Order 2009-7-16, DOT prohibited Mesaba from terminating service and requested proposals at each of the eight communities. Several communities objected to that order, stating, among other things, that DOT had not included all carriers’ traffic data and that, as a result, we had requested insufficient service levels. As a result, we issued Order 2009-8-10, revising Appendix B to include the historical traffic of all carriers serving the communities in the past three years, not just Mesaba’s. As stated explicitly in that Order, the EAS program has certain minimum and maximum service requirements, including a program-wide maximum capacity level of 67 seats inbound and 67 seats outbound. Our original request for proposals fully comported with those requirements and, thus, Order 2009-8-10 affirmed the service levels originally requested, and those proposals are
summarized below.

SkyWest @ Eau Claire, Houghton, Muskegon, and Paducah; and Mesaba Pacific Wings at Tupelo

Weekly Service Subsidy Weekly Service Subsidy

Eau Claire, WI 19 nonstops (MSP) $2,307,744 14 nonstops (ORD) $1,732,372

Houghton, MI A.19 nonstops (MSP) $1,532,515

OR 14 nonstops (ORD) $1,404,714

B. 21 nonstops MSP & DTW $2,085,022

Muskegon, MI 14 nonstops (DTW) $1,343,794 14 nonstops (ORD) $660,720

Paducah, KY 14 nonstops (MEM) $1,023,933 14 nonstops (ORD) $569,923

Tupelo, MS 7 nonstops (MEM) & $1,061,069 A. 35 nonstops (MEM) $1,188,902 7 nonstops (ATL) OR B. 56 nonstops (MEM) $1,997,275

International Falls, MN 14 nonstops (MSP) $1,998,849 XXXX XXXX

Alpena 14 nonstops (DTW) XXX XXX
AND $1,976,958 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 7 nonstops and XXX XXX 7 1-stops (DTW)



### Mesaba filed proposals at all eight communities, SkyWest at four communities -- Eau Claire, Houghton, Muskegon, and Paducah -- and Pacific Wings at Tupelo. All of Mesaba’s service

### - 3 -

would be provided with 34-seat Saab 340 equipm ent; SkyWest’s with 50-seat regional jets; and Pacific Wings’ with 9-seat Cessna Caravan aircraft.

By letter dated September 4, 2009, DOT requested the communities to indicate which carrier and proposal they preferred. That letter made clear that Mesaba’s proposal at Houghton contemplated more than 67 seats per day and therefore exceeded program guidelines for the level
of service DOT could subsidize. 2 

### We received comments from each community.

Community Comments The communities of Eau Claire, Muskegon, and Paducah recommended the selection of SkyWest. Eau Claire indicated it was grateful for the many years of service provided by Mesaba/Northwest. However, SkyWest’s lower subsidy request and its proposed schedule with jet aircraft were very appealing. Also, Eau Claire noted that past concerns about the reliability of Chicago service were mitigated by the current and future addition of Chicago O’Hare infrastructure. Muskegon also valued its long-running partnership with Mesaba, but felt that SkyWest’s proposal for twice daily regional jet service to Chicago O’Hare offered better worldwide connectivity and a greater opportunity for long-term success. The airport indicated it had a plan for easing the transition of service from Delta to United. 3 

### Paducah favored SkyWest because of the greater number of seats the carrier proposed and the potential for enhanced revenue to the airport due to the superior c onnections offered by Chicago O’Hare. It also expressed confidence that SkyWest has the resources and capabilities to provide the level of service it proposed.

The communities of Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie supported Mesaba’s proposal, the only carrier to submit a proposal. Alpena indicated that dedicated and reliable airline service is extremely important, and the level of service proposed by Mesaba, 4 

### the same level of service currently offered, works well for Alpena. Sault Ste. Marie indicated that Mesaba has served the community for 11 years, and its experience with Mesaba is far superior to any previous airline, with larger aircraft than past operators, well-timed and reliable flights, and exemplary customer service. Sault Ste. Marie was also pleased that since the Delta/Northwest merger, its customers had access to all corners of the globe through both Delta and the SkyTeam alliance. It was concerned that selecting any provider other than Mesaba would produce confusion amongst customers accustomed to flying Northwest/Delta. The community did express concern that Mesaba operated only two round trips a day.

At Tupelo, two carriers, Pacific Wings and Mesaba submitted proposals. Tupelo did not directly address Pacific Wings’ proposal, but, as noted in our letter to the community, Tupelo’s EAS

2 Mesaba proposed more than two round trips per day w ith Saab 340s at one other community, Eau Claire, but Mesaba indicated there would be uplin e service between Eau Claire and Rh inelander and that, because the two communities shared seats, its proposal was within the 67-seat ceiling.
3 We address this issue on page 9 under the heading “Service Transition.”
4 Alpena receives 14 nonstop round trips pe r day to Detroit, and Sault Ste. Ma rie receives a total of 14 round trips – 7 one-stop over Alpena a nd 7 nonstop. Mesaba bases an aircraft in each community, making it possible for Mesaba to provide each community with a desirable early morning departure to the hub and a late evening arrival from the
hub.

### - 4 -

determ ination calls for service with 15-seat or larger aircraft. DOT would not likely select Pacific Wings’ service with 9-seat Cessna Caravans unless the community waived its right to 15- seat aircraft, which it has not. Tupelo indicated that its air service has been poor, with steady capacity reductions, numerous cancellations, poor on-time performance, high ticket costs, and unreliable customer service. Regarding Mesaba’s proposal, the community noted that its traffic has decreased greatly from prior years, and strongly urged the Department to request Mesaba to reconsider and revise its proposal to provide three nonstop round trips a day to Memphis.

At Hancock/Houghton, the community was divided be tween the selection of Mesaba’s Option A, three round trips a day to Minneapolis, and Mesaba’s Option B, two round trips a day to Minneapolis and one round trip per day to Detroit. 5 

### However, the community was unanimous in its preference for Mesaba, with one of the prime considerations being the need for a minimum of three round trips per day. There was no support for SkyWest’s proposal of two round trips per day to Chicago O’Hare. Three round trips per day were critical to the community because of local weather concerns -- the second flight of th e day might be cancelled because of weather, but with three round trips a flight later in the day might still be completed. The community was also concerned about potential traffic delays at Chica go O’Hare. In the event of weather delays at Houghton, Mesaba has the greater ability to divert flights to nearby Marquette or Rhinelander due to its greater presence in the region. The community was concerned that passengers’ frequent flier miles would be lost if service was transferred to United. Finally, there was concern about SkyWest because it was an unknown quantity and support for the local Mesaba employees who might lose their jobs if SkyWest were selected.

At International Falls, only Mesaba submitted a proposal. The community 6 

### indicated

“We have not heard a single voice speaking in approval of the proposed schedule (and as of September 1, our current one), but we have had an overwhelming expression of dismay and disappointment from those who use the airport most
often.”

Mesaba’s schedule would not allow business travelers to conduct business in Minneapolis and fly back the same day. With the aircraft based in Minneapolis, the first flight departing the community arrives in Minneapolis at 1:40 in the af ternoon, and the last flight of the day into the community leaves Minneapolis at 2:20 in the afternoon, only 40 minutes later. This wouldrequire all local Minneapolis passengers to incur added time and hotel expense from overnighting in Minneapolis. In addition, because the last flight of the day leaves Minneapolis for International Falls at 2:20 in the afternoon, many west coast passengers would be unable to complete travel to International Falls in one day. The community requests that DOT either reject Mesaba’s proposal or provide a delay so that the airport and community could explore funding options for securing a better schedule, and perhaps an additional frequency.

5 We also received a response from J ackie Hunton opposing SkyWest’s proposal.
6 We also received a response from Strongm an Travel opposing Mesaba’s schedule.

### - 5 -

Decision
The carrier selection decisions at three com munities -- Eau Claire, Muskegon, and Paducah --are straightforward. The communities favor the selection of SkyWest. The subsidy it requests is significantly less than Mesaba, and it appears reasonable. (See chart on page two for a comparison of the level of subsidy requested.) Furthermore, SkyWest’s code-share relationship with United Airlines at Chicago O’Hare will provide those three communities with excellent connections to the national air transportation system.

At Hancock/Houghton, the community unanimously endorses the selection of Mesaba Aviation, and is rather evenly split between either of Mesaba’s two options, both of which offer three round trips per day. However, despite two Requests for Proposals that explicitly stated the service levels that DOT would be willing to subsidize, Mesaba, nonetheless, submitted two proposals that exceed these well-defined levels. 7 

### On the other hand, SkyWest’s proposal is fully responsive to the request for proposals and clearly meets the core objective of the EAS program, namely to keep communities and passengers connected to the national air transportation system. As mentioned earlier, SkyWest has a full code-share relationship with United Airlines at O’Hare, the second largest airport in the country. In addition, SkyWest requests $255,602 less subsidy than Mesaba over the two-year contract period, and that level of subsidy appears reasonable for the service it proposes. The upside potential for traffic at Houghton is significant, and DOT anticipates SkyWest’s subsidy need to significantly decrease when the two-year contract expires.

The hub of Chicago O’Hare, whose reliability Houghton questions, is the second largest airport in the U.S., offering twice as many nonstop departures and seats as either Minneapolis or Detroit. For the week of September 20-26, Chicago O’Hare had 7,882 nonstop jet departures, Minneapolis 3,317, and Detroit 3,642, while United by itself offered 3,946 nonstop departures at O’Hare, and Delta/Northwest offered 2,869 at Minn eapolis and 3,167 at Detroit. As separately noted by the community of Eau Claire, on-time performance at O’Hare has improved significantly as the additional runway has been completed and is anticipated to continue to improve. 8 

### However, as noted in our letter to the community, both of Mesaba’s proposals exceed the maximum number of seats that DOT can guarantee and therefore cannot be selected. 9

7 On October 15, 2009, Mesaba Airlines submitted a letter attempting to clarify the actual passenger-carrying ability
of its Saab 340 aircraft. Mesaba’s comments were direct ed at only the Hancock/Houghton market. Mesaba’s letter discussed that the actual available capacity is dependent on a number of factors, such as weather, fuel reserves needed for an alternate airport, and the weight of baggage , e.g., golf clubs. While DOT appreciates the explanation, the purpose of such a letter is unclear, given that all aircraft are subject to the Federal Aviation Administration’s weight and balance requireme nts. For example, even large jet airc raft can occasionally be weight limited, frequently on long-distance flights taking off from an elevated airport in hot weather. In its own proposal for all eight communities at issue here , including Hancock/Hought on, Mesaba portrayed its aircraft as 34 seaters, and in all or most of its EAS proposals for more than 15 years it has done the same. Moreover, in all of its official data filings with the department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Mesaba has consistently reported all of its Saabs as having 34 seats, and all of its ASM and load factor data are premised on 34-seat aircraft. We find nothing in Mesaba’s letter that would lead us to conclude that the two round trips a day are not sufficient to meet the program guidelines.
8 Not only has on-time performance at O’Hare improved, but it has improved relative to Minneapolis. In the first quarter of 2008, flights with delays exceeding 15 percent constituted 22.9 per cent of Minneapolis and 43.8 percent of O’Hare; for the same quarter a year later, the corre sponding numbers were 15.3 percent at Minneapolis and 24.1

### - 6 -

DOT has various concerns about Mesaba’s proposals at the rem aining four communities -- Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, International Falls, Minnesota, and Tupelo, Mississippi.

At Tupelo, Mesaba provides one round trip a day to both Atlanta and Memphis, rather than the two round trips a day traditionally operated and called for under the EAS guidelines. Mesaba bases the aircraft in the community which allows for an early morning departure and late evening arrival. However, Mesaba’s service to Memphis is not useful for same-day passengers, with Mesaba’s flight arriving in Memphis at 7:49 in the morning and leaving Memphis for Tupelo at 9:15 in the morning, only 86 minutes later, virtually eliminating the likelihood of any local passengers. In addition, while that first flight of the day leaving Tupelo at 7:00 in the morning offers good connections at Memphis, the return flight, leaving Memphis at 9:15 am, makes it difficult for passengers to both leave and return from the same hub in the same day. The mayor has asked that DOT require three (nonstop) round trips a day to Memphis. As discussed, three nonstop turnaround round trips per day is more service than DOT can secure under the program guidelines. Because of its proximity to Memphis, Tupelo’s service to that hub must be nonstop. However, if Mesaba linked Tupelo with an upline community, §398.6(c)(1) of our guidelines would permit us to subsidize three round trips per day: “The Department may guarantee an eligible place more than 67 seats a day if: (1) The number of stops between or beyond the eligible place and the hub results in available aircraft capacity being shared with passengers at those other places.” The map in Appendix A-2 shows the communities with turboprop service to Memphis or Atlanta that could conceivably be integrated with Tupelo service. Although the mayor has requested service to Memphis, DOT will consider proposals serving Atlanta as well. Atlanta is both larger than Memphis and has significantly more connections than Memphis.

At International Falls, the community is very displeased with the schedule proposed by Mesaba. Because Mesaba proposes to base the aircraft in Minneapolis, the timing of its schedule is poor, as the community has demonstrated. This is surprising, because International Falls is one of the larger traffic generators in the EAS program, even if one excludes the peak season traffic carried by carriers other than Mesaba. The community has expressed a desire for a third round trip, and as noted at Houghton and Tupelo, three nonstop turnaround round trips per day exceeds the program guidelines, but if an intermediate stop or upline service were contemplated, a third round trip could then be subsidized, perhaps on a year round basis. DOT will therefore resolicit proposals at International Falls. DOT will not dictate any schedule, notwithstanding that §41732(b)(2) of the statute requires that schedules be at “...reasonable times considering the needs of passengers with connecting flights at the [hub]...” Carriers should consider basing an aircraft in International Falls, which would go most of the way to meeting the communty’s desire
for a well-timed schedule.

percent at O’Hare. For July 2009, the latest time period available, the discrepancy had further improved, from 19.2 percent at Minneapolis to 21.3 percent at O’Hare.
9 See our discussion in Order 2009-8-10. SkyWest’s propos al also exceeds 67 seats, the maximum number of seats we can guarantee per day, but the separate requirement of two round trips per day makes SkyWest’s proposals acceptable.

### - 7 -

At Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, the com munities are satisfied with Mesaba’s proposal. However, before DOT selects a carrier, the proposal must be found to be reasonable in terms of the subsidy requested. DOT staff has reviewed Mesaba’s proposals at Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, as well as at the six other communities, and believe that the subsidies requested are not consistent with officially noticeable data filed by Mesaba, and are significantly overstated. Based on all of the above, DOT will request a new round of proposals from any interested
carrier.

Request for Proposals Carriers interested in filing proposals for Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; International Falls, Minnesota; and Tupelo, Mississippi -- with or without subsidy -- should e-mail them to our staff at EAS@dot.gov no later than November 18, 2009. Our staff will then docket the proposals, thereby making them public, and direct each carrier to serve a copy of its proposal on the civic parties and other applicants. Shortly afterwards, the staff will provide a summary of the proposals to the community officials and ask them to submit their final comments. DOT will give full consideration to all proposals filed in a timely manner. 10



### Interested carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial proposals will also be their final and only proposals. DOT retains the discretion to negotiate proposals with carriers when DOT deems it desirable. In such cases, of course, DOT will give all applicants the same opportunity. DOT also retains the discretion to reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and solicit a new round of proposals. However, DOT anticipates that negotiation or rejection will remain only occasional exceptions to the rule.

DOT is here providing interested carriers with some basic information to serve as guidance when they prepare their proposals, but will not prescribe a precise format for their proposals. DOT expects 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 and routings as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block hours, revenues and expenses. DOT strongly encourages clear, well-documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected community and the Department. 11

10 Carriers should not expect the Depart ment to accept late filings. In cases where a carrier proposes to provide essential air service without subsidy and we determin e that service can be reliably provided without such compensation, we do not proceed with th e carrier-selection case. Instead, we si mply rely on that carrier’s subsidyfree service as proposed.
11 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 a rrangements 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 when selecting a carrier to provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy requirements, thus codifying a factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. 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.

### - 8 -

For carriers considering proposals, the com munities’ service needs outlined below are considered in isolation, i.e., assuming, unless otherwise noted, that service would be operated on a nonstop turnaround basis to the hub, i.e., with no seats available to the hub preempted by another community. If there were linkage, either upline or downline, DOT would consider subsidizing additional frequencies.

Tupelo, 67 seats per day. 12 

### Two round trips per day with 34-seat aircraft, three trips a day with 30- seat aircraft, or four trips a day with 19-seat ai rcraft. DOT may subsidize additional frequencies at Tupelo if another community is served in conjunction with Tupelo. Because of its proximity to Memphis, Tupelo’s service to that hub should be nonstop. On the other hand, service to Atlanta maybe on either a nonstop or one-stop basis. However, DOT recognizes the carrier’s desire to have splithub service and the effect this has on reasonable serv ice schedules to Tupelo. As always, staff will work with the carrier to ensure service and subsidy is reasonable.

Alpena, 22 seats per day, and Sault Ste. Marie, 25 seats per day . Service to either of those two communities may be met with two round trips per day with either a 19- or 30-seat aircraft, 13 

### three 19- seaters per day when linked together, or two 30-s eat or larger aircraft a day on a one-stop basis. 14



### International Falls, 67-seats peak, 45 seats off-peak . During the peak period, International Falls’ service should correspond to that of Tupelo’s, except that one-stop service is permitted because of thecommunity’s distance from the hub. Off-peak service may have reduced frequency, down to the tworound-trip-per-day minimum, although DOT recognizes that it may be difficult for carriers to reduce service between the peak and off-peak periods. As noted, Mesaba’s proposal for International Falls was acceptable in terms of number of seats and frequency, but not in terms of timing of the flights or level of subsidy. If carriers or communities have questions about whether the proposed service would be acceptable, they may either contact the staff or submit that service as one of several options for consideration. DOT encourages any proposal that would simultaneously satisfy the community’s needs and minimize taxpayer expenditures. Carriers need not limit themselves to the current service pattern if they envision other, potentially more attractive service possibilities, such as different hubs or seasonal service, with subsidy requirements that remain competitive.

Given that DOT is requesting service to a total of four communities, carriers are advised to make clear whether the service they propose should be considered on an all-or-nothing basis, i.e., whether they would accept being selected for individual cities or for a package of two or more
cities.

12 67 seats each day each way is the maximum capacity ca lled for in the EAS program guidelines. See 14 CFR 398.6, Guidelines for Individual determinations of Basic Essential Air Service.
13 The guidelines are for carriers to provide a minimum of two round trips a day, independent of aircraft size or number of seats required.
14 As we have noted, Mesaba’s proposal was acceptable in terms of service leve ls –timining of flights, frequency, intermediate stops, and number of seats -- but we request th at the carrier review its pr ojected subsidy request for providing that service.

### - 9 -

In order to assist carriers in m aking their passenger and revenue forecasts, historical passenger data are included in Appendix D. Even though passenger levels have fallen from the prior years, these communities are still strong traffic-generators by EAS standards.

Other Carrier Requirements The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying activities, drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination. 15 

### Consequently, all carriers receiving Federal subsidy to support essential air service must certify that they are in compliance with Department regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of the rate term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing lobbying activities. Interested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these requirements, as well as copies of the certifications, should contact the Office of Aviation Analysis at (202) 366-5903. The Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these documents. 16



### Community Comments The communities and States are welcome to submit comments on the proposals at any time. As noted earlier, EAS staff will provide a summary of the proposals to the civic parties and States and ask them to submit their final comments shortly after November 18, the due date for carrier proposals.

Carrier Fitness 49 U.S.C. 41737(b) requires that DOT find an air ca rrier fit, willing, and able to provide reliable
service before DOT m ay subsidize it to provide essential air service. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., is subject to the Department’s continuing fitness requirements, and no information has come to our attention that would cause us to question the carrier's fitness at this time. DOT has contacted the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has raised no concerns that would negatively affect our fitness finding. DOT therefore concludes that the carrier remains fit to conduct the operations proposed here.

Service Transition Before Mesaba suspends its Eau Claire, Houghton, Muskegon, and Paducah service, DOT expects it to notify any passengers holding reservations for travel after the suspension date, to assist those passengers in making alternate air transportation arrangements, or to provide a refund of the ticket price, without penalty, if requested.

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

15 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 20 – New restrictions on lobbying; (2) 49 CFR Part 21 – Nondiscrimination in federally-assist ed programs of the Department of Transportation – Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR Part 27 – Nondisc rimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiti ng from Federal financial assi stance; and 14 CFR Part 382
– Nondiscrimination on the basi s of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29 – Government-wide debarment and suspension (non-procurement) and government-w ide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
16 The certifications are also available on the we b at http://ostpxweb.dot. gov/aviation/index.html.

### - 10 -

ACCORDINGLY;

1. The Departm ent requests proposals from carriers interested in providing essential air service at Alpena and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; International Falls, Minnesota; and Tupelo, Mississippi. Carriers should submit their proposals, with subsidy if necessary, by November 18, 2009. 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(s) to Provide Essential Air Service at Alpena, Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; International Falls, Minnesota; and/or Tupelo, Mississippi; Docket DOT-OST-2009-0160.”; 17



### 2. The Department directs Mesaba Airlines, Inc., to retain all books, records, and other source and summary documents to support subsidy claims for payment 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 retained for seven years or until the Department indicates that the records may be destroyed, whichever comes firs t. 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 supported under the terms of this order;

3. The Department selects SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide essential air service at Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Hancock/Houghton, Michigan, Musk egon, Michigan, and Paducah, Kentucky, as described in Appendix C;

4. The Department directs SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to retain all books, records, and other source and summary documentation to support claims for payment, 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 retained for seven years or until the Department indicates that the records may be destroyed, whiche ver 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 supported under the terms of this order;

5. The Department finds that SkyWest Airlines, Inc., continues to be fit, willing and able to operate as a certificated carrier and capable of providing reliable essential air service at Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Hancock/Houghton, Michigan; Muskegon, Michigan; and Paducah, Kentucky;

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

17 

### Questions regarding this order shoul d be directed to Kevin Adams at kevin.adams@dot.gov or 202-
366-1047.

### - 11 -

7. The Department will serve copies of this order on the communities of Alpena, Hancock/Houghton, Muskegon, and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan; Eau Claire, Wisconsin; International Falls, Minnesota; Paducah, Kentuc ky; and Tupelo, Mississippi, Mesaba Airlines, Inc., SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Pacific wings, Inc., and the carriers on our service list.

Susan Kurland Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs (SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.regulations.gov

### Appendix A-1

International Falls (INL) Muskegon (MKG) Hibbing (HIB) 85 Chicago (ORD) 118 Eau Claire (EAU) 271 Chicago (ORD) 528 Paducah (PAH) Minneapolis (MSP) 254 Chicago (ORD) 342

Alpena (APN) Sault Ste. Marie (CIU) 91 Muskegon (MKG) 188 Detroit (DTW) 198 Chicago (ORD) 306

Sault Ste. Marie (CIU) Alpena (APN) 91 Muskegon (MKG) 229 Detroit (DTW) 283 Chicago (ORD) 340

Eau Claire (EAU) Minneapolis (MSP) 85 Chicago (ORD) 269

### Appendix A-2

Tupelo Columbus, MS (GTR) 57 Columbus, GA (CSG) 252 Muscle Shoals (MSL) 74 Hattiesburg (PIB) 195 Chattanooga (CHA) 210 Memphis (MEM) 88 Atlanta (ATL) 253

Memphis Hattiesburg (PIB) 250 Columbus, MS (GTR) 136 Muscle Shoals (MSL) 136

Atlanta (ATL) Tupelo (TUP) 253 Chattanooga (CHA) 106 Columbus, MS (GTR) 241 Columbus, GA (CSG) 83Appendix B

Proposals of SkyWest Airlines at Eau Claire, Houghton, Muskegon, and Paducah

Eau Claire Houghton Muskegon Paducah

Weekly Service 14 nonstops 14 nonstops 14 nonstops 14 nonstops

Hub Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare Chicago O'Hare

Aircraft Type CRJ-200 CRJ-200 CRJ-200 CRJ-200

Passengers 30,000 30,000 35,000 37,500

Fares $85 $107 $69 $105

Departures 1/ 1,427 1,427 1,427 1,427
Block Hours 1,641 1,760 1,094 1,712

Passenger Revenue $2,550,000 $3,210,000 $2,415,000 $3,937,500

Direct Oper. Exp. $3,193,611 $3,425,032 $2,194,710 $3,332,463 Indirect Oper. Exp. $884,839 $653,418 $1,883,740 $745,987 Total Oper. Exp. $4,078,450 $4,394,966 $2,929,257 $4,292,784

Profit @ 5 % $203,923 $219,748 $146,463 $214,639

Economic Cost $4,282,373 $4,614,714 $3,075,720 $4,507,423

Annual Subsidy $1,732,373 $1,404,714 $660,720 $569,923

1/ 28 nonstop flights per week x 52 weeks x .98 completion

### Appendix C-1

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Essential Air Service to be Provided to Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Effective Period : Start of service through December 31, 2011
Scheduled Service : 14 nonstop round trips per week to Chicago O’Hare
Aircraft : CRJ-200, 50-seats Rate per Eligible Flight: $1,214 1 

### Weekly Ceiling: $33,992 2

General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

Note: The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensati on for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; abse nt an explanation supporting s ubsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim fo r the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicab le period of this rate, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, th e Department may locate and select a repl acement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all fli ghts that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic wil l 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 a nd the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or complete, 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 am ounts 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 th is order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s obligation for performance under this orde r beyond October 31, 2009, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond October 31, 2009, the Department will provide notice in writing to the carrier.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and inco rporate 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 servi ce provided under this order.

1 Annual compensation of $1,732,372 ÷ 1,427 annual flights = $1,214. 28 flights/week x 52 weeks x 98 percent completion = 1,427 departures per year.
2 28 flights per week x $1,214 = $33,992.

### Appendix C-2

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Essential Air Service to be Provided to Hancock/Houghton, Michigan

Effective Period : Start of service through December 31, 2011
Scheduled Service : 14 nonstop round trips per week to Chicago O’Hare
Aircraft : CRJ-200, 50-seats Rate per Eligible Flight: $984 1 

### Weekly Ceiling: $27,552 2

General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

Note: The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensati on for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; abse nt an explanation supporting s ubsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim fo r the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicab le period of this rate, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, th e Department may locate and select a repl acement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all fli ghts that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic wil l 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 a nd the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or complete, 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 am ounts 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 th is order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s obligation for performance under this orde r beyond October 31, 2009, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond October 31, 2009, the Department will provide notice in writing to the carrier.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and inco rporate 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 servi ce provided under this order.

1 Annual compensation of $1,404,714 ÷ 1,427 annual flights = $984. 28 flights/week x 52 weeks x 98 percent completion = 1,427 departures per year.
2 28 flights per week x $984 = $27,552.

### Appendix C-3

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Essential Air Service to be Provided to Muskegon, Michigan

Effective Period : Start of service through December 31, 2011
Scheduled Service : 14 nonstop round trips per week to Chicago O’Hare
Aircraft : CRJ-200, 50-seats Rate per Eligible Flight: $463 1 

### Weekly Ceiling: $12,964 2

General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

Note: The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensati on for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; abse nt an explanation supporting s ubsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim fo r the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicab le period of this rate, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, th e Department may locate and select a repl acement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all fli ghts that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic wil l 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 a nd the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or complete, 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 am ounts 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 th is order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s obligation for performance under this orde r beyond October 31, 2009, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond October 31, 2009, the Department will provide notice in writing to the carrier.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and inco rporate 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 servi ce provided under this order.

1 Annual compensation of $660,720 ÷ 1,427 annual flights = $463. 28 flights/week x 52 weeks x 98 percent completion = 1,427 departures per year.
2 28 flights per week x $463 = $12,964.

### Appendix C-4

SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Essential Air Service to be Provided to Paducah, Kentucky

Effective Period : Start of service through December 31, 2011
Scheduled Service : 14 nonstop round trips per week to Chicago O’Hare
Aircraft : CRJ-200, 50-seats Rate per Eligible Flight: $399 1 

### Weekly Ceiling: $11,172 2

General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

Note: The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensati on for any flights that it does not operate in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing at its scheduled destination constitutes a completed flight; abse nt an explanation supporting s ubsidy eligibility for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim fo r the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicab le period of this rate, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, th e Department may locate and select a repl acement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all fli ghts that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic wil l 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 a nd the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or complete, 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 am ounts 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 th is order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s obligation for performance under this orde r beyond October 31, 2009, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond October 31, 2009, the Department will provide notice in writing to the carrier.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and inco rporate 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 servi ce provided under this order.

1 Annual compensation of $569,923 ÷ 1,427 annual flights = $399. 28 flights/week x 52 weeks x 98 percent completion = 1,427 departures per year.
2 28 flights per week x $399 = $11,172.Appendix D-1

T-100 On-Flight Market Report

Alpena (APN) Sault Ste. Marie (CIU)

Year Month Origin Dest O&D Origin Dest O&D 2006 8 800 695 1,495 1,396 1,243 2,639 2006 9 753 686 1,439 1,237 1,049 2,286 2006 10 703 671 1,374 1,235 1,199 2,434 2006 11 622 594 1,216 1,104 1,084 2,188 2006 12 526 564 1,090 998 1,003 2,001 2007 1 511 468 979 1,009 889 1,898 2007 2 451 463 914 975 838 1,813 2007 3 532 557 1,089 974 978 1,952 2007 4 509 606 1,115 855 876 1,731 2007 5 624 663 1,287 1,168 1,229 2,397 2007 6 669 673 1,342 1,166 1,208 2,374

2007 7 682 690 1,372 1,332 1,372 2,704 YE July 31, 2007 7,382 7,330 14,712 13,449 12,968 26,417

2007 8 741 715 1,456 1,475 1,296 2,771 2007 9 685 609 1,294 1,261 1,124 2,385 2007 10 798 747 1,545 1,208 1,147 2,355 2007 11 708 743 1,451 1,169 1,082 2,251 2007 12 685 749 1,434 1,130 1,091 2,221 2008 1 670 587 1,257 1,175 885 2,060 2008 2 558 551 1,109 1,189 1,055 2,244 2008 3 715 691 1,406 1,260 1,251 2,511 2008 4 551 609 1,160 1,047 1,186 2,233 2008 5 579 646 1,225 1,124 1,193 2,317 2008 6 716 720 1,436 1,105 1,126 2,231

2008 7 714 676 1,390 1,175 1,219 2,394 YE July 31, 2008 8,120 8,043 16,163 14,318 13,655 27,973

2008 8 639 675 1,314 1,331 1,189 2,520 2008 9 649 540 1,189 1,071 928 1,999 2008 10 532 553 1,085 960 927 1,887 2008 11 571 507 1,078 801 830 1,631 2008 12 522 561 1,083 950 900 1,850 2009 1 511 447 958 938 737 1,675 2009 2 493 470 963 976 893 1,869 2009 3 620 549 1,169 1,157 1,123 2,280 2009 4 443 494 937 873 1,043 1,916 2009 5 588 564 1,152 1,006 1,035 2,041 2009 6 671 707 1,378 1,040 1,150 2,190

2009 7 830 849 1,679 1,357 1,370 2,727 YE July 31, 2008 7,069 6,916 13,985 12,460 12,125 24,585Appendix D-2

T-100 On-flight Market Report, Intrernational Falls, Minnesota (INL)

Enplaned Passengers Deplaned Passengers Origin and Destination

Year Month Mesaba Pinnacle Total Mesaba Pinnacle Total Mesaba Pinnacle Total 2006 8 1,439 1,333 2,772 1,266 1,088 2,354 2,705 2,421 5,126 2006 9 1,798 1,798 1,650 1,650 3,448 0 3,448 2006 10 1,017 56 1,073 958 25 983 1,975 81 2,056 2006 11 950 950 816 816 1,766 0 1,766 2006 12 946 946 912 912 1,858 0 1,858 2007 1 1,020 1,020 963 963 1,983 0 1,983 2007 2 972 972 914 914 1,886 0 1,886 2007 3 938 938 970 970 1,908 0 1,908 2007 4 813 813 844 844 1,657 0 1,657 2007 5 1,106 1,106 1,449 1,449 2,555 0 2,555 2007 6 1,085 1,417 2,502 970 1,769 2,739 2,055 3,186 5,241

2007 7 804 1,985 2,789 668 1,997 2,665 1,472 3,982 5,454 YE 7/31/07 12,888 4,791 17,679 12,380 4,879 17,259 25,268 9,670 34,938

2007 8 695 1,484 2,179 664 1,379 2,043 1,359 2,863 4,222 2007 9 1,130 674 1,804 773 793 1,566 1,903 1,467 3,370 2007 10 778 342 1,120 492 511 1,003 1,270 853 2,123 2007 11 1,015 20 1,035 880 83 963 1,895 103 1,998 2007 12 993 993 883 883 1,876 0 1,876 2008 1 984 984 919 919 1,903 0 1,903 2008 2 1,113 1,113 1,067 1,067 2,180 0 2,180 2008 3 952 952 937 937 1,889 0 1,889 2008 4 707 707 762 762 1,469 0 1,469 2008 5 1,057 1,057 1,291 1,291 2,348 0 2,348 2008 6 1,819 583 2,402 1,863 677 2,540 3,682 1,260 4,942

2008 7 1,697 658 2,355 1,750 788 2,538 3,447 1,446 4,893 YE 7/31/08 12,940 3,761 16,701 12,281 4,231 16,512 25,221 7,992 33,213

2008 8 1,944 590 2,534 1,847 385 2,232 3,791 975 4,766 2008 9 1,522 1,522 1,221 1,221 2,743 0 2,743 2008 10 936 936 906 906 1,842 0 1,842 2008 11 773 773 683 683 1,456 0 1,456 2008 12 746 746 773 773 1,519 0 1,519 2009 1 900 900 746 746 1,646 0 1,646 2009 2 966 966 922 922 1,888 0 1,888 2009 3 847 847 945 945 1,792 0 1,792 2009 4 761 761 855 855 1,616 0 1,616 2009 5 1,121 1,121 1,374 1,374 2,495 0 2,495 2009 6 2,248 2,248 2,435 2,435 4,683 0 4,683

2009 7 2,639 2,639 2,722 2,722 5,361 0 5,361 YE 7/31/09 15,403 590 15,993 15,429 385 15,814 30,832 975 31,807Appendix D-3

T-100 On-flight Market Report, Tupelo, Mississippi (TUP)

Deplaned Passengers Enplaned Passengers Origin and Destination

Year Month Atlanta Memphis Other Total Atlanta Memphis Other Total Atlanta Memphis Other Total 2006 8 1,242 1,538 4 2,784 1,032 1,636 1 2,669 2,274 3,174 5 5,453 2006 9 776 1,334 2 2,112 763 1,511 0 2,274 1,539 2,845 2 4,386 2006 10 935 1,451 6 2,392 888 1,656 9 2,553 1,823 3,107 15 4,945 2006 11 1,013 1,485 14 2,512 1,006 1,533 3 2,542 2,019 3,018 17 5,054 2006 12 1,108 1,430 3 2,541 1,084 1,441 5 2,530 2,192 2,871 8 5,071 2007 1 864 1,240 3 2,107 814 1,397 4 2,215 1,678 2,637 7 4,322 2007 2 761 1,121 14 1,896 725 1,220 0 1,945 1,486 2,341 14 3,841 2007 3 986 1,250 1 2,237 911 1,467 1 2,379 1,897 2,717 2 4,616 2007 4 879 1,253 2 2,134 850 1,405 2 2,257 1,729 2,658 4 4,391 2007 5 1,087 1,387 2 2,476 1,046 1,613 2 2,661 2,133 3,000 4 5,137 2007 6 961 1,295 0 2,256 947 1,463 2 2,412 1,908 2,758 2 4,668

2007 7 616 1,381 2 1,999 590 1,486 3 2,079 1,206 2,867 5 4,078 YE 7/31/07 11,228 16,165 53 27,446 10,656 17,828 32 28,516 21,884 33,993 85 55,962

2007 8 759 1,424 2 2,185 686 1,440 34 2,160 1,445 2,864 36 4,345 2007 9 750 1,266 0 2,016 869 1,494 0 2,363 1,619 2,760 0 4,379 2007 10 969 1,432 0 2,401 870 1,472 1 2,343 1,839 2,904 1 4,744 2007 11 917 1,453 0 2,370 945 1,500 0 2,445 1,862 2,953 0 4,815 2007 12 767 1,491 1 2,259 807 1,610 1 2,418 1,574 3,101 2 4,677 2008 1 151 1,384 10 1,545 142 1,486 0 1,628 293 2,870 10 3,173 2008 2 1,180 50 1,230 1,285 9 1,294 0 2,465 59 2,524 2008 3 1,303 0 1,303 1,400 0 1,400 0 2,703 0 2,703 2008 4 1,063 37 1,100 1,163 0 1,163 0 2,226 37 2,263 2008 5 1,280 5 1,285 1,372 2 1,374 0 2,652 7 2,659 2008 6 1,271 10 1,281 1,281 8 1,289 0 2,552 18 2,570

2008 7 1,297 0 1,297 1,318 3 1,321 0 2,615 3 2,618 YE 7/31/08 4,313 15,844 115 20,272 4,319 16,821 58 21,198 8,632 32,665 173 41,470

2008 8 1,208 0 1,208 1,167 0 1,167 0 2,375 0 2,375

2008 9 1,080 8 1,088 1,120 0 1,120 0 2,200 8 2,208
2008 10 1,283 0 1,283 1,257 0 1,257 0 2,540 0 2,540

2008 11 1,086 25 1,111 1,110 0 1,110 0 2,196 25 2,221

2008 12 1,136 62 1,198 1,276 1 1,277 0 2,412 63 2,475
2009 1 1,144 0 1,144 1,069 0 1,069 0 2,213 0 2,213

2009 2 887 1 888 896 0 896 0 1,783 1 1,784

2009 3 1,133 6 1,139 1,113 0 1,113 0 2,246 6 2,252
2009 4 1,119 2 1,121 1,205 0 1,205 0 2,324 2 2,326

2009 5 1,260 7 1,267 1,253 0 1,253 0 2,513 7 2,520
2009 6 1,185 0 1,185 1,195 2 1,197 0 2,380 2 2,382 2009 7 611 418 46 1,075 551 500 0 1,051 1,162 918 46 2,126 YE 7/31/09 611 12,939 157 13,707 551 13,161 3 13,715 1,162 26,100 160 27,422Appendix E Page 1 of 2

Distribution List Name, Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Sunshine, Inc. Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Air West, Inc., John Raatz Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly Airline Associates, Bill Mishk Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft American Airlines, Carl Nelson American Eagle, Jeffrey Hartz Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger Cape Air, Andrew Bonney Cape Air, Dan Wolf Cape Air, J.Flaherty Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson Colgan Air, Mike Colgan CommutAir, Andy Price CommutAir, Joel Raymond Consultant, Robert Silverberg Continental, Bruce Keiner Continental, Dan Weiss Continental, Lorry Halloway Delta, Amy Martin Delta, Dan Shuman Delta, Jeff Morgan Delta, Joe Esposito Delta, Karen Zachary Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen
Dorato Jets Dorato Jets, Mark McKenna Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters Great Lakes, Chuck Howell Great Lakes, Doug Voss Great Lakes, Greg Stephens Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman Gulfstream, T. Cooper Homeland Security, David Bernier Homeland Security, Randy Webb Horizon Airlines, Dan Russo Horizon Airlines, Jennifer Thompson Horizon, Jeff Cole ICEPR, Luis Irizarry Island Air Charters, Linda House Jet Air, Daniel WolfordAppendix E Page 2 of 2

Distribution List Name, Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks McCall Aviation, Dan Scott McCall Aviation, Michelle Mesa Air, Jonathan Ornstein Mesa Air, Michael Lotz Mesa Air, Mike Holcomb Mesaba, John Spanjers Mesaba, Max Shemesh Midstar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis Midwest Airlines, J.C. Augustson MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado Multi Aero, Darnea Multi Aero, Shane Storz Northwest, Tim McDonald NYDC, Henok Araya Pacific Wings, Frank Ford Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed Public Charters, Jim Gallagher Salmon Air, Dan Schroeder Salmon Air, JoAnn Wolters Scenic, Mary Schneider Scenic, Mitzi Daines Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D'Amico SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano SkyWest, Eric Christensen SkyWest, Michael Thompson Sovereign Air, Bob Karns Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton Tradewind, Eric Zipkin TransStates, Fred Oxley Transtates, Gerry Wigmore United, Alicia Gabriel United, James Starnes US Airways, Benjamin Slocum US Airways, Howard Kass US Airways, Jason Reisinger Wings Air (Air Greco), Aaron Goerlich Wings of Alaska, Bob Jacobsen Wings of Alaska, Michelle Donohue