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 Department (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 Claire, 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 

rates1 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 distributed 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 aforementioned 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 equipment; 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 connections 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 with Saab 340s at one other community, Eau Claire, but 

Mesaba indicated there would be upline service between Eau Claire and Rhinelander 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 per day to Detroit, and Sault Ste. Marie receives a total of 14 round trips – 

7 one-stop over Alpena and 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 - 

determination 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 between 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 the 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 Chicago 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 community6 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 afternoon, and the last flight of the day into the 

community leaves Minneapolis at 2:20 in the afternoon, only 40 minutes later. This would 

require 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 Jackie Hunton opposing SkyWest’s proposal. 

6 We also received a response from Strongman Travel opposing Mesaba’s schedule. 
- 5 - 

Decision 

The carrier selection decisions at three communities -- 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 Minneapolis 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 directed 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 requirements. For example, even large jet aircraft 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/Houghton, 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 percent of Minneapolis and 43.8 percent 

of O’Hare; for the same quarter a year later, the corresponding numbers were 15.3 percent at Minneapolis and 24.1 
- 6 - 

DOT has various concerns about Mesaba’s proposals at the remaining 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 proposal 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 communities 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 Department to accept late filings. In cases where a carrier proposes to provide 

essential air service without subsidy and we determine that service can be reliably provided without such 

compensation, we do not proceed with the carrier-selection case. Instead, we simply 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 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 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 communities’ 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 aircraft. 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 may 

be 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 service 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-seat 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 the 

community’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 called 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 levels –timining of flights, frequency, 

intermediate stops, and number of seats -- but we request that the carrier review its projected subsidy request for 

providing that service. 
- 9 - 

In order to assist carriers in making 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 carrier fit, willing, and able to provide reliable 

service before DOT may 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-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). 

16 The certifications are also available on the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html. 
- 10 - 

ACCORDINGLY; 

1. The Department 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 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; 

3. The Department selects SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide essential air service at Eau Claire, 

Wisconsin, Hancock/Houghton, Michigan, Muskegon, 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, 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 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 should 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, Kentucky; 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) 83 
Appendix 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 compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance 

with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other 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; 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. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a 

significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any 

such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of 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, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these 

routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will 

not be compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the 

Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the program are met and the extent of access to the national air 

transportation system provided to the community. 

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or 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 amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service 

to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels 

of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or 

partial reduction or cessation of payment. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s 

obligation for performance under this order 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 incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they 

may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not 

operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided under 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 compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance 

with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other 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; 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. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a 

significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any 

such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of 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, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these 

routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will 

not be compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the 

Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the program are met and the extent of access to the national air 

transportation system provided to the community. 

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or 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 amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service 

to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels 

of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or 

partial reduction or cessation of payment. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s 

obligation for performance under this order 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 incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they 

may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not 

operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided under 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 compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance 

with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other 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; 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. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a 

significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any 

such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of 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, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these 

routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will 

not be compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the 

Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the program are met and the extent of access to the national air 

transportation system provided to the community. 

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or 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 amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service 

to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels 

of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or 

partial reduction or cessation of payment. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s 

obligation for performance under this order 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 incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they 

may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not 

operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided under 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 compensation for any flights that it does not operate in conformance 

with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans outlined in the order and any other 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; 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. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a 

significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any 

such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of 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, the Department may locate and select a replacement carrier to provide service on these 

routes. The carrier must complete all flights that can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will 

not be compensated. In determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the 

Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the program are met and the extent of access to the national air 

transportation system provided to the community. 

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or 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 amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service 

to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels 

of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or 

partial reduction or cessation of payment. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond October 31, 2009. The Government’s 

obligation for performance under this order 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 incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they 

may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not 

operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided under 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 24,585
Appendix 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 31,807
Appendix 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 27,422
Appendix 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 Wolford 
Appendix 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