Order: 20 1 1
- 4
- 12 Served : April 11 , 2011


### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Issued b y the Department of Transportation on the 11 th day of April , 201 1
Essential Air Service at MARION/HERRIN, IL QUINCY, IL /HANNIBAL, M O CAPE GIRARDEAU/SIKESTON , M O Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq . Docket DOT - OST - 200 0 - 7881 Docket DOT - OST - 2003 - 14492 Docket DOT - OST - 1996 - 1559

ORDER RE - SELECTING CARRIER Summary By this order , the Department is re - s electing Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air ( Cape Air) to provide essential air service (EAS) at Marion/Herrin , Illinois (Marion) and Quincy , Illinois /Hannibal , Missouri (Quincy) , and Cape Girardeau/Sikeston , Missouri (Cape Girardeau) , for the four
- year period from December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2015, for a combined annual subsidy rate of $ 5,689,438 ($2,104,616 for Marion, $1,956,856 for Quincy , and $1,627,966 for Cape Girardeau). 1 Marion and Quincy will receive 36 weekly

round trips and Cape Girardeau will receive 24 weekl y round trips. All service will operate nonstop to/from Lambert
- St. Louis International Airport (St. L ouis) using e ight
- or nine
- passenger Cessna 402 aircraft. Background By Order 2009
- 10
- 13, October 22, 2009, the Department selected Cape Air to provide subsidized EAS at Marion, Quincy , and Cape Girardeau, for a two
- year period beginning when the carrier inaugurated full EAS . Cape Air inaugurated service to all three communities on November 7, 2009, using eight
- or nine
- passenger Cessna 402 aircraft , making November 30, 2011, the rate expiration date . Marion and Quincy receive 36 weekl y nonstop round trips and Cape Girardeau
1 Such subsidy is calculated and distributed on a fiscal year basis, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.receives 24 weekly nonstop round trips. Cape Air operates its service from all three communities nonstop to St. Louis under a codeshare agreement with American Airlines. The annual subsidy

amounts are: $2,053,783 for Marion, $1,946,270 for Quin cy , and $1,469,715 for Cape Girardeau
. T he Department issued Order 20 10
- 11
- 8, November 12, 2010 , solicit ing proposals to provide EAS , with subsidy

support if necessary , at the three communities, for a new rate term
. Proposal s In response to that order, we received proposals from four carriers: Cape Air, the incumbent, Gulfstream International Airlines (Gulfstream), Multi
- Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One (Air Choice One), and Planemasters Jet Charter (Planemasters). Cape Air Ca pe Air proposes an inseparable package for all three communities that comprise s two options. First, status
- quo service (36 weekl y round trips for Marion and Quincy , and 24 weekl y round trips for Cape Girardeau), with a two
- year and a four
- year rate. This option also offers a 36 weekl y round trip proposal for Cape Girardeau, at a two
- year and a four
- ye ar rate. Second , it proposes a six daily

round trip pattern (42 weekl y round trips) for all three communities. All of those rates also include a two
- ye ar and a four
- ye ar rate. A summary of those options is provided below. All flights would continue to operate to St. L ouis with eight
- or nine
- seat Cessna 402 aircraft with a codeshare arrangement with American Airlines. Additionally , Cape Air proposes to es tablish a city

ticket office in each of the three communities and inaugurate a ground transportation shuttle at St. Louis to transport Cape Air customers transferring between terminals. Nu mb er of rou nd EA S com mu ni ty tri psper week 2- ye ar rate 4- ye ar rate Op ti on 1 Mari

on 36 $2,157,421 $2,104,616 Qu in cy 36 $2,005,954 $1,956,856 Ca pe Girardeau 24 $1,668,812 $1,627,966 Ca pe Girardeau 36 $2,235,280 $2,180,570 Op ti on 2 Mari

on 42 $2,407,130 $2,348,214 Qu in cy 42 $2,239,288 $2,184,480 Ca pe Girardeau 42 $2,505,845 $2,444,513 An nua l su bsi dy

Gulfstream Gulfstream proposes to serve Marion only with 18 weekl y nonstop round trips to Memphis using using 19
- passenger Beech 1900D aircraft. It would operate the service under its independent Gulfstream International Airlines brand with interline ticketing and baggage agreements with most legacy

carriers. Its proposal was originall y contingent upon it s being selected to provide subsidized EAS at Muscle Shoals, Alabama (o n March 18, the Department in fact did selectGulfstream to provide EAS to Muscle Shoals. ) See Order 2011
- 3
- 26. The annual subsidy for its proposed service is $2,636,713. Air Choice One Air Choice proposed three options each for Marion and Quincy , and two options for Cape Girardeau, all using 9
- passenger Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft. Air Choice has signed a ticketing an d baggage agreement with United Airlines, but as of the date of this Order, it has not been implemented. The first option for Marion offers 12 weekl y nonstop round trips to Chicago O’Hare and 24 weekl y nonstop round trips to St. L ouis for an annual subsidy of $2,858,985. The second option proposes 36 weekly

nonstop round trips to St. L ouis for an annual subsidy of $2,334,806. The third option proposes 18 nonstop weekl y round trips to Memphis and 18 nonstop weekl y round trips to St. L ouis for $2,740,337 annually
. The first option for Quincy proposes 18 weekl y nonstop round trips to Chicago O’Hare and 18 nonstop weekl y round trips to St. L ouis for $2,798,697, subsidy per ye ar. Option #2 would offer 36 weekl y nonstop round trips

– all to St. L ouis

– for an annual subsidy of $2,173,531. Option #3 for Quincy

would consist of 36 weekl y nonstop round trips to Chicago O’Hare for $2,920,476 in annual subsidy
. Air Choice One’s option #1 for Cape Girardeau proposes 24 nonstop weekly round trips to St. Louis for $ 1,665,546, in annual subsidy per year. Option #2 is 12 nonstop weekl y round trips to Memphis and 12 nonstop weekl y round trips to St. L ouis for an annual subsidy of $1,938,265. Planemasters Planemasters proposes to serve Cape Girardeau and Marion only wi th 18 nonstop and one
- stop round trips each week using eight
- or nine
- passenger Hawker Beechcraft King Air 200 aircraft for an annual subsidy

of $5,151,796
. The complete proposal s of the four carriers may be accessed online at : http://www.regulations.gov/ by entering DOT
- OST
- 200 0
- 7881 (Marion), DOT
- OST
- 2003
- 14492 (Quincy), or DOT
- OST
- 1996
- 1 559 (Cape Girardeau) , in th e “Enter Key word or ID” field. Community and State Comments On January

7 , 201 1 , we requested co mmunity co mment s regarding the carrier selection at the three communities
. A summary of the comments received follows. Marion In a l etter from Doug Kimmel, the Airport Director at Williamson County Regional Airport, he states that the Williamson County Airport Authority

voted unanimously

to recommend Cape Air and its proposal fo r six daily flights over a four
- ye ar contract term. Further, he states that enplanements have increased steadil y as a result of Cape Air’s service and cites affordable fares, frequency of flights, reliable operations, advertising and marketing efforts, and its codeshare with American Airlines. The Airport full y supports Cape Air’s proposal for a four
- ye ar contract in order to plan over a longer term and the proposal for six daily flights, because the reducedweekend schedule “consistently has difficulty

in meeting passenger demand.” It also is supporti ve of Cape Air’s proposal to establish a local City Ticket Office and a ground shuttle at St. Louis to trans port customers between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2
. Quincy In a letter from John A. Spring, Mayor of Quincy , he states that the City of Quincy

Aeronautics Committee voted unanimously to support the recommendation of Cape Air and its proposal for six daily flights over a four
- year contract term. He informs us that the City of Quincy and its residents are extremely

satisfied with Cape Air’s service and he anticipates continued growth in traffic, surpassing over 20,000 passengers in 2011. L ike Marion, it su pports Cape Air’s proposal to operate a local City

Ticket Office and a new ground shuttle at St. L ouis . Mayor Spring also states that because of Cape Air’s “quality and affordable service to the national transportation sy stem,” he has witnessed a renewed confidence with the business and traveling community. Cape Girardeau We received a joint letter from Mayor Harry E. Rediger and City

Manager Scott A. Meyer supporting the reselection of Cape Air . The letter states that the Cape Girardeau Regional Airport Advisory

Board and the Cape Girardeau Regional Airport Administration thoroughl y reviewed all three proposals for EAS and interviewed two of the carriers. The Advisory Board stated that Planemasters ’ proposal, while including six daily round trip flights , all flights to S t. Louis would stop in Marion and the reverse trip would require a stop in Cape Girardeau for Marion passengers. It further noted that Planemasters declined the Advisory Board’s request for an interview, because Marion had already announ ced its recommendation to retain Cape Air, and Planemasters’ proposal was a packaged bid for both communities. The Board noted Air Choice One’s proposal with all S t. L ouis flights with a $39 fare and the proposal with flights to S t. L ouis and Memphis with a $39 and $69 fare, respectively. It appreciated the carrier’s proposal to offer two destinations, but felt that two daily flights to each destination was not enough frequency
. The Board said Cape Air’s proposal offered two differences from the other carriers

– establishment of a city ticket office and a ramp
- side inter
- terminal shuttle at S t. L ouis . It also noted that Cape Air offered an annual marketing budget to advertise the service. Cape Air offered to continue its $49 fare to/fro m S t. L ouis and noted its discount for a four
- ye ar rate term. The Board and City Council prefer the six daily round trip options, with the two additional daily round trips providing additional frequency , which passengers have been requesting. It states that the extra flights would allow a later flight returning from S t. L ouis , thus enabling easier returns from the East and West coasts. It also recommended the four
- ye ar contract option to allow Cape Air time and opportunity

to invest and provide Cape Gi rardeau “ more consistent service expectations.” Decision We have decided not to select Plan emasters beca use it does not hold the requisite DOT authority to operate scheduled air service
. In addition, Planemasters received no support from either community , and its proposal for Marion and Cape Girardeau was the most expensive p roposal for the two communities. We appreciate Planemasters ’ interest in the EAS Program and encourage the carrier to obtain the proper authority to provide scheduled service from the Department’s Air Carrier Fitness Division if it continues to be interested in the program.We also dec line to select either Gulfstream’s proposal (Marion onl y) or Air Choice One ’ s (all

three) . While Gulfstream’s subsidy request for Marion was co mpetitive with proposals from other carriers, its lack of community support i s critical to our decision not to select it at Marion. Air Choice One also received no community support, and all its proposals required more subsidy than Cape Air’s. Cape Air r eceived unanimous support from all three communities
. All three communities prefer Cape Air’s six daily

round trip options (a total of 42 round trips per week) , an increase of six weekl y round trips each at Marion and Quincy and 18 additional weekl y round trips at Cape Girardeau. While we recognize that all three communities have experienc ed growth in enplanements since Cape Air inaugurated service , the additional flights that Marion and Quincy recommend would all be operated on Saturday and Sunday
. This is contrary to the usual experience, whereb y r educed weekend service in certain markets is common practice, not onl y in the EAS program, but it is widespread in the airline industry at large
. Cape Girard eau has recommended Cape Air ’ s proposal for six daily round trips , seven day s per week, an increase in departures of 75 percent. Cape Girardeau ’ s EAS determination, by Order 94
- 4
- 29, provides for 15
- seat aircraft providing at least two round trips each we ekday and each weekend to St. Louis (nonstop or one stop), providing at least 29 passenger seats inbound and 29 passenger seats outbound. When communities such as Cape Girardeau are entitled to 15
- seat aircraft, but are served with aircraft seating fewer than 15 passengers, we generall y subsidize additional frequenc ies , as we did with its current service
. Currentl y, Cape Girardeau is served with four frequencies each day , except for weekends, when demand is generally lower, with a total seating capacity

o f 32 seats in each direction, meeting the Department ’ s determination of service. EAS is intended to provide a safety
- net level of service and does not necessaril y provide all of the service that a community may desire. Based on its unanimous community support, and demonstration of providing exceptional service at all three communities discussed here , as well as other communities it serves through the EAS program, we will select Cape Air to pro vide service for another term. However, w e are selecting Cap e Air’s option # 1, to serv e the communities at current levels
- 36 nonstop round trips per week each for Marion and Quincy , and 24 nonstop round trips per week for Cape Girardeau. Cape Air’s subsidy request is reasonable for the service proposed. This le vel of service will continue to give all three communities a wide selection of arrival and departures times during the week with convenient options on Saturday s and Sunday s. We also note that Cape Air and the communities are partners in the EAS Program wi th the Department and Cape Air can add additional flights to Marion, Quincy , or Cape Girardeau outside of the EAS
- subsidized flights to meet the demand as warranted. Regarding Cape Air’s two
- and four
- year options, all three communities support the four
- year option and the four
- ye ar option requires slightl y l ess subsidy on an annual basis as well; therefore, we will select it. We shall make th ese selection s at all three communities at issue here contingent upon the Department’s receiving properl y executed certifications from Cape Air that the carrier is incompliance with the Department’s regulations regarding drug
- free workplaces and

nondiscrimination, as well as the regulations concerning lobb ying activities. Carrier Fitness 49 U.S.C. 41737(b) requires that we find an air carrier fit, willing, and able to provide reliable service before we may

subsidize it to provide essential air service
. Cape Air is sub j ect 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. We have contacted the Federal Aviation Administration, and it has raised no concerns that would negatively affect our fitness finding. We therefore conclude that the carrier s remain fit to conduct the operations proposed here. This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f). ACCORDINGLY, 1. We select Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air to provide essential air service at Marion/Herrin , I llinois, Quincy , I llinois /Hannibal , Missouri , and Cape Girardeau/Sikeston , Missouri ; 2 . We set the final rate of compensation for Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air fo r the provision of essential air service at Marion/Herrin, I llinois, and Quincy , Illinois/Hannibal, Missouri , and Cape Girardeau/Sikeston , Missouri as described in Appendix C ; 3 . We direct Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air to retain all books, records, and other source and summary

documentation to support claims for pay ment, and to preserve and maintain such documentation in a manner that readil y permits its audit and examination by representatives of the Department. Such documentation shall be retained for seven ye ars 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; 4 . We find that Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air continue s to be fit, willing and able to operate as a commuter carrier and capable of providing reliable essential air service at Marion/Herrin, Il linoi s, Quincy , I llinois/Hannibal, Missouri and Cape Girardeau/Sikeston , M issouri ; 5
. Th ese docke ts will remain open until further order of the Department; and- 7
-

6
. We will serve copies of this order on the mayors of Marion, Herrin, Quincy , Hannibal, Cape Girardeau , and Sikeston, and the airport managers of Williamson County Regional Airport (Marion), Quincy

Regional Airport, and Cape Girardeau Regional Airport , Hyannis Air Service, In c. d/b/a Cape Air, Gulfstream Inte rnational Airlines, Multi
- Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One , and Planemasters Jet Charter
. By :

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (SEAL) An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.govAppendix A



## AREA MAP

This map is provided by Sabre ® AirVision TM Profit Essentials and is being used with express permission of the copyright holder, Sabre Airline Solutions®.Appendix B

Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air Proposal to serve Marion, Quincy , and Cape Girardeau

CGI
- Cape Girardeau MWA
- Marion UI N
- QuincyAppendix C Page 1 of 3 Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air Essential Air Service to be Provided at Marion/Herrin, Illinois Effective Period : December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2015 Scheduled Service : 36 weekl y nonstop round trips t o St. L ouis Intermediate stops and upline service : None permitted Aircraft : Cessna 402, 8 or 9 passenger seat s Rate per Eligible Flight: $ 579 1 Weekly Ceilin g : $ 41,688 2 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 or der during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be 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 d eviating 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 unilaterall y, either partially or complete ly , 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 w riting by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment. Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department regulations, as they may be amended f

rom time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph. Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011
. The Government’s obligati on for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011 , 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 April 15 , 2011 , until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond April 15 , 2011 , the Department will provide notice in w riting to the carrier. All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided under this order.

1 Annual compensation of $2,104,616 , divided by 3,632 annual departures (52 weeks x 72 flights per week x 97 percent completion)
. 2 72 flights per week multiplied by $ 579 per flight.Appendix C Page 2 of 3 Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air Essential Air Service to be Provided at Quincy, Illinois /Hannibal, Missouri Effective Period : December 1, 2011, through Nov ember 30, 2015 Scheduled Service : 36 weekl y nonstop round trips to St. L ouis Intermediate stops and upline service: None permitted Aircraft : Cessna 402 , 8 or 9 passenger seat s Rate per Eligible Flight: $ 5 39 3 Weekly Ceiling : $ 38,808 4 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, suc h as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be 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; flight s 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 ly , 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 require ment for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in w riting by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment. Subsidy contracts ar e 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. Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011
. The Government’s obligation for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011 , 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 April 15 , 2011 , until funds are made ava ilable to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond April 15 , 2011 , the Department will provide notice in w riting to the carrier. All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of serv ice provided under this order.

3 Annual compensation of $ 1,956,856 divided by 3,632 annual departures ( 52 weeks x 72 flights per week x 97 perce nt completion)
. 4 72 flights per we ek multiplied by $5 39 per flight.Appendix C Page 3 of 3 Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air Essential Air Service to be Provided at Cape Girardeau /Sikeston , Missouri Effective Period : December 1, 2011, through November 30, 2015 Scheduled Service : 2 4 weekl y nonstop round trips to St. L ouis Intermediate stops and upline service: None permitted Aircraft : Cessna 402 , 8 or 9 passenger s eats Rate per Eligible Flight: $ 672 1 Weekly Ceiling : $ 32,256 2 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 comple ted, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond the scope of the order during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written a pproval 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 an d the extent of access to the national air transportation system provided to the community. If the Department unilaterally, either partially or complete ly , terminates or reduces payments for service or changes service requirements at a specific location p rovided 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 w riting by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment. 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 paragr aph. Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011
. The Government’s obligation for performance under this order beyond April 15 , 2011 , 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 April 15 , 2011 , until funds are made ava ilable to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond April 15 , 2011 , the Department will provide notice in w riting to the carrier. All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of serv ice provided under this order.

1 Annual com

pensation of $ 1,627,966 divided by 2, 421 annual departures ( 52 weeks x 48 flights per week x 97 percent competion). 2 48 flights per week multiplied by $ 672 per flight.