John Lampros, Chairman 

Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman 

Commissioner Mike Lemich 

Commissioner Richard Howe 

Commissioner Mike Coster 

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerk of the Board 

January 18, 2013 

Wbite Jjine ([ountp ~oath of (ountp (onnni~~ioner~ 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: DocketDOT-OST-1995-361 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE 

ELIGIBILITY 

Dear Assistant Secretary Kurland: 

. ' 

l,,,o,) 

'·,.) 

"· .. ) 

953 Campton Street 

Ely. Nevada 89301 

(775) 293-6561 or 

(775) 293-6562 

Fax (775) 289-2066 

Please consider this letter as formal objection of White Pine County to the Order to Show Cause 

Proposing Termination of Essential Air Service Eligibility to Ely, Nevada. This objection is within 

your requested deadline of January 23,20013. 

It is the County's belief that Ely is at the very heart of what the Essential Air Service was designed to 

serve, to help rural communities far from a medium or large hub. It would appear there is 

inconsistent equity, as there are 8 EAS airports in the US that are less than 75 miles from a hub 

airport and 16 that are less than 75 miles from a non-hub that has jet service. Three participating 

airports are less than 40 miles from jet service; Hibbing, MN (near Duluth), Kingman, AZ (near 

Bullhead City) and Staunton, VA (near Charlottesville). Ely shows 237 driving miles to the nearest 

jet hub and 237 miles to the nearest non-hub. Ely also has no other transit service (i.e. bus service). 

We acknowledge the cost calculations presented in the proposed order for termination, but believe 

that it is not a valid computation since not all the legal requirements of the Basic Air Service 

program have been met under the existing award. The minimal statutory obligations of the carrier 

under 49 USC 41732(b)(1)(A), two flights per day or 49 USC41732(b)(2), reasonable flight times 

considering connecting flights at the hub terminal Las Vegas McCarran, has not been imposed. 

During the summer schedule the lack of two flights eliminates the same day travel market that once 

thrived at the airport. The 4:40 p.m. flight out of Ely is a difficult time for passengers traveling 

onward with connecting flight opportunities. Enclosed is a letter dated June 29, 2010 verifYing the 

County Commission's request for two flights per day. Also enclosed, is the "ORDER SELECTING 

CARRIER AND SETTING FINAL SUBSIDY RATES", where on pages 2 and3 give further verification. 

It is the County's position that the failure of statutory obligation has hindered our ridership, thus 

driving up cost. 
It is the County's view under 49 USC 41733(c)(1)(A), that Great Lakes Airlines has placed Ely at the 

bottom of the maintenance cancellation schedule. Our planes are taken for other city flights (ones 

with more passenger counts) resulting in excessive cancellations. Sometimes cancellations run for 

two consecutive days, stranding passengers in Ely or McCarran airport. As a result, the unreliability 

of service is the most frequently cited reason by discouraged passengers, thus further diminishing 

ridership. We do not have the data, but understand thru your office, you would have the 

compilations of monthly reports of non-service days pertaining to the excessive cancellations. 

We are diligently working to expand our passenger numbers. Our mines are expanding. Midway 

Gold is planning on constructing new residences for their employees, which would add to increased 

enplanement. Robinson Mine is also expanding and is the County's largest employer with 

approximately 500 employees. Our Tourism Board is working to put together travel packages to 

increase visitors. Our visiting physicians depend on our air service, as do the large number of 

federal employees, which is the second largest employer. 

If the DOT has other options other than termination, we would appreciate any considerations. It is 

the County's wishes to continue in the EAS program and we appreciate the opportunity to be able to 

show just cause. 

Sincerely, 

/ ~ J /) y(l.c«..<-<.__ :11 ' L-t:Z~ 

Laurie L. Carson 

White Pine County Commission, Vice Chairman 

Airport Advisory Board, Member 
John Lampros, Chairman 

Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman 

Commissioner Mike Lemich 

Commissioner Richard Howe 

Commissioner Mike Coster 

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerk of the Board Wbite ltine <!tountp ~oarb of Q.Countp Q.Commi£fsioners 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Docket Operations, M-30 

December 26, 2012 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket DOT-OST-1995-361 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE 

ELIGIBILITY 

Dear Assistant Secretary Kurland: 

953 Campton Street 

Ely. Nevada 89301 

(775) 293-6561 or 

(775) 293-6562 

Fax (775) 289-2066 

On behalf of the White Pine County Commission, we are writing to request that the Department of 

Transportation continue the Essential Air Service (EAS) program for our rural airport here in White 

Pine County, Nevada. 

The White Pine County /Yelland Field Airport is the most remote airport in the United States 

because of our location. We are in a very unique area with the closest major hub being 250 miles 

away in any direction the closest Interstate to White Pine County is 125 miles away. Therefore, we 

do not have the accessibility of any other form of transportation such as bus or train service. 

Without having any form of Public Transportation, the residents of White Pine County along with 

any stranded individuals have no other way to reach their destinations, short of hitchhiking, 

without the Essential Air Service. 

We understand that funding for all agencies have become critical and priorities have to shift. 

However, according to the information provided to us by you, the ridership numbers have steadily 

increased while the subsidy per passenger amounts has decreased. This is very confusing to our 

constituents as to why you would terminate our EAS program while there are, other rural airports 

that are much closer to major hubs which will get to retain their EAS programs. 

We would appreciate your consideration regarding this decision and again request that the EAS 

program not be terminated. 

Respectfully, 

(fJJPt q; LiJ~VpA6!:: /~ JohnS. Lampros ~- v 

Chairman 
John Lampros, Chairman 

Laurie Carson, Vice Chairman 

Commissioner Mike Lemich 

Commissioner Richard Howe 

Commissioner Mike Coster 

Linda Burleigh. Ex-officio Clerk of the Board Wbite lline <!Countp ~oarh of {onntp Qtommissioners 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket DOT-OST-1995-361 

953 Campton Street 

Ely. Nevada 89301 

(775) 293-6561 or 

{775) 293-6562 

Fax (775) 289-2066 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY 

To Assistant Secretary Kurland: 

To terminate air service to the Ely area would not only be detrimental but would jeopardize our entire 

airport and service presently provided. 

Our service area includes East Central Nevada, East South Central Nevada, and Western Utah, an area 

larger than many states. 

We would be isolated 240 miles to the nearest air service, and considering the above mentioned areas, 

the mileage increases dramatically. 

We are a small community servicing a very large area. 

The services offered at our airport compliment one another. To lose any would have a devastating effect 

on all others. 

Air-med is a very important for medical service for locals and a high number of the traveling public. 

With a number of wild fires in this area and Nevada, our airport has been a real asset for fire 

suppression, smoke jumpers, and other associated purposes. To lose air service would be a real loss and 

would have a devastating effect on all other services associated with our airport. Considering these 

issues, I'm sure you could substantiate continued air service to our area. Your consideration would be 

greatly appreciated. 

Thank you, 

Mike Lemich 

White Pine County Commissioner 
Laurie L. Carson, Commissioner 

Robin Bell, Commissioner 

Richard Gamey, Commissioner 

RaLeene Makley, Commisssioner 

Gary Perea, Commissioner 

JoAnn Malone, Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board ;mll4rh~ Jlin.e Qlount-g 

lJioarb of Qloutrl-g Qlommizzion.erz 

Essential Air Service Division X-5J 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

June 29,2010 

Department of Transportation. Room 640 I 

400 Seventh Street 

Washington, DC 20500 

Attention: Dennis DeVany and Brian Swanson 

RE: Docket DOT-OST 19995-361 

Dear Mr. Delany and Mr. Swanson: 

953 Campton Street 

Ely, Nevada 89301 

(775) 289-8848 or 

(775) 289-3065 

Fax (775) 289-8860 

-·' 

At our Commission meeting Wednesday, June 23, the White Pine County Commission 

voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of our Airport Advisory Board to 

support the proposal submitted by Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. to provide air service to 

White Pine County under the l:::sscntia! 1\ir Service program. 

The community has been pleased with the service provided by Great Lakes Aviation and 

the Commission believes that the higher price of the subsidy is well worth the added 

safety. comfort and potential ror growlh in air services represented by the I 9 passenger 

pressurized Beachcraft 19000 planes and the 11ights to Denver. 

The County Commission appreciates the interest shown by McCall Aviation, Inc. 

However. we share our Advisory Board's concerns regarding the limits of the aircraft 

proposed. Because of our altitude. the unpressurized Piper Chieftain cannot provide a 

safe and comfortable passenger t1ight. While the Bccchcraft B?.OO King Air is 

pressurized, the six passenger plane limits our ability to expand use of air service in our 

area and is more susceptible to cancellations due to winter weather conditions in northern 

Nevada and Utah. In the past. we've found that service to Salt Lake City on the smaller 

planes bas not been successful in attracting air service passengers. 
RaLeene Makley 

June 29. 2010 

Page 2 

In supporting the proposal for one flight per day to Denver by Great Lakes Aviation, the J 

County Commission requests your consideration of a return to a schedule of two flights 

per day. Flight schedules were reduced when the County could not provide adequate 

security. We have modified our airport termination and now have TSA services in place. 

Historically. air service has been hcltcr utili/.cd when passengers have the option oftwo 

f1ights. Data on enplanernents shows that when we have had two t1ights per day, we have 

substantially more usc of the air service and more repeat passengers. White Pine County 

has no other public transportation and no car rental services. If the single flight per day is 

cancelled, visitors to the area have no other means to travel. With two flights per day, 

passengers gain confidence that they will have options to travel to and from Ely on 

schedule. The Denver flight provides a direct link for a substantial percentage of our 

traveling public with federal land management agencies and the mining industry. 

l--Iowe\·er. our community hopes eventually to regain a night connection within the state 

of Nevada to provide an alternative to the 5 to 6 hour drive each way to participate in 

state mccti ngs :cmd work wi !hi n 1 he state· s business comn1uni 1~. 

White Pine County appreciates your continued support Cor the needs of very rural 

communities such ss ours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the 

tvvo proposals submitted under Docket DOT-OST 1995-361. and we hope our insights 

into the needs of the travelers in our area are helpful. If you have any questions regarding 

the County's comments. please don't hesitate to contact rnc or Karen Rajala at 775-289-

3065 or the Chairman of our Airport Advisory Board. James Adams at 775-289-8804. 

Thank you. 

cc: Laura M. Scott. President 

McCall Aviation. Inc. 

Michael 0. Mallhews. CFO 

Great Lakes A viution. Ltd. 

RuLeenc Makley. 

Vice Chairman 
Essential Air Service at 

ELY, NEVADA 

Order 2012-12-8 

Served: December 14,2012 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the 141

h day ofDecember, 2012 

Docket DOT ~OST -1995-361 

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROPOSING TERMINATION OF 

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE ELIGIBILITY 

Summary 

By this Order, the Department is directing interested persons to show cause as to why the 

Department should not terminate the eligibility of Ely, Nevada, under the Essential Air 

Service (EAS) program and allow Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes), to suspend 

service at the community. Objections to the Department's tentative decision are due 

within 20 days of the service date of this Order. An area map is attached as Appendix A. 

Background 

By Order 2010-9-13, September 14, 2010, we re-selected Great Lakes to provide 

subsidized EAS at Ely utilizing 19-seat Beech 1900D turboprop aircraft, for the two-year 

period through September 30, 2012, at an annual subsidy of $1,752,067. Subsidized 

service was to consist of either 6 nonstop round trips a week to Las Vegas or 6 nonstop or 

one-stop round trips a week to Denver. 

By Order 2012-11-18, issued on November 16, 2012, the Department extended the 

subsidy rate for Great Lakes, established by Order 2010-9-13, for the period 

October 1, 2012, until further Departmental action while we examine Ely's long-term 

eligibility in the EAS program. 

The complete public file for EAS at Ely may be accessed online through the Federal 

Dockets Management System (FDMS) at: http://\VW\V.regulations.gov by entering 
- 2-

"DOT-OST-1995-361" in the "SEARCH for: Rules, Comments, Adjudications or 

Supporting Documents:" field. 

Recent Developments 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Public Law 112-95), signed into law on February 14, 2012, amended the definition of 

"eligible place" for the purpose of receiving EAS.I The amendment, among other things, 

states that to be eligible, a community must have had an average subsidy per passenger of 

less than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of 

Transportation. 

Passenger Traffic and Subsidy History 

Great Lakes has served the community since March 2008. Historical traffic and annual 

subsidy rates are detailed in Appendix B. For the most recent fiscal year (FY 2012), 

Great Lakes transported 1,070 total passengers at an annual subsidy rate of $1,752,067. 

Thus, the corresponding average per passenger subsidy for FY 2012 was $1,637.45. 

Decision 

After careful consideration of this matter, the Department has tentatively decided to 

terminate the subsidy eligibility of Ely under the EAS program and allow Great Lakes to 

end service at the community because the community is no longer eligible to receive 

EAS. 

We will give interested persons 20 days after the service date of this Order to submit 

objections. Objections should be fully documented and contain complete information on 

the data used by the persons objecting. If we later finalize the tentative findings in a 

subsequent Order, the Department would make the Order effective 30-45 days thereafter 

to allow for an orderly shutdown. In that event, if Great Lakes decides to suspend service 

upon the effective date of that Order, we will expect it to contact all passengers who hold 

reservations for flights that will be suspended to inform them of the suspension, and 

assist them in arranging alternative transportation or to provide a refund of the ticket 

price, without penalty, if requested. 

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

ACCORDINGLY, 

1. The Department tentatively finds that Ely, Nevada, is no longer an eligible EAS 

community; 

2. The Department directs all interested persons to show cause within 20 days of the date 

of service of this Order why we should not make final the tentative findings and 

conclusions set forth above. Objections should be filled with Docket Operations, M-30, 

l See 49 U.S.C. § 41731 
- 3-

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, 

Washington, DC 20590.2 

3. The Department directs Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 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 from the service date of this Order 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 will afford full consideration to the matters and issues raised in any timely and 

properly filed objections before we take further action. 3 

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

6. Docket Operations will serve copies of this Order on the parties listed in Appendix D. 

By: 

SUSAN L. KURLAND 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation 

and International Affairs 

(SEAL) 

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: 

http://wl1!}V.regulations.gov/ 

2 In addition, copies of comments may be e-mailed to dennis.devanv(c[),dot.gov, scott.faulk@dot.gov, 

eas@dot.gov, or faxed to the Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, at (202) 366-7638. Regardless of 

wh~ther copies are faxed to the EAS & Domestic Analysis Division, all objections should be filed with 

Docket Operations, M-30, at the above address. 

3 Since the Department is providing for the filing of objections to this Order, we will not entertain petitions 

for reconsideration. 
AREA MAP 

J

··---- ·, -- -...... , __ -.._.-

-----

• Merced ... ,j 

I 

• Visalia 

Appendix A 

• Ely 

• 

Las Vegas 

\ 

t, 

) 

/ 
Year 

Ended 

9/30/2010 

9/30/2011 

9/30/2012 

Appendix B 

Passenger Traffic and Annual Essential Air Service Subsidy at 

Ely, Nevada 

Enplaned Deplaned Enplaned+ Annual Subsidy 

Passengers Passengers Deplaned Federal Per 

Passengers Subsidy Passenger 

204 222 426 $1,864,717 $4,377.27 

433 418 851 $1,752,067 $2,058.83 

540 530 1,070 $1,752,067 $1,637.45 

Source: BTS T-100 Market 
AppendixC 

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 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 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 completely, 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. 

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. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond March 31, 2013. The 

Department's obligation for performance under this order beyond March 31, 2013, 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 March 31, 2013, until funds are made available to the Department for 

performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond March 31, 2013, the 

Department will provide notice in writing to the carrier. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided 

under this order. 
Great Lakes, Chuck Howell 

Great Lakes, Michael Matthews 

Ely Airport, Patrice Lytle 

SERVICE LIST 

Appendix D 
Order 20 I 0-9-13 

Served: September 14.2010 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the 9th day of September, 20 I 0 

Essential Air Service at 

MERCED, CALIFORN lA 

VISALIA, CALIFORNIA 

ELY, NEVADA 

Docket DOT -OST -1998-3521 

Docket DOT-OST-2004-19916 

Docket DOT -OST -1995-361 

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

ORDER SELECTING CARRIER AND SETTING FINAL SUBSIDY RATES 

Summary 

By this order. we are reselecting Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes). to provide 

subsidized essential air service (E:\S) with 19-passenger Beech craft B-19000 aircraft at 

Merced and Visalia, California. and Ely, Nevada, for the tvvo-year period from 

October 1. 20 I 0. through September 31. 2012. The annual subsidy rates will be set at 

$1,96 L174. $ L746. 507. and $1,752.067 for Merced. Visalia and Ely. respectively, for a 

combined total of $5.459.748. See Appendix A for a map. 

Background 

By Order 2008-6-26. June 23. 2008. the Department selected Great Lakes to provide 

subsidized EAS at Merced and Visalia. California. and Ely, Nevada. for the two-year period 

beginning October I. 2008. at a combined annual subsidy of $4.900.40 I with 19-seat Beech 

19000 turboprop aircraft. 

In anticipation of the end of the rate term on September 30, the Department issued 

Order 2010-5-4 on May 4, 2010. soliciting proposals to provide efficient EAS. with subsidy 

suppon if necessary. at Merced. Visalia and Ely. The Request for Proposals also noted that 

passenger levels at both fv1erced and Visalia are very IO\\. 

Proposals 

The Department received proposals from two carriers in response to its solicitation. Great 

Lakes submitted a proposal that is similar to the service it currently provides. McCall 
- 2-

Aviation Inc.'s (McCall) proposal contained three different service options for service at Ely 

on~v. These proposals are summarized below. Each carrier's proposal and comment letters 

may be accessed online through the Federal Docket rvlanagement System at: 

http://www.regulations.gov, by doing a search on the docket numbers listed on the first page. 

Great Lakes 

Great Lakes· proposal for each community. as summarized in the table below, could be 

selected on a stand-alone basis (i.e., it is not a three-city all or nothing proposal). The carrier 

would utilize I 9-passenger Beech 19000 aircraft and its code-share agreements where 

applicable. 

Hub(s) Served/ Daily Annual 

Community Round Subsidy Service Pattern Trips Requirement 

Nonstop to Las Vegas or one-stop to Denver; 

Merced No up] ine restrictions on one round trip: 2 $L96U74 Upline service routing would be one-stop to Ontario. (14 weekly) 

Los Angeles or Orange County 

Nonstop to Ontario. Los Angeles or Orange County; 

Visalia No upline restrictions on one round trip; 2 $1.746,507 Upline service routing would be one-stop to Denver (14 weekly) 

or Las Vegas 

No upline restrictions; 

Ely Service routing would be nonstop to Las Vegas or I& 7'\ w~ekw $1.752,067 

one-stop to Denver 

Total (all three communities) $5.459.748 

McCall 

As summarized below, McCall submitted a proposal with three different options, all for 

nonstop service between Ely and Salt Lake City, utilizing 8-seat aircraft. 

Service j Weekly Annual 

Op~on I Round Aircraft Type Subsidy 

trips Required 

I I 7 Piper PA3l-350 $1,081,360 Navajo Chieftain 

2 J 7 Beech-200 I $1,756,822 

" I 12 Piper PA31-350 .) $1.602.627 Navajo Chieftain 

Community Comments 

On June 4. 2010. the Department sent correspondence to the civic officials ofthe three 

communities summarizing several important statutory 1 imitations imposed on the EAS 

Program, 1 how they would affect the carrier-selection process at the three communities, 2 and 

requesting comments on the carrier-selection decision. 

1 First. the three communities are guaranteed to receive air service with twin-engine. two-pilot aircraft. Second, 

the communities are guaranteed service with at least 15-passenger aircraft by virtue of the fact that they 
- " .) -

In response, the Department received community comments from: Merced Regional Airport 

Authority, the Mayor of Visalia, and White Pine County Board of County Commissioners 

(representing Ely). All of the commenting pat1ies endorsed Great Lakes. Merced's official 

also made note of five areas- aircraft reliability. desire for larger aircraft, preference for 

continued service to Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport. more community 

involvement, and financial contributions in marketing the service- that either need 

improvement or focused consideration from Great Lakes. The 1\layor of Visalia made note 

of his community's preference for service to Los Angeles International Airport. Ely's 

official affirmed the community's preference for the aircraft utilized by Great Lakes (when 

contrasted to McCall's). and requests that the Department consider returning to a two round 

trip a day service pattern. The Vice Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners argues 

that additional service would result in substantially more enplanements. 

Decision on Carrier Selection 

After careful consideration. including the comments of local otTicials. the Department has 

decided to reselect Great Lakes to provide EAS at the three communities, in accordance with 

its proposal summarized above, for the two-year period from October I, 2010, through 

September 30. 2012. The annual subsidy rate for Merced will be set at $1,961, I 74, 

$1,746,507 at Visalia, and$ 1.752,067 for Ely. or a combined total of$5,459,748, up from 

the current rate of $4.900,40 I. 

At Merced and Visalia. the carrier-selection decision is straightforward. Great Lakes was the 

only carrier to submit a proposal and the communities support the carrier. Great Lakes is a 

well-established carrier and we find both the service and subsidy levels to be reasonable. 

At Ely, Great Lakes' proposal meets all of the statutory carrier-selection criteria. The carrier 

has a long history of providing reliable EAS. Its code-share agreements at Denver with 

United Airlines and Frontier Airlines will provide the community online connections to more 

than 150 domestic and international destinations. The community supports there-selection 

of Great Lakes. Moreover. vve find both the service and subsidy levels to be reasonable. 

In contrast, McCall's service options at Ely did not receive any support from the community. 

McCall also indicated that it has not finalized agreements with any code-share partners at 

Salt Lake City. nor does it have even the basic interline baggage agreements in place. Thus, 

the selection of Great Lakes at Ely is clear. 

The Department ful !y expects that passenger traffic \\iII continue to grow at the three 

communities. and expects the communities and Great Lakes to continue to work together to 

towards reducing the subsidy per passenger to ensure the sustainability of the continuation of 

the existing service levels. In this regard, we note that Great Lakes recently switched the hub 

for Merced's service from Ontario to Las Vegas, advanced bookings increased significantly 

generated more than I I enplanements per day in any calendar year from 1976-1986. Third, the Department is 

prohibited from p<Oying subsidy for EAS ilt any community where the per-passenger rate exceeds $200, unless 

the community is greater than 210 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub. 

2 In this case. Merced and Visalia are clearly less than 210 highway miles from a large or medium hub and, 

therefore. are subject to the $200 subsidy-per-passenger ceiling. In contrast, Ely is not within 210 highway 

miles of a large or medium hub. and. therefore. is exempt from this limit. 
- 4-

and actual enplanements more than doubled. We would expect similar results at Visalia if 

service was provided to a major connecting hub airport. 

Although we are selecting Great Lakes to serve Merced and Visalia for a tvvo-year period, we 

remain concerned that both communities are currently over the $200 cap. We are confident 

that with a s>vitch of service at Visa! ia to a major connecting hub airport, Great Lakes will 

increase passenger levels substantially. However, if we find that the subsidy level still 

exceeds the statutory $200 per passenger cap, we will take appropriate action. We encourage 

the communities and Great Lakes to work together to maximize use of the service awarded 

under this Order to avoid exceeding the $200 per passenger cap, which could result in the 

termination of eligibility for subsidy under the E,\S program. 

'vVe appreciate McCall's interest in participating in the EAS program and encourage the 

carrier to continue its efforts towards finalizing its full interline arrangements and look 

fonvard to receiving proposals hom the carrier in the near future. 

The Department shall make this selection at the three communities contingent upon the 

Department's receiving properly executed certifications tl·om Great Lakes that it is in 

compliance with the Department's regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and 

nondiscrimination, as \veil as the regulations governing lobbying 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. Great Lakes 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. We have 

contacted the Federal Aviation Administration. and it has raised no concerns that would 

negatively atTect our fitness finding. We therefore conclude that the carrier remains fit to 

conduct the operations proposed here. 

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR l.56a (f). 

ACCORDINGLY, 

l. We reselect Great Lakes Aviation. Ltd .. to provide essential air service at Merced and 

Visalia. California. and Ely. Nevada, and establish the subsidy rates. as described in 

Appendix C. for the period from October I. 20 l 0, through September 30, 20 12; 

2. The Department directs Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., 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 

representati\"es 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 -

3. We find that Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., continues to be fit willing and able to operate as 

a commuter air carrier and capable of providing reliable essential air service at Merced and 

Visalia. California. and Ely, Nevada; 

4. These Dockets will remain open until further order of the Department; and 

5. Docket Operations will serve copies ofthis order on the parties listed in Appendix D. 

8 , .. .} . 

SUSAN L. KURLAND 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation 

and International Affairs 

(SEAL) 

An electronic 1·ersion (~/this document is available on the World Wide J!Veb at: 

htre: '~ ''>Fll'. regul or it iiiS. gor' 
AREA MAP 

r

-----

-------. 

I 

\ I 

\ I ~. 

San Francisco Oakland "'~, ''\,,, 

• Fresno 

• Visalia 

~ 

· .. 

···vb:> ~ Los Angeles 

""' "t:, 

Mile~es 

Visalia - Los Angeles 173 

Visalia - San Francisco 188 

Visalia - Las Vegas 237 

Visalia - Fresno 35 

\ 

Appendix A 

• 

Lgts Vegas 

'"·. 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Provision of Essential Air Service at Merced, California 

Calculation of Compensation Requirement 

Two Round Tnps - B 1900 

98.b~'~ completion factor 

Departures: 

Block Hours: 

Revenuf! Passenger Miles· 

Av<lii<Jble Seat Miles· 

Operilling Revenues: 

Passenger: /v1CE 1·4.000 psgrs at 

Other· (al 0.62% of passenger revenue) 

Total Operatmg Revenues: 

Operating Expenses· 

Direct: Aircraft .. md Hull Insurance 

Fuel and Oil 

F:ying Operations 

Maintenance 

Total Direc: Expenses: 

Tolallnd1rect Expenses: 

Total Operatmg Fxpenf.es: 

Operating Loss 

Prof.! Elemen: (5.0% of Total Opera\ing Expenses) 

Annual Compensation Requirement: 

S110.41 $1,545,740 

$9,584 

$338. f10 

$1,088,614 

$353,345 

$476.805 

Appendix B 

Page 1 of 3 

1.434 

2.151 

4,312.000 

8,391,768 

$1,555.324 

$2.257,473 

$1,091.572 

$3,349.045 

{S1 /93.1:?, l 

$167.452 

$1,961,174 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Provision of Essential Air Service at Visalia, California 

Calculation of Compensation Requirement 

hvo Round 7rips- 81900 

98.5% CQmp!c!ion factor 

Departure:;: 

Block Hours: 

Revenue Passenger Miles: 

Available Seat M1les. 

Operating Revenues: 

Passenger: VIS 10,500 psgrs at 

Other: (at 0.62% of passenger revenua) 

Total Operating RevemH::s: 

Operating Expenses: 

D1rect: A1rcraft and Hu:l Insurance 

Fuel and 011 

Flying Operations 

Maintenance 

Total 01recl Expenses. 

Totallnd1rect Expenses: 

Total Operating Expenses: 

Op~'rating Loss 

Profit Element (5.0% of Total Operating Expens~.;S) 

Annual Compensation Requirement: 

$97.55 $1,024,275 

$6.351 

,· $338.710 

$756,299 

$220,779 

$372,121 

Appendix B 

Page 2 of 3 

1.434 

1,344 

1.953.000 

5,067.756 

$' ,030,626 

$1,687,908 

$956,980 

$2,644,888 

($1,614,263) 

$132,244 

$1,746,507 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Provision of Essential Air Service at Visalia, California 

Calculation of Compensation Requirement 

Departures: 

O:ock Hours: 

Opernting Revenues: 

Passonger: ELY 

One Round Trip- 81900 

98 so·, completion factor 

1,000 psgrs at $144.22 

Other: (at 0.62'% of passenger revenue) 

Total Operating Revenues: 

Operating Expen.::;es: 

Direct: Aircraft and Hull Insurance 

Fuel and Oil 

flying Operations 

fvlaintonance 

Total Direct Expenses: 

Total lndirec! F.xpenses: 

Total Operating Expenses: 

Operating Loss 

Profit Element (S.or;c, of Total Operating Expenses) 

Annual Compensation Requirement 

$144.220 

$894 

S338,710 

S529.787 

$102.504 

$167,007 

Appendix B 

Page 3 of 3 

614 

624 

$145,114 

$1,138,008 

$668,831 

$1,806,839 

($1.661,7:'5) 

$90,342 

S1 .752,067 
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Appendix C 

Page 1 of 2 

Provision of Essential Air Service at Merced and Visalia, California and Ely, Nevada 

Summary of Service To Be Provided 

Effective Period: October I, 2010 through September 30,2012. 

Scheduled Service: Merced: Fourteen nonstop round trips each week to Las VegasMcCarran International Airport or one-stop round trips each week 

to Den\'er. 

Visalia: Fourteen nonstop round trips each week to Ontario, Los 

. \ngeles, or Orange County. 

Elv: Six weekly nonstop round trips each week to Las Vegas or 

one-stop round trips each week to Denver. 

Intermediate stogs and ugline Merced: points upline from Merced (via Ontario. Los Angeles oi· 

service: Orange County) may be served on one daily subsidized round trip. 

Visalia: points upline thm1 Visalia (via Denver or Las Vegas) 

may be served on one daily subsidized round trip. 

Elv: No upline restrictions. 

No service to any intermediate point is contemplated under the 

terms of the cnrrier's proposal: accordingly. no such service may 

be provided on subsidized 1lights without prior Department 

approval. 

Aircraft tyQe: Beechcraft B-19000 (I 9 passenger seats). 

Timing oftlights: Flights must be well-timed and well-spaced in order to ensure full 

compensation. 

Annual comgensation: Merced: ·$1. 961.17 4 

Visalia: $ !.746.507 

Elv: $1.752.067 

This rate assumes an annual completion factor of98.5 percent. A 

compensation ceiling is to be applied per calendar week such that 

service above that ceiling in one week cannot make up for service 

shortfalls in another week. 

Subsidv Rate ger Flight: Merced: $L367.62 1 

Visalia: $1.217.932 

Ely: $2,853.533 

Weeklv Com12ensation Merced: $38.293.364 

Ceiling: Visalia: $34.102.045 

Ely: 34.242.366 

I $1.961.174 divided by 1.434 annual departures: 4 flights x 7 days x 52 weeks x .985 (completion factor}= 1.434. 

~ S 1.746.507 divided by I ,434 annual departures: 4 flights x 7 days x 52 \\eeks x .985 (completion factor)= 1.434. 

3 S I. 752.06 7 divided b: 614 annual depanures: 2 fli!:'hts x 6 days x 52 weeks x . 985 (completion factor)= 614 

·

1 28 flights per week multiplied by S 1.367.62 per !light. 

5 28 flights per week multiplied by $1.2170.93 per flight. 

6 12 !lights per week multiplied by $2.853.53 per flight. 
NOTE: 

Appendix C 

Page 2 of 2 

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 tlight 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 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: tlights that overfly points for lack oftraffic will not be compensated. In 

determining \Vhether 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 pmvided to the community. 

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or completely. 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. 

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 contmvert the foregoing paragraph. 

Funds are not currently available for performance under this order beyond September 30,2010. 

The Department's obligation for performance under this order beyond September 30. 20 I 0. 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 September 30.2010, until funds are made available to the Department 

for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond September 30, 20 I 0, 

the Department vvill provide notice in writing to the carrier. 

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided 

under this order. 
The Honorable Bob Link 

Mayor of Visalia 

425 East Oak Avenue, Suite 301 

Visalia, California 93291 

Ms. RaLeene Makley 

Vice Chairman 

SERVICE LIST 

White Pine Count:; Board of Commissioners 

9~3 Campton Street 

Ely, Nevada 89301 

Ms . .Janet Young 

Chair 

Merced Regional Airport Authority 

20 Macready Drive 

Merced. California 

Appendix D