United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, U.S. House of 

Representatives

COMMERCIAL AVIATION

Programs and Options for 

Providing Air Service to 

Small Communities 

Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

 

GAO-07-793T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 25, 2007

COMMERCIAL AVIATION 

Programs and Options for Providing Air 

Highlights of GAO-07-793T, a testimony to Service to Small Communities 

the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. 

House of Representatives

Congress established two key 

programs to help support air 

service to small communities —the

Essential Air Service (EAS) 

providing about $100 million in 

subsidies per year and the Small 

Community Air Service 

Development Program (SCASDP)

that provides about $20 million per 

year in grants. As part of its 

reauthorization of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), the

Congress is examining the status 

and outcomes of these programs. 

This testimony discusses (1) the

history and challenges of the EAS 

program, (2) the implementation

and outcomes of the SCASDP and 

(3) options for reforming EAS and 

SCASDP. The testimony is based

on previous GAO reports,

interviews with Department of

Transportation officials and 

industry representatives as well as 

program updates.

EAS subsidies support air service to many small communities that would 

likely not have service if EAS subsidies are discontinued. Since 1997, 

funding for EAS has increased from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4 million in 

2007 and the number of communities has generally increased. The federal 

government is spending a median of about $98 per passenger, with subsidies 

ranging from about $13 to $677 per passenger. Concerns exist about the 

costs of the program, particularly given the federal government’s long-term 

structural fiscal imbalance. In addition, according to industry 

representatives, the number of air carriers flying aircraft suitable for EAS 

communities may decrease, raising concerns about the availability of 

appropriate aircraft to provide small community air service in the future. 

SCASDP grantees have used their grants to pursue a variety of goals and 

have used a variety of strategies, including marketing and revenue 

guarantees, to improve air service. Our analysis of the 23 grants completed 

by October 1, 2005, found that air service was sustained after the grant 

expired in a little less than half of the projects. Finally, although the 

program has seen some success, the number of applications for SCASDP 

grants has declined—from 179 in 2002 to 75 in 2006.

As we have reported, options for reforming EAS, such as consolidating 

service into regional airports might make the program more efficient, but 

also could reduce service to some communities. Further, Congress may be

able to use some “lessons learned” from marketing and other successful 

SCASDP strategies that may help it make the current programs more 

effective. 

Example of a 19-seat Turbo Prop Aircraft Serving Small Communities 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-793T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Dr. Gerald 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or 

dillinghamg@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on issues related to the 

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service 

Development (SCASDP) programs. These are the principal federal 

programs that have been established to provide air service to small and 

underserved communities. Congressional deliberations on the 

reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are an 

opportune time to examine the status of federal air service to small and 

rural communities. As you know, small community air service helps 

connect small communities to other parts of the country and the world. 

However, such service has struggled over the past decade. The aviation 

industry has experienced financial losses in the last few years, though 

some airlines improved their financial conditions in 2006. However, the 

improvement in profitability of some airlines has not benefited small 

communities that face decreases in the number of available seats and 

scheduled flights. According to a key industry association, flights to small 

communities are the first flights to be eliminated due to their limited 

profitability. Specifically, in July 2006 scheduled flights for small 

communities were 26 percent below the number of scheduled flights in 

July 2000. This has challenged small communities to obtain adequate

commercial air service at reasonable prices. 

Although both EAS and SCASDP are designed to help support air service 

to small communities, the programs have several differences.

1

 EAS, 

established as part of airline deregulation in 1978, is designed to ensure 

that small communities that received scheduled passenger air service 

before deregulation continue to have access to the nation’s air 

transportation system. In fiscal year 2007, Congress appropriated about

$109.4 million for the Department of Transportation (DOT) for EAS. These 

funds are essentially used to provide subsidies to air carriers who provide 

service to small communities. For fiscal year 2008, the administration, as

part of its reauthorization proposal, requested $50 million for the program. 

Congress established SCASDP in 2000 and has appropriated $20 million 

annually from 2002 through 2005 and $10 million for 2006 and 2007 for 

DOT to award up to 40 grants each year to communities that have 

 1

Small community airports also receive other financial support from the federal 

government. For example, under the Airport Improvement Program small airports receive 

certain funds for addressing capital improvement needs—such as for runway or taxiway 

improvements. 

Page 1 GAO-07-793T 
demonstrated air-service deficiencies or higher-than-average fares.2

 For 

fiscal year 2008, the administration did not request funds for SCASDP. 

While federal programs to support air service to small communities face 

increasing financial expenditures, the federal government’s financial 

condition and long-term fiscal outlook have deteriorated. We have 

reported on the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalances and the need for a 

fundamental and periodic reexamination of the base of government, 

ultimately covering discretionary and mandatory programs as well as the 

revenue side of the budget.3

 Furthermore, in January 2007, we identified 

the challenges federal aviation programs are facing meeting growing 

infrastructure demands and constrained resources as part of one of GAO’s 

high risk areas—namely, financing the nation’s transportation system. 

These federal fiscal constraints lead to difficult policy choices for the best 

use of scarce resources. 

In light of these challenges, part of my testimony today will discuss 

options for reforming small community air service. But first, I will address 

(1) the history and challenges of the EAS program and (2) the 

implementation and outcomes of SCASDP. Then I will highlight (3) 

options for reforming EAS and SCASDP. My statement is based in part on 

the reports that we have issued related to these programs, in addition to 

recent interviews with and data from key stakeholders. We obtained 

information on the status of projects from the Office of the Secretary of 

the Department of Transportation (OST) and obtained information on the 

current issues in providing service to small communities from DOT and 

industry representatives. Based on assessments conducted during 

previous reviews, we concluded that the data are reliable for the purposes 

of this testimony. Appendix IV contains a list of our related testimonies 

and reports. We conducted our work on EAS from March through 

December 2002 and our work on SCASDP from September 2004 through

 2

In fiscal year 2005, DOT transferred $5 million of these funds from SCASDP to EAS. The 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and

Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, recognized that the funds appropriated for the

EAS may not be sufficient to meet the service needs of communities encompassed by that

program. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act provided that the Secretary of

Transportation could transfer “such sums as may be necessary to carry out the essential air 

service program from any available amounts appropriated to or directly administered by 

the Office of the Secretary.” 

3

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of Federal Government. 

GAO-05-325SP (Washington, DC: February 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-07-793T 
October 2005 and updated information in April 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary: 

• EAS provides service to many communities that would otherwise not 

receive air service. Without these subsidies, air service for many EAS 

communities would likely end, since EAS air carriers have to prove that 

they cannot serve EAS communities at a profit to be eligible for EAS 

payments. However, costs and other concerns about the program exist. In 

recent years, a growing number of communities have received subsidies 

under EAS—expanding from 95 communities in fiscal year 1997 to 145 in

fiscal year 2007. Similarly, funding for EAS has risen over this 10-year 

period—from $25.9 million in fiscal year 1997 to $109.4 million in fiscal 

year 2007. The median expenditure per passenger is about $98; subsidies 

to communities range from about $13 to $677 per passenger. While the 

total number of communities has risen, communities do drop out of the 

EAS program—some because their costs exceeded the program cap on 

costs per passenger. Furthermore, industry and DOT officials have raised 

concerns about the effect of the potential decrease in the number of air 

carriers and smaller aircraft suitable for EAS communities on the future 

EAS program. The limits on the federal budget, the increased costs along 

with concerns about the future of air carriers and planes to serve small 

communities, raise questions about ways to improve the program. 

• DOT has awarded 182 grants in the 5 years of the SCASDP program—74 of 

these are currently completed. In our review of the 23 grants completed in

2005, we found that SCASDP grantees pursued a variety of goals and 

strategies for supporting air service, and some completed grants have been 

successful; however, the number of SCASDP grant requests has been 

declining. The goals grantees are pursuing include trying to add flights and 

destinations, or trying to obtain lower fares. The different strategies 

grantees are employing to improve air service include offering subsidies or 

revenue guarantees to airlines, marketing, and hiring personnel. We could

not assess the overall effectiveness of the program, since few projects had 

been completed at the time; however, we found a little less than half had

resulted in a self-sustaining improvement to air service. In response to our 

2005 recommendation, the Department of Transportation’s Inspector 

General (DOT IG) began a review of completed grants in March 2007 at

DOT’s request. The results of this review should provide further 

information on successful grants. Finally, although a number of 

communities found the grants helpful in attaining self-sustaining service,

Page 3 GAO-07-793T 
the number of applications for SCASDP has declined—from 179 in 2002 to

75 in 2006.

4

 According to officials we interviewed, fewer communities 

might be applying due to a number of factors, including the fact that DOT’s 

selection process favors communities that provide some matching funds 

that some communities might not be able to fund. 

• We have reported on options for changing EAS to potentially make it more 

efficient, including (1) targeting subsidized service to more remote 

communities, (2) better matching capacity with community use, (3) 

consolidating service to multiple communities into regional airports, and 

(4) changing the form of the federal assistance from carrier subsidies to 

local grants. Although these options might make the program more 

efficient and less costly, they could also reduce service to some areas. In 

addition, the 2003 Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 

(Vision-100) provided for a number of initiatives for the EAS program 

including marketing grants and an initiative whereby communities who 

forego their EAS subsidy for 10 years can get a grant for twice the amount 

of one year’s EAS subsidy. These initiatives have not been implemented 

due partly to a lack of interest from EAS communities and a lack of 

dedicated funding. The administration’s FAA reauthorization proposal 

would repeal some of these programs and initiatives. Regarding SCASDP, 

as we recommended, the DOT IG is conducting an evaluation of completed 

projects. The results of such an evaluation will be useful as Congress is 

considering the reauthorization of this program and could result in 

identifying “lessons learned” from successful projects. These lessons could 

be shared with other small communities that are trying to improve air 

service, and, if needed, to reform and refocus the program. 

Before I discuss these issues in detail, let me sketch the background of the 

EAS and SCASDP programs. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress established EAS as part of the 

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 to help areas that face limited service. 

The act guaranteed that for 10 years communities served by air carriers 

before deregulation would continue to receive a certain level of scheduled

air service5

 by authorizing DOT to require carriers to continue providing 

service at these communities. If an air carrier could not continue that 

Background 

 4

The last SCASDP grants DOT granted were in 2006. 

5

Special provisions guaranteed service to Alaskan communities. 

Page 4 GAO-07-793T 
service without incurring a loss, DOT could then use EAS funds to award 

that carrier a subsidy.6

 In 1987, Congress extended the program for 

another 10 years, and in 1998, it eliminated the sunset provision, thereby 

permanently authorizing EAS. 

To be eligible for this subsidized service, communities must meet three 

general requirements. They (1) must have received scheduled commercial 

passenger service as of October 1978, (2) may be no closer than 70 

highway miles to a medium- or large-hub airport, and (3) must require a 

subsidy of less than $200 per person (unless the community is more than 

210 highway miles from the nearest medium- or large-hub airport, in which 

case no average per-passenger dollar limit applies).7

 Air carriers apply to 

DOT for EAS subsidies. DOT selects a carrier and sets a subsidy amount to 

cover the difference between the carrier’s projected cost of operation and 

its expected passenger revenues, while providing the carrier with a profit 

element equal to 5 percent of total operating expenses, according to 

statute.8

Funding for EAS has come from a combination of permanent and annual

appropriations. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 

104-264) permanently appropriated the first $50 million of such funding—

for EAS and safety projects at rural airports—from the collection of 

overflight fees. 9

 Congress has appropriated additional funds from the 

general fund on an annual basis. The Department of Transportation’s 

reauthorization proposal suggests changing the source of program funding 

to a mandatory appropriation of $50 million per year from the Airport and 

 6

Subsidies are used to cover the difference between a carrier’s projected revenues and 

expenses and to provide a minimum amount of profit. 

7

The average subsidy per passenger does not equate to a specific portion of a passenger’s 

ticket price paid for by EAS funds. Ticket pricing involves a complex variety of factors

relating to the demand for travel between two points, the supply of available seats along 

that route, competition in the market, and how air carriers choose to manage and price 

their available seating capacity. 

8

At any time throughout the year, an air carrier providing unsubsidized service to an EASeligible community can file a notice to suspend service if the carrier determines that it can 

no longer provide profitable service, thus triggering a carrier selection case. In addition,

after DOT selects an air carrier to provide subsidized service, that agreement is subject to 

renewal, generally every 2 years, at which time other air carriers are permitted to submit 

proposals to serve that community with or without a subsidy. 

9

Overflight fees are user fees for air traffic control services provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) to aircraft that fly over, but do not land in the United States,

as authorized by the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-264). 

Page 5 GAO-07-793T 
Airway Trust Fund. A new, small aviation fuel tax would be used to 

generate this $50 million. Furthermore, according to DOT officials, since 

$50 million would not sufficiently support all currently subsidized service, 

communities would be ranked in order of isolation, with Alaskan 

communities at the top of the list. Thus, some of the EAS communities 

currently receiving EAS subsidies under the roughly $100 million Congress 

has appropriated in recent years, might no longer receive air service. 

Turning now to SCASDP, Congress authorized it as a pilot program in the 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century 

(AIR-21),10 to help small communities enhance their air service. AIR-21 

authorized the program for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and subsequent 

legislation11 reauthorized the program through fiscal year 2008 and 

eliminated the “pilot” status of the program. 

The Office of Aviation Analysis in DOT’s Office of the Secretary is 

responsible for administering the program. The law establishing SCASDP 

allows DOT considerable flexibility in implementing the program and 

selecting projects to be funded. The law defines basic eligibility criteria 

and statutory priority factors, but meeting a given number of priority 

factors does not automatically mean DOT will select a project. SCASDP 

grants may be made to single communities or a consortium of 

communities, although no more than four grants each year may be in the 

same state. Both small hubs and non hubs are eligible for this program. 

Thus, small hubs, such as Buffalo Niagara International Airport in Buffalo, 

New York, which enplaned over 2.4 million passengers in 2005, and small, 

nonhub airports, such in Moab, Utah (with about 2,600 enplanements) are 

eligible. SCASDP grants are available in the 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions. DOT’s 

SCASDP awards have been geographically dispersed. 

Figure 1 shows the location of all SCASDP grants awarded as of August 31, 

2006, as well as communities receiving EAS subsidies as of April 1, 2007.

 10P.L. 106-181. 

11Vision 100, P.L. 108-176. 

Page 6 GAO-07-793T 
Figure 1: Airports Receiving Essential Air Service as of April 2007 and All Small Community Air Service Development 

Program Grantees, through August 2006 

Source: GAO map of DOT data.

Essential Air Service Only

Small Community Only

Both

Mr. Chairman, as you know EAS provides service to many communities 

that otherwise would not receive air service. However, the increase in the 

number of communities receiving subsidies and the cost of these subsidies 

raise concerns over the funding needed to provide this service in an 

environment of federal deficits. For example, the funding for EAS has 

grown from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4 million in 2007. Furthermore, 

the federal median subsidy for providing air service to EAS communities is 

about $98 per passenger; the subsidies varied among communities from 

about $13 to over $677 per passenger in 2006. Finally, the number of air 

carriers flying smaller aircraft suitable for EAS communities may decrease 

and some industry officials are beginning to voice concerns about the 

availability of appropriate planes to provide small community air service 

in the future. 

The EAS Program 

Provides Service to 

Small Communities 

While Increasing EAS 

Subsidies Raise 

Concerns about the 

Cost and Efficiency of 

the EAS Program and 

Its Service Providers 

Page 7 GAO-07-793T 
In fiscal year 2007, EAS provided subsidies to 145 communities. In fiscal 

year 2005, the most recent year for which passenger data is available, the 

EAS program supported over 1 million passengers. As we have noted in 

past reports, if EAS subsidies were removed, air service might end at many

small communities. Since air carriers have to show financial data to 

support a subsidy calculation—proving the service is not profitable to 

run—it is likely that if the subsidy is no longer available commercial air 

service would end. 

EAS Provides Service to 

Many Communities Where 

Certain Factors Make 

Maintaining Service in 

Small Communities 

Difficult 

Several factors may help explain why some small communities, especially 

nonhubs, face relatively limited air service. First, small communities can 

become cost-cutting targets of air carriers because they are often a 

carrier’s least profitable operation. Consequently, many network carriers 

have cut service to small communities, replaced by regional carriers.12

Second, the “Commuter Rule” that FAA enacted in 1995 brought small 

commuter aircraft under the same safety standards as larger aircraft—a 

change that made it more difficult to economically operate smaller 

aircraft, such as 19-seat turboprops.13 For example, the Commuter Rule 

required commuter air carriers that flew aircraft equipped with 10 or more 

seats to improve ground deicing programs and carry additional passenger

safety equipment. Additionally, the 2001 Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act instituted the same security requirements for screening 

passengers at smaller airports as it did for larger airports, sometimes 

making travel from small airports less convenient than it had been.14 Third, 

regional carriers have used fewer turboprops in favor of regional jets, 

which had a negative effect on small communities that have not generated 

the passenger levels needed to support regional jet service. Finally, many 

small communities experience passenger “leakage”—that is, passengers 

choosing to drive longer distances to larger airports instead of using closer 

small airports. Low-cost carriers have generally avoided flying to small 

 12A network carrier operates a significant portion of its flights using at least one hub where

connections are made for flights on a spoke system. Regional carriers provide service from 

small communities primarily using regional jets to connect the network carriers’ hub-andspoke system. 

13Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 121 (14 CFR Part 121) provides details on 

aircraft certification requirements for aircraft that operate scheduled service with 10 or 

more seats. The Commuter Rule was instituted with 60 Fed. Reg. 65832, December 20, 

1995. 

14Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Section 110 of P.L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001). 

Page 8 GAO-07-793T 
communities but have offered low fares that encourage passengers to 

drive longer distances to take advantage of them.15

Demand for EAS Subsidies 

Has Grown Over the Past 

Decade 

Mr. Chairman, although less than the 405 communities served with the 

help of EAS subsidies in 1980, the number of communities served by EAS 

has grown over the past 10 years, as has the amount of funds appropriated 

for the program. As shown in table 1, for fiscal year 2007, EAS is providing

subsidies to air carriers to serve 145 communities—an increase of 50 

communities over the 1997 low point. The funding for EAS has also grown 

from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4 million in 2007. Excluding Alaska, this

amounts to an average of about $754,500 per EAS community in fiscal year 

2007. Appendix I lists EAS communities and their current subsidy 

amounts. 

Table 1: EAS Program Appropriations and Communities Served, Fiscal Years 1993

through 2007 

Fiscal year Number of communities 

Total EAS appropriations

(in millions) 

1993 126 38.6

1994 112 33.4

1995 107 33.4

1996 97 22.6

1997 95 25.9

1998 101 50.0

1999 100 50.0

2000 106 50.0

2001 115 50.0

2002 123 113.0

2003 126 101.8

2004 140 101.7

2005 146 101.6

2006 151 109.4

2007 145a109.4

a

 As of April 1, 2007 

 15 Low-cost carriers follow a business model that may include point-to-point service 

between high-density city pairs, a standardized fleet with high aircraft utilization, low fares,

and minimal onboard service.

Page 9 GAO-07-793T 
Source: DOT. 

While the total number of communities receiving service through EAS 

subsidies has generally increased, some communities have dropped from 

the program. For example, according to DOT officials 11 communities that 

had EAS subsidized service in 2006 were no longer in the program in 2007. 

Four of these were terminated by DOT because their subsidy rose above

the EAS cap—Bluefield, WV; Enid, OK; Moses Lake, WA; and Ponca City, 

OK. Seven communities secured non-subsidized service. These 

communities included Hana, HI; Kalaupapa, HI; Kamuela, HI; Pierre, SD; 

Riverton, WY; Rock Springs, WY; and Sheridan, WY. 

EAS Subsidies Vary In 

Relation to Numbers of 

Passengers 

The level of subsidy per passenger at EAS communities varies greatly.16 At 

some locations, the level of subsidy per passenger is modest. For example, 

in 2006, of the 110 airports receiving EAS service for which data were 

available, 30 communities had subsidies of less than $50 per passenger. 

Some communities with relatively low subsidies per passenger included 

Escanaba, MI ($12.96) and Morgantown, WV ($13.68) both with almost 36 

passengers per day. In contrast, 30 communities also had subsidies per 

passenger greater than $200. The highest subsidy at that time was $677 for

Brookings, SD, and Lewistown, MT had an average subsidy of almost $473.

These two areas had fewer than 3 passengers per day. Airports may 

maintain EAS service when subsidies exceed $200 dollars if they are more 

than 210 highway miles from a large or medium hub. 

As would be expected, a low number of passengers are associated with 

high subsidies. Of the 110 airports receiving EAS service for which data 

were available, 17 airports had fewer than 5 passengers per day. Such 

airports typically have a subsidy per passenger greater than $200—15 of 

the 17 exceed the $200 threshold. Communities with less than 5 

passengers per day also constitute half those with subsidies exceeding 

$200 (15 of 30). In contrast, 47 communities had at least 20 passengers per 

day, more than the capacity of a single 19-seat aircraft flight. All 47 of 

these airports had subsidies of less than $100 per passenger. See Appendix 

II for EAS Subsidies per Enplanement. 

 16We are referring to average daily “enplanements” per day as passengers per day. 

Page 10 GAO-07-793T 
DOT and industry officials we interviewed raised questions about the 

future of the EAS service as currently provided. As of April 1, 2007, 12

regional air carriers served the subsidized communities in the continental 

United States. The carriers serving the communities in the continental 

United States typically used turboprop aircraft seating 19 passengers, 

whereas in Alaska and Puerto Rico, the most commonly used aircraft 

seated 4 to 9 passengers. 

Future Approach to EAS 

Service Uncertain Due to 

Changes in Air Carriers 

and Equipment 

DOT and industry officials pointed out that 19-seat aircraft are no longer 

being manufactured, and some of the current EAS carriers appear to be 

migrating to the use of larger aircraft. DOT officials noted that EAS 

carriers are getting out of the business that uses 19-seat aircraft, and are 

moving into larger aircraft. In addition, industry consultants noted that as 

the current fleet of 19-seat aircraft ages, maintenance costs will likely rise, 

which will make operating 19-seat aircraft more expensive. Because 19-

seat aircraft are the backbone of EAS service in the contiguous 48 states, 

their aging or discontinuation would significantly affect the program. 

Figure 2 shows an example of a 19-seat Turbo Prop aircraft commonly 

used to provide EAS service. 

Figure 2: Picture of 19-Seat Turbo Prop Aircraft 

Page 11 GAO-07-793T 
Finally, DOT and industry officials with whom we spoke were not 

convinced that the emerging technology of Very Light Jets (VLJs) could fill 

this gap, especially in the short term.17 They noted that current business 

models discussed for VLJs did not anticipate their use for the kind of small 

communities served by EAS. DOT did provide a SCASDP grant to 

Bismarck, ND for developing a business model for point to point, 

reservation responsive air service using VLJs. The grantee has developed 

the business plan; however, given the lack of operating VLJs, they changed

the type of aircraft the business would use until the aircraft become more 

available. We will be completing a more comprehensive report on VLJs for 

the subcommittee later this year. 

Mr. Chairman, we found that SCASDP grantees pursued several goals and

strategies to improve air service, and that air service was sustained after 

the grant expired in a little less than half of the 23 completed projects in 

2005—the time of our initial review. The DOT IG’s office began reviewing 

completed grants in March 2007 which should provide more information 

on the results of completed grants. Although the program has seen some 

success, the number of applications for SCASDP grants has declined for a

variety of reasons. 

The Small Community 

Grant Program Has 

Funded Some 

Successful Projects 

SCASDP Grants Show 

Promise and Warrant 

Further Evaluation 

At the time of our initial review of SCASDP, in 2005, it was too soon to 

determine the overall effectiveness of the program because there was not 

much information available about the “post” grant period. Once awarded, 

it may take several years for grants to be implemented and completed. 

There have been 182 grant awards made in the 5 years of the program. Of 

these, 74 grants are completed as of April 1, 2007—34 from 2002, 19 from 

2003, and 21 from 2004. No grants from 2005 or 2006 are yet completed. In

addition, as of April 4, 2007, DOT had terminated seven grants it initially 

awarded.18 See Appendix III for a list of all SCASDP grants from 2002 

through 2006. 

 17Very Light Jets are new small, lightweight, jet aircraft equipped with advanced avionics 

and priced below other business jets. 

18According to DOT officials, the agency initiated only one termination—for the grant 

awarded to Casper/Gillette, Wyoming. The communities awarded the other grants 

requested the termination of the grants. 

Page 12 GAO-07-793T 
Our review of the 23 projects completed by September 30, 2005, found 

some successful results. The kinds of improvements in service that 

resulted from the grants included adding an additional air carrier, 

destination, or flights; or changing the type of aircraft serving the 

community. In terms of numbers, airport officials reported that 19 of the 

23 grants resulted in service or fare improvements during the life of the 

grant (see fig.3). In addition, during the course of the grant, enplanements

rose at 19 of the 23 airports. After the 23 SCASDP grants were completed, 

14 resulted in improvements that were still in place. Three of these 

improvements were not self-sustaining; thus 11 self-sustaining 

improvements were in place after the grants were completed.

Since our review of the 23 completed projects, 51 more have been 

completed for a total of 74. We reviewed the fifty-nine available final 

reports. A review of the grantees’ final reports for these projects indicated 

that 48 increased enplanements as a result of their SCASDP grant. 

Page 13 GAO-07-793T 
Figure 3: Air Service Improvement during the Course of 23 Grants and after Project 

Completion 

Improvement in service 

 or fares during the 

course of the grant 

After completion of grant, 

improvements reported 

as still in place 

After completion of grant, 

improvements reported 

as self-sustaining 

19 14 11 

Source: GAO. 

For SCASDP grants DOT awarded from 2002 though 2004, we surveyed

airport officials to identify the goals they had for their grants. We found 

that grantees had identified a variety of project goals to improve air 

service to their community. These goals included adding flights, airlines, 

and destinations; lowering fares; upgrading the aircraft serving the 

community; obtaining better data for planning and marketing air service; 

increasing enplanements; and curbing the loss of passengers to other 

airports. (See fig. 4 for the number and types of project goals identified by

airport directors.) 

Page 14 GAO-07-793T 
Figure 4: Project Goals as Identified by Airport Directors for Grants Awarded 2002 – 

2004 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

2004 

2003

2002 

Other 

Using larger or smaller aircraft 

Completing a study 

Adding new carriers

Providing lower fares

Providing service to new destinations

Increasing the frequencies of flights

Recapturing passenger traffic 

Increasing enplanements

Increasing service 

Goals

Number of airports

Source: GAO survey of grantee airport directors. 

Note: The number of airport directors surveyed may exceed the number of grants in a year because 

grants are sometimes awarded to consortiums of airports. We surveyed all grantee airports. 

Finally, in our 2005 report, we recommended DOT evaluate the SCASDP 

grants after more were completed to identify promising approaches and

evaluate the effectiveness of the program. DOT officials told us that they 

asked the DOT IG to conduct such a study, which the IG began in March 

Page 15 GAO-07-793T 
2007. DOT expects to have preliminary observations available by the

middle of May. Results from this work may help identify potential 

improvements and “lessons learned.”

Grantees Used Many 

Strategies to Improve Air 

Service in Their 

Communities 

To achieve their goals, grantees have used many strategies, including 

subsidies and revenue guarantees to the airlines, marketing, hiring 

personnel and consultants, and establishing travel banks in which a 

community guarantees to buy a certain number of tickets. (See fig. 5.) In 

addition, other strategies that grantees have used are subsidizing the startup of an airline, taking over ground station operations for an airline, and

subsidizing a bus to transport passengers from their airport to a hub 

airport. Incorporating marketing as part of the project was the most 

common strategy used by airports. Some airline officials said that 

marketing efforts are important for the success of the projects. Airline 

officials also told us that projects that provide direct benefits to an airline,

such as revenue guarantees and financial subsidies, have the greatest 

chance of success. According to these officials, such projects allow the 

airline to test the real market for air service in a community without 

enduring the typical financial losses that occur when new air service is 

introduced. They further noted that, in the current aviation economic 

environment, carriers cannot afford to sustain losses while they build up

passenger demand in a market. The outcomes of the grants may be 

affected by broader industry factors that are independent of the grant 

itself, such as a decision on the part of an airline to reduce the number of 

flights at a hub. 

Page 16 GAO-07-793T 
Figure 5: Strategies Included in Grant Projects 

0 10 20 30 40 50

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Other

Other subsidy

Personnel

Travel banks

Studies

Reduced airport fees/start-up costs

Revenue guarantee

Marketing

Projects

Number of grants

Source: GAO analysis of grantee proposals and grant agreements.

Note: Since grant agreements were not available at the time of this analysis, 2006 figures are based 

solely on proposals. 

The Number of Grant 

Applications Has Declined 

Since the inception of the program, there has been a steady decline in the

number of applications. In 2002 (the first year SCASDP was funded) DOT 

received 179 applications for grants; and by 2006 the number of 

applications had declined to 75. Grant applications for 2007 are not due 

Page 17 GAO-07-793T 
until April 27, 2007. According to a DOT official, almost all applications 

arrive on the last day, so the number of 2007 applications cannot be 

estimated at this time. DOT officials said that the past decline was, in part, 

a consequence of several factors, including: (1) many eligible airport 

communities had received a grant and were still implementing projects at 

the time; (2) the airport community as a whole was coming to understand 

the importance DOT places on fulfilling the local contribution 

commitment part of the grant proposal; and (3) statutory changes in 2003 

that prohibited communities or consortiums from receiving more than one 

grant for the same project, and that established the timely use of funds as

a priority factor in awarding grants.19 According to DOT officials, DOT has 

interpreted that a project is the “same project” if it employs the same 

strategy. For example, once a community has used a revenue guarantee, it

cannot use a revenue guarantee on another project. 

A DOT official noted that, with many communities now completing their 

grants, they may choose to apply for another grant. Some communities 

have received second grants; however DOT officials indicate first time 

applicants get more weight in the grant selection process. Revisiting 

selection criteria may increase the access to SCASDP grants and increase 

service to small communities. 

Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to a discussion of options both for the 

reform of EAS and the evaluation of SCASDP. I raise these options, in part, 

because they link to our report on the challenges facing the federal 

government in the 21st century, which notes that the federal government’s 

long-term fiscal imbalance presents enormous challenges to the nation’s 

ability to respond to emerging forces reshaping American society, the 

United States’ place in the world, and the future role of the federal 

government.20 In that report, we call for a more fundamental and periodic 

reexamination of the base of government, ultimately covering 

discretionary and mandatory programs as well as the revenue side of the 

budget. In other words, Congress will need to make difficult decisions 

Options Exist for 

Reforming EAS and 

Evaluating SCASDP 

 19The authorizing statute provides one limitation on the timing of expenditures. If funds are 

used to subsidize air service, the subsidy cannot last more than 3 years. However, the time 

needed to obtain the service is not included in the subsidy time limit. The statute does not 

limit the timing of expenditures for other purposes. In fiscal year 2005, DOT issued an 

order specifying that in general, grant funds should be expended within 3 years.

20GAO-05-325SP. 

Page 18 GAO-07-793T 
including defining the role of the federal government in various sectors of 

our economy and identifying who will benefit from its allocation of 

resources. Furthermore, given that we have reported that subsidies paid 

directly to air carriers have not provided an effective transportation 

solution for passengers in many small communities,21 these programs may 

be ones for which Congress may wish to weigh options for reforming EAS 

and assess SCASDP’s effectiveness once DOT completes its review of the

program. 

Examine Options for 

Enhancing EAS 

In previous work, we have identified options for enhancing EAS and 

controlling cost increases. These options include targeting subsidized 

service to more remote communities than is currently the case, improving 

the matching of capacity with community use, consolidating service to 

multiple communities into regional airports, and changing the form of 

federal assistance from carrier subsidies to local grants; all of these 

options would require legislative changes. Several of these options formed

the basis for reforms passed as part of Vision-100. For various reasons 

these pilot programs have not progressed, so it is not possible to assess 

their impact. Let me now briefly discuss each option, stressing at the 

outset that each presents potential negative, as well as positive, impacts. 

The changes might positively affect the federal government through 

lowered federal costs, and participating communities through increased 

passenger traffic at subsidized communities, and enhanced community 

choice of transportation options. Communities that could be negatively 

affected might include those in which passengers receive less service or 

might lose scheduled airline service.

One option would be to target subsidized service to more remote 

communities. This option would mean increasing the highway distance 

criteria between EAS-eligible communities and the nearest qualifying 

airport, and expanding the definition of qualifying nearby airports to 

include small hubs. Currently, to be eligible for EAS-subsidized service, a 

community must be more than 70 highway miles from the nearest mediumor large-hub airport. In examining EAS communities, we found that, if the 

distance criterion were increased to 125 highway miles and the qualifying

airports were expanded to include small-hub airports with jet service, 55 

EAS-subsidized communities would no longer qualify for subsidies—and 

Targeting Subsidized Service to 

More Remote Communities 

 21GAO, Commercial Aviation: Factors Affecting Efforts to Improve Air Service at Small 

Community Airports, GAO-03-330 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

Page 19 GAO-07-793T 
travelers at those communities would need to drive to the nearby larger 

airport to access air service. 

Limiting subsidized service to more remote communities could potentially 

save federal subsidies. For example, we found that about $24 million 

annually could be saved if service were terminated at 30 EAS airports that 

were within 125 miles of medium- or large-hub airports. This estimate 

assumed that the total subsidies in effect in 2006 at the communities that 

might lose their eligibility would not be obligated to other communities 

and that those amounts would not change over time. On the other hand, 

the passengers who now use subsidized service at such terminated 

airports would be inconvenienced because of the increased driving 

required to access air service at the nearest hub airport. In addition, 

implementing this option could potentially negatively impact the economy 

of the affected communities. 

The administration’s reauthorization proposal also would prioritize 

isolated communities, but in a somewhat different way. Under its 

approach, if insufficient funding for all communities exists, the 

communities would be ranked in terms of driving distance to a medium or 

large hub, with the more isolated communities receiving funding before 

less isolated communities. This change would protect isolated

communities, but could result in subsidies being terminated for 

communities with relatively low per passenger subsidies. 

Another option is to better match capacity with community use. Our past 

analysis of passenger enplanement data indicated that relatively few 

passengers fly in many EAS markets, and that, on average, most EAS 

flights operate with aircraft that are largely empty. In 2005, the most recent 

year for which data are available, 17 EAS airports averaged fewer than 5 

passenger boardings per day. To better match capacity with community 

use, air carriers could reduce unused capacity—either by using smaller 

aircraft or by reducing the number of flights. 

Better Matching Capacity with 

Community Use 

Better matching capacity with community use could save federal 

subsidies. For instance, reducing the number of required daily subsidized 

departures could save federal subsidies by reducing carrier costs in some 

locations. Federal subsidies could also be lowered at communities where 

carriers used smaller—and hence less costly—aircraft. On the other hand, 

there are a number of potential disadvantages. For example, passenger 

acceptance is uncertain. Representatives from some communities, such as

Beckley, West Virginia, told us that passengers who are already somewhat 

reluctant to fly on 19-seat turboprops would be even less willing to fly on 

Page 20 GAO-07-793T 
smaller aircraft. Such negative passenger reaction may cause more people 

to drive to larger airports—or simply drive to their destinations. 

Additionally, the loss of some daily departures at certain communities 

would likely further inconvenience some passengers. Lastly, reduced 

capacity may have a negative impact on the economy of the affected 

community.22

Another option is to consolidate subsidized service at multiple 

communities into service at regional airports. For example, in 2002 we 

found that 21 EAS subsidized communities were located within 70 

highway miles of at least one other subsidized community. We reported 

that if subsidized service to each of these communities were regionalized, 

10 regional airports could serve those 21 communities. 

Consolidating Subsidized 

Service Provided to Multiple 

Communities into Service at 

Regional Airports 

Regionalizing service to some communities could generate federal savings. 

However, those savings may be marginal, because the total costs to serve a 

single regional airport may be only slightly less than the cost to serve other 

neighboring airports. The marginal cost of operating the flight segments to 

the other airports may be small in relation to the cost of operating the first 

flight. Another potential positive effect is that passenger levels at the 

proposed regional airports could grow because the airline(s) would be 

drawing from a larger geographic area, which could prompt the airline(s) 

to provide better service (i.e., larger aircraft or more frequent departures). 

There are also a number of disadvantages to implementing this option. 

First, some local passengers would be inconvenienced, since they would 

likely have to drive longer distances to obtain local air service. Moreover, 

the passenger response to regionalizing local air service is unknown. 

Passengers faced with driving longer distances may decide that driving to 

an altogether different airport is worthwhile, if it offers better service and 

air fares. 

As with other options, the potential impact of regionalization on the 

economy of the affected communities is unknown. Regionalizing air 

service has sometimes proven controversial at the local level, in part 

because regionalizing air service would require some communities to give

 22As we reported in our 2002 report, although scheduled commercial air service is 

positively correlated with local economic activity, we were unable to locate reliable studies 

that describe the extent to which scheduled commercial air service is directly responsible 

for economic development in small communities in the United States (i.e., whether air

service precedes, follows, or develops simultaneously with local economic activity). 

Page 21 GAO-07-793T 
up their own local service for the potentially improved service at a less 

convenient regional facility. Even in situations where one airport is larger 

and better equipped than others (e.g., where one airport has longer 

runways, a superior terminal facility, and better safety equipment on site), 

it is likely to be difficult for the other communities to recognize and accept

surrendering their local control and benefits. Some industry officials to 

whom we spoke indicated regional airports made sense, but selecting the 

airports would be highly controversial. 

Another option is to change carrier subsidies into local grants. We have 

noted that local grants could enable communities to match their 

transportation needs with individually tailored transportation options to 

connect them to the national air space system. As we previously 

discussed, DOT provides grants to help small communities to enhance 

their air service via SCASDP. 

Changing Carrier Subsidies to 

Local Grants 

Our work on SCASDP identified some positive aspects of the program that 

could be beneficial for EAS communities. First, for communities to receive 

a SCASDP grant, they had to develop a proposal that was directed at 

improving air service locally. In our discussion with some of these 

communities, it was noted that this approach required them to take a

closer look at their air service and better understand the market they 

serve—a benefit that they did not foresee. In addition, in some cases 

developing the proposal caused the airport to build a stronger relationship 

with the community. SCASDP also allows for flexibility in the strategy a 

local community can choose to improve air service, recognizing that local

facts and circumstances affect the chance of a successful outcome. In 

contrast, EAS has one approach—a subsidy to an air carrier. 

However, there are also differences between the two programs that make 

the grant approach problematic for some EAS communities; these 

differences should be considered. First, because SCASDP grants are 

provided on a one-time basis, their purpose is to create self-sustaining air

service improvements. The grant approach is therefore best applicable

where a viable air service market can be developed. This viability could be

difficult for EAS communities to achieve because, currently, the service 

they receive is not profitable unless there is a subsidy. While some EAS 

communities might be able to transition to self-sustaining air service 

through use of one of the grants, for some communities this would not be 

the case. Such communities would need a new grant each year. In 

addition, the grant approach normally includes a local cash match, which 

may be difficult for some EAS communities to provide. This approach 

could systematically eliminate the poorest communities, unless other 

Page 22 GAO-07-793T 
sources of funds—such as state support or local industry support—could 

be found for the match, or some provision for economically distressed 

communities is made. 

Vision-100 Small 

Community Pilot Programs 

and Initiatives Have Not 

Progressed 

Congress authorized several pilot programs and initiatives designed to 

improve air service to small communities in Vision-100. These programs 

and initiatives have not progressed for various reasons. In two cases, 

communities have not indicated interest in the programs. In one instance 

Congress decided to prevent DOT from implementing the program. In 

three cases, DOT officials cited a lack of sufficient funds to implement the 

programs. 

Vision-100 authorized the Community Flexibility Pilot Program, which 

requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program for up to 

10 communities that agree to forgo their EAS subsidy for 10 years in 

exchange for a grant twice the amount of one year’s EAS subsidy. The 

funds may be used to improve airport facilities. DOT has solicited 

proposals for this program; however, according to a DOT official, no 

communities expressed any interest in participating. This is likely because

no community was willing to risk the loss of EAS subsidies for 10 years in 

exchange for only 2 years of funding. Likewise, the Alternate Essential Air 

Service Pilot Program, which allows the Secretary of Transportation to 

provide assistance directly to a community, rather than paying 

compensation to the air carrier, elicited no interest from communities. 

Under the pilot program, communities could provide assistance to air 

carriers using smaller aircraft, on-demand air taxi service, provide 

transportation services to and from several EAS communities to a single 

regional airport or other transportation center, or purchase aircraft. The 

administration’s draft FAA reauthorization bill would repeal these pilot 

programs. 

Another program, the EAS Local Participation Program, allows the 

Secretary of Transportation to select no more than 10 designated EAS 

communities within 100 miles, by road, of a small hub (and within the 

contiguous states) to assume 10 percent of their EAS subsidy costs for a 4-

year period. However, Congress has prohibited DOT from obligating or 

expending any funds to implement this program since Vision-100 was 

enacted. The administration’s draft FAA reauthorization bill would repeal 

this pilot program. 

Page 23 GAO-07-793T 
Three additional initiatives authorized by Vision-100 have not been 

implemented, in part due to a lack of dedicated funding. Section 402 of 

Vision-100 allows DOT to adjust carrier compensation to account for 

significantly increased costs to carriers. For example, an air carrier that 

has a contract to provide air service can apply for an adjustment due to an

increase in its costs. If this increase is granted, the air carrier has 

increased its revenue without having to competitively bid for the contract.

The initiative also provided for a reversal of this adjustment if the costs 

subsequently declined. DOT officials indicated that a concern they have 

with this initiative is that an air carrier could win a 2-year contract with a 

low estimate, and open it again to obtain more funds without facing 

competition. 

Also, the Section 410 marketing incentive program, which could provide 

grants up to $50,000 to EAS communities to develop and execute a 

marketing plan to increase passenger boardings and usage of airport 

facilities, was not implemented. DOT officials explained that with the 

uncertainty of the number of communities that would need EAS subsidies 

and the cost of those subsidies, using EAS subsidy funding for this 

marketing incentive program could put the subsidies at risk. One industry 

group suggested dedicated funding might improve the use of this program. 

The administration’s draft FAA reauthorization bill would repeal this 

marketing incentive program. 

Finally, Section 411 of Vision-100 authorized the creation of a National 

Commission on Small Community Air Service to recommend how to 

improve commercial air service to small communities and the ability of 

small communities to retain and enhance existing air service. This 

provision was likewise not implemented because funds were not 

specifically appropriated, according to DOT officials. Such a commission 

may have been helpful in developing approaches to deal with difficult 

policy decisions, such as regionalizing air service. DOT plans to host a 

symposium to bring industry experts together to identify regulatory 

barriers and develop ideas for improving air service to small communities 

which may be a step in the right direction. DOT officials acknowledge that 

this symposium should be held soon to inform reauthorization 

deliberations. 

Page 24 GAO-07-793T 
In 2005, we recommended that DOT examine the effectiveness of SCASDP 

when more projects are complete; and the DOT IG recently began this 

evaluation.23 Since our report, an additional 48 grants have been completed

and DOT will be able to examine the results from these completed grants. 

Such an evaluation should provide DOT and Congress with additional 

information about not only whether additional or improved air service was 

obtained, but whether it continued after the grant support ended. In 

addition, our prior work on air service to small communities found that 

once financial incentives are removed, additional air service may be 

difficult to maintain. This evaluation should provide a clearer and more 

complete picture of the value of this program. Any improved service 

achieved from this program could then be weighed against the cost to 

achieve those gains. 

Recently Started DOT 

Evaluation of the 

Effectiveness of SCASDP 

Should Add Information on 

the Effectiveness of 

SCASDP

In conducting this evaluation, DOT could find that certain strategies the 

communities used were more effective than others. For example, during 

our work, we found some opposing views on the usefulness of certain 

strategies for attracting improved service. DOT officials could use the 

results of the DOT IG’s evaluation to identify strategies that have been 

effective in starting self-sustaining improvements in air service and they 

could share this information with other small community airports and, 

perhaps, consider such factors in its grant award process. In addition, DOT 

might find some best practices and could develop some lessons learned 

from which all small community airports could benefit. For example, one 

airport used a unique approach of assuming airline ground operations 

such as baggage handling and staffing ticket counters. This approach 

served to maintain airline service of one airline and in attracting additional 

service. In addition, the SCASDP program has shown that there is a strong 

demand on the part of small community airports to improve enplanements 

through various marketing strategies. Successful marketing efforts could 

increase enplanements, thus driving down the per passenger subsidy. 

Sharing information on approaches like these that worked (and 

approaches that did not) may help other small communities improve their 

air service, perhaps even without federal assistance. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Congress is faced with many difficult choices 

as it tries to help improve air service to small communities, especially

given the fiscal challenges the nation faces. Regarding EAS, I think it is 

 23GAO, Initial Small Community Air Service Development Projects Have Achieved Mixed 

Results, GAO-06-21 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2005). 

Page 25 GAO-07-793T 
important to recognize that for many of the communities, air service is 

not—and might never be—commercially viable and there are limited 

alternative transportation means for nearby residents to connect to the

national air transportation system. In these cases, continued subsidies will 

be needed to maintain that capability. In some other cases, current EAS 

communities are within reasonable driving distances to alternative 

airports that can provide that connection to the air system. It will be 

Congress’ weighing of priorities that will ultimately decide whether this 

service will continue or whether other, less costly options will be pursued. 

In looking at SCASDP, I would emphasize that we have seen some 

instances in which the grant funds provided additional service, and some 

in which the funds did not work. Enough experience has now been gained 

with this program for a full assessment, and with that information the 

Congress will be in a position to determine if the air service gains that are

made are worth the overall cost of the program. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of 

the Subcommittee may have at this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L. 

Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Individuals making 

key contributions to this testimony and related work include Robert 

Ciszewski, Catherine Colwell, Jessica Evans, Colin Fallon, Dave Hooper, 

Alex Lawrence, Bonnie Pignatiello Leer, and Maureen Luna-Long. 

Contact Information 

Page 26 GAO-07-793T 
Page 27 GAO-07-793T 

Appendix I: Essential Air Service 

Communities and Subsidies as of April 1, 

2007 

Table 2: Essential Air Service (EAS) Communities and Their Subsidies Excluding

Alaska, April 1, 2007 

States/Communities Subsidy

Alabama 

Muscle Shoals $1,504,929

Arizona

Kingman $1,001,989

Page $1,057,655

Prescott $1,001,989

Show Low $779,325 

Arkansas 

El Dorado/Camden $937,385 

Harrison $1,406,078

Hot Springs $1,015,500 

Jonesboro $937,385

California

Crescent City $957,025 

Merced $799,604

Visalia $799,604 

Colorado 

Alamosa $1,150,268

Cortez $796,577 

Pueblo $780,997

Georgia

Athens $624,679

Illinois 

Decatur $1,242,250

Marion/Herrin $1,251,069

Quincy $1,097,406

Iowa

Burlington $1,077,847

Fort Dodge $1,080,386 

Mason City $1,080,386 

Kansas

Dodge City $1,379,419 

Garden City $1,733,997 

Great Bend $621,945 
States/Comm

unitiesSubsidy

Hays$1,540,392

Liberal/Guymon$1,008,582

Manhattan$487,004

Salina $487,004 

Kentucky 

Owensboro$1,127,453

Maine 

Augusta/Waterville$1,065,475

Bar Harbor $1,065,475 

Presque Isle $1,116,423 

Rockland$1,065,475

Maryland

Hagerstown$854,452

Michigan

Escanaba$908,903

Ironwood/Ashland$409,242

Iron Mountain/Kingsford $602,761 

Manistee$776,051

Minnesota 

Chisholm/Hibbing$1,279,329

Thief River Falls $777,709 

Mississippi

Laurel/Hattiesburg$917,129

Missouri 

Cape Girardeau $1,147,453 

Columbia/Jefferson City $598,751 Fort Leonard Wood $683,201 

Joplin $849,757 

Kirksville$840,200

Montana 

Glasgow$922,103

Glendive$922,103

Havre $922,103 

Lewistown$922,103

Miles City $922,103 

Sidney$1,306,313

West Yellowstone $247,122 

Page 28 GAO-07-793T 
States/Comm

unitiesSubsidy

Wolf Point $922,103 

Nebraska 

Alliance$655,898

Chadron$655,898

Grand Island $1,377,877 

Kearney$897,142

McCook$918,585

North Platte $976,026 Scottsbluff $520,137

Nevada 

Ely $647,709 

New Hampshire 

Lebanon$1,069,606

New Mexico

Alamogordo/Holloman$717,506

Carlsbad$599,671

Clovis $859,057 

Hobbs $519,614 

Silver City/Hurley/Deming $859,057 

New York 

Jamestown$1,217,414

Massena$585,945

Ogdensburg$585,945

Plattsburgh$853,378

Saranac Lake $853,378 

Watertown$585,945

North Dakota

Devils Lake $1,329,858 

Dickinson$1,696,977

Jamestown$1,351,677

Oregon 

Pendleton$649,974

Pennsylvania

Altoona$893,774

Bradford$1,217,414

DuBois$599,271

Johnstown$464,777

Page 29 GAO-07-793T 
States/Comm

unitiesSubsidy

Lancaster$1,377,257

Oil City/Franklin $683,636 

Puerto Rico

Mayaguez$688,551

Ponce $622,056 

South Dakota

Brookings$1,212,400

Huron $793,733 Watertown $1,211,589 Tenneessee Jackson $1,179,026 Texas Victoria $510,185

Utah 

Cedar City $897,535 

Moab $783,608 

Vernal $555,771 

Vermont

Rutland$849,705

Virginia Staunton

$650,123

West Virginia Beckley

$1,930,759

Clarksburg$306,109

Greenbrier$685,040

Morgantown$306,109

Parkersburg$439,115

Wyoming 

Laramie$487,516

Worland$972,757

Sub-Total$94,112,058

Alaska$9,075,687

Total$103,187,745

Source: DOT officials.

Page 30 GAO-07-793T 
Table 3: Alaskan EAS Communities and Their Subsidies, April 1, 2007 

Communities Annual Rate

Adak $1,393,384

Akutan $350,381

Alitak $19,749 

Atka $449,605 

Cape Yakataga $32,255 

Central $61,421

Chatham $7,520

Chisana $75,743

Circle $61,421 

Cordova $1,436,063

Elfin Cove $108,297 

Excursion Inlet $9,212 

Funter Bay $7,520 

Gulkana $224,890

Gustavus $1,436,063

Healy Lake $71,105 

Hydaburg $54,733

Icy Bay $32,255 

Karluk $38,880 

Kodiak Bush (includes 11 locations listed below) $149,595 

Manley $32,904

May Creek $83,642 

McCarthy $83,642

Minto $32,904 

Nikolski $314,694

Pelican Bay $108,297 

Petersburg $449,494

Port Alexander $48,746 

San Juan/Uganik $15,715 

Wrangell $449,494

Yakutat $1,436,063

Total $9,075,687

Kodiak Bush 

• Alitak/Lazy Bay 

• Amook Bay 

Page 31 GAO-07-793T 
Communities Annual Rate

• Kitoi Bay 

• Moser Bay 

• Olga Bay 

• Port Bailey 

• Port Williams 

• San Juan/Uganik 

• Seal Bay 

• West Point 

• Zachar Bay 

Source: DOT officials.

Page 32 GAO-07-793T 
Page 33 GAO-07-793T 

Table 4: EAS Subsidies per Enplanment 

States/ Communities 

Avg. Daily 

Enplanements at 

EAS Point FY05 

Annual 

Subsidy Rates 

at 2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Alabama 

Muscle Shoals 17.4 $1,364,697 $ 125.11 

Arizona

Kingman 6.5 $1,001,989 $ 245.41 

Page 14.6 $1,057,655 $ 115.68 

Prescott 20.3 $1,001,989 $ 78.91 

Show Low 8.7 $779,325 $ 142.34 

Arkansas 

El Dorado/Camden 6.8 $923,456 $ 218.10 

Harrison 11.6 $1,385,183 $ 190.35 

Hot Springs 10.3 $923,456 $ 143.73 

California

Crescent City 38.2 $816,025 $ 34.16 

Merced 27.5 $645,751 $ 37.46 

Visalia 4.2 $450,000 $ 173.14 

Jonesboro 8.4 $923,456 $176.13

Colorado 

Alamosa 16.9 $1,083,538 $ 102.29 

Cortez 25.8 $853,587 $ 52.77 

Pueblo 4.9 $780,997 $ 255.06 

Georgia

Athens 23.2 $392,108 $ 27.01 

Hawaii 

Hana 1/ $774,718 1/

Kalaupapa 1/ $331,981 1/

Kamuela 1/ $395,053 1/

Illinois 

Decatur 34.5 $954,404 $ 44.20 

Marion/Herrin 36.6 $1,251,069 $ 54.60 

Quincy 27.4 $1,097,406 $ 63.91 

Iowa

Burlington 22.1 $1,077,847 $ 77.99 

Fort Dodge 26.8 $1,080,386 $ 64.37 

Mason City 43.6 $1,080,386 $ 39.59 

Appendix II: EAS Subsidies per Enplanement 
States/ Communities 

Avg. Daily 

Enplanements at 

EAS Point FY05 

Annual 

Subsidy Rates 

at 2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Kansas

Dodge City 12.5 $1,379,419 $ 176.22 

Garden City 28.4 $1,733,997 $ 97.53 

Great Bend 2.5 $621,945 $ 403.08 

Hays 24.9 $1,540,392 $ 98.83 

Liberal/Guymon, OK 13.9 $1,008,582 $ 116.14 

Manhattan 32.3 $360,803 $ 17.82 

Salina 7.6 $360,803 $ 75.75 

Kentucky 

Owensboro 10.3 $1,127,453 $ 175.64 

Maine 

Augusta/Waterville 14.8 $1,065,475 $ 114.83 

Bar Harbor 33.4 $1,065,475 $ 50.91 

Presque Isle 52.9 $1,116,423 $ 33.73 

Rockland 23.0 $1,065,475 $ 73.87 

Maryland

Hagerstown 20.6 $649,929 $ 50.42 

Michigan

Escanaba 35.9 $290,952 $ 12.96 

Iron Mountain/Kingsford 29.0 $602,761 $ 33.19 

Ironwood/Ashland, WI 10.4 $409,242 $ 62.68 

Manistee/Ludington 7.9 $776,051 $ 156.40 

Minnesota 

Chisholm/Hibbing 33.7 $1,279,329 $ 60.72 

Thief River Falls 15.2 $777,709 $ 81.73 

Mississippi

Laurel/Hattiesburg 48.1 $1,100,253 $ 36.55 

Missouri 

Cape Girardeau 20.3 $1,147,453 $ 90.15 

Ft. Leonard Wood 25.3 $683,201 $ 43.05 

Joplin 30.9 $755,762 $ 39.01 

Kirksville 4.4 $840,200 $ 306.42 

Montana 

Glasgow 6.9 $823,591 $ 190.25 

Glendive 3.6 $823,591 $ 368.17 

Havre 5.0 $823,591 $ 263.55 

Page 34 GAO-07-793T 
States/ Communities 

Avg. Daily 

Enplanements at 

EAS Point FY05 

Annual 

Subsidy Rates 

at 2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Lewistown 2.8 $823,591 $ 472.78 

Miles City 3.9 $823,591 $ 341.17 

Sidney 11.5 $823,591 $ 114.71 

West Yellowstone 13.8 $418,488 $ 48.32 

Wolf Point 5.7 $823,591 $ 229.60 

Nebraska 

Alliance 4.5 $655,898 $ 233.25 

Chadron 4.9 $655,898 $ 215.54 

Grand Island 24.3 $1,198,396 $ 78.89 

Kearney 21.1 $1,166,849 $ 88.32 

McCook 6.3 $1,502,651 $ 379.55 

North Platte 24.7 $870,504 $ 56.29 

Scottsbluff 28.5 $494,887 $ 27.75 

Nevada 

Ely 6.9 $698,078 $ 161.33 

New Hampshire 

Lebanon 28.4 $998,752 $ 56.21 

New Mexico

Alamogordo/Holoman AFB 2/ $592,170 2/

Carlsbad 14.0 $599,671 $ 68.63 

Clovis 6.8 $859,057 $ 201.75 

Hobbs 4.9 $519,614 $ 168.21 

Silver City/Hurley/Deming 6.6 $859,057 $ 206.85 

New York 

Jamestown 26.6 $501,937 $ 30.10 

Massena 10.7 $585,945 $ 87.85 

Ogdensburg 6.4 $585,945 $ 146.67 

Plattsburgh 4.1 $753,964 $ 294.17 

Saranac Lake 7.4 $753,964 $ 161.83 

Watertown 16.7 $585,945 $ 56.11 

North Dakota

Devils Lake 7.2 $1,329,858 $ 296.18 

Dickinson 16.4 $1,697,248 $ 165.75 

Jamestown 9.9 $1,351,677 $ 217.63 

Oklahoma

Enid 3.5 $636,279 $ 289.88 

Page 35 GAO-07-793T 
States/ Communities 

Avg. Daily 

Enplanements at 

EAS Point FY05 

Annual 

Subsidy Rates 

at 2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Ponca City 2.6 $636,279 $ 387.03 

Oregon 

Pendleton 21.6 $649,974 $ 47.99 

Pennsylvania

Altoona 20.9 $893,774 $ 68.16 

Bradford 19.3 $501,937 $ 41.48 

Du Bois 33.2 $643,818 $ 31.01 

Johnstown 39.3 $464,777 $ 18.89 

Lancaster 19.0 $1,611,707 $ 135.72 

Oil City/Franklin 10.3 $683,636 $ 105.78 

Puerto Rico

Mayaguez 33.3 $688,551 $ 33.08 

Ponce 11.2 $622,056 $ 88.54 

South Dakota

Brookings 2.5 $1,039,364 $ 677.11 

Huron 4.6 $1,039,364 $ 361.27 

Pierre 20.3 $449,912 $ 35.43 

Watertown 31.1 $1,211,589 $ 62.30 

Tennessee 

Jackson 7.2 $1,179,026 $ 261.54 

Texas 

Victoria 34.3 $510,185 $ 23.76 

Utah 

Cedar City 42.4 $1,068,607 $ 40.22 

Moab 3.1 $674,804 $ 344.99 

Vernal 4.6 $595,436 $ 208.56 

Vermont

Rutland 6.7 $849,705 $ 202.89 

Virginia 

Staunton 18.3 $650,123 $ 56.73 

Washington

Ephrata/Moses Lake 11.8 $1,698,922 $ 230.30 

West Virginia

Beckley 6.3 $977,858 $ 247.12 

Bluefield/Princeton 6.3 $977,858 $ 247.25 

Clarksburg/Fairmont 27.6 $306,109 $ 17.72 

Page 36 GAO-07-793T 
States/ Communities 

Avg. Daily 

Enplanements at 

EAS Point FY05 

Annual 

Subsidy Rates 

at 2/1/2006 

Subsidy per 

Passenger 

Greenbrier/W.SulphSpr/LWB 15.8 $540,579 $ 54.50 

Morgantown 35.7 $306,109 $ 13.68 

Parkersburg 52.0 $439,115 $ 13.50 

Wyoming 

Laramie 27.1 $397,400 $ 23.44 

Riverton 37.6 $394,046 $ 16.75 

Rock Springs 45.0 $390,488 $ 13.85 

Sheridan 42.0 $336,701 $ 12.79 

Worland 6.1 $797,844 $ 208.42 

Source: DOT officials.

Notes: Subsidies rates are more recent than enplanement data; however, this is the most closely 

timed data sets available. 

1/ Incomplete traffic data. 

2/ Service hiatus.

Page 37 GAO-07-793T 
Page 38 GAO-07-793T 

Table 5: SCASDP Grantees and Grant Status

Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Alabama 

Dothan 2003 $200,000 Completed 

Huntsville 2004 479,950 Completed 

Mobile 2002 456,137 Completed 

Montgomery 2005 600,000 Ongoing

Tuscaloosa 2006 400,000 Ongoing

Alaska 

Aleutians East Borough 2002 240,000 Completed 

Aleutians East Borough 2003 70,000 Ongoing 

Fairbanks 2006 500,000 Ongoing

Arizona

AZ Consortium 2003 1,500,000 Ongoing 

Lake Havasu City 2002 403,478 Completed 

Arkansas 

Fort Smith 2002 108,520 Completed 

Hot Springs (reallocation) 2004 195,000 Completed 

Mountain Home (Baxter) 2003 574,875 Ongoing 

California

Bakersfield 2003 982,513 Completed 

California Consortium 2005 245,020 Ongoing 

Chico 2002 44,000 Completed 

Chico 2006 472,500 Ongoing

Fresno 2003 1,000,000 Ongoing 

Modesto 2005 550,000 Ongoing

Monterey 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Palmdale 2006 900,000 Ongoing

Redding/Arcata 2004 500,000 Completed 

Santa Maria 2002 217,530 Completed 

Santa Rosa 2004 635,000 Ongoing 

Visalia (reallocation) 2004 200,000 Completed 

Colorado 

Durango/La Plata County 2005 750,000 Ongoing 

Gunnison 2003 200,000 Completed 

Lamar 2002 250,000 Completed 

Appendix III: Small Community Air Service 

Development Program Grantees, Year Grant 

was Awarded, Grant Amounts and Grant 

Status as of April 1, 2007 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Montrose 2006 450,000 Ongoing

Steamboat Springs 2004 500,000 Ongoing 

Telluride 2002 300,000 Completed 

Connecticut 

New Haven 2004 250,000 Completed 

Florida

Daytona Beach 2002 743,333 Completed 

Gainesville 2003 660,000 Completed 

Marathon 2005 750,000 Ongoing

Melbourne 2006 800,000 Ongoing

Sarasota 2004 1,500,000 Completed

Georgia

Albany 2004 $500,000 Ongoing 

Augusta 2002 759,004 Terminated 

Brunswick 2006 500,000 Ongoing

Macon 2005 507,691 Ongoing

Savannah 2003 523,495 Completed 

Idaho 

Hailey 2002 600,000 Completed 

Idaho Falls 2005 500,000 Ongoing 

Lewiston-Nez Perce 2003 675,000 Ongoing 

Pocatello 2004 75,000 Completed 

Illinois 

Bloomington 2004 850,000 Completed 

Champaign-Urbana 2004 200,000 Completed 

Marion 2002 212,694 Completed 

Rockford 2005 1,000,000 Ongoing

Springfield 2006 390,000 Ongoing

Indiana 

Evansville/South Bend 2004 1,000,000 Ongoing 

Fort Wayne 2002 398,000 Completed 

Gary 2006 600,000 Ongoing

Iowa

Cedar Rapids 2006 200,000 Ongoing 

Dubuque 2003 610,000 Completed 

Mason City 2002 600,000 Terminated 

Page 39 GAO-07-793T 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Sioux City 2004 609,800 Completed 

Waterloo 2004 550,000 Ongoing 

Kansas

Garden City/Dodge City/Liberal 2006 150,000 Ongoing 

Manhattan 2002 388,350 Completed 

Kentucky 

Big Sandy Region 2006 90,000 Ongoing 

Owensboro 2003 500,000 Completed 

Paducah 2002 304,000 Completed 

Somerset 2002 95,000 Completed 

Somerset 2005 950,000 Ongoing

Louisiana

Alexandria 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Lafayette 2004 240,000 Ongoing 

Lake Charles 2002 500,000 Completed 

Monroe 2006 50,000 Ongoing

Shreveport 2003 500,000 Completed 

Maine 

Bangor 2003 310,000 Ongoing 

Presque Isle 2002 500,000 Completed 

Rockland/Knox County 2005 555,000 Ongoing 

Massachusetts

Worcester (reallocation) 2004 442,615 Ongoing 

Michigan

Alpena 2004 583,046 Completed

Hancock / Houghton County 2005 516,000 Ongoing 

Kalamazoo 2004 500,000 Completed 

Marquette 2004 700,000 Ongoing 

Muskegon 2003 500,000 Completed 

Minnesota

Brainerd, St. Cloud 2002 1,000,000 Completed 

Duluth 2003 1,000,000 Ongoing 

Hibbing 2005 485,000 Ongoing

Marshall 2005 480,000 Ongoing

Mississippi

Columbus 2004 260,000 Ongoing 

Page 40 GAO-07-793T 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Greenville 2003 400,000 Terminated 

Gulfport/Biloxi 2005 750,000 Ongoing

Jackson 2006 400,000 Ongoing

Meridian 2002 500,000 Completed 

Tupelo 2003 475,000 Completed 

Missouri 

Cape Girardeau 2002 500,000 Ongoing 

Joplin 2003 500,000 Ongoing 

Montana 

Butte 2004 360,000 Ongoing 

Cut Bank 2003 90,000 Completed 

Great Falls 2005 220,000 Ongoing 

Kalispell 2006 450,000 Ongoing

Nebraska 

Grand Island 2003 380,000 Ongoing 

Lincoln 2004 1,200,000 Ongoing 

McCook/North Platte 2004 275,000 Ongoing 

Scottsbluff 2002 950,000 Completed 

Nevada 

Elko 2004 222,000 Completed 

New Hampshire 

Lebanon 2004 500,000 Ongoing 

New Mexico

Farmington 2004 650,000 Ongoing 

Gallup 2006 600,000 Ongoing

Ruidoso 2005 600,000 Ongoing

Taos Consortium 2003 1,400,000 Completed 

Taos/Ruidoso 2002 500,000 Completed 

New York 

Binghamton 2002 500,000 Completed

Elmira 2003 200,000 Ongoing 

Ithaca 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Jamestown 2006 150,000 Ongoing

Massena/St. Lawrence Valley 2005 400,000 Ongoing 

Stewart 2005 250,000 Ongoing

Syracuse (reallocation) 2004 480,000 Ongoing 

Page 41 GAO-07-793T 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

North Carolina 

Asheville 2002 500,000 Completed 

Greenville 2005 450,000 Ongoing

Jacksonville 2005 500,000 Ongoing

NC Consortium 2003 1,200,000 Ongoing 

North Dakota

Bismarck 2002 1,557,500 Ongoing 

Dickinson 2003 750,000 Completed 

Fargo 2005 675,000 Ongoing

Grand Forks 2006 350,000 Ongoing 

Jamestown/Devil’s Lake 2006 100,000 Ongoing 

Ohio 

Akron/Canton 2002 950,000 Completed 

Parkersburg-Marietta (with 

WV) 

2003 500,000 Ongoing 

Toledo 2006 400,000 Ongoing

Youngstown 2004 250,000 Ongoing 

Oklahoma

Lawton/Ft. Sill 2005 570,000 Ongoing 

Oregon 

Baker City 2002 300,000 Terminated 

North Bend 2006 400,000 Ongoing 

Oregon DOT 2005 180,570 Ongoing 

Redmond 2003 515,000 Completed 

Salem 2004 500,000 Ongoing 

Pennsylvania

Bradford 2005 220,000 Ongoing

Dubois 2004 400,000 Ongoing 

Erie 2003 500,000 Completed 

Harrisburg 2006 400,000 Ongoing

Latrobe 2004 600,000 Completed 

Reading 2002 470,000 Completed 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton 2004 625,000 Completed 

Williamsport 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Puerto Rico

Aguadilla 2003 626,700 Ongoing

South Carolina

Page 42 GAO-07-793T 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Charleston 2003 1,000,000 Terminated 

Florence 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Sumter 2004 50,000 Completed 

South Dakota

Aberdeen 2005 450,000 Ongoing

Pierre 2003 150,000 Completed 

Rapid City 2002 1,400,000 Completed 

Sioux Falls 2004 350,000 Completed 

Tennessee 

Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City 2002 615,000 Completed 

Chattanooga 2004 750,000 Completed

Knoxville 2003 500,000 Terminated 

Texas 

Abilene 2002 85,010 Completed 

Abilene 2006 465,100 Ongoing

Beaumont/Port Arthur 2002 500,000 Completed 

Del Rio 2004 318,750 Completed 

Killeen 2005 280,000 Ongoing

Laredo 2003 400,000 Ongoing 

Longview 2006 225,000 Ongoing

Tyler 2004 90,000 Completed 

Victoria 2003 20,000 Completed 

Utah 

Cedar City 2005 155,000 Ongoing 

Logan City 2004 530,000 Ongoing 

Moab 2002 250,000 Completed 

Vernal/Uintah County 2005 40,000 Ongoing 

Vermont

Rutland (reallocation) 2004 240,000 Completed 

Virginia 

Charlottesville 2004 270,000 Ongoing 

Lynchburg 2002 500,000 Completed 

Lynchburg 2006 250,000 Ongoing

Richmond 2004 950,000 Ongoing 

Staunton 2003 100,000 Completed 

Washington

Page 43 GAO-07-793T 
Grantee 

Year grant 

awarded Grant amount 

Status as of

April 1, 2007 

Bellingham 2002 301,500 Completed 

Friday Harbor 2003 350,000 Completed 

Walla Walla 2004 250,000 Ongoing 

West Virginia

Beckley/Lewisburg 2004 300,000 Ongoing 

Charleston 2002 500,000 Completed 

Clarksburg/Morgantown 

(Reallocation) 

2004 372,286 Ongoing 

Huntington 2005 500,000 Ongoing

Parkersburg-Marietta (With 

OH) 

2003 500,000 Ongoing 

Wisconsin 

Eau Claire 2004 500,000 Ongoing 

Rhinelander 2002 500,000 Completed 

Wyoming 

Casper, Gillette 2002 500,000 Terminated 

Wyoming DOT 2005 800,000 Ongoing 

Source: DOT officials.

Page 44 GAO-07-793T 
Page 45 GAO-07-793T 

Appendix IV: Related GAO Products 

Airport Finance: Preliminary Analysis Indicates Proposed Changes in

the Airport Improvement Program May Not Resolve Funding Needs for 

Smaller Airports. GAO-07-617T Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007. 

Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for the Federal Approach 

to Providing and Improving Air Service to Small Communities. GAO-06-

398T Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2006. 

Airline Deregulation: Reregulating the Airline Industry Would Reverse 

Consumer Benefits and Not Save Airline Pensions. GAO-06-630 

Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2006. 

Commercial Aviation: Initial Small Community Air Service 

Development Projects Have Achieved Mixed Results. GAO-06-21 

Washington, D.C: November 30, 2005

Commercial Aviation: Survey of Small Community Air Service Grantees

and Applicants. GAO-06-101SP. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2005 

Commercial Aviation: Bankruptcy and Pension Problems Are Symptoms 

of Underlying Structural Issues. GAO-05-945 Washington, D.C.: 

September 30, 2005 

Commercial Aviation: Legacy Airlines Must Further Reduce Costs to 

Restore Profitability. GAO-04-836 Washington, D.C.: August 11, 2004 

Commercial Aviation: Issues Regarding Federal Assistance for 

Enhancing Air Service to Small Communities. GAO-03-540T. 

Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2003 

Federal Aviation Administration: Reauthorization Provides 

Opportunities to Address Key Agency Challenges. GAO-03-653T. 

Washington, D.C.: April l0, 2003 

Commercial Aviation: Factors Affecting Efforts to Improve Air Service 

at Small Community Airports. GAO-03-330 Washington, D.C.: January 17, 

2003 

Commercial Aviation: Financial Condition and Industry Responses 

Affect Competition. GAO-03-171T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2002. 

Options to Enhance the Long-term Viability of the Essential Air Service

Program. GAO-02-997R. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002. 
Commercial Aviation: Air Service Trends at Small Communities Since 

October 2000. GAO-02-432. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.

Page 46 GAO-07-793T (540148) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER