Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

APPLICATION UNDER

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

DOCKET DOT-OST-2014-0113

SUMMARY INFORMATION

A. PROVIDE THE LEGAL SPONSOR AND ITS DUN AND BRADSTREET (D&B) DATA UNIVERSAL 

NUMBERING SYSTEM (DUNS) NUMBER, INCLUDING +4, EMPLOYEE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 

(EIN) OR TAX ID. 

Legal Sponsor Name: Great Falls International Airport Authority

Name of Signatory Party for Legal Sponsor: John Faulkner

DUNS Number: 15-6130148 

EIN/Tax ID: 81-0347136

B. LIST THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY OR CONSORTIUM OF COMMUNITIES APPLYING:

1. Great Falls, Montana

C. PROVIDE THE FULL AIRPORT NAME AND 3-LETTER IATA AIRPORT CODE FOR THE 

APPLICANT(S) AIRPORT(S) (ONLY PROVIDE CODES FOR THE AIRPORT(S) THAT ARE 

ACTUALLY SEEKING SERVICE).

1. Great Falls International Airport (GTF) 2.

3. 4.

DOES THE AIRPORT SEEKING SERVICE HOLD AN AIRPORT OPERATING CERTIFICATE ISSUED 

BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION UNDER 14 CFR PART 139? (IF “NO,” PLEASE 

EXPLAIN WHETHER THE AIRPORT INTENDS TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFICATE OR WHETHER AN 

APPLICATION UNDER PART 139 IS PENDING.)

 Yes No (explain)
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

D. LIST THE 2-DIGIT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CODE APPLICABLE TO THE SPONSORING 

ORGANIZATION, AND IF A CONSORTIUM, TO EACH PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY. 

1. None (at-large congressional representation) 2.

3. 4.

E. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Not a Consortium Interstate Consortium Intrastate Consortium

Community now receives subsidized Essential Air Service

Community (or Consortium member) previously received a Small Community Air Service Development 

Program Grant

If previous recipient: Provide Year of grant(s): 

____________________________________________________; Did not execute contract with DOT 

and, the text of the Grant agreement section(s) setting forth the scope of the grant 

project:______________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

F. PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: (LIST ORGANIZATION NAMES)

PUBLIC PRIVATE

1. Great Falls International Airport Authority 1.

2. 2.

3. 3.

4. 4.

5. 5.
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

G. PROJECT PROPOSAL: 

1. GRANT GOALS: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Launch New Carrier Secure Additional Service Upgrade Aircraft

 First Service New Route Service Restoration

 Regional Service Surface Transportation Professional 

Services

Other (explain below)

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

2 . FINANCIAL TOOLS TO BE USED: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Marketing (including Advertising): promotion of the air service to the public

Start-Up Cost Offset: offsetting expenses to assist an air service provider in setting up a new station 

and starting new service (for example, ticket counter reconfiguration)

Revenue Guarantee: an agreement with an air service provider setting forth a minimum guaranteed 

profit margin, a portion of which is eligible for reimbursement by the community

Recruitment of Air Carrier: air service development activities to recruit new air service, including 

expenses for airport marketers to meet with air service providers to make the case for new air service

Fee Waivers: waiver of airport fees, such as landing fees, to encourage new air service; counted as 

in-kind contributions only

Ground Handling Fee: reimbursement of expenses for passenger, cabin, and ramp (below wing) 

services provided by third party ground handlers

Travel Bank: travel pledges, or deposited monetary funds, from participating parties for the purchase 

of air travel on an air carrier, with defined procedures for the subsequent use of the pledges or the 

deposited funds; counted as in-kind contributions only

Other (explain below)
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

H. EXISTING LANDING AIDS AT LOCAL AIRPORT:

 Full ILS Outer/Middle Marker Published Instrument 

Approach

Localizer Other (specify)

I. PROJECT COST: DO NOT ENTER TEXT IN SHADED AREA

J. IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS**

For funds in lines 5a (Airport In-Kind contribution) and 5b (Other In-Kind contribution), please describe the 

source(s) of fund(s) and the value ($) of each.

____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

K. IS THIS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY AN AFFECTED STATE UNDER EXECUTIVE 

ORDER 12372 PROCESS?

 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for 

review on (date) _____________.

 b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372, but has not been selected by the State for review.

 c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.

L. IS THE LEAD APPLICANT OR ANY CO-APPLICANTS DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? 

(IF “YES”, PROVIDE EXPLANATION)

No Yes (explain) 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Line Description Sub Total Total Amount

1 Federal amount requested $500,000

2 State cash financial contribution

Local cash financial contribution

3a Airport cash funds $20,000

3b Non-airport cash funds $100,000

3 Total local cash funds (3a + 3b): $120,000

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING (1 + 2 + 3): $620,000

In-Kind contribution

5a Airport in-kind contribution** $81,140

5b Other in-kind contribution**

5 TOTAL IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION (5a + 5b): $101,140

6 TOTAL PROJECT COST (4 + 5): $721,140

$20,000

Airport in-kind contribution is from airport marketing funds. Other in-kind contributions 

are from a local radio station, Central Montana Radio Network. 
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY LETTER .................................................................................................................... 2

DELTA AIR LINES LETTER OF SUPPORT........................................................................................... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 4

AIR SERVICE OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................... 5

Catchment Area and Alternate Airports ................................................................................................................. 5

Existing Air Service ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Air Service Development Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 7

AIR SERVCE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES............................................................... 8

Capacity Trends ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Domestic Traffic Trends ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Domestic Fare Trends..........................................................................................................................................10

Domestic Fares Versus Domestic Fares at Other Airports in the Lower 48 United States .................................11

Domestic Fares Versus Other Airports in the Region..........................................................................................12

Leakage to Other Airports in the Region..............................................................................................................13

STRATEGIC PLAN .............................................................................................................................. 14

Revenue Guarantee for Service to Chicago or Atlanta........................................................................................14

Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................17

Grant Amendments/Alternate Strategies .............................................................................................................17

PARTNERSHIPS, FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION, SUCCESS METRICS AND FINANCIAL 

CONTROL............................................................................................................................................ 17

Public / Private Partnerships ................................................................................................................................17

Project Funding ....................................................................................................................................................18

Implementation Timeline......................................................................................................................................18

Success Metrics.................................................................................................................................. 19

Legal Sponsor......................................................................................................................................................20

Financial Controls ................................................................................................................................................20
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

2

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

 

Brooke Chapman, Associate Director

Small Community Air Service Development Program

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

July 29, 2014

RE: Small Community Air Service Development Grant

Dear Ms. Chapman:

The Great Falls International Airport Authority hereby submits its application for the 2014 Small 

Community Air Service Development (SCASD) Program. Our proposal complies with the program 

guidelines provided by the Department of Transportation. We believe our proposal for a minimum 

revenue guarantee for connecting service at a hub in the East – either Chicago or Atlanta – represents an 

efficient use of SCASD funds and an opportunity to improve air service in Great Falls.

Over the last ten years, Great Falls has lost a significant amount of network carrier capacity, including 

capacity to Minneapolis, the most logical connecting hub for travel east of Great Falls. As network carrier 

capacity has trended down, network carrier traffic has also trended down. Since it peaked in 2005, Great 

Falls’ domestic ex-Allegiant traffic was down 13.8% in 2013 to just 347 passengers per day each way. 

As capacity and traffic have declined, the average domestic ex-Allegiant Great Falls one-way fare has 

increased and stood at $243 in 2013 – an increase of 44.8% since 2005. Among Lower 48 airports with 

at least 100,000 domestic ex-Allegiant origin and destination passengers, the average domestic exAllegiant Great Falls fare of $243 ranked as the 34th most expensive fare in the United States.

The Airport Authority has partnered with various organizations in the community to develop and promote 

air service. These partnerships include the Great Falls Chamber of Commerce, the Great Falls Tourism 

Improvement District and the Great Falls Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Chamber and the Tourism 

Improvement District have committed to cash funding totaling $100,000 to supplement the proposed 

SCASD funding. 

Thank you in advance for your review of our proposal, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John Faulkner, A.A.E.

Airport Director 

Great Falls International Airport Authority

Great Falls International Airport Authority

2800 Terminal Drive

Great Falls, MT 59404-5599

Tel: (406) 727-3404 | Fax: (406) 727-6929 | Email: info@flygtf.com
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

3

DELTA AIR LINES LETTER OF SUPPORT
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Great Falls International Airport is 

proposing Small Community Air 

Service Development Grant funding in 

the amount of $500,000 for a for a 

minimum revenue guarantee for 

service to Chicago on American 

Airlines or United Airlines or service to 

Atlanta on Delta Air Lines. Service to 

Chicago or Atlanta would provide 

better connections from Great Falls to 

destinations on the East Coast (and

the Midwest in the case of service to 

Chicago). Connectivity from Great 

Falls to both the East Coast and the Midwest is somewhat limited to existing service offered by Delta via 

its hub in Minneapolis/St. Paul, service offered by United via its hub in Denver and seasonal less-thandaily service on Frontier via its hub in Denver.

Excluding the capacity and traffic added by Allegiant beginning in 2006, capacity and traffic on the 

carriers with the ability to connect traffic beyond major hubs has declined since both capacity and traffic 

peaked in 2005. In fact, ex-Allegiant capacity at Great Falls is down 45.7% since 2005 from 1,095 exAllegiant seats per day each way to 594 seats per day each way in 2013. Domestic ex-Allegiant traffic is 

down 13.8% from 293,750 origin and destination O&D passengers in 2005 to 253,090 O&D passengers 

in 2013. As capacity declined, the average one-way domestic fare at Great Falls increased and has 

remained well above $200 each way in each of the last seven years. In fact, Great Falls’ average 

domestic one-way fare, excluding Allegiant data, stood at $243 in 2013. Among all airports in the Lower 

48 United States, the average domestic ex-Allegiant fare was $182 in 2013, making the average Great

Falls domestic ex-Allegiant fare 33.6% higher than the average Lower 48 domestic ex-Allegiant fare. 

(Including Allegiant data, the average one-way domestic Great Falls fare was $201 compared to $181 for 

the average one-way domestic Lower 48 fare.)

A significant amount of the traffic generated in the Great Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area leaks to other 

airports; Great Falls retains just 51.4% of the traffic. Additional service – especially service to a large 

connecting hub to the East would reverse the declining trends in both capacity and traffic, and would 

likely put downward pressure on the high fares.
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

5

AIR SERVICE OVERVIEW

Catchment Area and Alternate Airports

The primary catchment area for Great Falls International Airport is the Great Falls Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, but given the relatively isolated location of the airport, the vast distances from smaller communities 

in Montana to an airport with commercial service and the proximity of Great Falls to Canada, the airport’s 

catchment area is much larger than just the Great Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Other airports with commercial airline service in the region are located in Helena, Missoula, Bozeman, 

Kalispell and Billings. The airport in Helena is the closest airport to Great Falls at 86 miles, but the airport 

in Missoula (173 miles) captures the largest share of traffic leaked from Great Falls International Airport.

Exhibit 1: One, Two and Three Hour Drive Times from Great Falls International Airport, the Location of Alternate 

Airports in the Region, Distances and Drive Times to Alternate Airports

Airport 

Location

Road Miles 

from GTF

Drive Time 

from GTF

HLN 86 1:25

MSO 173 3:21

BZN 175 2:53

FCA 217 3:43

BIL 220 3:41
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

6

Existing Air Service

Great Falls is served by Delta, Frontier, United, Alaska and Allegiant. Delta serves its hubs in Salt Lake 

City and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Frontier serves its hub in Denver on a less-than-daily seasonal basis, 

United serves its hub at Denver, and Alaska operates service from Great Falls to Seattle (with some 

flights operating to Seattle on single-plane service via Helena). Allegiant serves Great Falls with lessthan-daily service to Las Vegas, Phoenix/Mesa and recently began seasonal service to Los Angeles.

Exhibit 2: Current Routes Operated by Carrier from Great Falls International Airport

The number of departures per day, average seats per departure and seats per day by market and by 

carrier are displayed in the table in Exhibit 3. Based on July 2014 data, Delta provides the most capacity 

at Great Falls International airport, with an average of 306 seats per day each way, or 33.5% of the 

airport's total capacity. Alaska is the second largest carrier at Great Falls with 24.9% of the airport's 

capacity. Alaska operates one nonstop flight from Great Falls to Seattle complemented by a second 

Seattle flight which operates via Helena before continuing to Seattle. United operates about 15.9% of the 

capacity at Great Falls with three 50-seat regional jet flights to its hub in Denver. Frontier operates three 

weekly flights to its hub in Denver on a seasonal basis. In 2014, Fronteir service will operate from May 30 

through August 18. Allegiant operates less-than-daily service to Las Vegas, Phoenix/Mesa and Los 
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

7

Angeles. Although Allegiant's capacity varies throughout the year, it will operate two flights per week to 

Las Vegas, four flights per week to Phoenix/Mesa and two flights per week to Los Angeles year in July. 

Unlike Alaska, Delta, Frontier and United, and although Allegiant will operate 19.3% of the capacity in 

July, Allegiant does not offer connecting service beyond Las Vegas, Phoenix/Mesa or Los Angeles – all 

Allegiant traffic is point-to-point traffic. 

Exhibit 3: Departures per Day*, Seats per Departure and Seats per Day by Market and Carrier at Great Falls – July 

2014

* The number of departures per day is displayed in increments of sevenths (because there are seven days in a week). "1 5/7" is 

read as one flight seven days a week with a second flight operated five of the seven days in a week. 

Air Service Development Efforts

Great Falls International Airport is actively engaged with airlines to enhance its air service. Over the past 

year, the airport director has met with Alaska, Allegiant, American, Delta, Frontier, Southwest and United 

to discuss the performance of existing service, increased capacity and potential new service.

Airline Destination

Departures per 

Day Each Way

Seats per 

Departure

Seats per Day 

Each Way

Percent of Total 

Capacity

Seat 

Change

Seat % 

Change

Alaska HLN 2 76 152.0 16.63% 0.0 0.0%

SEA 1 76 76.0 8.32% 0.0 0.0%

Total 3 76 228.0 24.95% 0.0 0.0%

Delta MSP 2 1/7 76 159.4 17.44% (2.5) -1.5%

SLC 3 50 146.8 16.06% 6.5 4.6%

Total 5 61 306.1 33.50% 4.0 1.3%

Frontier DEN 3/7 138 57.9 6.33% (4.5) -7.1%

Total 3/7 138 57.9 6.33% (4.5) -7.1%

United DEN 2 6/7 50 145.2 15.88% 8.1 5.9%

Total 2 6/7 50 145.2 15.88% 8.1 5.9%

Network Carrier Total 11 2/7 65 737.2 80.66% 7.6 1.0%

Allegiant AZA 2/7 166 42.8 4.69% (5.4) -11.1%

LAS 4/7 166 91.0 9.96% (10.7) -10.5%

LAX 2/7 166 42.8 4.69% 42.8

Total 1 166 176.7 19.34% 26.8 17.9%

Grand Total 12 3/7 74 913.9 100.00% 34.4 3.9%

July 2014
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

8

AIR SERVCE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES

Capacity Trends

As illustrated in Exhibit 4, Great Falls' total capacity (to include network carriers and Allegiant), measured 

in terms of seats per day each way, is down 32.8% since 2005 to 736 seats per day each way. Also 

since 2005, Great Falls has lost slightly less than half or 45.7% of its ex-Allegiant capacity to 594 seats 

per day each way. The table in Exhibit 5 illustrates the primary reason ex-Allegiant capacity is down is 

the result of Delta/Northwest operating fewer seats to its hubs in Salt Lake City and Minneapolis/St. Paul. 

Versus 2005, Delta operated 213 fewer seats per day each way to Salt Lake City and 131 fewer seats per 

day each way to Minneapolis for a total of 344 fewer seats per day each way in 2013. Although both 

United and Frontier added capacity to and from Denver since 2005 and Alaska added a marginal number 

of seats to and from Seattle, total seats to and from major connecting hubs from Great Falls are down 

38.3% or 275 seats per day each way.

Exhibit 4: Seats per Day Each Way at Great Falls International Airport (Ex-Allegiant and Allegiant) – Full Year 2004-

2013 (OAG Data) 

1,069

1,095

966

761

649 638

582 572 593 594

35 46 51

104 127 146 142

1,069

1,095

966

797

695 688 685 699

739 736

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Seats per Day Each Way

Ex-Allegiant Allegiant All Carriers
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

9

Exhibit 5: Ex-Allegiant Seats per Day Each Way at Great Falls International Airport by Market – Full Year 2005 

Versus Full Year 2013 (OAG data)

Domestic Traffic Trends

Exhibit 6 illustrates Great Falls domestic ex-Allegiant traffic peaked in 2005 when capacity peaked. 

Between 2005 and 2013, domestic ex-Allegiant traffic is down 13.8% from 293,750 origin and destination 

(O&D) passengers to 253,090 origin and destination passengers in 2013. Although international traffic 

increased 22.9% between 2005 and 2013, the increase was on a small base of traffic, and the net 

increase represents only 1,970 O&D passengers. While Allegiant’s traffic has boosted Great Falls 2013 

traffic to a near record level, Allegiant’s 2013 traffic declined by 4,190 O&D passengers versus 2012.

Although total traffic at Great Falls has increased since 2005, most of the increase can be attributed to 

Allegiant entering the market in 2006 and growing its traffic to over 92,000 O&D passengers in 2013. 

Allegiant carried this traffic to just two destinations: Las Vegas and Phoenix/Mesa. 

Exhibit 6: Annual Domestic and International Origin and Destination (O&D) Passengers at Great Falls International 

Airport Year-End Fourth Quarter 2004-2013 (DB1B data)

Market Hub Airline 2005 2013 Seat Change Percent Change

BIL 16 0

DEN United, Frontier 66 132 66 100.9%

FCA 189 0

GEG 16 0

HLN 156 152 (131) -84.2%

MSP Delta/Northwest 229 97 (131) -57.5%

SEA Alaska 72 76 4 5.1%

SLC Delta/Northwest 350 137 (213) -60.9%

Total Seats 1,095 594 (501) -45.7%

Airline Hub Seats 717 442 (275) -38.3%

244,420

293,750

270,480 252,210

232,820

202,590 213,630 229,780

256,970 253,090

21,230

35,850

70,620

76,310

84,350

96,220 92,030

8,100

8,590

9,480 10,300 9,880

10,260 10,000

9,150

9,920 10,560

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Annual Origin and Destination (O&D) Passengers

Annual Domestic O&D (Ex-Allegiant) Annual Domestic O&D (Allegiant) Annual International O&D

252,520 302,340 279,960 283,740 278,550 283,470 299,940 323,280 363,110 355,680
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

10

Domestic Fare Trends

Exhibit 7 illustrates the relationship between Great Falls ex-Allegiant seats per day each way, ex-Allegiant 

domestic traffic and the average ex-Allegiant domestic one-way fare. Since 2005, when both ex-Allegiant

capacity and ex-Allegiant traffic peaked at Great Falls, the average ex-Allegiant domestic one-way fare 

increased 44.8% from $168 to $243 in 2013. The fare peaked at $248 in both 2008 and 2011. The 2013 

fare of $243 was just $5 below the 2011 peak of $248.

Exhibit 7: Passengers per Day Each Way (PDEW), Seats per Day Each Way and Average Domestic One-Way Fare 

at Great Falls International Airport – Full Year 2004-2013 (DOT T-100 and DB1B Data – All Carriers)

Although including Allegiant data in the calculation of Great Falls’ average domestic one-way fare brings 

the fare down to $201, it should be noted the combined Allegiant fare in the Great Falls-Las Vegas and 

Great Falls-Phoenix/Mesa markets was just $83 in 2013, and Allegiant accounted for more than onefourth of Great Falls’ total domestic traffic. Furthermore, Allegiant carried traffic only to Las Vegas and 

Phoenix/Mesa (Allegiant’s Great Falls-Los Angeles service began in June 2014) and does not provide 

access to a larger network as Delta, Frontier and United provide for travelers to and from Great Falls. 

Because the nature of Allegiant’s service does not provide material benefits to a broad segment of the 

traveling public, we do not believe Allegiant’s impact on the average domestic Great Falls one-way fare 

should be considered when assessing the degree to which Great Falls fares exceed the national average 

air fares.

1,069

1,095

966

761

649 638

582 572 593 594

334

402

371 345

318

278 293 315

351 347

$180

$168

$214

$235

$248

$239 $241 $248 $244 $243

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average One-Way Fare

Seats and Passengers per Day Each Way

Seats per Day Each Way (Ex-Allegiant) Domestic PDEW (Ex-Allegiant) One-Way Domestic Fare (Ex-Allegiant)
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

11

Domestic Fares Versus Domestic Fares at Other Airports in the Lower 48 United 

States

The average domestic ex-Allegiant fare at the average Lower 48 airport was $182 in 2013 (including 

Allegiant data, the fare was $181). Exhibit 8 illustrates Great Falls’ average domestic fare relative to the 

average domestic ex-Allegiant fare at the average Lower 48 airport At $243, the average domestic exAllegiant fare at Great Falls International Airport was significantly higher than the average domestic fare 

at most other Lower 48 airports in the United States. In fact, the average Great Falls fare was 34% or 

$61 higher than the fare at the average Lower 48 airport in 2013.

Exhibit 8: Average Domestic Ex-Allegiant One-way Fare at Great Falls Versus the Average Lower 48 Airport – Full 

Year 2004-2013 (DB1B data)

In 2013, 231 Lower 48 airports generated at least 100,000 domestic ex-Allegiant O&D passengers; Great 

Falls generated 253,090 domestic ex-Allegiant O&D passengers in 2013. Among these 231 airports –

airports with significant amounts of domestic ex-Allegiant traffic – the average domestic one-way fare of 

$243 at Great Falls ranked as the 34th highest fare airport among the other 230 peer group airports. The 

40 highest ex-Allegiant domestic fare airports are ranked in Exhibit 9.

$180

$168

$214

$235

$248

$239 $241 $248 $244 $243

$134 $136

$149

$149

$159

$144

$158

$172 $179 $182

35%

23%

43%

58% 55%

67%

52%

44%

37%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Great Falls Higher than Average Lower 48 Airport

Average One-Way Fare

Great Falls One-Way Domestic Fare (Ex-Allegiant)

Average Lower 48 Airport One-Way Domestic Fare (Ex-Allegiant)

% Great Falls Higher than Average Lower 48 Airport
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

12

Exhibit 9: Full Year 2013 O&D Passengers, Passengers per Day Each Way (PDEW) and Average Domestic OneWay Fare at the 40 Highest Fare Airports with at Least 100,000 Domestic O&D Passengers in 2011 (Excludes 

Allegiant Data) (DB1B data)

Domestic Fares Versus Other Airports in the Region

As illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9, Great Falls' domestic fares are high relative to the average Lower 48 

airport, but the average ex-Allegiant Great Falls fare is also higher than all but one of the five other 

airports in Montana with at least 100,000 ex-Allegiant domestic O&D passengers in 2013. Exhibit 10 

illustrates, only Kalispell, with an average domestic one-way fare of $249, had a higher average fare than 

Great Falls among the larger Montana airports.

Rank Code Market

O&D 

Passengers PDEW

Length of 

Haul Yield

Average 

Fare

1 ISN Williston, ND 184,350 253 1,263 $0.29 $365

2 ASE Aspen, CO 355,740 487 1,233 $0.24 $298

3 MOT Minot, ND 332,950 456 1,319 $0.22 $292

4 IDA Idaho Falls, ID 193,270 265 1,389 $0.21 $290

5 ACV Arcata/Eureka, CA 105,390 144 1,360 $0.20 $277

6 XNA Northwest Arkansas, AR 873,220 1,196 1,077 $0.25 $274

7 GFK Grand Forks, ND 163,660 224 1,300 $0.21 $272

8 BFL Bakersfield, CA 249,310 342 1,515 $0.18 $270

9 JAC Jackson Hole, WY 520,660 713 1,509 $0.18 $267

10 BIS Bismarck, ND 358,550 491 1,215 $0.22 $265

11 LSE LaCrosse, WI 151,350 207 1,140 $0.23 $264

12 CPR Corpus Christi, TX 144,250 198 1,164 $0.23 $262

13 ATW Appleton, WI 352,530 483 1,101 $0.24 $261

14 FSM Fort Smith, AR 150,600 206 1,148 $0.22 $256

15 AZO Kalamazoo, MI 217,450 298 1,042 $0.25 $256

16 RAP Rapid City, SD 394,790 541 1,250 $0.20 $255

17 MTJ Montrose, CO 144,750 198 1,349 $0.19 $254

18 LRD Laredo, TX 130,480 179 1,160 $0.22 $254

19 BRO Brownsville, TX 151,690 208 1,208 $0.21 $253

20 SHV Shreveport, LA 445,950 611 1,127 $0.22 $252

21 GRB Green Bay, WI 482,280 661 1,145 $0.22 $252

22 FCA Kalispell, MT 337,320 462 1,466 $0.17 $249

23 MGM Montgomery, AL 285,770 391 1,047 $0.24 $248

24 EVV Evansville, IN 280,850 385 1,059 $0.23 $248

25 SCE State College, PA 227,620 312 1,257 $0.20 $247

26 DLH Duluth, MN 226,850 311 1,115 $0.22 $247

27 YUM Yuma, AZ 137,140 188 1,414 $0.17 $247

28 MOB Mobile, AL 501,970 688 1,096 $0.22 $246

29 HSV Huntsville, AL 893,820 1,224 1,073 $0.23 $246

30 CWA Central Wisconsin, WI 216,790 297 1,190 $0.21 $245

31 SGF Springfield, MO 487,120 667 1,123 $0.22 $244

32 EGE Vail, CO 292,710 401 1,383 $0.18 $244

33 LAW Lawton, OK 101,820 139 1,147 $0.21 $243

34 GTF Great Falls, MT 253,090 347 1,360 $0.18 $243

35 TVC Traverse City, MI 336,330 461 1,178 $0.21 $242

36 HLN Helena, MT 173,460 238 1,343 $0.18 $240

37 MHK Manhattan, KS 109,320 150 1,115 $0.21 $240

38 TRI Tri-Cities, TN 313,280 429 1,088 $0.22 $239

39 LCH Lake Charles, LA 116,770 160 1,170 $0.20 $239

40 LEX Lexington, KY 712,030 975 1,046 $0.23 $239
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

13

Exhibit 10: Average Ex-Allegiant Domestic Fare at Great Falls International Airport Versus Other Airports in Montana

with at Least 100, 000 Domestic Ex-Allegiant O&D Passengers – Full Year 2013 (DB1B data)

Leakage to Other Airports in the Region

Based on a leakage study completed in 2011 using full-year 2010 data, Great Falls International Airport 

retains 51.4% of the traffic generated in its immediate catchment area (the Great Falls metropolitan 

statistical area). 48.6% of the traffic Great Falls International airport could capture is lost to other airports 

in Montana, with nearly one-third of the traffic lost to Missoula. Billings captures 7.0% of the traffic, 

Bozeman and Helena each capture 4.6%, and Kalispell captures slightly less than 2% of the traffic.

Exhibit 11: Airport Origin for Great Falls Catchment Area Traffic January 2010 – December 2010 (June 2011

Leakage Study)

$249 $243 $240 $236 $234 $232

$223

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

$200

$225

$250

$275

$300

Kalispell Great Falls Helena Missoula Average Bozeman Billings

1.8%

51.4%

30.6%

4.6%

4.6% 7.0%
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

14

STRATEGIC PLAN

Revenue Guarantee for Service to Chicago or Atlanta

Connections from Great Falls to destinations East of the Mississippi River are limited to Delta service via 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, United service via Denver or Frontier’s less-than-daily summer-only service to 

Denver. 

Great Falls International Airport and its community partners in the community are requesting Small 

Community Air Service Development funds to support a minimum revenue guarantee for nonstop service 

on United or American between Great Falls and Chicago or on Delta between Great Falls and Atlanta. 

Not only would either destination provide service in the local Chicago or Atlanta market, but service on 

United to Chicago would provide non-circuitous connections to at least 103 destinations on United via 

Chicago, at least 71 destinations on American via Chicago or at least 91 destinations on Delta via Atlanta. 

The logical connections United could serve via Chicago are illustrated on the map in Exhibit 13; the 

logical connections American could serve via Chicago are illustrated on the map in Exhibit 14, and the 

logicical connections Delta could serve via Atlanta are illustrated on the map in Exhibit 16.

Chicago (O’Hare and Midway, combined) ranks as Great Falls’ fourteenth largest market with market size 

of 6.9 PDEW in 2013 and a market size of 10.2 PDEW in third quarter 2013. 

As shown in Exhibit 12, all markets United could logically flow via Chicago generated 114.1 PDEW in the 

full-year 2013 at an average fare of $300 in 2013; in third quarter 2013, all markets United could logically 

flow via Chicago generated 154.7 PDEW at an average fare of $290. Also as shown in Exhibit 12, all 

markets American could logically flow via Chicago generated 101.1 PDEW in the full-year 2013 at an 

average fare of $294; in third quarter 2013, all markets American could logically flow via Chicago 

generated 137.4 PDEW at an average fare of $284. (The data for both United and American also includes 

data for the local Great Falls-Chicago market.) 

Exhibit 12: Total Local and Connecting Traffic and Average One-Way Fares United and American Could Flow Via 

Chicago (DOT DB1B Data)

PDEW Average Fare PDEW Average Fare

Full Year 2013 114.1 $300 101.1 $294

Third Quarter 2013 154.7 $290 137.4 $284

United via ORD American via ORD
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

15

Exhibit 13: Logical Connecting Markets United Could Serve with Great Falls-Chicago Service (circuity not greater 

than 60%)

Exhibit 14: Logical Connecting Markets American Could Serve with Great Falls-Chicago Service (circuity not greater 

than 60%)
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

16

Atlanta ranks as Great Falls’ thirteenth largest market with market size of PDEW in 2013 and a market 

size of 10.6 PDEW in third quarter 2013. 

All markets Delta could logically flow via Atlanta generated 114.1 PDEW in 2013 at an average fare of 

$300 in the full-year 2013; in third quarter 2013, all markets United could logically flow via Chicago 

generated 154.7 PDEW at an average fare of $290.

Exhibit 15: Total Local and Connecting Traffic and Average One-Way Fares Delta Could Flow Via Atlanta (DOT 

DB1B Data)

Exhibit 16: Logical Connecting Markets Delta Could Serve with Great Falls-Atlanta Service (circuity not greater than 

60%)

PDEW Average Fare

Full Year 2013 48.8 $342

Third Quarter 2013 63.5 $324

Delta via ATL
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

17

Goals

Great Falls International Airport has five goals for the proposed project to recruit a low-cost carrier to the 

community.

 Provide network carrier connecting opportunities to the East at a large hub airport.

 Reverse the decline in Great Falls’ network carrier origin and destination traffic.

 Reverse the decline in Great Falls’ network carrier capacity.

 Lower airfares in markets to the East in markets served with a single connection via Chicago or 

Atlanta.

 Recapture catchment area traffic leaked to other airports.

Grant Amendments/Alternate Strategies

Nonstop Great Falls-Chicago or nonstop Great Falls-Atlanta service is the goal of the community's Small 

Community Air Service Development (SCASD) proposal. The Airport Authority is proposing SCASD 

funding in the amount of $500,000 that will be supplemented with $100,000 in cash from communitybased business and economic development organizations to offer a minimum revenue guarantee to 

United or American for Chicago service or to Delta for Atlanta service. Analysis of traffic and revenue 

data indicates the proposed Chicago or Atlanta service should be an appealing opportunity for any of the 

three targeted airlines.

If a grant is awarded for Chicago or Atlanta service, and the community is not successful in its effort to 

recruit United or American to Chicago or Delta to Atlanta, Great Falls International Airport would ask to 

Department to consider reallocation of the award funds for service to an alternate hub on a network 

carrier. Potential routes would include Dallas/Ft. Worth or Phoenix on American, Houston on United or 

Detroit on Delta.

PARTNERSHIPS, FUNDING, IMPLEMENTATION, SUCCESS METRICS AND 

FINANCIAL CONTROL

Public / Private Partnerships

Great Falls International Airport has long-standing relationships with three economic and business 

development entities in the community, the Great Falls Chamber of Commerce, the Great Falls Tourism 

Improvement District (an association of local hotel owners and operators) and the Great Falls Convention 

and Visitors Bureau. The Great Falls Chamber of Commerce has committed to provide up to $80,000 

over the two year life of the project, and the Great Falls Tourism Improvement District has committed to 

provide up to $20,000 over the two year life of the project.
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

18

Project Funding

In addition to the Small Community Air Service Development Grant of $500,000 requested from the

Department, two non-airport organizations in the community are willing to provide cash totaling $100,000. 

The Airport will provide $20,000 in cash for marketing, and the estimated the value of Airport in-kind 

contributions from waived fees at $101,140 over the two-year life of the project. The total value of cash 

and is valued at $120,000 or 24% of the requested SCASD funding. A summary of funding sources is 

shown in Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17: Summary of Sources and Types of Project Funding

Implementation Timeline

The proposed implementation timeline for the project assumes the Department will award Small 

Community Grant Funding sometime in September or October 2014. Once the award is announced,

Great Falls International Airport will advise airlines of the grant award. Based on airline planning lead 

times and the need for advance bookings, we assume no airline would begin service until sometime in 

2015, and we have conservatively assumed the service could not begin until June 2015. The first two 

milestones on the Airport's timeline are to execute the grant agreement with the Department and to 

negotiate the minimum revenue guarantee agreement with the airline. Once service is announced and 

schedules are published, the airline, the Airport and the community would begin marketing the new route 

and working with the airline to monitor advance bookings. The Airport will continue its marketing program 

and continue to work with the airline to monitor the route once service begins. The Airport will submit 

grant status reports on a quarterly basis to the Department throughout the proposed two year term of the 

minimum revenue guarantee. The proposed project timeline is shown in Exhibit 18 on the next page.

Funding Source DOT Grant In-Kind Total

Department of Transportation $500,000 $500,000

Great Falls Chamber of Commerce $80,000

Great Falls Tourism Improvement District $20,000

Total Community Funding $100,000 $100,000

Great Falls Regional Airport $20,000 $81,140 $101,140

Total $500,000 $120,000 $81,140 $701,140

Cash

Central Montana Radio Network $20,000

$101,140 $721,140

Great Falls Intl Airport
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

19

Exhibit 18: Proposed Project Timeline

Activity/Project Milestone Estimated Dates

SCASD Grant Award Announcement September 2014

Execute Grant Agreement with DOT September/October 2014

Airline Meetings October 2014 - February 2015

Announce Service February 2015

Publish Schedule February 2015

Market Route (Pre-Launch) February-September 2015

Monitor Advance Bookings February-September 2015

Adjust Marketing Plan Based on Advance Bookings February-September 2015

Begin Service June 2015

Market Route (Post-Launch) June 2015 and Beyond

Operate Service with MRG June 2015-May 2017

Monitor Route Performance June 2015 and Beyond

Submit Grant Status Reports to DOT Quarterly 3Q 2014 - 2Q 2017

Success Metrics

Success of the proposed use of grant funds will ultimately be whether the one of the targeted airlines 

adds service from Great Falls to Chicago or Atlanta. Secondary success metrics will be increased 

network carrier traffic, less leakage to competing airports in the region (primarily to Missoula) and a 

downward trend in network carrier fares, particularly to destinations in the East. The Airport will work 

closely with the airline to monitor the performance of the new service. Even before service begins, we will 

communicate with the airline on a weekly basis to monitor advance bookings and week-over-week of 

advance bookings. Marketing and promotional activities can be adjusted if advance bookings are weak 

or are not booking at a rate satisfactory to the airline.

Exhibit 19: Project Goals and Success Metrics

Project Goals Success Metric

 Provide network carrier connecting 

opportunities to the East at a large hub 

airport.

 Introduction of nonstop service from Great Falls 

to Chicago or Atlanta.

 Reverse the decline in Great Falls’ 

network carrier origin and destination 

traffic.

 Increase in year-over-year network carrier 

enplanements and deplanements beginning in 

the month new service to Chicago or Atlanta 

begins.

 Reverse the decline in Great Falls’ 

network carrier capacity

 Increase in year-over-year network carrier 

capacity (defined as seats per day each way) 

beginning in the month new service to Chicago 

or Atlanta begins.

 Lower airfares in markets to the East in 

markets served with a single connection 

via Chicago or Atlanta.

 Decrease in average airfares in markets served 

with a single connection via Chicago or Atlanta.

 Recapture catchment area traffic leaked 

to other airports.

 Decrease in leakage to other airports in the 

region.
Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana 

 

Great Falls International Airport Authority; Great Falls, Montana

Proposal Under the Small Community Air Service Development Program; Docket DOT-OST-2014-0113

20

Once service begins, the Airport will rely on traffic and revenue data provided directly by the airline and 

the amount of reimbursements requested by the airline as indications of project success. T-100 data and 

DB1B data will also be analyzed to compare year-over-year market size growth on a quarterly basis. In 

addition, the airport will analyze leakage once the service has operated for a full year to determine the 

trend in leakage to other airports. The Airport will report its success metrics in the quarterly grant reports 

to the Department. 

Legal Sponsor

Great Falls International Airport Authority is the legal sponsor responsible for administering the program. 

Great Falls International Airport Authority is a government entity.

Great Falls International Airport Authority

Administration Office

2800 Terminal Drive

Great Falls, MT 59404

John Faulkner, Airport Director

406-727-3404

Financial Controls

As the sponsor, Great Falls International Airport Authority and its governing body, Great Falls 

International Authority Board, will be the responsible parties for all fiscal matters and the Department's 

reporting requirements. The Airport Authority Board is established as a public governing body. As a 

public entity, the Department can be assured that proper financial controls are in place to guarantee that 

the Department’s Grant will be used in accordance with any subsequent agreement. The Great Falls 

International Airport Authority Board understands that the Grant is a reimbursable grant, meaning the 

Airport is responsible for program expenditures and will submit invoices to the Department for 

reimbursement, based on a percentage of the total grant request.