Order 2011-9-9

Served: September 14, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 14th day of September, 2011

ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary

By this order, the Department is requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing 

essential air service (EAS) at Burlington Iowa, and Decatur, Illinois, from February 1, 2012, 

through January 31, 2014, with or without subsidy, by October 11, 2011 (See Appendix A for a 

map.)

Background

By Order 2009-10-13, October 22, 2009, Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One (Air Choice 

One) was selected to serve Burlington and Decatur, for a two-year period. At Burlington, service 

was to consist of 24 weekly nonstop round trips (12 nonstops per week to Chicago O’Hare and 

12 to St. Louis). At Decatur, service was to consist of 36 weekly nonstop round trips (18 

nonstops per week to Chicago O’Hare and 18 to St. Louis). All service was to be operated with 

9-seat Cessna Grand Caravan aircraft. The Department directed Air Choice One to inaugurate 

service from Decatur to St. Louis on or before December 15, 2009, and to Chicago O’Hare by 

January 15, 2010. If Air Choice One did not inaugurate service at Decatur by those dates, we 

had selected Hyannis Air Service, Inc. d/b/a Cape Air as a backup carrier to provide service at 

Decatur. Air Choice One inaugurated service at Decatur on December 15, 2009, to St. Louis and 

on January 15, 2010, to Chicago O’Hare. The carrier inaugurated service to Burlington on 

January 15, 2010. This made the expiration date of the contract for both communities

January 31, 2012.

Special discussion

Based on the most recent 12-month period for which data are available (July 1, 2010, through 

June 30, 2011), 10,161 passengers were enplaned and deplaned at Burlington, while 9,316

Essential Air Service at

BURLINGTON, IOWA

DECATUR, ILLINOIS

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

 

 DOT-OST-2001-8731

 DOT-OST-2006-23929

 

 

 
- 2 -

passengers were enplaned and deplaned at Decatur. The current annual subsidy amount for 

Burlington is $2,171,241, and Decatur’s is $3,082,403. Therefore, the subsidy per passenger at 

Burlington is $214 and $331 at Decatur. The Department is prohibited from subsidizing air 

service at a community where the subsidy per passenger exceeds $200, unless the community is 

more than 210 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport.1 Burlington and 

Decatur exceed the $200 per passenger cap and both are fewer than 210 miles from a large or 

medium hub. Burlington is 188 miles and Decatur is 126 miles, both from Lambert-St. Louis

International Airport (STL), a medium hub airport.

Prior to Air Choice One’s inaugurating service, Great Lakes Airlines served both communities 

with lower than forecasted passenger loads due to its inability to secure a code-share 

arrangement with American Airlines at its then St. Louis hub. The Department recognizes that 

Air Choice One has increased its traffic at both communities since inaugurating service;

however, the subsidy per passenger remains higher than $200 at both communities.2 In Order 

2009-10-13, October 22, 2009, which selected Air Choice One to serve Burlington and Decatur, 

we noted the higher subsidy level for Decatur’s community recommendation; however, we 

believed Air Choice One’s proposal to serve Chicago O’Hare had potential to rejuvenate traffic 

levels, which, as noted above, it has. We also noted that Air Choice One had no electronic 

ticketing or baggage agreements with major airlines and no presence online with any major 

online travel providers. Air Choice One has taken steps to increase its availability on consumer 

travel websites and the carrier states it has a baggage agreement with United Airlines, which 

operates a large hub operation at Chicago O’Hare. However, the electronic ticketing portion of 

this agreement is not yet in use, and may not be well into 2012, thus hindering passenger traffic 

growth. Passenger usage at Decatur has been increasing with Air Choice One’s service, but falls 

well short of the carrier’s own forecast in its proposal to provide service. The last 12 months of 

which data are available (July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011) produced 9,316 passengers; 

almost 40% below Air Choice One’s forecast of 15,415 passengers. 

Rather than terminate service eligibility at either community, at this stage, the Department will 

solicit proposals for EAS at both, but the Department will evaluate all proposals submitted 

before committing to a new contract or making a final determination on Burlington and 

Decatur’s continuing eligibility. During the window prior to the due date for proposals, we 

expect both communities to work with potential applicants to find ways to increase passenger 

traffic and/or lower subsidy levels.

Request for Proposals

As the end of the current rate term approaches, we are here requesting proposals from carriers 

interested in providing service at Burlington and/or Decatur, with or without subsidy, to be filed 

no later than October 11, 2011. After that date, staff will then docket the proposals, thereby 

making them public, and direct each carrier to serve a copy of its proposal on the civic parties 

 1 Congress first established the $200 ceiling under P.L. 101-164 for fiscal year 1990, and reestablished it in fiscal 

years 1994-1999. The ceiling was made permanent by P.L. 106-69, the Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000.

2 See Appendix B for traffic history.
- 3 -

and other applicants. Shortly afterwards, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the 

community and ask it to submit their final comments. We will give full consideration to all 

proposals that are timely filed.3

Interested carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial 

proposals will represent their final and only proposals. However, we retain the discretion to 

negotiate proposals with carriers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to 

reject outright all unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and re-solicit a new round of proposals. 

However, negotiation and rejection are only occasional exceptions to the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to serve as guidance when 

they prepare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for their proposals. We 

expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed and the annual amount of 

subsidy being requested. The applicants can make their own judgments as to the level of detail 

they wish to present; however, they might want to include proposed schedules as well as 

supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block hours, revenues and expenses.

We strongly encourage clear, well-documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by 

the affected community and the Department.4

With respect to Burlington and Decatur, we expect proposals consisting of service with twopilot, twin-engine aircraft with at least 15 passenger seats, and offering two round trips each 

weekday and weekend (12 total round trips per week) to a Chicago O’Hare, Memphis, 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, St. Louis, or another large or medium hub airport, offering numerous 

connecting opportunities to the national air transportation system. If aircraft with fewer than 15

passenger seats are contemplated, service patterns should consist of what each community is 

currently receiving. If such a proposal is submitted and the community ultimately supports the 

service, in effect waiving their right to 15-seat or larger aircraft, we would consider the waiver to 

apply only to the two-year carrier-selection at hand, i.e. we would not assume that the 

community waives their rights for all time. 

Regarding proposals for Burlington and Decatur, as stated above, we will evaluate all proposals 

submitted before committing to a two-year contract or making a final determination on the two 

communities’ continuing eligibility. Proposals for Burlington and/or Decatur must address the 

per passenger subsidy as stated above, including, but not limited to, lower annual subsidy levels, 

 3 Carriers should not expect the Department to accept late fillings. In cases where a carrier proposes to provide 

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

compensation, we typically do not proceed with the carrier-selection case. Instead, we generally rely on that 

carrier’s subsidy-free service as proposed.

4 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service, 49 U.S.C. 41733(c)(1) directs us to consider four 

factors: (a) scheduled service reliability; (b) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier to ensure 

service beyond the hub; (c) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a larger carrier at the hub; and 

(d) community views, giving substantial weight to the views of the elected officials representing the users. In 

addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, provides that when selecting a carrier to 

provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy requirements, thus codifying a factor that we have 

considered since the inception of the program.
- 4 -

marketing plans, such as advertising or fare promotions, enhanced access to connections to the 

national transportation system through electronic ticketing and baggage agreements or codeshare 

agreements with major airlines, and/or wider access to distribution in reservation systems or 

consumer websites. We expect proposals from carriers that can reasonably demonstrate that they 

can operate at Burlington and/or Decatur under the $200 per passenger cap on a sustained basis. 

By the due date for proposals, we also expect each community to submit plans that it has to

address the cap, either a joint effort with the carrier or independent of an air carrier’s proposal. 

Proposals that do not address the per-passenger subsidy will be rejected.

The communities and air carriers are encouraged to work together in advance of the due date for 

proposals to craft a service pattern that is desirable to the community and meets the operational 

needs of the airline interested in submitting a proposal. In addition, carriers should be very clear 

as to whether a specific community’s proposal is on a stand-alone basis, or whether it is part of a 

larger, inseparable package with other communities.

We encourage proposals that meet these requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers are also 

welcome to propose more than one service option, if they choose; they need not limit themselves 

to those requirements if they envision other, potentially more attractive service possibilities –

different hubs, for example – with subsidy requirements that remain competitive.

Service and Traffic History

For the 12-month period ended June 30, 2011, the most recent period for which traffic data are 

available, Burlington averaged 16.2 enplanements per day, and Decatur 14.9.5 In order to assist 

carriers in making their traffic and revenue forecasts, we have included historical traffic data in 

Appendix B.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying 

activities, drug-free workplaces, and nondiscrimination.6 Consequently, all carriers receiving 

Federal subsidy for essential air service must certify that they are in compliance with Department 

regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose 

subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of the rate term must also certify that they are in 

compliance with the regulations governing lobbying activities. Because the Department is 

prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not submit these documents, all carriers that 

plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should be aware that the selected carrier will be 

required to complete the required certifications. Interested carriers requiring more detailed 

 5 See Appendix B for historical traffic data. Enplanements represent one-half of total origin-and-destination traffic, 

and average enplanements per day are based on 313 days per service year.

6 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 20 -- New restrictions on lobbying; 

(2) 49 CFR Part 21 -- Nondiscrimination in federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation --

Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR Part 27 -- Nondiscrimination on the basis of 

disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance; and 14 CFR Part 382 -

- Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29 -- Government-wide debarment 

and suspension (non-procurement) and government-wide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
- 5 -

information regarding these requirements should contact the Office of Aviation Analysis at 

(202) 366-5903.7

Community and State Comments

The communities and States are welcome to submit comments at any time. We encourage 

prospective applicants to contact the community before they submit their proposals so that they 

can tailor them to the community’s needs, as they will not be able to amend it after the due date. 

As noted earlier, we will provide a copy of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to 

submit their final comments shortly after October 11, 2011, the due date for proposals.

This order is issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f) and re-delegated to the 

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis. 

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at Burlington, Iowa, 

and/or Decatur, Illinois, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, no later than 

October 11, 2011. The proposals should be e-mailed to EAS@dot.gov, with the title “Proposal to 

Provide EAS at Burlington, Iowa, and/or Decatur, Illinois”;8

2. These dockets will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3. We will serve copies of this order on the mayors of Burlington, Iowa, and Decatur, Illinois,

and the airport managers of Southeast Iowa Regional Airport (Burlington) and Decatur Airport, 

and the parties listed in Appendix D.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at http://www.regulations.gov

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

8 Questions regarding filings in response to this order may be directed via e-mail to Kevin Schlemmer at

kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov or via phone at (202) 366-3176
Appendix A

AREA MAP

This map is provided by Sabre® AirVisionTM Profit Essentials and is being used with express permission of the copyright holder, 

Sabre Airline Solutions®.
Appendix B

Page 1 of 2

Traffic History*

Burlington, IA (BRL)

Year Month Stn Carrier Inbound Pax Outbound Pax Totals

2009 1 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 124 126 250

2009 2 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 123 119 242

2009 3 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 125 109 234

2009 4 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 99 105 204

2009 5 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 197 167 364

2009 6 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 193 193 386

2009 7 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 222 244 466

2009 8 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 211 207 418

2009 9 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 203 178 381

2009 10 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 205 183 388

2009 11 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 185 187 372

2009 12 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 174 155 329

2010 1 BRL Great Lakes Airlines 84 10 94

2010 1 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 14 72 86

2010 2 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 70 66 136

2010 3 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 79 90 169

2010 4 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 83 91 174

2010 5 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 109 130 239

2010 6 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 103 108 211

2010 7 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 201 230 431

2010 8 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 276 312 588

2010 9 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 316 340 656

2010 10 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 326 334 660

2010 11 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 410 425 835

2010 12 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 567 601 1,168

2011 1 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 238 246 484

2011 2 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 422 382 804

2011 3 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 396 439 835

2011 4 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 562 597 1,159

2011 5 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 620 639 1,259

2011 6 BRL Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 637 645 1,282

12-months of passenger traffic (7/1/10 through 6/30/11) – 10,161

*Source – T-100 Market Report, Passengers in Scheduled Passenger Service
Appendix B

Page 2 of 2

Traffic History*

Decatur, IL (DEC)

Year Month Stn Carrier Inbound Pax Outbound Pax Totals

2009 1 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 83 74 157

2009 2 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 50 55 105

2009 3 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 62 50 112

2009 4 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 61 51 112

2009 5 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 55 68 123

2009 6 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 52 55 107

2009 7 DEC Great Lakes Airlines 52 48 100

2009 12 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 32 27 59

2010 1 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 51 50 101

2010 2 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 63 72 135

2010 3 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 53 68 121

2010 4 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 55 64 119

2010 5 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 90 116 206

2010 6 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 112 120 232

2010 7 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 151 162 313

2010 8 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 163 192 355

2010 9 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 250 260 510

2010 10 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 302 299 601

2010 11 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 339 369 708

2010 12 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 552 595 1,147

2011 1 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 194 171 365

2011 2 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 424 399 823

2011 3 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 349 359 708

2011 4 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 489 534 1,023

2011 5 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 651 691 1,342

2011 6 DEC Multi-Aero, Inc. d/b/a Air Choice One 623 798 1,421

12-months of passenger traffic (7/1/10 through 6/30/11) – 9,316

*Source – T-100 Market Report, Passengers in Scheduled Passenger Service
Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

The carrier understands that it may forfeit its compensation for any flights that it does not operate 

in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans 

outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior 

approval. The carrier understands that an aircraft take-off and landing at its scheduled 

destination constitutes a completed flight; absent an explanation supporting subsidy eligibility 

for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed 

flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate 

its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire 

subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond 

the scope of the order during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of 

Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensured of 

full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may locate and select a 

replacement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all flights that 

can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will not be compensated. In 

determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the 

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

access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or completely, terminates or reduces payments 

for service or changes service requirements at a specific location provided for under this order, 

then, at the end of the period for which the Department does make payments in the stipulated 

amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service to that 

specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those 

adjustments in the levels of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the 

Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment.

Funds are not currently available for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE]. The 

Government’s obligation for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE], is contingent 

upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No 

legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performance under 

this order beyond [DATE], until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If 

funds are not made available for performance beyond [DATE], the carrier will receive notice in 

writing by the Department.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department 

regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations, 

or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph.

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

under this order.
Appendix D

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Greco/Wings Air Horizon Air, Jeff Cole

Air Sunshine, Inc. ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Intrepid Internatl Air, Rick Eyk

Air West, Inc., John Raatz Island Air Charters, Linda House

Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly Jet Air, Daniel Wolford

Air Wisconsin, Jim Rankin Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks

Airline Associates, Bill Mishk McCall Aviation, Dan Scott

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole McCall Aviation, Michelle

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Mesaba, John Spanjers 

Allegiant Air, Brian Davis Mesaba, Max Shemesh

American Airlines, Carl Nelson MidStar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner

American Eagle, Gary Foss Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis

American Eagle, Robert Emrich MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado 

Atlantic Southeast, Jon Lindlief Multi Aero, Darnea

Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Aviation Technologies/Charter Air Transport Northern Air Cargo, David Karp

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude Northern Air Cargo, Eric Van Andel

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger NYDC, Henok Araya

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney OST, Brian Swanson

Cape Air, Dan Wolf OST, Dennis DeVany

Cape Air, J. Flaherty OST, Kevin Adams

Chautauqua, Josh Pascoe OST, Kevin Schlemmer

Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson OST, Michael Martin 

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan OST, Scott Faulk

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott Pacific Aviation Group, Craig Garrick

CommutAir, Andy Price Pacific Aviation Group, Ron Pye

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

Consultant, Michael Mooney Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf

Consultant, Robert Silverberg PenAir, Danny Seybert

Continental, Bruce Keiner PenAir, Scott Bloomquist

Continental, Dan Weiss Pinnacle Airlines, Jennifer Gammill

Continental, Lorry Halloway Pinnacle Airlines, Megan Rosia 

Delta, Anthony Canitano Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

Delta, Dan Shuman Planemasters, Inc. John Kessler

Delta, Dana Debel Planemasters, Inc. Paul Berliner

Delta, Jeff Davidman Planemasters, Inc. Todd DeSimone

Delta, Jeff Morgan Raytheon, Mike Scheidt

Delta, Joe Esposito Saab Group, Polly Prelinger

Delta, Kristal Murphy Scenic, Mary Schneider

Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Delta, Stephen A. Hedden Seaborne Airlines, Shawn Lewis

DHS, Bill Ragan Air Choice One Airlines, Daniel Helland

DHS, David Bernier Air Choice One/Wings of Alaska, Rob McKinney

Dorado Jets Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano 

Dorado Jets, Mark McKenna SkyWest, Brad Rawson

Era Aviation, Lori Goodman SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Frontier Flying, Bob Hajducovich Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Frontier Airlines, Daniel Shurz Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Frontline Aviation Tatonduk, Robert Everts

Gem Air, Dan Schroeder Tatonduk, Robert Ragar

Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters Tradewind, Eric Zipkin 

Great Lakes, Chuck Howell TransStates, Fred Oxley 

Great Lakes, Doug Voss TransStates, Gerry Wigmore

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Transport Azumah, Joel Anabilah-Azumah

Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman United, Alicia Gabriel

Gulfstream, T. Cooper United, James Starnes

Horizon Air, Dan Russo US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Horizon Air, Jennifer Thompson US Airways, Howard Kass

Horizon Air, Mike McQueen US Airways, Jason Reisinger 

Warbelows Air Ventures, Art Warbelow