Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

March 2002 COMMERCIAL

AVIATION

Air Service Trends At

Small Communities

Since October 2000

GAO-02-432
Page i GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Most Small Communities Had Limited Air Service in October 2000 7

Airline Service at Small Communities Declined Between October

2000 and October 2001 17

National Economic Decline and September 11 Attacks, Along with

Airlines’ Strategic Decisions, Underlie Shifts in Air Service 22

Concluding Observations 28

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Internet Survey of Airport Directors 35

Other Data Limitations to Our Work 37

Appendix II Small Hub Airports Tend to Have More

Commercial Air Service and Were Less Affected by

Airline Service Reductions 38

Appendix III Change in Air Service at 202 U.S. Nonhub Airports,

October 2000– October 2001 42

Appendix IV Changes in Air Service at Small Communities in

Alaska and Hawaii 54

Appendix V Economic Factors Affect Air Service in Small

Communities 56

Regression Model 56

Economic Principles 56

Data 57

Variables Used in the Model 57

Model Specification 58

Results 58

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Appendix VI Changes in Air Service at Small Communities

Made By Express Airlines I and Mesaba Between

2000 and 2001 60

Appendix VII Changes in Air Service at Small Communities

Made By Great Lakes Aviation and Air Wisconsin

Between 2000 and 2001 62

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 64

GAO Contacts 64

Acknowledgments 64

Related GAO Products 65

Tables

Table 1: Differences Among Categories of Commercial Airports 7

Table 2: Summary of Air Service at Small Communities, October

2000 9

Table 3: Range of Service Levels Among Small Community

Airports, October 2000–October 2001 19

Table 4: Number of Nonhub Airports Eliminated by Various

Selection Criteria 33

Table 5: Characteristics of Air Service at Nonhub and Small Hub

Airports (October 2000) 38

Table 6: Median Airline Service Levels at Nonhub and Small Hub

Airports, October 2000 39

Table 7: Changes in the Number of Carriers Serving Small

Community Airports and Nonstop Destinations 42

Table 8: Changes in the Average Number of Daily Turboprop and

Jet Departures at Small Communities 48

Table 9: Median Number of Carriers, Nonstop Destinations Served,

Daily Turboprop and Jet Departures for Nonhub Airports

in Alaska and Hawaii 54
Page iii GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 10: Median Number of Carriers Serving, Nonstop

Destinations Served, Daily Turboprop and Jet Departures

for Small Hub Airports in Alaska and Hawaii 55

Table 11: Characteristics of 202 Small Communities Included in

Economic Analysis 57

Table 12: Nonstop Air Service Changes for Communities Served by

Mesaba and Express Airlines I Between October 2000 and

October 2001 61

Table 13: Nonstop Air Service Changes for Communities Served by

Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin Between October 2000 and

October 2001 63

Figures

Figure 1: Location and Estimated Catchment Areas of 202 Small

Community Airports in the Continental United States 10

Figure 2: Comparison of Air Service Indicators Across Small

Communities by Population Category, October 2000

(Median Service Levels) 12

Figure 3: Proximity of Small Community Airports to Other Airports

Either Served by a Low-fare Airline or Serving as a Major

Airline’s Hub 15

Figure 4: Change in Total Daily Departures for Small Communities,

October 2000–October 2001 18

Figure 5: Change in the Number of Carriers Serving Small

Communities, October 2000–October 2001 20

Figure 6: Change in Total U.S. Passenger Enplanements and

Revenue, September 2000–August 2001 23

Figure 7: Passenger Traffic and Revenues Before and After

September 2001 24

Figure 8: Change in the Number of Airlines Serving Small

Communities with Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001 40

Figure 9: Change in the Number of Airlines Serving Communities

with Small Hub Airports, October 2000–October 2001 41
Page iv GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Abbreviations

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

DOT Department of Transportation

EAS Essential Air Service

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

GAO General Accounting Office
Page 1 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

March 29, 2002

Congressional Requesters:

For the airline industry and air travelers, 2001 was a difficult year.

Obviously, the terrorist attacks of September 11 exerted unprecedented

effects on the airlines and their passengers. But, the industry’s problems

preceded those tragedies. Most major U.S. airlines began realizing net

operating losses early in the year, and all of the major U.S. passenger

carriers except Southwest Airlines reported losses for 2001. United

Airlines, American Airlines, and Delta Air Lines each reported losses of

more than $1 billion. Delta Air Lines and its passengers experienced a

difficult period when the pilots at its regional affiliate Comair went on

strike for 89 days, grounding Comair’s 815 daily flights. Sun Country

Airlines suspended scheduled operations. Travelers throughout the nation

shared in the difficulties—passengers at the nation’s largest airports did

so, as did those at airports serving the nation’s small communities.1

In recent years, we have reported on the effects of changes in the airline

industry on service, including service at small community airports.2

Concerned about air service to small communities, especially in light of

recent events, you asked us to

• describe the overall level of air service at the nation’s small communities

in 2000 and the main factors that contributed to that service level;

• examine how the nature and extent of air service changed among the

nation’s small communities in 2001, including a specific accounting for

how service changed after the September 11 terrorist attacks; and

• identify key factors that have influenced these changes in air service.

 1

 In this report, “small communities” refers to a selected sample of communities served by

airports that are defined as “nonhubs” by statute (49 U.S.C. 41731). These small

communities include such locations as Altoona, Pennsylvania; Hattiesburg, Mississippi;

Salina, Kansas; and Eureka/Arcata, California—communities from which relatively few

passengers travel compared with other U.S. airports. The background section of this report

discusses the small communities included in this study in more detail.

2

 See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Airline Deregulation: Changes in

Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to Entry, GAO/RCED-99-92 (Washington, D.C.:

Mar. 4, 1999) and Aviation Competition: Regional Jet Service Yet to Reach Many Small

Communities, GAO-01-344 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2001). A more complete list of

Related GAO Products follows appendix VIII.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Our analysis of air service at these communities is based in part on

published airline service schedules for 202 small communities in the

continental United States.3

 To assess changes in air service over time, we

compared the schedules that the airlines developed for the week of

October 15–21, 2000, against two different schedules that the airlines

developed for the week of October 15–21, 2001.4

 We assessed general

changes in scheduled air service by comparing the October 2000 schedules

against schedules for the week of October 15–21, 2001, that the airlines

developed before the September 11 attacks. To account more specifically

for how service changed in small communities after the September 11

terrorist attacks, we compared the changes in airline schedules against a

second set of schedules for the week of October 15–21, 2001, which the

airlines developed after the September 11 attacks. We refer to the first as

the “original” schedules and to the second as the “revised” schedules.5

 As

with our previous reports on changes in airfares and service, we analyzed

various changes in service that occurred in these communities such as

changes in the number of turboprop and jet departures, changes in the

number of carriers providing service, and changes in the number of

destinations served with nonstop flights. We recognize that airlines make

frequent changes to their service schedules, and that service at these

communities may have changed since mid-October, 2001. In addition, we

developed an Internet-based questionnaire for managers of small airports

we included in the study. This questionnaire allowed the managers to

comment on the level of service they were receiving and to provide

information to assess factors that might affect schedule changes. We

supplemented this work with reviews of other information and interviews

with various industry experts and officials. Additional information on the

scope and methodology of this report can be found in appendix I.

 3

 In addition to the 202 communities we analyzed within the 48 contiguous states, we also

analyzed air service at 65 small communities in Alaska and Hawaii. These two states have

markedly different patterns of commercial air service from the rest of the United States. To

avoid skewing the results, we analyzed them separately. See appendix IV for this

discussion. See appendixes I and III for additional information on the communities we

studied.

4

 We obtained air service schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group. The first

October 2001 schedule dataset reflected the schedule as of August 30, 2001, and, therefore,

does not reflect the airline industry’s reaction to the events of September 11. The second

schedule dataset for October 15–21 reflected the schedule as of October 12, 2001.

5

 Because our analyses involved a review of “snapshots” in time and the nature of the

service may have been fluid, we could not fully measure interim service changes that may

have occurred (e.g., carriers initiating service at a community but discontinuing it soon

afterwards) within a single time period.
Page 3 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

In October 2000, the typical or median small community in our analysis

had service from two airlines, with a total of nine daily departing flights.

Forty-one percent of the communities were served by only one airline.

Airlines performed the vast majority of these flights—over 80 percent—

with turboprop aircraft. The most obvious factor that accounts for the

relatively limited level of service at these communities is their size. The

median community population was about 120,000, and the median number

of daily passenger enplanements in 1999 was about 150. Within the group

of 202 communities we studied, those with the smallest populations

generally had the lowest levels of service. However, the level of service

also varied for two other main reasons. One is the level of local economic

activity, as measured by such indicators as employment or per capita

income. Small community airports with the highest levels of service

tended to be those serving communities with more economic activity, such

as Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport (located near the headquarters

for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) or resort destinations like Key West, Florida.

Such communities may have 60 or more scheduled commercial departures

per day, while communities at the other end of the scale have only 1 or 2.

Another factor that contributes to limited service for many of these

communities is their proximity to larger airports. Nearly half of the 202

communities we analyzed are within 100 miles of an airport that serves as

a major airline’s hub or that is served by a low-fare carrier. This is

particularly the case in the eastern half of the United States. Airport

directors at many small communities reported that passengers opt to drive

to other larger airports for different connections or lower fares from a

major airline.

Between October 2000 and October 2001 (revised), the total number of

daily departures from these small communities declined by 19 percent.

Although carriers had clearly reduced total departure levels at small

communities before the September 11 terrorist attacks, airlines made

more of the total reduction in departures after September 11. Analyses of

industry service levels show that communities of all sizes shared in service

reductions. At the typical small community, the number of departures

dropped by three flights per day, from nine to six. To the extent that these

communities had jet service, it was largely unaffected; nearly all of the

decline came in turboprop flights. Service indicators other than the

number of departures—such as the number of airlines providing service—

also showed general declines, both before and after September 11. For

example, the percentage of small communities served by only one airline

increased from 41 percent in October 2000 to 47 percent by October 2001,

with slightly more of the increase coming before September 11. When one

or more carriers pulled out of a community, passengers often lost

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

connecting service to other destinations. However, while service

reductions predominated, airlines initiated service at 14 of the 202

communities. Virtually all of those increases in service had been planned

or put in place before September 11.

Because profitability is so critical to the decisions airlines make about

what markets they serve and how they serve them, the changes in service

levels in small communities can be traced to economic factors. Two such

factors—the economic decline that began in early 2001 (according to the

National Bureau of Economic Research) and the collapse of airline

passenger traffic after September 11—are widely acknowledged as the

main contributors to declining profitability in the industry. As the nation’s

economic performance declined, fewer passengers—especially business

passengers who generally pay higher fares—opted to fly, and airline

revenues dropped. Carriers sought ways to control costs and did so, in

part, by reducing scheduled service to many locations, including small

communities. After September 11, passenger traffic and revenues

plummeted, exacerbating the situation. As at larger airports, passenger

levels at small community airports dropped substantially, according to our

survey of small community airport directors. Airlines responded by cutting

capacity, partly by reducing the number of flights. Where airlines decided

to withdraw altogether from a small community, they most often did so in

communities where they were competing with other airlines and had a

limited market share. Such competition was more likely to be going on in

small communities with populations greater than 100,000; communities

with even smaller populations generally already received service from only

one airline. As a result, communities with populations above 100,000

tended to see greater service reductions than their smaller counterparts.

Besides the economic slowdown and September 11 attacks, airlines’

decisions about the makeup and deployment of their fleet also influenced

service levels at small communities. For example, some communities lost

service when carriers retired certain small types of aircraft.

We provided a copy of the draft report to the Department of

Transportation (DOT) for review and formal comment. We also provided

sections of our draft report for technical comment to Northwest Airlines,

United Airlines, Great Lakes Aviation, and Air Wisconsin. Officials with

DOT and the airlines offered only technical comments, which we

incorporated into the report as appropriate.
Page 5 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

The U.S. air transportation structure is dominated by “hub-and-spoke”

networks and by agreements between major airlines and their regional

affiliates. Since the deregulation of U.S. commercial aviation in 1978, most

major airlines have developed hub-and-spoke systems.6

 For example,

Northwest Airlines (Northwest) has hubs in Minneapolis, Detroit, and

Memphis. United Airlines (United) has hubs in Chicago (at O’Hare

International Airport), Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and

Washington, D.C. (at Dulles International Airport). Major airlines provide

nonstop service to many “spoke” cities from their hubs, ranging from large

cities like Portland, Oregon, to smaller communities such as Des Moines,

Iowa, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Depending on the size of those markets (i.e.,

the number of passengers flying nonstop between the hub and the “spoke”

community), the major airlines may operate their own large jets on those

routes or use regional affiliates to provide service to other communities,

usually with regional jet7

 and turboprop aircraft.

The airports in small “spoke” communities are the smallest in the nation’s

commercial air system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and

federal law categorize the nation’s commercial airports into four main

groups based on the number of passenger enplanements—large hubs,

medium hubs, small hubs, and nonhubs.8

 Generally, airports in major

 6

 For the purposes of this report, major airlines include Alaska Airlines, America West,

American Airlines, American Trans Air, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest

Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways. Seven of these 10 airlines

operate hub-and-spoke systems; Southwest, Alaska, and American Trans Air do not. With a

hub-and-spoke network, carriers can combine “local” passengers (those originating at or

destined to the hub) with “connecting” passengers (those not originating at or destined to

the hub but traveling via the hub) on the same flight.

7

 Although regional jets typically seat 32 to 70 passengers, there is no uniformly accepted

definition of a regional jet either in the industry or in federal laws and regulations. For

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

P.L. 106-181, variously defines a regional jet as having a maximum seating capacity of “not

less than 30 nor more than 75” (sec. 210) or “of less than 71” (sec. 231). Within the industry,

“regional jet” is sometimes used to describe larger aircraft, such as the Fokker F-100 (107

seats) and Boeing 717 (106 seats), and older-technology aircraft, such as the Fokker F-28

(69 seats) and BAe 146-100 (70-82 seats).

8

 The categories are based on the number of passengers boarding an aircraft (enplaned) for

all operations of U.S. carriers in the United States. A large hub enplanes at least 1 percent

of all passengers, a medium hub 0.25 to 0.99 percent, a small hub 0.05 to 0.249 percent, and

a nonhub less than 0.05 percent. Nonhubs and small hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C. 41731;

medium hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C. 41714; and large hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C. 47134.

A passenger flying from Baltimore to San Francisco who connects to a different flight in

Cincinnati counts as two passenger enplanements. Another passenger who might fly

nonstop between Baltimore and San Francisco would represent only a single enplanement.

Background
Page 6 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

metropolitan areas—such as Chicago, New York, Tampa, and Los

Angeles—are “large hubs.” There are 31 large hubs, and they serve the

majority of airline traffic, accounting for nearly 70 percent of U.S.

passenger enplanements in 1999. At the opposite end of the spectrum are

the nonhub airports—the airports for the communities that are the focus

of this study. In all, 404 airports were categorized as nonhubs in 1999. As a

group, they enplaned only about 3 percent of passengers in 1999. Of those

airports, we analyzed 267, which are generally the largest airports within

this group.9

 These included 202 small community airports in the

continental United States and 65 in Alaska and Hawaii. Table 1 provides

more information about the four airport categories, along with an

illustration of each type.

 9

 We specifically excluded certain nonhub airport communities from our analysis. These

included airports where fewer than 2,500 passengers boarded in 1999 (7 per day), along

with those that are receiving service subsidized in part by the Department of

Transportation’s Essential Air Service (EAS) program. For additional information on the

EAS program, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Essential Air Service: Changes in

Subsidy Levels, Air Carrier Costs, and Passenger Traffic, GAO/RCED-00-34 (Washington,

D.C.: Apr. 14, 2000). We also excluded nonhub airports located in U.S. territories and those

in metropolitan areas with populations of 1 million or more. For additional information on

the scope of communities we reviewed, see appendix I.
Page 7 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 1: Differences Among Categories of Commercial Airports

Hub category

Number of

airports

Percent of total

U.S. passengers

enplaned 1999

Median number of

passenger

enplanements, 1999 Examplea

Large 31 69.7 14,026,868 Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, St. Louis, Mo.

2000 population – 2.6 millionb

1999 annual enplanements – 15,075,992

number of carriers serving – 18

average daily flights – 560

Medium 37 19.3 3,305,073 Kansas City International, Kansas City, Mo.

2000 population – 1.8 millionb

1999 annual enplanements – 5,760,037

number of carriers serving – 18

average daily flights – 235

Small 74 7.8 534,218 Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, Springfield, Mo.

2000 population – 326,000b

1999 annual enplanements – 349,320

number of carriers serving – 5

average daily flights – 28

Non 404 3.3 20,379 Joplin Regional Airport, Joplin, Mo.

2000 population – 157,000 b

1999 annual enplanements – 28,877

number of carriers serving – 2

average daily flights – 5

a Enplanement data are from 1999. Flight schedule data are for October 15–21, 2001 (revised).

b

 Populations shown are for the metropolitan area.

Source: GAO analysis of enplanement data from FAA, airline schedule data from the Kiehl

Hendrickson Group, and population data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The typical10 community of the 202 small communities in our analysis had

nine departing flights per day in October 2000, and most had no jet service.

They were typically served by two airlines, though 41 percent had service

from only one airline. Individually, however, they varied considerably,

from having no more than 1 or 2 daily departures to having more than 60.

As a group, their limited level of service is related to their small

populations. As individual communities, the varied levels of service reflect

differences in other factors such as the level of local economic activity and

proximity to nearby airports.

 10In this report, by “typical” community, we mean the “median” community where 50

percent of the communities fall above and 50 percent fall below this midpoint community.

Most Small

Communities Had

Limited Air Service in

October 2000
Page 8 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

In October 2000, the typical small community among the 202 we analyzed

had the following levels of service:

• Service from two different airlines or their regional affiliates, each

providing service to a different hub where passengers could make

connections to other flights in the airline’s hub-and-spoke system.

However, a substantial minority of the communities—41 percent—had

service from only one airline.

• Nine departing flights a day, most if not all of them turboprops rather than

jets. In all, only 67 of the 202 communities had any jet service.11

The level of service varied significantly from community to community. At

the higher end were airports serving resort destinations like Key West,

Florida, where five different carriers operated 44 average daily departures

to six nonstop destinations, and communities such as Fayetteville and

Bentonville, Arkansas (the headquarters for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), near

the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, where five air carriers

scheduled 42 average daily jet and turboprop departures to seven nonstop

destinations. The highest number of daily departures—62—was for

Nantucket, Massachusetts, a resort community served by turboprop and

even smaller piston aircraft. At the other extreme were communities such

as Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Thief River Falls, Minnesota, with an

average of 3 and 1 daily departures, respectively. In total, the 10 small

communities with the most air service typically had more than 38

scheduled departures per day, while the 10 small communities with the

least air service typically had fewer than 3 scheduled departures per day.12

Table 2 summarizes the range of air service that was available at the 202

small community airports in October 2000.

 11 In this report, we commonly discuss air service at small communities in terms of average

daily departures. We calculated those averages by determining the total number of

departures scheduled for the entire week and dividing by seven. We stated daily averages

then by rounding to the nearest integer.

12 Two communities had no service scheduled during the week of October 15–21, 2000. For

purposes of discussing the range of scheduled service in this paragraph, we excluded those

communities.

Most Small Communities

Had Few Flights and Few

Air Carriers, Though

Service Levels Varied

Considerably
Page 9 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 2: Summary of Air Service at Small Communities, October 2000

Air service dimension Median Rangea

Number of carriers 2 0-6

Number of daily nonstop destinations 2 0-12

Number of daily turboprop flightsb 8 0-62

Number of daily jet flightsc0 0-26

Total number of daily flights 9 0-62

a

The lower end of the range for each air service dimension was 0 because two communities—

Marquette, Michigan, and West Yellowstone, Montana—had no service for the week of October 15–

21, 2000.

b

Includes flights by some piston aircraft at some communities.

c

Of the 202 small communities, 135 had no jet service in October 2000, which is why the median, or

midpoint, community had 0 daily jet departures. Of those 67 small communities that had jet service,

the median community had six daily jet departures. This explains in part why the median for total daily

departures does not simply equal the sum of the daily turboprop and jet departure median values.

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

For purposes of comparison, appendix II provides additional information

on key differences in the scope of air service that airlines scheduled at

nonhub and small hub communities. Small hub airports tend to serve

somewhat larger communities and have significantly more commercial air

service than do the 202 nonhub airports in the continental United States.

The most obvious reason for the generally limited level of service at these

small communities is their small size. As a whole, the 202 airports served a

small portion of the U.S. population and geographic territory. In 2000, the

median population of the 202 nonhub airport communities in our analysis

was about 120,000, and the median number of daily passenger

enplanements in 1999 was about 150.13 However, airports typically serve

populations and businesses in a larger surrounding area—typically

referred to as a “catchment area.” An airport’s catchment area is the

potential geographic area for drawing passengers. The geographic size of a

catchment area varies from airport to airport depending on such factors as

how close an airport is to other airports and whether the airport is served

by a low-fare airline (and, therefore, attractive to passengers from farther

away). Catchment area size estimates provided by the airport directors we

surveyed showed that these airports potentially serve a total population of

 13 1999 is the most recent year for which enplanement data was available.

Overall Limited Level of

Service Reflects

Communities’ Small Size
Page 10 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

about 35 million (about 12 percent of the continental U.S. population).14

Figure 1 shows the location and catchments areas of the 202 airports in

our analysis as estimated by airport directors responding to our survey

and our estimates of catchment areas for those who did not respond to the

survey.

Figure 1: Location and Estimated Catchment Areas of 202 Small Community Airports in the Continental United States

Source: GAO analysis of information from the FAA, Census Bureau, and survey of small community

airport directors.

 14 Our representation of airports’ catchment area sizes and populations are based on survey

respondents’ estimates of their own catchment areas. We then used data from the U.S.

Bureau of the Census to estimate the population for that particular geographic territory.

For airports that did not respond to the survey, we estimated the geographic size of their

catchment areas using the mean distance for small community airports in the same

geographic region as small community airports that did respond. We then calculated the

populations for these areas using the same procedures noted above.
Page 11 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

The small size of these markets greatly affects the level of service because

airlines’ decisions about offering service are motivated primarily by the

need to maintain profitability. An airline’s profitability generally depends

on its ability to generate revenues in a given market while managing its

costs. The airline industry is capital- and labor-intensive and is largely

dependent on passenger traffic for its revenues. The airlines use

sophisticated computer models to help them identify whether certain

markets can be served profitably.15 The limited amount of passenger traffic

from many of these communities limits the number of flights airlines

provide. It is also not surprising that turboprops have typically provided

most service to these communities, because turboprop aircraft are

generally the least expensive type of aircraft to buy and operate.16

The role of size in limiting a small community’s service can be seen by

stratifying the small communities into population groups. As part of our

analysis, we separated the 202 small communities into three groups—

those smaller than 100,000, those with populations of 100,000 to 249,999,

and those with populations of 250,000 and greater. As figure 2 shows, the

“smallest of the small” typically had lower median levels of service as

measured by such indicators as number of daily departures (both

turboprop and jet) and service from more than one airline.

 15 These proprietary models take into account such considerations as the carrier’s

operating costs, estimated passenger traffic, and competition in the market (including the

type of aircraft competitors used, the number of daily flights they scheduled, and the fares

they charged).

16 We reported in February 2001 that of the 157 U.S. cities that air carriers served with

regional jets in October 2000, only 13 (8 percent) were communities with populations

under 100,000. Because regional jets are generally more expensive to purchase and operate

than turboprop aircraft, and because air carriers’ regional jet deployment strategies are

profit driven, the amount of high-yield business traffic is a key factor in those deployment

decisions. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Competition: Regional Jet Service

Yet to Reach Many Small Communities, GAO-01-344 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2001).
Page 12 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 2: Comparison of Air Service Indicators Across Small Communities by Population Category, October 2000 (Median

Service Levels)

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

Besides population, a variety of other factors may influence how much

service an individual community receives. In our analysis, two such factors

stood out. One of these was the level of economic activity. The airline

industry is highly sensitive to the business cycle, and its economic

performance is strongly correlated with fluctuations in personal

disposable income and gross domestic product. When the economy is

growing, the demand for air transportation grows, allowing carriers to

raise yields (prices) and profitability. When the economy falls into

recession, unemployment grows, individuals postpone discretionary

Variation in Air Service Is

Related to Level of Local

Economic Activity
Page 13 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

travel, and airline yields and profitability decline.17 In particular, a key

element to the profitability of an airline’s operation in a given location is

the availability of high-yield passenger traffic—that is, business travelers

who are more likely to pay higher airfares than leisure travelers.

Communities with greater amounts of local business activity may have

more (and different) air service than communities with less economic

activity. Of course, the reverse may also be true—that local economic

activity cannot improve without enhanced air service. Thus, the presence

or absence of air service may also positively or negatively affect local

economic activity, rather than local economic activity dictating the

amount and type of air service.

Our analysis showed a statistically valid relationship between the

economic characteristics of small communities and the amount of air

service that they received. Economic principles led us to expect that

passenger demand for air service would be greater in communities with

more jobs and higher incomes. Our results were consistent with these

expectations. Larger communities with more income and “regional

product”18 had service from more major carriers and had more weekly

departures.19 For example, for every additional 25,000 jobs in a county, a

community received 4.3 more jet departures per week and 4.8 more

turboprop departures per week. Similarly, for every additional $5,000 in

per capita income, a community received 3.3 more jet departures per week

and 12.7 more turboprop departures per week.20 In other words, if two

small communities, A and B, were similar except that Community A had

 17 For an overview of the relationship between overall economic activity and the demand

for air transportation, see, for example, Paul Stephen Dempsey and Laurence E. Gesell,

Airline Management: Strategies for the 21st Century, Coast Aire Publications, 1997.

18 Regional product is a concept similar to gross domestic product (i.e., the output of goods

and services produced by labor and property located in the United States), only measured

at the regional level.

19 We obtained the data used to measure the characteristics of a small community from the

Regional Economic Information System database, which is produced by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis. These data are somewhat imperfect measures of economic activity at

individual communities, in part because they are available only by county, not city. We

defined a community’s size in terms of both total full- and part-time employment and

population, and we defined a community’s wealth as per capita income. We used

manufacturing earnings as a proxy measure of regional product. We defined the level of

service received by small communities as both the number of departures per week (jet and

turboprop aircraft) and as the number of major carriers serving a community. See appendix

V for a more detailed discussion of this analysis.

20 These results are statistically significant at the 95-percent level.
Page 14 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

$5,000 more in income per capita than Community B, Community A would

have had 16 more departures per week than Community B.21

A third main factor that stood out as helping to explain the variation in

service levels between small communities, in addition to relative size and

economic activity, was the community’s relative proximity to larger

airports. If a small community is located within relatively close driving

distance of another commercial airport, passengers may drive to the other

airport, rather than fly to or from the local community airport. This

tendency to lose passengers to other airports is referred to as “leakage.” Of

the 202 small communities in our study, 94 (47 percent) are within 100

miles of an airport that is served by a low-fare airline22 or that serves as a

hub for a major airline.23 Figure 3 shows circles with 100-mile radiuses

around those hub or low-fare carrier airports, and thus the number of

small communities that are within 100 miles of those alternative airports.

As figure 3 also shows, the concentration of nonhub airports that are close

to larger airports is much greater east of the Mississippi River than west of

the river. Over 70 percent of the eastern small communities are within 100

miles of a hub or low-fare airport, compared with 26 percent of the

western small communities.

 21 The regression model holds other factors constant between the hypothetical

communities A and B: population, manufacturing earnings, and distance from an airport

served by a low-fare carrier. See appendix V for additional information.

22 We adopted the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) definition of a low-fare airline and

included AirTran, American Trans Air, Frontier, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, and Vanguard.

23 Distance between airports was measured in statute (air) miles. Driving distances are thus

greater. We used a 100-mile radius to approximate the distance that passengers may travel

to reach an alternative airport because officials from one large low-fare carrier have

reported drawing passengers from this distance. We also examined the number of small

community airports within 50 statute miles of one of these alternative airports. We used 50

statute miles to approximate 70 highway miles, which was the statutory minimum distance

used in the EAS program. Small community airports within 70 highway miles from the

nearest medium or large hub airport were traditionally ineligible for subsidized air service.

Of the 202 small community airports, 10 percent are within 50 statute miles of an airline

hub or airport served by a low-fare carrier.

Variation Is Also Related to

Proximity to Larger

Airports
Page 15 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 3: Proximity of Small Community Airports to Other Airports Either Served by a Low-fare Airline or Serving as a Major

Airline’s Hub

Source: GAO analysis.

Our survey of small community airport officials confirmed the likely effect

of being close to alternative airports. When asked whether they believed

local residents drove to another airport for airline service (prior to

September 11), over half of them said that they believed this occurred to a

great or very great extent. Eighty-one percent of them attributed the

leakage to the availability of lower fares from a major airline at the

alternative airport. According to the results of our survey of airport

directors, more small community airports that are closer to other larger
Page 16 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

airports experience a greater extent of passenger leakage than small

community airports that are farther away from other larger airports.24

We were not able to obtain and analyze certain key data that might explain

in detail why passengers might opt to use different airports rather than

their local facility. In particular, we were not able to obtain information on

the differences in airfares among competing airports.25 However, prior

GAO reports indicate that fares at small community airports tend to be

higher than fares at larger airports.26 While choosing to drive to other

airports in the vicinity that offer service from other airlines may allow

passengers to gain the flight options and fares they want or need—a clear

benefit to the individual traveler—it likely affects the local community’s

ability to attract or retain other competitive air service. In addition, there

may be other factors that influence the amount and type of service that air

carriers can provide at small communities. As agreed, we intend to

examine possible approaches to enhancing air service to these

communities in a subsequent report.

 24 Of airport managers at communities more than 100 miles from another airport, 68

percent report that passengers drive to the other airport. Of airport managers at

communities less than 100 miles from another airport, 76 percent report that passengers

drive to the other airport.

25Data on airfares for the quarter including October 2001 would not be available from the

Bureau of Transportation Statistics until late February or early March 2002. Additionally,

there is a lack of complete and representative fare data for small communities, especially

for local passengers who do not connect to large carrier services. This is because public

data on airfares is developed from a 10-percent sample of tickets collected from large air

carriers, which comprises DOT’s “Passenger Origin-Destination Survey” (O&D Survey).

Small certificated air carriers and commuter carriers do not participate in the O&D Survey.

Thus, there are inherent statistical sampling limitations in the O&D Survey data.

26 See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Airline Deregulation: Changes in

Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to Entry, GAO/RCED-99-92 (Washington, D.C.:

Mar. 4, 1999) and Department of Transportation, Domestic Airline Fares Consumer

Report: Third Quarter 1998 (Special Feature: Fare Premiums by City), (Washington,

D.C.: April 1999).
Page 17 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Between October 2000 and October 2001 (revised), the number of total

daily departures in small communities dropped by 19 percent. Airlines

planned part of these decreases before September 11 (a 6 percent

reduction) but made even steeper reductions (13 percent) afterward. In 36

communities, at least one of the airlines providing service withdrew

entirely from the market, with most of these withdrawals coming before

September 11. The number of communities with service from only one

airline grew by 12, raising the percentage of communities with one-airline

service to 47 percent. While many communities lost service, carriers

initiated service at 14 communities. Nearly all of these gains occurred

prior to September 11.

Airlines substantially reduced total scheduled departures at the 202 small

communities we reviewed between October 2000 and October 2001. As

figure 4 shows, airlines scheduled an average of 2,406 departures daily

during the week of October 15–21, 2000. In their original schedules for the

week of October 15–21, 2001 (that is, the schedules prepared before

September 11), airlines had planned to operate an average of 2,257

departures per day, a reduction of 6 percent from the October 2000 level.

Airlines made further—and sharper—service reductions following

September 11. According to our analysis of the airlines’ revised schedules

for October 2001, the average number of scheduled daily departures from

smaller communities dropped to 1,937, or about 320 (13 percent) fewer

departures than originally planned. Combined, these schedule changes

amounted to a total reduction of about 19 percent from October 2000’s

flight schedule. The median community in our group of 202 had nine daily

departures in October 2000. After the combined drop that was planned

both before and after September 11, the median community had six daily

departures in October 2001.27

 27 To determine if the November 2001 schedule showed any significant change from the

revised October 2001 level, we analyzed the airlines’ schedules for that month as well. Our

analysis showed that the total number of daily departures for November 2001 was

essentially the same as that scheduled for October 2001. We recognize that the airlines

make frequent adjustments to their schedules and that overall service levels may have

changed since then.

Airline Service at

Small Communities

Declined Between

October 2000 and

October 2001

Air Service Levels in Small

Communities Declined

Both Before and After

September 11 Attacks
Page 18 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 4: Change in Total Daily Departures for Small Communities, October 2000–

October 2001

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

Other industry data regarding service decreases was consistent with the

decreases identified in our 202 small communities. According to one

industry analysis, the changes in daily scheduled seats from U.S. airports

were generally comparable across airports of all sizes. Small hubs

experienced a greater relative decrease in service (-15.5 percent)

compared to nonhubs (-13.5 percent). Large hubs had the greatest relative

decrease in total available seats (-16.3 percent), and medium hubs had a

smaller decrease (-12.4 percent).

The 19-percent drop in average daily departures came almost exclusively

on turboprop flights. In October 2000, 67 of the 202 communities had some

jet service. Airlines tended not to reduce jet flights in those locations

where they already were in place. Overall, there were slightly more jet

departures in October 2001 than in October 2000. As table 3 shows, median

daily turboprop departures dropped from 8 to 6 before September 11 and

from 6 to 5 afterward.28 On other service measures—number of airlines

 28 According to industry sources, some of the decline in turboprop flights and gain in jet

flights can be attributed to strategies that carriers adopted in recent years to phase out

turboprop aircraft and replace them with regional jets. For example, Atlantic Coast

Airlines, Inc., which operates as a United Express and as a Delta Connection carrier, is

planning to become an “all-jet” carrier by the end of 2003. More specific information about

this strategy is discussed later in this report.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

October 2000 October 2001 (original) October 2001 (revised)

Total departures
Page 19 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

providing service and number of nonstop departures—the median for

these communities remained the same.

Table 3: Range of Service Levels Among Small Community Airports, October 2000–October 2001

October 2000 October 2001 (original) October 2001 (revised)

Air service dimension Median Rangea Median Rangea Median Rangea

Number of carriers 2 0-6 2 0-6 2 0-5

Number of daily nonstop destinations 2 0-12 2 0-12 2 0-12

Number of daily turboprop departures 8 0-62 6 0-66 5 0-62

Number of daily jet departuresb0 0-26 0 0-32 0 0-29

Total number of daily departures 9 0-62 8 0-66 6 0-62

a

Some communities had no service scheduled for the week we analyzed; thus, all of the low-range

numbers are zeros.

b

Of the 202 small communities, 135 had no jet service in October 2000, which is why the median, or

midpoint, for daily jet departures is 0. Of those 67 small communities that had jet service, the median

value for the number of daily jet departures was 6. This explains, in part, why the median for total

daily departures does not simply equal the sum of the daily turboprop and jet departure median

values.

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

While the typical small community had the same number of airlines—

two—providing service both in October 2000 and October 2001, a number

of communities gained or lost a carrier. In the aggregate, the movement

was downward, with 36 communities experiencing a net decline in the

number of airlines providing service and 14 communities experiencing a

net increase. For the 36 communities that lost airlines, most lost them as a

result of airline decisions made prior to September 11. Likewise,

communities that experienced net gains in the number of carriers did so

primarily as a result of airline decisions made before September 11.

Among communities that lost airlines, two (Cumberland, Maryland, and

Rockford, Illinois) lost service altogether.29

The overall effect of these gains and losses was a decrease in the number

of communities served by four, three, and two airlines and an increase in

the number of communities served by only one airline (see fig. 5). In all,

the number of communities served by only one airline increased from 83

(41 percent) to 95 (47 percent) of the 202 communities in our review.

 29 Cumberland, Maryland, has since received service from a different carrier under a statefunded subsidy program.

Communities Saw Net

Decline in Number of

Airlines Providing Service
Page 20 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 5: Change in the Number of Carriers Serving Small Communities, October 2000–October 2001

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

At a minimum, communities that lost an airline were at risk of losing

connecting service to some destinations. Of the 36 communities that lost

service from an airline, 5 lost the services of a carrier but did not lose

access to other destinations, but 31 lost connecting service to other

destinations. For example, when Abilene, Texas, lost its service from one

of the two airlines that had been providing service, it lost one-stop

connections to 14 destinations. Excluding the 2 communities that lost all

service, the other 34 communities lost an average of 12 one-stop

connections when one of the carriers discontinued flight operations there.
Page 21 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Service changes at Lake Charles, Louisiana, illustrate what happens when

an airline withdraws from a market. In October 2000, Continental Express

and American Eagle both served Lake Charles Regional Airport.

Continental Express was the dominant carrier, providing 40 weekly flights

(57 percent of the total capacity, as measured by the number of available

seats on departing flights). After September 11, American Eagle

discontinued its 27 weekly flights from Lake Charles to Dallas-Fort Worth.

Continental Express continued to fly, offering 38 weekly flights (2 fewer)

to Houston. The loss of American Eagle’s service also meant that Lake

Charles’s passengers could no longer reach 13 other destinations via onestop connections at Dallas—destinations that Continental did not serve.

It is difficult to assess the effect of losing a carrier on competition at a

particular community. For one thing, the number of carriers providing

service to a small community is an imperfect measure of competition. In

the airline industry, competition is normally defined in terms of the

number of different carriers serving the same city-pair market—that is, the

route between the same two cities. Most small communities that received

service from two or more carriers had nonstop flights to two or more

airlines’ hubs. In the nonstop markets between the small community and

those hubs, there was probably little direct competition initially;

passengers, therefore, experienced little if any loss of competition on

those routes if one of the carriers discontinued service.30 However, if the

passenger’s final destination was not an airline hub city, then different

airlines may compete directly in offering connecting service to the same

destination city but through their different respective hubs. In such cases,

the loss of an airline’s service at a small community means the loss of a

competitive choice. Where competition is lost, the risk that consumers

may be subject to higher airfares increases.31

 30 An airline may be able to carry passengers to another airline’s hubs with connecting

service over the first airline’s hubs. That connecting service may exert some competitive

restraint on prices. However, connecting service does not always represent an adequate

substitute for nonstop service, especially for business travelers.

31 A number of studies—including our own—have shown that markets with fewer

competitors, especially those dominated by a single carrier, have higher fares. See, for

example, Steven A. Morrison, “New Entrants, Dominated Hubs, and Predatory Behavior, “

Statement before the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition,

Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (Apr. 1, 1998). See also U.S. General

Accounting Office, Airline Competition: Higher Fares and Less Competition Continue at

Concentrated Airports,GAO/RCED-93-171 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 1993). And as noted

earlier, prior GAO reports indicate that fares at small community airports tend to be higher

than fares at larger airports.
Page 22 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Two primary external events that occurred since October 2000—the

economic decline that began in early 2001 and the collapse of airline

passenger traffic after September 11—significantly affected carriers’

financial conditions and thus influenced decisions about service

throughout their networks, including service to small communities. As the

nation’s economic performance declined, fewer passengers opted to fly.

Consequently, airline revenues dropped, and airlines sought ways to

control costs. They did so, in part, by reducing scheduled operations. In

many small communities, they reduced the number of flights they were

providing, and in some communities where they had a small portion of the

market, they pulled out altogether. After September 11, passenger traffic

and revenue plummeted, exacerbating the situation. Beyond their

reactions to the economic slowdown and the events of September 11,

airlines also made some changes on the basis of long-range decisions

about the composition and deployment of their fleets—decisions,

generally, to reduce turboprop operations and increase regional jet

service. Some communities lost service as carriers retired certain types of

small aircraft.

Nationally, the U.S. economy slowed down during 2001 and moved into its

first recession (as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research)

since 1991. This change in the national economy is reflected in airline

passenger and revenue data. In the latter parts of 2000, monthly airline

passenger traffic and revenue were still growing compared with the same

periods in 1999. But beginning in February 2001, passenger traffic

generally declined. Additionally, reflecting a drop in high-yield business

traffic, total passenger revenues decreased at a steeper rate than

passenger traffic, as shown in figure 6. For the U.S. airline industry as a

whole, data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) indicate

that airlines’ net income turned negative in the second quarter of 2001.

Simultaneously across the industry, airline costs were rising. Carriers

began efforts to control costs, in part by reducing service. As the economy

slowed down, industry analysts projected that U.S. commercial airlines

would lose over $2 billion in 2001.

National Economic

Decline and

September 11 Attacks,

Along with Airlines’

Strategic Decisions,

Underlie Shifts in Air

Service

Broad National Economic

Decline and September 11

Attacks ad Significant

Effects on Airline Service

Levels Nationwide
Page 23 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 6: Change in Total U.S. Passenger Enplanements and Revenue, September 2000–August 2001

Source: GAO presentation of data from the Air Transport Association.

The events of September 11 accelerated and aggravated negative financial

trends already evident in the airline industry. In response to significant

losses experienced by the carriers stemming from the temporary

shutdown of the nation’s airspace and the drop in passenger traffic, the

president signed the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act, which

provided up to $4.5 billion in emergency assistance to compensate the

nation’s passenger air carriers for these losses. 32 The change in the

airlines’ financial condition may be attributable to both the continued

deterioration of passenger revenues and the inability of airlines to cut their

expenses proportionately. Figure 7 shows the significant drop in

passenger traffic after September 11. Data from BTS indicate that

passenger enplanements between September 2000 and September 2001 on

large air carriers dropped by over 34 percent nationally.

 32 P. L. 107-42. The act also provided up to $500 million in grants to all-cargo airlines.
Page 24 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 7: Passenger Traffic and Revenues Before and After September 2001

Source: GAO presentation of data from the Air Transport Association.

As passenger traffic and revenues plummeted, carriers’ efforts to control

costs included significant reductions in total capacity—in other words,

service reductions. These reductions were dramatic. According to data

from BTS, carriers flew 20 percent fewer departures in September 2001

than in September 2000. Different airlines approached such cost-cutting in

different ways. For example, US Airways retired 111 older aircraft from its

fleet, eliminating its Boeing 737-200s, MD-80s, and Fokker F-100s. Some
Page 25 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

carriers also replaced service from their large mainline jets with smaller

aircraft operated by regional affiliates to better match capacity with

passenger demand, as United did in some markets. In addition, United

reduced the total number of departures in its system from about 2,400

before September 11 to 1,654 by October 31, in part by reducing early

morning and late evening flights. Service to smaller communities was

affected as part of the overall decrease in operations.

These two factors—the economic downturn and aftermath of September

11—played out in small communities as well as in larger markets. As with

the nation as a whole, small communities saw dramatic decreases in

passenger traffic. According to our survey of airport officials, passenger

traffic at small communities fell by 32 percent between September 2000

and September 2001—about the same percentage that, according to BTS

data, passenger traffic decreased throughout the country. Over 80 percent

of the airport managers we surveyed reported that passenger fear (that is,

general apprehension related to the events of September 11, 2001) was a

key factor in decreased enplanements at their airport since September 11.

Airport directors also reported that passenger enplanements dropped

because of air carrier service changes (e.g., fewer departures, smaller

aircraft, or fewer carriers). In addition, managers indicated that basic

economic conditions and post-September 11 airport security requirements

reduced enplanements. Thus, the general reductions in service that

occurred at small communities can be seen as reflecting airlines’ overall

response to these factors.

Another way that these factors can be seen at work in small communities

is in the decisions airlines made to withdraw from a community. In most

cases, when an airline withdrew entirely from a community, it was a

community in which the airline was competing with other airlines and had

only a limited market share. More specifically, of the 36 small communities

that lost a carrier between October 2000 and October 2001, there were

only six instances in which the carrier that discontinued operations was

the largest service provider at the community.

The effect of these decisions to withdraw from multiple-carrier markets

can be seen in one characteristic we observed in the airline schedule data

we analyzed: Among the 202 communities we analyzed, service reductions

tended to be greater in those communities with populations above 100,000

than in communities with populations below 100,000. This was true across

several types of service indicators, such as number of carriers, total

number of daily departures, and number of nonstop flights to more than

Service Decisions for

Small Communities Reflect

Airlines’ Attempts to

Adjust to the National

Downturn
Page 26 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

one destination. Across all these indicators, communities with populations

below 100,000 typically had lower levels of service than their larger

counterparts both in October 2000 and October 2001, but compared with

these larger communities, they lost less of that service during the 1-year

period we measured. One reason may be that over half of small

communities with populations less than 100,000 were served by only one

airline, both in October 2000 and in October 2001. Thus, airlines’ decisions

to withdraw from multiple-carrier markets had little effect on them.

While the economic downturn and the events of September 11 were potent

factors in shaping airline service to small communities, some of the

changes that were occurring reflected airline efforts on other fronts. The

number of departures or available seating capacity at some small

community airports changed when some major airlines directed their

regional affiliates to shift some of their aircraft fleets to operate at

different hubs in their systems.33 Similarly, changes in the number of

departures or available seating capacity at some small community airports

reflected strategic decisions that carriers had made about the composition

and deployment of their fleets—decisions to replace their turboprop

aircraft with regional jet aircraft. These decisions were made with the

concurrence of the regional carriers’ mainline partners. Three examples

illustrate how such restructurings often affected service to some small

communities.

According to a Northwest official, the carrier began restructuring parts of

its Northwest Airlink regional fleet in 2002. Northwest began retiring

turboprops at its wholly-owned affiliate, Express Airlines I, while

increasing the number of regional jets in that carrier’s fleet and deploying

them at all three of its hubs—Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and Memphis.

Northwest decided that its other regional carrier, Mesaba Airlines, would

become the sole operator of turboprops at its hubs beginning in February

2002. Mesaba also operates 69-seat regional jets.

 33 The relationship between the mainline carrier and regional affiliate can take several

forms, varying from outright ownership by the major airline, to partial ownership by the

major airline, to a marketing alliance devoid of any ownership by the major airline. For

example, American Eagle airlines is a wholly owned regional carrier subsidiary of AMR

Corp. (the parent company of American Airlines), Mesaba Airlines is partially owned by

Northwest, and United contracts with several airlines to operate as its regional carrier,

United Express, in certain markets.

Internal Airline Strategies

Dictated Other Schedule

Changes

Northwest’s Restructuring with

Regional Affiliates
Page 27 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

According to our analysis, between October 2000 and October 2001,

Express Airlines I and Mesaba altered service at 60 small communities.

Overall, more small communities lost service than gained service from

these carriers during this period. A total of 49 small communities lost

some capacity (e.g., through a reduction in flight frequency or use of

smaller aircraft) from these carriers, with four of them losing service from

Express Airlines I and Mesaba entirely because, according to a Northwest

official, they were no longer profitable.34 On the other hand, 11

communities gained service—9 of them gaining additional flights or extra

capacity through larger aircraft, and 2 gaining start-up service from the

two airlines. Appendix VI provides more information about the small

community service changes made by Express Airlines I and Mesaba

between 2000 and 2001.

Service changed at some communities when United renegotiated the

contract with one of its regional carriers—Great Lakes Aviation. In 2000,

both Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin served as United Express carriers

operating between United’s Chicago and Denver hubs. However, beginning

in May 2001 under a revised contract, Great Lakes no longer operated as a

United Express carrier and instead continued in a “codesharing”35

relationship with United. Under this new arrangement, Great Lakes could

decide which markets it served, but United was free to decide whether or

not to codeshare on those routes. Furthermore, United expanded the

amount of service Air Wisconsin (as a United Express carrier) provided to

many of these communities.

Of the 202 communities in our study, 16 were served by Great Lakes, 15 by

Air Wisconsin, and 9 by both. Between October 2000 and October 2001,

United’s changes altered air service between 39 of the 40 communities

served by one of these carriers. Of the 39 communities with service

changes, Great Lakes pulled out completely from 4. Either Great Lakes or

Air Wisconsin decreased capacity at another 30 communities. Five

 34 Of the four communities that lost service from Express Airlines I and Mesaba, Northwest

continued to serve one (Bismarck, North Dakota) with mainline operations.

35 Codesharing allows an airline to sell seats on its partner’s plane as if they were its own,

enabling the airline to expand its route network without adding any planes. For example, if

United and Great Lakes have a codesharing agreement and United flies from Chicago to

Denver (and Great Lakes does not), and Great Lakes flies from Denver to Cody, Wyoming

(and United does not), then United could sell tickets from Chicago to Cody as its own

flight, and the computer reservation system would indicate that United provides seamless

(“on-line”) service to these cities.

United’s Contract

Renegotiation with One of Its

Regional Affiliates
Page 28 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

communities gained new service or additional capacity. Appendix VII

provides more information about the communities and how they were

affected.

According to industry sources, some of the decline in turboprop flights

and gain in jet flights can be attributed to strategies that some carriers

adopted in recent years to phase out turboprop aircraft and replace them

with regional jets.

For example, Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc., which operates as a United

Express and as a Delta Connection carrier, is planning to become an

“all-jet” carrier by the end of 2003. In October 2000, Atlantic Coast

operated 87 aircraft, including 34 regional jets and 53 turboprops, to 51

destinations from Washington Dulles and Chicago O’Hare. Of those 51

markets, 21 were served exclusively with turboprops. In October 2001,

Atlantic Coast operated 117 aircraft, including 81 regional jets and 36

turboprops, to 60 destinations. Of those 60 markets, 15 were served

exclusively with turboprops. By December 2001, Atlantic Coast had retired

all of its 19-seat turboprop aircraft and ended service to two small

communities—Lynchburg and Shenandoah Valley, Virginia—when it did

so. Other regional carriers, such as American Eagle and Continental

Express, have also decided to become “all-jet” carriers.

It is not surprising that most small communities have fewer carrier options

and less competition than larger communities. The economics of airline

operations—that is, the need to cover the cost of operating turboprop or

jet service with sufficient passenger revenue—mean that small

communities that generate relatively little passenger traffic make

profitable operations difficult. Because small communities generate

relatively little passenger traffic (especially high-fare business traffic), they

tend to have more limited air service than larger communities. As a result,

passengers who use these communities’ airports often have less service:

fewer nonstop flights to fewer destinations.

The declines in air service at small communities in 2001 generally

paralleled declines at larger airports. However, because small community

airports had much more limited service initially, such decreases may

subject passengers to or from those communities to significant effects. For

example, when small communities lose a competitive air carrier choice,

they may lose access to many destinations through one-stop connecting

service. Similarly, although we were unable to analyze how airfares

changed when the number of carriers serving a community changed,

Some Regional Carriers Adopt

“All-Jet” Strategies

Concluding

Observations
Page 29 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

travelers to or from those communities that lost service from one or more

carriers may be more vulnerable to noncompetitive pricing and service

patterns.

The number of communities subject to this vulnerability increased during

2001. Because of the relationship between economic activity and air

service, airlines may restore some air service at small communities when

local economic conditions improve. However, trends in the industry—

such as the replacement of some turboprop aircraft with regional jets—

may make it increasingly difficult for air carriers to operate competitive

and profitable air service to some small communities.

We provided a copy of the draft report to DOT for review and formal

comment. We also provided sections of our draft report for technical

comment to Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, Great Lakes Aviation, and

Air Wisconsin. Officials with DOT and the airlines offered only technical

comments, which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta,

secretary of transportation; United Airlines; Northwest Airlines; the

Regional Airline Association; and other interested parties. We will also

send copies to others upon request.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact

me, HeckerJ@gao.gov, or Steve Martin at (202) 512-2834,

MartinS@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this report are listed in

appendix VIII.

JayEtta Z. Hecker

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Agency Comments
Page 30 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable John Rockefeller, IV

Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman

The Honorable James Oberstar

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Mica

Chairman

The Honorable William Lipinski

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Aviation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Olympia Snowe

The Honorable Ron Wyden

United States Senate

The Honorable John Peterson

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

This report examines the changing air service conditions in small

communities. Our work focused on three objectives: (1) describing the

overall level of air service at the nation’s small communities in 2000 and

the main factors that contributed to that service level; (2) examining how

the nature and extent of air service changed among the nation’s small

communities in 2001, including a specific accounting for how service

changed after the September 11 terrorist attacks; and (3) identifying key

factors that have influenced these air service changes.

To analyze the overall level of service in 2000 and how the nature and

extent of air service at small communities changed in 2001, we first

defined the universe of small communities. We began by including all

nonhub and small hub airports, which various statutes define as small

communities.36 We then narrowed that definition by including only those

nonhub and small hub airports included on the Air Carrier Activity

Information System (ACAIS) that supports the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlement

activities. The ACAIS database contains data on cargo volume and

passenger enplanements submitted by air carriers to the Department of

Transportation (DOT).

The ACAIS database categorizes airports by the number of annual

enplanements. According to a DOT official, there are three categories:

• Primary: Public airports with scheduled, commercial air service with at

least 10,000 annual enplanements. These airports are eligible for a

minimum entitlement AIP funding of between $650,000 and $1 million.37

• Nonprimary: Public airports with scheduled, commercial air service with

annual enplanements between 2,500 and 9,999. These airports are not

 36 For example, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st

Century (AIR-21), P.L. 106-181, defines small communities as including both nonhub and

small hub community airports. The categories of airports—large hub, medium hub, small

hub, and nonhub—are defined by statute. Nonhubs and small hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C.

41731; medium hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C. 41714; and large hubs are defined in 49 U.S.C.

47134. The categories are based on the number of passengers boarding an aircraft

(enplaned) for all operations of U.S. carriers in the United States. A large hub enplanes at

least 1 percent of all passengers, a medium hub 0.25 to 0.99 percent, a small hub 0.05 to

0.249 percent, and a nonhub less than 0.05 percent. In 2000, there were a total of 546

airports: 31 large hubs, 37 medium hubs, 74 small hubs, and 404 nonhubs. The Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) sometimes defines hubs as geographic areas rather than as

airports. In this report, however, when we discuss hubs, we are referring to airports.

37 49 U.S.C. 47114(c)(1)(B).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

eligible for AIP entitlement funds, but are eligible for “commercial service

funds,” which are discretionary AIP funds.

• Other: Airports that have scheduled service, but not necessarily

commercial service and have less than 2,500 enplanements.

To limit the scope of our research, we included only those airports that

had more than 2,500 annual enplanements (approximately 7 passengers

enplaning per day) in 1999. From this list, we eliminated airports that were

located in territories, those at which commercial service was subsidized

through DOT’s Essential Air Service (EAS) program as of July, 2001,38

those for which our data indicated that carriers had scheduled no service

at any time between June 2001 and July 2002, and those nonhub airports

that were located in metropolitan areas with populations of one million or

greater (e.g., Meigs Field in Chicago). We eliminated the latter group of

airports because travelers in those metropolitan areas are not limited to

air service from the small airport; rather, they have a choice of other larger

airports in the immediate area.

We then compared various aspects of air service at the nonhub and small

hub airports to see if there was a significant difference between the two.

Based on that analysis and agreement with the requesters’ staffs, we

defined small communities as those served by nonhub airports that met

the above-mentioned conditions. Table 4 summarizes the number of

nonhub airports affected by each of these filters.

 38 We agreed with requesting members’ staffs to exclude communities that received

subsidized service from the Essential Air Service (EAS) program because of the inherently

different situation with commercial air service in those locations. The Airline Deregulation

Act of 1978 guaranteed that communities served by air carriers before deregulation would

continue to receive a certain level of scheduled air service. Under the EAS program, the

federal government subsidizes air carriers to provide service to certain small communities.

For additional information on the EAS program, see U.S. General Accounting Office,

Essential Air Service: Changes in Subsidy Levels, Air Carrier Costs, and Passenger

Traffic, GAO/RCED-00-34 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2000). In addition, GAO is initiating a

separate review of the EAS program in early 2002.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 4: Number of Nonhub Airports Eliminated by Various Selection Criteria

Selection criteria Nonhub airports

Initial number of airports 404

Airports in U.S. territories (12)

Airports had no scheduled service from June 2001 to

July 2002

(41)

Airports receiving EAS-subsidized servicea(61)

Airports in metropolitan areas of 1 million or morea (23)

Total airports analyzed 267

a

Some airports fell into multiple categories and thus may have already been excluded from an earlier

filter. We did not double count airports.

Source: GAO’s analysis.

As part of our analysis, we also grouped the nonhub airports based on the

size of the surrounding areas’ populations. Because many of these airports

are within metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), we used those population

totals.39 If an airport was not located within an MSA, we used the county

population.

To determine what overall level of service airlines provided at the nation’s

small communities in 2000, we examined air service schedules published

by the airlines for the week of October 15–21, 2000. As with our previous

reports on changes in air fares and service,40 the types of service we

focused our analysis on were: the number of carriers serving the airport, if

the airport was dominated by a single carrier,41 the number of nonstop

destinations served out of the airport, the number of hubs served out of

the airport, the number of turboprop and jet departures per week out of

the airport, and the types of aircraft serving the airport. We determined

these air service dimensions using airline flight schedule information

submitted by all U.S. airlines that we purchased from the Kiehl

 39 An MSA is a geographic entity designated by the federal Office of Management and

Budget for use by federal statistical agencies. In general, an MSA is a metropolitan area

with a population of 100,000 or more, often defined in terms of counties, except in New

England, where MSAs are defined in terms of county subdivisions (primarily cities and

towns).

40 See, for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Airline Deregulation: Changes in

Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to Entry, GAO/RCED-99-92 (Washington, D.C.:

Mar. 4, 1999). A more complete list of related GAO Products follows appendix VIII.

41 A dominated airport was one in which a single carrier provided more than 50 percent of

the total capacity at the airport (measured in terms of seats available for sale).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Hendrickson Group, an aviation consulting firm. We did not independently

assess the reliability of the Kiehl Hendrickson Group’s data, which it

purchases from another vendor, Innovata, LLC. According to the Kiehl

Hendrickson Group, Innovata employs numerous proprietary quality

assurance edit checks to ensure data integrity.

To determine factors associated with those service levels, we reviewed

available literature on air service and local economic development, and we

interviewed industry officials, consultants, academic experts, and airport

officials. Based on that information, we identified a number of factors that

relate air service levels with various aspects of small communities. Among

the elements identified were the population of those small communities

and the proximity of small community airports to other larger airports,

many of which served either as a hub for a major airline or which was

served by a low-fare carrier. 42 We obtained community population data

from the U.S. Bureau of the Census. In addition, we asked the airport

directors at the small community airports to estimate the size of their

airport’s “catchment area.” An airport’s catchment area is the geographic

area from which it draws passengers. For those who did not respond to

the survey, we estimated the size of their catchment areas based on the

average size of the catchment area for other small community airports in

the same geographic region. We then calculated the total population living

within the catchment areas using 2000 census tract population data. For

each small community airport, we also identified the nearest major airline

hub facility and nearest airport served by a low-fare carrier and

determined the distance between those airports to the small community

airport. We statistically analyzed the extent to which some of the identified

factors contributed to overall service levels. That analysis is described in

greater detail in appendix V.

To determine how air service has changed at small communities over time,

we analyzed changes in scheduled air service for different time periods.

We used our analysis of air service for the week of October 15–21, 2000 as

a baseline for comparison. To minimize the possible effects of seasonality

in air service, we then examined air service schedules for the week of

 42 We adopted DOT’s definition of a low-fare airline and included AirTran, American Trans

Air, Frontier, JetBlue, Southwest, Spirit, and Vanguard.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

October 15–21, 2001.43 To identify the service changes at small community

airports that might be separately attributable to the 2001 economic

downturn and the September 11 terrorist attacks, we examined two

different sets of airline schedule data for October 15–21, 2001: those that

airlines had published prior to September 11, 2001, and those published by

the airlines following September 11, 2001. The first October 2001 schedule

dataset reflected the schedule as of August 30, 2001, and is, therefore, not

reflective of the airline industry’s reaction to the events of September 11.

The second schedule dataset for October 15–21 reflected the schedule as

of October 12, 2001. Finally, to determine if airlines continued to make

substantial changes to their scheduled service, we also analyzed their

schedules for the week of November 1-7, 2001. We recognize that airlines

make frequent changes to their service schedules, and that service at these

communities may have changed since then. We analyzed the same service

elements as for the week of October 15–21, 2000.

To determine factors associated with the changes in service at small

community airports, we surveyed airport directors at nonhub and small

hub airports. We also interviewed officials from major and commuter

airlines, FAA and DOT, and industry experts. The survey responses helped

us to identify the individual airport perspectives on how their service has

changed and the impact of those changes, as well as the major factors

affecting the service changes. We interviewed airline officials to

understand how and why the major airlines were reducing and/or

transferring small community airport routes to commuter carriers and

how the different types of contractual relationships affect the route

changes. In addition, airline officials described why many airlines are

moving away from turboprop to regional jets. FAA and DOT officials, and

industry experts provided further information on the state of the airline

industry, particularly the vulnerability of small community airports.

To collect information on the operational activities of small and nonhub

airports, and the opinions of their managers on a variety of issues, we

conducted a Web questionnaire survey of 280 U.S. airports from December

10, 2001, through January 29, 2002.

 43 Analyses of airline service often uses data on airline schedules or operations during the

months of either May or September, because those months are considered to be free of the

effects of summer vacation travel or lessened travel during winter months. We could not

use September data because of the effects of September 11, and we considered data for

May 2001 to be too dated for our purposes.

Internet Survey of

Airport Directors
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Using data from the FAA, Kiehl Hendrickson Group, American Association

of Airport Executives (AAAE), and the State of Alaska, we developed a

sample of 280 small and nonhub airports. We did not survey the airport

directors of all nonhub and small hub airports. Because of the special

circumstances (e.g., unique remoteness) of smaller Alaska airports, we

included another criterion for incorporating them into our database: We

only included Alaska small and nonhubs that, in addition to meeting the

prior criteria, were Part 139 certified.44 This additional criterion resulted in

a total of 20 Alaska airports being included in our survey.

We developed our survey instrument in consultation with AAAE officials,

who reviewed our draft questionnaire and made suggestions about content

and format. We also pretested the draft questionnaire at four airports in

our study population. These airports were Bellingham International and

Spokane International (Washington) and Hagerstown, Maryland, and

Richmond, Virginia. We chose these airports because they represented—in

terms of annual enplanements, location, and airport type—the kinds of

airports that would be asked to complete our final questionnaire. We

incorporated changes into our survey instrument as a result of these

pretests. The final questionnaire was posted on the World Wide Web for

respondents to complete. A complete reproduction of the Web survey

can be viewed in Adobe Acrobat pdf format at

www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d02432sv.pdf.

We sent e-mail messages or otherwise contacted airports in our survey

database in late November 2001 to notify them of our survey. We then sent

each airport representative a unique username and password and invited

them to fill out an automated questionnaire posted on the World Wide Web

in early December of 2001. About 12 percent of the airport representatives

completed a paper version of the questionnaire in lieu of completing the

survey on-line.

During the survey fieldwork period, we made at least three follow-up

contacts with each airport that had not yet responded to ask them to

participate. We used all completed responses received by January 29, 2002,

in the analysis for this report. We received responses from 207 airports in

which the respondent had indicated that they had completed their

 44 These regulations prescribe rules governing the certification and operation of land

airports which serve any scheduled or unscheduled passenger operation of an air carrier

that is conducted with an aircraft having a seating capacity of more than 30 passengers.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

questionnaire and that GAO could use the data (a 74 percent response

rate). Response rates did not vary appreciably across small hub and

nonhub airports and results of the follow-up efforts showed no evidence

that our survey results were not representative of the actual study

population. Some questions in our survey instrument were not answered

by all of the airports completing a useable questionnaire, but this rate of

item nonresponse was generally low.

In addition to any systematic bias or random error in our survey results

that may have been caused by our inability to obtain answers from all of

the airports in the population on all of our questions (nonresponse error),

estimates from questionnaire surveys may be subject to other sources of

error. We took steps to limit these errors. We checked our sample list of

airports against other sources to help ensure its completeness, we

pretested our questionnaire and had experts review it, and we checked our

analysis for programming errors. We did not, however, verify the answers

reported by airport directors.

Other important issues may be relevant to an analysis of the service

changes at small community airports. However, a lack of detailed

information on these factors limited the scope of this review. For example,

we were not able to obtain information on the differences in airfares at

small communities and at competing airports. Airfare data for the quarter

including October 2001 would not be available from the Bureau of

Transportation Statistics until late February or early March 2002.

Additionally, there is a lack of complete and representative fare data for

small communities, especially for local passengers who do not connect to

large carrier services. This is because public data on airfares is developed

from a 10 percent sample of tickets collected from large air carriers, which

comprises DOT’s “Passenger Origin-Destination Survey” (O&D Survey).

Small certificated air carriers and commuter carriers do not participate in

the O&D Survey. Thus, there are inherent statistical sampling limitations in

the O&D Survey data. In addition, airlines’ decisions about profitability of

operations in certain markets are proprietary confidential.

We conducted our work from April 2001 through March 2002 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Other Data

Limitations to Our

Work
Appendix II: Small Hub Airports Tend to Have

More Commercial Air Service and Were Less

Affected by Airline Service Reductions

Page 38 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Small hub airports, the closest point of comparison to nonhubs, tend to

serve somewhat larger communities and have significantly more

commercial air service than do the 202 nonhub airports in the continental

United States included in our analysis. The median population for small

hub communities included in our analysis was about 417,000. As table 5

shows, only about 2 percent of small hub communities had service from

two or fewer major carriers; the other 98 percent had service from more

carriers. Additionally, only about 2 percent of small hub communities had

service to three or fewer nonstop destinations; the other 98 percent had

nonstop service to more locations. In addition, almost two-thirds of their

nonstop destinations were into major airline hubs, and the majority of

their flights were on jet aircraft (as opposed to turboprop or piston

aircraft).

Table 5: Characteristics of Air Service at Nonhub and Small Hub Airports (October

2000)

Airports with: Nonhubs Small hubs

Service from two or fewer major carriers 72.8% 1.9%

Dominated by one carrier 84.2% 37.7%

Service to three or fewer nonstop destinations 70.7% 1.9%

Percent of total nonstop destinations that are to

major airline hubs

58.7% 64.4%

Percent of daily flights that are on turboprop or piston

aircraft

81.4% 37.5%

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

Compared to small communities with nonhub airports, the communities

with small hub airports had much greater daily air service. As table 6

shows, on average, small hubs had significantly more carriers, more jet

and turboprop flights, and more nonstop destination options. For example,

the median small hub airport community was served by six airlines,

compared with two airlines for the small communities in our analysis, and

the median number of daily departures was 45, compared with 9 for small

communities. Table 6 provides additional information regarding small

hubs and compares key differences in the scope of air service that airlines

scheduled at these two airport categories.

Appendix II: Small Hub Airports Tend to

Have More Commercial Air Service and Were

Less Affected by Airline Service Reductions
Appendix II: Small Hub Airports Tend to Have

More Commercial Air Service and Were Less

Affected by Airline Service Reductions

Page 39 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 6: Median Airline Service Levels at Nonhub and Small Hub Airports, October

2000

Air service dimension

Small

communities

(nonhub airports)

Communities

with small hub

airports

Airlines providing commercial service 2 6

Daily nonstop destinations 2 10

Daily nonstop destinations that are airline hubs 1 7

Daily turboprop departures 8 16

Daily jet departures 0 25

Total daily departures 9a45

a

The median number of total daily departures does not necessarily equal the sum of the median

number of daily turboprop departures and the median number of daily jet departures because the

median values are calculated separately for each air service dimension, and because the distribution

of values in each category may not be identical.

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

Compared to the experience of small communities, small hub airports saw

relatively little change in their airline schedules during the period we

analyzed. For example, there was little change in the number of small hubs

that had service from three or more carriers (see figs. 8 and 9). In addition,

the number of small hubs with service to more than two nonstop

destinations did not change, and the number of small hubs dominated by a

single carrier declined slightly.
Appendix II: Small Hub Airports Tend to Have

More Commercial Air Service and Were Less

Affected by Airline Service Reductions

Page 40 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 8: Change in the Number of Airlines Serving Small Communities with Nonhub Airports, October 2000–October 2001

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.
Appendix II: Small Hub Airports Tend to Have

More Commercial Air Service and Were Less

Affected by Airline Service Reductions

Page 41 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Figure 9: Change in the Number of Airlines Serving Communities with Small Hub Airports, October 2000–October 2001

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

According to other data on changes in daily scheduled seats from U.S.

airports, airports of all sizes experienced generally comparable decreases

in total service. Small hubs experienced a greater relative decrease in

service (-15.5 percent) compared to nonhubs (-13.5 percent). Large hubs

had the greatest relative decrease in total available seats (-16.3 percent),

and medium hubs had a smaller decrease (-12.4 percent).
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 42 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 7: Changes in the Number of Carriers Serving Small Community Airports and Nonstop Destinations

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

AL Dothan 137,916 66,025 2 1 1 -1 3 11 -2

Montgomery 333,055 231,061 4 3 3 -1 5 44 -1

Fort Smith 207,290 102,583 3 2 2 -1 2 22 0

Texarkana 129,749 46,049 2 2 2 0 1 11 0

AR

Fayetteville 311,121 320,438 5 5 5 0 7 99 2

Fort Huachuca

Sierra 117,755 7,005 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Flagstaff 122,366 33,978 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

AZ

Yuma 160,026 64,078 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Arcata/

Eureka 126,518 111,071 2 2 2 0 5 55 0

Bakersfield 661,645 147,142 3 3 3 0 4 33 -1

Chico 203,171 30,004 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Imperial 142,361 24,834 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Inyokern 661,645 9,089 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Modesto 446,997 28,314 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Monterey 401,762 258,605 3 3 3 0 3 33 0

Redding 163,256 74,606 2 3 3 1 3 44 1

San Luis

Obispo 246,681 147,028 3 3 3 0 3 33 0

Santa Maria 399,347 44,591 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

CA

Visalia 368,021 10,255 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

Aspen 14,872 215,685 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Durango 43,941 96,647 3 3 3 0 3 34 1

Eagle 41,659 175,457 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Grand

Junction 116,255 137,793 2 3 3 1 3 33 0

Gunnison 13,956 57,953 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Hayden 19,690 108,797 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Montrose 33,432 70,799 2 3 3 1 2 33 1

CO

Telluride 6,594 22,483 2 1 1 -1 2 11 -1

Naples 251,377 54,494 3 2 2 -1 4 32 -2

Daytona

Beach 443,343 275,231 2 2 1 -1 3 32 -1

Key West 79,589 275,909 5 5 5 0 6 66 0

Gainesville 217,955 152,087 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Melbourne 476,230 273,813 2 3 1 -1 2 62 0

FL

Panama City 148,217 164,426 3 3 3 0 5 66 1

Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 43 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Albany 120,822 44,339 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Augusta 477,441 215,556 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Athens 153,444 11,234 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Brunswick 67,568 24,492 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Columbus 274,624 93,512 3 2 2 -1 4 22 -2

Macon 322,549 30,207 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

GA

Valdosta 92,115 32,695 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Waterloo 128,012 58,904 3 3 3 0 4 43 -1

Dubuque 89,143 55,555 3 2 2 -1 4 22 -2

Fort Dodge 40,235 11,801 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Mason City 46,447 13,477 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

IA

Sioux City 124,130 89,563 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Idaho Falls 82,522 120,699 2 2 2 0 2 33 1

Lewiston 37,410 67,041 1 1 1 0 2 33 1

Pocatello 7,538 46,679 2 2 2 0 2 33 1

Hailey 18,991 67,632 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

ID

Twin Falls 64,284 36,425 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Bloomington/

Normal 150,433 217,596 6 5 5 -1 6 55 -1

Champaign/

Urbana 179,669 133,845 3 3 3 0 4 33 -1

Decatur 114,706 24,989 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Peoria 347,387 219,791 4 5 5 1 8 88 0

Rockford 371,236 32,608 1 0 0 -1 1 00 -1

Springfield 201,437 80,755 2 4 4 2 3 44 1

IL

Quincy 68,277 11,415 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

IN Evansville 171,922 257,966 5 5 5 0 9 87 -2

Lafayette 182,821 19,228 2 1 1 -1 3 11 -2

KS Manhattan 62,843 19,908 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Salina 53,597 15,978 2 1 1 -1 3 22 -1

KY Paducah 65,514 26,300 2 2 2 0 4 32 -2

Alexandria 126,337 116,006 4 3 3 -1 5 44 -1

Lake Charles 183,577 76,263 2 2 1 -1 2 21 -1

Lafayette 385,647 189,772 4 4 4 0 4 44 0

LA

Monroe 147,250 122,412 3 3 3 0 8 66 -2

Nantucket 9,520 289,655 3 3 3 0 6 66 0

Hyannis 162,582 208,508 3 3 3 0 4 34 0

Vineyard

Haven 14,987 73,461 2 2 2 0 6 65 -1

MA

Provincetown 162,582 15,925 1 1 1 0 1 11 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 44 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Cumberland 27,078 6,142 1 0 0 -1 2 00 -2

Hagerstown 131,923 27,050 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

MD

Salisbury 86,644 73,124 1 1 1 0 3 32 -1

Alpena 31,314 10,263 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Kalamazoo 452,851 278,212 6 6 5 -1 6 65 -1

Sault Ste.

Marie 38,543 14,937 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Hancock 36,016 27,998 1 1 1 0 3 11 -2

Escanaba 38,520 20,550 2 2 2 0 5 33 -2

Saginaw 403,070 294,483 4 3 3 -1 5 44 -1

Pellston 31,437 31,977 1 1 1 0 3 33 0

Marquette 64,634 43,200 0 1 1 1 0 11 1

MI

Traverse City 77,654 189,809 4 4 3 -1 7 74 -3

Bemidji 39,650 29,457 2 2 2 0 3 33 0

Brainerd 55,099 19,190 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Duluth 200,528 140,835 2 2 2 0 2 23 1

Grand Rapids 43,992 10,367 1 1 1 0 1 21 0

Hibbing 200,528 15,709 1 1 1 0 1 21 0

International

Falls 14,355 22,460 1 1 1 0 1 12 1

Rochester 124,277 152,492 2 3 2 0 2 32 0

MN

Thief River

Falls 13,584 8,854 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

MO Columbia 135,454 26,268 2 1 1 -1 3 11 -2

Joplin 157,322 28,877 3 2 2 -1 4 22 -2

Greenville 62,977 13,265 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Columbus 61,586 44,976 2 2 2 0 4 43 -1

Meridian 78,161 30,991 2 2 2 0 4 44 0

Hattiesburg/

Laurel 64,958 12,331 1 1 1 0 2 21 -1

MS

Tupelo 75,755 15,494 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Billings 129,352 338,769 5 5 5 0 12 12 12 0

Butte 34,606 47,963 2 2 2 0 3 33 0

Bozeman 67,831 223,006 4 4 4 0 6 55 -1

Kalispell 74,471 146,942 4 4 4 0 6 65 -1

Great Falls 80,357 138,705 4 4 4 0 7 77 0

Helena 55,716 79,166 3 3 3 0 5 55 0

Missoula 95,802 221,292 4 5 5 1 7 78 1

MT

West

Yellowstone 67,831 4,998 0 1 0 0 0 20 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 45 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Asheville 225,965 283,144 2 3 3 1 5 66 1

New Bern 91,436 73,882 2 2 1 -1 2 21 -1

Fayetteville 302,963 157,906 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Hickory 341,851 21,532 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Wilmington 233,450 246,790 3 3 2 -1 4 32 -2

Jacksonville 150,355 54,722 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Greenville 133,798 43,756 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

NC

Pinehurst 74,769 20,238 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Bismarck 94,719 129,327 3 3 3 0 3 44 1

Fargo 174,367 226,385 2 2 2 0 3 33 0

Grand Forks 97,478 88,281 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Williston 19,761 5,613 1 2 2 1 1 33 2

ND

Minot 58,795 74,333 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Scottsbluff 36,951 12,219 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Grand Island 53,354 13,063 1 2 2 1 5 44 -1

NE

Lincoln 250,291 281,169 4 4 4 0 5 55 0

NH Lebanon 81,743 20,152 1 1 1 0 2 33 1

Carlsbad 51,658 7,787 2 2 2 0 3 33 0

Farmington 113,801 53,538 3 4 4 1 3 34 1

Hobbs 55,511 2,512 2 2 2 0 3 55 2

Roswell 61,382 18,832 2 2 2 0 4 44 0

NM

Santa Fe 147,635 26,178 2 1 2 0 2 13 1

NV Elko 45,291 119,295 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Binghamton 252,320 136,305 3 3 3 0 8 55 -3

Elmira/

Corning 91,070 108,124 2 2 2 0 6 63 -3

Ithaca 96,501 101,945 1 1 1 0 6 54 -2

NY

Jamestown 139,750 20,827 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

OH Toledo 618,203 248,017 6 5 5 -1 6 55 -1

Youngstown/

Warren 594,746 40,274 2 2 1 -1 4 43 -1

OK Lawton 114,996 62,335 2 1 1 -1 1 11 0

Klamath Falls 63,775 33,729 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Medford 181,269 224,699 2 2 2 0 4 44 0

North Bend 62,779 29,886 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Pendleton 70,548 14,019 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

OR

Redmond 115,367 140,915 2 2 2 0 3 33 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 46 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Altoona 129,144 16,969 1 1 1 0 3 21 -2

Wilkes-Barre/

Scranton 624,776 234,292 4 3 3 -1 9 64 -5

Bradford 45,936 13,131 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Du Bois 45,932 17,355 1 1 1 0 2 21 -1

Erie 280,843 167,507 3 2 2 -1 3 22 -1

Williamsport 120,044 46,519 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

Johnstown 232,621 20,899 1 1 1 0 2 12 0

Lancaster 470,658 19,342 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Reading 373,638 52,519 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

PA

State College 135,758 126,945 3 3 3 0 5 55 0

RI Block Island 293,566 11,190 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Westerly 293,566 12,142 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

SC Florence 125,761 57,123 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Hilton Head

Island 120,937 100,194 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

Aberdeen 35,460 25,365 1 1 1 0 3 33 0

Watertown 25,897 9,324 1 1 1 0 1 22 1

Pierre 16,481 18,228 2 2 2 0 2 33 1

SD

Rapid City 88,565 195,209 3 3 3 0 3 33 0

TN Chattanooga 465,161 303,689 4 4 4 0 5 65 0

Bristol/

Johnson/King 480,091 221,228 4 4 4 0 6 66 0

Abilene 126,555 47,984 2 2 1 -1 3 21 -2

Waco 213,517 67,045 2 2 1 -1 4 21 -3

Beaumont/

Port Arthur 385,090 97,537 3 2 2 -1 2 22 0

Brownsville 335,227 71,949 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

College

Station 152,415 93,005 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Longview 208,780 30,497 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Killeen 312,952 90,418 3 3 3 0 3 22 -1

Laredo 193,117 87,739 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Mc Allen 569,463 311,237 3 3 2 -1 3 32 -1

San Angelo 104,010 39,411 2 2 1 -1 2 21 -1

Wichita Falls 140,518 55,903 2 1 1 -1 1 11 0

Tyler 174,706 74,233 3 2 1 -2 3 21 -2

TX

Victoria 84,088 20,016 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

UT St. George 90,354 33,707 2 2 2 0 2 33 1

Charlottesville 159,576 171,150 3 4 4 1 6 77 1

Lynchburg 214,911 85,822 3 3 3 0 4 44 0

VA

Staunton/

Harrisburg 65,615 16,494 2 2 2 0 2 22 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 47 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Major Carriers Number of Nonstop Destinations

State Community

Population

(2000)

Enplanements

(1999)

Oct

-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Oct00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

Change

Walla Walla 55,180 31,166 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Bellingham 166,814 97,406 2 2 2 0 1 11 0

Port Angeles 64,525 28,201 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

Wenatchee 32,603 52,855 1 1 1 0 2 11 -1

Pasco 191,822 206,105 3 3 3 0 6 44 -2

Pullman/

Moscow, ID 40,740 34,887 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

WA

Yakima 222,581 89,569 2 2 2 0 1 11 0

Appleton 358,365 266,629 4 4 4 0 8 66 -2

Mosinee 125,834 142,980 3 3 3 0 6 66 0

Eau Claire 148,337 20,611 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

La Crosse 126,838 113,640 3 3 3 0 4 44 0

WI

Rhinelander 36,776 38,651 2 1 1 -1 5 22 -3

Clarksburg 68,652 16,276 1 2 2 1 2 43 1

Charleston 251,662 266,679 5 5 5 0 11 11 10 -1

Huntington 42,903 62,609 2 2 2 0 3 33 0

Lewisburg 34,453 12,771 1 2 2 1 4 43 -1

Morgantown 81,866 21,561 1 1 1 0 3 32 -1

WV

Parkersburg 151,237 25,677 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Cody 25,786 28,326 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Casper 66,533 66,184 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Cheyenne 81,607 20,520 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Gillette 33,698 15,356 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Jackson 18,251 165,595 2 2 2 0 2 22 0

Riverton 35,804 13,327 1 1 1 0 2 22 0

WY

Sheridan 26,560 15,052 1 1 1 0 1 11 0

Source: GAO analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Aviation Administration, and Kiehl

Hendrickson Group.
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 48 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 8: Changes in the Average Number of Daily Turboprop and Jet Departures at Small Communities

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

AL Dothan 12 3 7 -5 040 0

Montgomery 13 10 10 -3 6 10 9 3

Fort Smith 13 13 11 -2 211 -1

AR Texarkana 10 10 9 -1 111 0

Fayetteville 13 13 12 -1 13 13 13 0

Fort Huachuca

Sierra

443 -1 000 0

Flagstaff 8 6 5 -3 000 0

AZ

Yuma 13 13 10 -3 000 0

Arcata/Eureka 13 13 13 0 000 0

Bakersfield 13 13 13 0 432 -2

Chico 6 6 5 -1 000 0

Imperial 6 6 6 0 000 0

Inyokern 4 4 4 0 000 0

Modesto 6 6 5 -1 000 0

Monterey 13 13 13 0 443 -1

Redding 12 13 12 0 000 0

San Luis Obispo 13 13 13 0 000 0

Santa Maria 10 8 8 -2 000 0

CA

Visalia 5 4 3 -2 000 0

Aspen 3 2 2 -1 675 -1

Durango 12 12 12 0 311 -2

Eagle 7 1 1 -6 022 2

Grand Junction 13 13 13 0 011 1

Gunnison 7 4 4 -3 000 0

Hayden 7 7 6 -1 000 0

Montrose 8 8 6 -2 011 1

CO

Telluride 5 5 5 0 000 0

Naples 12 10 8 -4 000 0

Daytona Beach 1 1 1 0 899 1

Key West 13 13 13 0 000 0

Gainesville 7 7 7 0 555 0

Melbourne 1 1 1 0 9 13 9 0

FL

Panama City 13 13 13 0 111 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 49 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

Albany 8 1 6 -2 040 0

Augusta 13 13 12 -1 344 1

Athens 4 4 4 0 000 0

Brunswick 5 5 5 0 000 0

Columbus 13 12 12 -1 000 0

Macon 7 7 7 0 111 0

GA

Valdosta 7 7 7 0 000 0

Waterloo 13 13 12 -1 000 0

Dubuque 12 3 4 -8 044 4

Fort Dodge 5 5 3 -2 000 0

Mason City 9 9 5 -4 000 0

IA

Sioux City 12 11 9 -3 233 1

Idaho Falls 10 5 5 -5 5 10 10 5

Lewiston 10 10 8 -2 011 1

Pocatello 10 6 6 -4 043 3

Hailey 10 11 11 1 000 0

ID

Twin Falls 6 6 6 0 000 0

Bloomington/Normal 13 13 13 0 899 1

Champaign/Urbana 13 11 8 -5 455 1

Decatur 5 4 3 -2 000 0

Peoria 13 13 13 0 11 12 11 0

Rockford 5 1 1 -4 000 0

Springfield 13 13 13 0 000 0

IL

Quincy 7 7 6 -1 000 0

Evansville 13 13 13 0 11 13 13 2

IN Lafayette 8 3 3 -5 000 0

Manhattan 8 8 6 -2 000 0

KS Salina 7 5 4 -3 000 0

KY Paducah 9 8 7 -2 000 0

Alexandria 13 13 13 0 000 0

Lake Charles 11 10 7 -4 000 0

Lafayette 13 13 13 0 232 0

LA

Monroe 10 9 8 -2 666 0

Nantucket 13 13 13 0 000 0

Hyannis 13 13 13 0 000 0

Vineyard Haven 13 13 13 0 000 0

MA

Provincetown 6 7 7 1 000 0

Cumberland 5 1 1 -4 000 0

MD Hagerstown 7 6 5 -2 000 0

Salisbury 13 12 11 -2 000 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 50 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

Alpena 7 9 5 -2 000 0

Kalamazoo 13 13 12 -1 13 13 13 0

Sault Ste. Marie 4 5 3 -1 000 0

Hancock 8 5 5 -3 000 0

Escanaba 9 7 6 -3 000 0

Saginaw 9 5 4 -5 13 13 13 0

Pellston 9 9 7 -2 000 0

Marquette 1 1 1 0 011 1

MI

Traverse City 13 13 9 -4 6 10 9 3

Bemidji 10 10 8 -2 000 0

Brainerd 9 7 5 -4 000 0

Duluth 3 3 4 1 10 10 8 -2

Grand Rapids 4 4 3 -1 000 0

Hibbing 4 3 3 -1 000 0

International Falls 3 3 4 1 000 0

Rochester 4 4 3 -1 10 13 9 -1

MN

Thief River Falls 2 2 2 0 000 0

Columbia 7 6 4 -3 500 -5

MO Joplin 7 7 6 -1 400 -4

Greenville 5 5 4 -1 000 0

Columbus 13 12 11 -2 122 1

Meridian 13 13 12 -1 000 0

Hattiesburg/Laurel 4 4 3 -1 000 0

MS

Tupelo 6 7 7 1 000 0

Billings 13 13 13 0 13 13 13 0

Butte 1 1 1 0 777 0

Bozeman 3 2 2 -1 10 12 12 2

Kalispell 6 4 4 -2 777 0

Great Falls 6 5 5 -1 11 10 11 0

Helena 7 7 6 -1 665 -1

Missoula 5 2 2 -3 12 13 13 1

MT

West Yellowstone 1 1 1 0 010 0

Asheville 13 13 13 0 8 10 10 2

New Bern 13 13 7 -6 000 0

Fayetteville 9 13 13 4 632 -4

Hickory 7 6 5 -2 000 0

Wilmington 13 13 11 -2 875 -3

Jacksonville 6 7 6 0 000 0

Greenville 9 8 6 -3 000 0

NC

Pinehurst 6 6 4 -2 000 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 51 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

Bismarck 7 8 7 0 443 -1

Fargo 2 2 2 0 13 13 12 -1

Grand Forks 4 4 3 -1 443 -1

Williston 3 5 5 2 000 0

ND

Minot 1 1 1 0 433 -1

Scottsbluff 5 5 4 -1 000 0

Grand Island 8 7 7 -1 000 0

NE

Lincoln 10 7 7 -3 8 13 12 4

NH Lebanon 8 8 6 -2 000 0

Carlsbad 5 5 5 0 000 0

Farmington 13 13 13 0 000 0

Hobbs 4 5 5 1 000 0

Roswell 9 8 8 -1 000 0

NM

Santa Fe 13 11 10 -3 000 0

NV Elko 12 11 11 -1 000 0

Binghamton 13 13 13 0 233 1

Elmira/Corning 13 13 9 -4 444 0

Ithaca 13 13 12 -1 433 -1

NY

Jamestown 7 6 4 -3 000 0

Toledo 13 10 8 -5 13 13 13 0

OH Youngstown/Warren 9 5 4 -5 000 0

OK Lawton 12 8 7 -5 000 0

Klamath Falls 5 5 4 -1 000 0

Medford 13 13 13 0 444 0

North Bend 5 5 4 -1 000 0

Pendleton 6 6 5 -1 000 0

OR

Redmond 13 13 13 0 000 0

Altoona 7 6 4 -3 000 0

WilkesBarre/Scranton13 9 7 -6 11 10 10 -1

Bradford 6 5 4 -2 000 0

Du Bois 6 6 5 -1 000 0

Erie 13 7 5 -8 465 1

Williamsport 11 11 7 -4 000 0

Johnstown 6 6 5 -1 000 0

Lancaster 5 5 4 -1 000 0

Reading 11 11 6 -5 000 0

PA

State College 13 13 13 0 000 0

RI Block Island 9 9 9 0 000 0

Westerly 9 9 9 0 000 0

SC Florence 12 13 11 -1 000 0

Hilton Head Island 12 12 12 0 000 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 52 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

Aberdeen 13 9 8 -5 000 0

Watertown 4 4 4 0 000 0

Pierre 7 6 5 -2 000 0

SD

Rapid City 10 6 4 -6 8 10 9 1

TN Chattanooga 13 13 12 -1 13 13 13 0

Bristol/Johnson/King 13 13 13 0 744 -3

Abilene 11 10 6 -5 122 1

Waco 12 12 8 -4 000 0

Beaumont/Port

Arthur

13 13 13 0 000 0

Brownsville 4 3 4 0 343 0

College Station 13 13 13 0 000 0

Longview 6 6 5 -1 000 0

Killeen 13 13 13 0 000 0

Laredo 11 11 10 -1 000 0

Mc Allen 2 1 1 -1 10 9 8 -2

San Angelo 11 10 6 -5 000 0

Wichita Falls 11 7 6 -5 000 0

Tyler 13 13 9 -4 000 0

TX

Victoria 5 5 4 -1 000 0

UT St. George 8 10 10 2 000 0

Charlottesville 13 13 13 0 233 1

Lynchburg 13 13 13 0 000 0

VA

Staunton/Harrisburg 10 9 6 -4 000 0

Walla Walla 6 5 4 -2 000 0

Bellingham 13 13 12 -1 000 0

Port Angeles 9 5 4 -5 000 0

Wenatchee 9 8 6 -3 000 0

Pasco 13 13 13 0 555 0

Pullman/Moscow, ID 6 6 5 -1 011 1

WA

Yakima 13 13 11 -2 000 0

Appleton 13 11 8 -5 13 13 13 0

Mosinee 13 13 13 0 122 1

Eau Claire 9 9 7 -2 000 0

La Crosse 9 9 7 -2 886 -2

WI

Rhinelander 11 5 5 -6 000 0
Appendix III: Change in Air Service at 202

U.S. Nonhub Airports, October 2000–

October 2001

Page 53 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Daily turboprop departures Daily jet departures

State Community Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total

turboprop

change Oct-00

Oct-01

(original)

Oct-01

(revised)

Total jet

change

WV Clarksburg 8 8 5 -3 011 1

Charleston 13 13 13 0 13 13 13 0

Huntington 13 13 12 -1 000 0

Lewisburg 4 3 3 -1 122 1

Morgantown 12 10 7 -5 000 0

Parkersburg 8 8 6 -2 000 0

WY Cody 6 7 7 1 000 0

Casper 12 12 9 -3 111 0

Cheyenne 10 7 6 -4 000 0

Gillette 6 5 4 -2 000 0

Jackson 11 11 11 0 211 -1

Riverton 8 7 7 -1 000 0

Sheridan 5 4 4 -1 000 0

Note: aAverage daily departures calculated by dividing total weekly departures by 7 and rounding

result to nearest integer.

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.
Appendix IV: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities in Alaska and Hawaii

Page 54 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Unique conditions affecting air service in Alaska and Hawaii required us to

look at these two states separately from the rest of the United States. Both

states have distinctive geographies: they are both located outside the

continental United States and both have unique topographies that require

air service to be used as a major source of intrastate travel.

We examined air service at 63 nonhub airports in Alaska and 2 in Hawaii.

All of the Alaska airports were located in communities with less than

100,000 population; the median population was 7,208. The median

passenger enplanements in 1999 was 5,176 (about 14 per day). The two

Hawaii airports were located in larger communities; the average

population was 128,094. Their median enplanements in 1999 were 108,258

(about 297 per day).

There was little change in air service at the small community airports in

Alaska and Hawaii between October 2000 and October 2001 (revised), as

the median level of service represented by the indicators below show (see

table 9). None of these airports had nonstop service to a major airline

network’s hub. (The major U.S. airlines do not operate hubs in either

state.) From October 2000 to October 2001 (revised), the number of these

airports that were dominated by a single airline increased slightly, from 65

percent to 69 percent.

Table 9: Median Number of Carriers, Nonstop Destinations Served, Daily Turboprop

and Jet Departures for Nonhub Airports in Alaska and Hawaii

Time frame

Number of

carriers

Nonstop

destinations

served

Daily

turboprop

departures

Daily jet

departures

October 2000 3 3 6 0

October 2001 (original) 3 3 6 0

October 2001 (revised) 3 3 6 0

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.

There are two communities that are categorized as small hubs in Alaska—

Juneau and Fairbanks—and three in Hawaii—Hilo, Kailua/Kona, and

Lihue. The Alaska airports were all located in communities with

populations less than 100,000 and had no service to an airline hub.

Hawaii’s small hubs were in communities with populations of less than

250,000. Two of those communities had service to two airline hubs (San

Francisco International and Los Angeles International).

Appendix IV: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities in Alaska and Hawaii
Appendix IV: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities in Alaska and Hawaii

Page 55 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Small hub airports in Alaska and Hawaii have notably more passenger

traffic and air service than the states’ nonhubs. The median passenger

enplanements in the two Alaska airports in 1999 were 385,470 (about 1,056

per day), and the median passenger enplanements in Hawaii were

1,271,744 (about 3,484 per day). Typically, Alaska and Hawaii small hubs

received service from four major or independent carriers with service to

seven nonstop destinations. In addition, small hubs typically had 213 jet

departures per week (30 jet departures per day) in October 2000.

Generally, the overall amount of service for these small hub airports

declined between October 2000 and October 2001. Specifically, airlines

scheduled 50 fewer weekly jet departures (eight per day), and added 8

additional weekly turboprop departures (one per day). See table 10.

Table 10: Median Number of Carriers Serving, Nonstop Destinations Served, Daily

Turboprop and Jet Departures for Small Hub Airports in Alaska and Hawaii

Time frame

Number of

carriers

Nonstop

destinations

served

Daily

turboprop

departures

Daily jet

departures

October 2000 5 7 2 30

October 2001 (original) 4 6 0 27

October 2001 (revised) 4 7 3 22

Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest integer.

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.
Appendix V: Economic Factors Affect Air

Service in Small Communities

Page 56 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

To examine the factors associated with air service in small communities in

October 2000, we statistically analyzed certain economic characteristics of

these communities. Our process and the outcomes of our analysis are

outlined below.

For this study, we used regression analysis to explore which factors,

called independent variables, explain differences in the level of service,

called the dependent variable, in small communities in October 2000. A

regression model is a statistical tool that enables researchers to investigate

relationships between the dependent variable and the independent

variables.

To examine the factors associated with the level of air service provided to

small communities in October 2000, we used an ordinary least squares

regression model. We developed several models, looking at the

contribution of each independent variable to the predictive ability of the

models, and the overall explanatory power of the models as measured by

the coefficient of determination, or r-squared. R-squared is a measure of

the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable that can be

explained by the independent variables in that particular model.

Economic principles indicate that as income, market population, and the

price of substitute service increase, demand for a service will increase.

Under these conditions, within a competitive marketplace, as passenger

demand increases, the supply of air service will increase to meet that

demand. We, therefore, expect that communities with greater levels of

income and gross regional product45 and larger populations and

employment levels will experience more substantial air service. Likewise,

we expect that communities that are farther from an airport with a lowfare carrier will realize better service.46

 45 Regional product is a concept similar to gross domestic product (i.e., the output of goods

and services produced by labor and property located in the United States), only measured

at the regional level.

46 We were unable to obtain data on airfares and the cost of alternative modes of air travel.

However, as the distance to an alternative carrier increases, the cost of gaining access to

the carrier also increases. In our analysis, we include the minimum distance to a low-fare

carrier as a substitute measure for the price of alternative travel.

Appendix V: Economic Factors Affect Air

Service in Small Communities

Regression Model

Economic Principles
Appendix V: Economic Factors Affect Air

Service in Small Communities

Page 57 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

We obtained the economic data used in the regression analysis from the

Regional Economic Information System database produced by the Bureau

of Economic Analysis. The data were collected for October 1999 at the

county level.47 We then created a dataset containing variables for each

county, including population, total employment, manufacturing earnings,

and per capita income. We merged this dataset with the data on air service

and the distance between airports to create a final working dataset for this

analysis. Table 11 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the economic

variables and other factors for the 202 small communities in our analysis.

Table 11: Characteristics of 202 Small Communities Included in Economic Analysis

Variable Mean Minimum Maximum

Employment (full- and part-time jobs) 77,558 5,397 309,598

Manufacturing earnings $344,579 $3,403 $2,573,390

Minimum distance to a low-fare carrier airport

(miles)

128 0 546

Per capita income $25,147 $13,339 $65,573

Population 126,813 5,464 642,495

Number of jet departures per week (October

2000)

15.50 0 183

Number of turboprop departures per week

(October 2000)

67.88 0 437

Number of major carriers serving

communities (October 2000)

2.01 0 6

Number of nonstop destinations served

(October 2000)

2.94 0 12

Source: GAO analysis of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

We used employment and population to represent the size of a community

and per capita income as a measure of income. We expect that a

community with a larger manufacturing sector will have a greater demand

for business travel. However, data on business travel and regional exports

were unavailable for this study. In addition, it is difficult to obtain data on

gross regional product (a measure similar to gross domestic product that

is applied at the regional level). Therefore, for the purposes of our

analysis, we used manufacturing earnings to represent the level of export

activity from a region and, hence, as an indicator of the possible demand

for business travel.

 47 1999 was the most recent year for which regional economic data on earnings and per

capita income were available.

Data

Variables Used in the

Model
Appendix V: Economic Factors Affect Air

Service in Small Communities

Page 58 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Using the regression to explain variation in air service, we focused

primarily on modeling the number of weekly departures (jet and

turboprop) from a small community.48 Multiple univariate and multivariate

models of jet and turboprop departures were specified as a function of the

independent variables to examine the consistency and robustness of the

findings. The results of a final model are discussed below, in which jet and

turboprop departures are specified as a function of employment (or

population), manufacturing earnings, minimum distance to a low-fare

carrier, and per capita income.49

The results of our regression models indicate that, as expected,

employment (or population), manufacturing earnings, minimum distance

from a low-fare carrier, and per capita income had a positive effect on the

level of air service received by a small community. Below are quantitative

statistics from specific models.50

• After controlling for distance to a low-fare carrier, manufacturing

earnings, and population, we found that for every additional $5,000 in per

capita income, a community received 3.3 and 12.7 more jet and turboprop51

 48 Models using the number of major carriers and the percentage of total seats available on

jets as dependent variables were also estimated. In general, we found that employment, per

capita income, population, and distance from a low-fare carrier positively affected the

number of major carriers serving a community and the percentage of total seats served by

jets.

49 The employment and population variables are highly collinear. Therefore, to avoid biased

parameter estimates due to multicollinearity, ordinary least squares regression models

include only one of the two factors as independent variables.

50 The quantitative data discussed are all statistically significant at (at least) the 95 percent

level. Only 200 observations were included in the regression analysis because two small

communities did not have service in October 2000.

51 Two separate regressions were estimated using jet and turboprop departures as the

dependent variables. Results are similar when the employment variable is substituted for

the population variable – 2.6 more jet and 12.2 turboprop departures per week,

respectively. These results are statistically significant at least at the 90 percent level.

Model Specification

Results
Appendix V: Economic Factors Affect Air

Service in Small Communities

Page 59 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

departures per week, respectively.52 In other words, if two small

communities, A and B, were identical in every way except that Community

A had $5,000 more in per capita income than Community B, then

Community A had roughly 16 more total departures per week than

Community B. This difference in the number of total departures was

attributable to the difference in per capita income.

• After controlling for distance to a low-fare carrier, manufacturing

earnings, and per capita income, we found that a community received 4.3

and 4.8 more jet and turboprop departures per week respectively for every

additional 25,000 jobs in the community.

• After controlling for distance to a low-fare carrier, population, and per

capita income, we found that a community with $250,000 more in

manufacturing earnings received 4.8 more jet departures per week than an

otherwise similar community.

• After controlling for manufacturing earnings, per capita income, and

employment, we found that a community received 4.7 more jet departures

per week for every additional 50 miles separating the airport from a lowfare carrier.53

 52 The value of the coefficients of determination in all regression models (R-squared) were

consistently below 0.20, denoting that the independent variables explain less than 20

percent of the variation in air service to the communities. As noted previously, airlines

decide to provide service to these small communities on a market-by-market basis using

individual market data not available for our study. Through our use of regression analysis,

we are attempting to describe service generally across the different communities using

limited aggregate data. While the data restrict our analysis to modeling broadly defined

differences in air service, we do not believe that those data limitations detract from the

findings.

53 Our findings also revealed that a community that is 50 miles from an airport with a lowfare carrier loses 5.0 turboprop departures per week—resulting in a net loss of departures.
Appendix VI: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Express Airlines I and

Mesaba Between 2000 and 2001

Page 60 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

According to our analysis, between October 2000 and October 2001,

Express Airlines I and Mesaba altered service at 60 small communities.

Overall, more small communities lost service than gained service from

these carriers during this period. A total of 49 small communities lost

service, 4 of which (Bismarck, North Dakota; Columbus, Georgia; Dothan,

Alabama; and Rockford, Illinois) lost all nonstop service from Express

Airlines I and Mesaba.54 On the other hand, 11 communities gained service.

Nine gained additional flights or extra capacity (i.e., number of seats

available for purchase) through larger aircraft, and two (Charlottesville,

Virginia, and Springfield, Illinois) gained start-up service from the two

airlines.

• Express Airlines I made service changes at 27 small communities between

2000 and 2001. Of these 27 communities, Express Airlines I reduced

service at 13, increased service at 13, and took mixed actions at 1 other

(reducing the number of daily departures but adding more available

seating capacity by using larger aircraft).

• Mesaba altered its weekly service at 44 small communities between 2000

and 2001. Mesaba ended all service to 2 communities. At 37 other

communities, Mesaba’s service reductions averaged two departures per

day per community. On the other hand, Mesaba increased service at 3

small communities and launched new service at another. At Sioux City,

Iowa, Mesaba decreased average daily departures but increased total

seating capacity by substituting larger aircraft.

• Eleven communities were served by both—Mesaba and Express Airlines I.

Service reductions that Mesaba made at 8 of the 11 were offset by service

additions from Express Airlines I, often with new regional jet service.

Table 12 summarizes the small community service changes made by

Express Airlines I and Mesaba between October 2000 and October 2001.

 54 Northwest maintains mainline service at Bismarck.

Appendix VI: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Express Airlines I and

Mesaba Between 2000 and 2001
Appendix VI: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Express Airlines I and

Mesaba Between 2000 and 2001

Page 61 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 12: Nonstop Air Service Changes for Communities Served by Mesaba and Express Airlines I Between October 2000 and

October 2001

Lost all service

(4) Lost capacity (45)

Gained

capacity (9)

Gained new

service (2)

Columbus, GA

(Express Airlines I)

Appleton, WI

(Mesaba)a

Alpena, MI (Mesaba,

Express Airlines I)

Hibbing, MN

(Mesaba)

Mosinee, WI

(Express Airlines I)a

Springfield, IL

(Express Airlines I)

Dothan, AL

(Express Airlines I)

Kalamazoo, MI

(Mesaba)a

Binghamton, NY

(Mesaba)

La Crosse, WI

(Mesaba)

Lincoln, NE

(Express Airlines I)a

Charlottesville, VA

(Mesaba)

Bismarck, ND

(Mesaba)

Bloomington, IL

(Mesaba)a Bemidji, MN (Mesaba) Mason City, IA

(Mesaba)

Saginaw, MI

(Express Airlines I/

Mesaba)b

Rockford, IL

(Mesaba, Express

Airlines I)

Alexandria, LA

(Express Airlines I)

Brainerd, MN

(Mesaba) Peoria, IL (Mesaba)

Sioux City, IA

(Express Airlines I/

Mesaba)d

Chattanooga, TN

(Express Airlines I)

Sault Ste. Marie, MI

(Mesaba) Pierre, SD (Mesaba) Joplin, MO (ExpressAirlines I)

Evansville, IN

(Mesaba)a, e

Champaign, IL

(Mesaba)

Pellston, MI

(Mesaba)

Montgomery, AL

(Express Airlines I)d

Fort Smith, AR

(Express Airlines I) Hancock, MI (Mesaba) Rhinelander, WI(Mesaba)

Tupelo, MS

(Express Airlines I)

Greenville, MS

(Express Airlines I)

Charleston, WV

(Mesaba)

Rochester, MN

(Mesaba)

Duluth, MN

(Mesaba)

Columbus, MS

(Express Airlines I)

Eau Claire, WI

(Mesaba)

Toledo, OH

(Mesaba)a

International Falls,

MN (Mesaba)

Lafayette, LA

(Express Airlines I) Elmira, NY (Mesaba) Traverse City, MI(Mesaba)a

Monroe, LA

(Express Airlines I) Erie, PA (Mesaba)

Fayetteville, AR

(Express Airlines I,

Mesaba)c

Paducah, KY

(Express Airlines I)

Escanaba, MI

(Mesaba)

State College, PA

(Mesaba)

Panama City, FL

(Express Airlines I)

Fort Dodge, IA

(Mesaba)

Waterloo, IA

(Mesaba)

Hattiesburg, MS

(Express Airlines I)

Grand Forks, ND

(Mesaba)

Watertown, SD

(Mesaba)

Aberdeen, SD

(Mesaba)

Grand Rapids, MN

(Mesaba) Fargo, ND (Mesaba)

a

Communities where Express Airlines I replaced Mesaba service.

b

Communities where both Express Airlines I and Mesaba increased service.

c

Communities where Express Airlines I discontinued all service, while Mesaba decreased service.

d

Community where carriers decreased frequency, but increased capacity.

e

Community where carrier decreased frequency, but experienced no net change in seat capacity.

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.
Appendix VII: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Great Lakes Aviation

and Air Wisconsin Between 2000 and 2001

Page 62 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Of the 202 small communities in our study, Great Lakes Aviation served 16,

Air Wisconsin served 15, and both airlines served 9. Both airlines served

United’s Chicago (O’Hare) and Denver hubs. Between October 2000 and

October 2001, Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin altered air service in 39

communities. Of the 39 communities with service changes, 4 lost all of

their air service (all of which was provided by Great Lakes). A total of 30

communities saw reductions in their service (i.e., capacity, either through

a reduction in departures or by using smaller aircraft) by Great Lakes or

Air Wisconsin. Five of the communities in our analysis gained either new

service or capacity (i.e., number of seats available for purchase).

• Great Lakes altered its weekly capacity at 16 small communities between

2000 and 2001. Of these communities, 4 of them (Dubuque, Iowa;

Lafayette, Indiana; Rhinelander, Wisconsin; and Salina, Kansas) lost all of

their service. Furthermore, Great Lakes reduced service at 11

communities. Only one community—Telluride, Colorado—gained capacity

from Great Lakes.

• Air Wisconsin reduced service at 11 communities and added either new

service or additional capacity in 3 communities.

• Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin both served 9 communities in our analysis.

• Between October 2000 and October 2001, in 3 of those communities

(Traverse City, Michigan; Springfield, Illinois; and Eagle, Colorado), Air

Wisconsin replaced Great Lakes service, and in one community (Cody,

Wyoming) Great Lakes replaced Air Wisconsin service.

• Both Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin provided service to Grand

Junction and Durango, Colorado. Great Lakes discontinued service by

October 2001.

• Casper, Wyoming; Hayden and Gunnison, Colorado all were receiving

service from both Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin in 2000. By October

2001, Air Wisconsin had discontinued all of its service.

Table 13 summarizes the changes in service at small communities served

by Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin between October 2000 and October

2001.

Appendix VII: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Great Lakes Aviation

and Air Wisconsin Between 2000 and 2001
Appendix VII: Changes in Air Service at Small

Communities Made By Great Lakes Aviation

and Air Wisconsin Between 2000 and 2001

Page 63 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Table 13: Nonstop Air Service Changes for Communities Served by Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin Between October 2000

and October 2001

Lost all service (4) Lost capacity (30)

Gained

capacity (4)

Gained new

service (1) No change (1)

Dubuque, IA (Great

Lakes)

Waterloo, IA (Great

Lakes)

Williston, ND

(Great Lakes)

Bismarck, ND

(Air Wisconsin)

Lincoln, NE

(Air Wisconsin)

Billings, MT (Air

Wisconsin)

Lafayette, IN (Great

Lakes)

Aspen, CO

(Air Wisconsin)

Jackson, WY

(Air Wisconsin)

Mosinee, WI

(Air Wisconsin)

Rhinelander, WI

(Great Lakes)

Appleton, WI (Air

Wisconsin)

Montrose, CO

(Air Wisconsin)

Telluride, CO

(Great Lakes)

Salina, KS

(Great Lakes)

Kalamazoo, MI

(Air Wisconsin)

Peoria, IL

(Air Wisconsin)

Eagle, CO

(Great Lakes/

Air Wisconsin)b

Scottsbluff, NE (Great

Lakes)

Pierre, SD

(Great Lakes)

Bloomington, IL

(Air Wisconsin)

Rapid City, SD

(Air Wisconsin)

Cheyenne, WY (Great

Lakes)

Riverton, WY

(Great Lakes)

Durango, CO

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)d

Santa Fe, NM

(Great Lakes)

Fargo, ND

(Air Wisconsin)

Sheridan, WY

(Great Lakes)

Farmington, NM (Great

Lakes)

Springfield, IL (Great

Lakes/Air Wisconsin)a

Gillette, WY (Great

Lakes)

Bristol/Johnson/King, TN

(Air Wisconsin)

Grand Junction, CO

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)d

Traverse City, MI

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin) a

Grand Island, NE

(Great Lakes)

Quincy, IL

(Air Wisconsin)

Cody, WY

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)c

Gunnison, CO

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)e

Casper, WY

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)e

Hayden, CO

(Great Lakes/Air

Wisconsin)e

a

Communities where Air Wisconsin replaced Great Lakes service and resulted in decreased capacity.

b

Communities where Air Wisconsin replaced Great Lakes service and resulted in increased capacity.

c

Communities where Great Lakes replaced Air Wisconsin service, and total capacity decreased.

d

Communities where Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin initially provided service but Great Lakes

discontinued service, resulting in decreased capacity for the community.

e

Communities where Great Lakes and Air Wisconsin initially provided service but Air Wisconsin

discontinued service, resulting in decreased capacity for the community.

Source: GAO analysis of airline schedule data from the Kiehl Hendrickson Group.
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 64 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

JayEtta Z. Hecker (202) 512-2834

Steven C. Martin (202) 512-2834

In addition to those individuals named above, Triana Bash, Curtis Groves,

Dawn Hoff, David Hooper, Sara Ann Moessbauer, John Mingus, Ryan

Petitte, Carl Ramirez, Sharon Silas, Stan Stenersen, and Pamela Vines

made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 65 GAO-02-432 Small Community Air Service

Financial Management: Assessment of the Airline Industry’s Estimated

Losses Arising From the Events of September 11. GAO-02-133R.

Washington, D.C.: October 5, 2001.

Commercial Aviation: A Framework for Considering Federal Financial

Assistance. GAO-01-1163T. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2001.

Aviation Competition: Restricting Airline Ticketing Rules Unlikely to

Help Consumers. GAO-01-831. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2001.

Aviation Competition: Regional Jet Service Yet to Reach Many Small

Communities. GAO-01-344. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2001.

Essential Air Service: Changes in Subsidy Levels, Air Carrier Costs, and

Passenger Traffic. GAO/RCED-00-34. Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2000.

Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service Quality, and

Barriers to Entry. GAO/RCED-99-92. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 1999.

Aviation Competition: Effects on Consumers From Domestic Airline

Alliances Vary. GAO/RCED-99-37. Washington, D.C.: January 15, 1999.

Related GAO Products

(544000)
The General Accounting Office, the 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 is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily

e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

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. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs