Order: 2010-6-16

Served: June 11, 2010

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

 WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 11th day of June, 2010

Essential Air Service at

KEARNEY, NEBRASKA

NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA

SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA

Docket DOT-OST-1996-1715

Docket DOT-OST-1999-5173

Docket DOT-OST-2003-14535

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

ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS 

Summary

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

essential air service (EAS) at Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, for the 

two-year period beginning November 1, 2010, with or without subsidy. Proposals are due 

by July 15, 2010. (See Appendix A for a map.)

Background

By Order 2008-7-33, the Department selected Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes) to 

provide each community 18 weekly nonstop round trips to Denver at a combined annual 

subsidy of $5,373,700, for the two-year period from November 1, 2010 through 

October 31, 2012.

Request for Proposals

As the end of the current contract approaches on October 31, we are here requesting 

proposals for a new two-year period beginning November 1. Interested carriers should 

prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial proposals will represent 
- 2 -

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

with carriers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discretion to reject outright all 

unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and resolicit a new round of proposals. However, we 

anticipate that negotiation or rejection will remain only occasional exceptions to the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers with some basic information to assist them as 

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

preparation. Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical levels 

of traffic. We expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed and the 

annual amount of subsidy being requested. Applicants can make their own judgments as to 

the level of detail they wish to present; however, they might want to include proposed 

schedules, as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block 

hours, revenues, and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, well-documented proposals 

that will facilitate their evaluation by the community and the Department.1

With specific respect to Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff, we expect proposals 

consisting of three nonstop round trips a day (18 per week) to Denver or another suitable 

hub with connections to the national air transportation system using 15-seat or larger 

aircraft. We would also consider proposals for four or five round trips a day with eight- or 

nine-seat aircraft. Should the communities agree to aircraft with fewer than 15 passenger 

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

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

that the communities waive their rights for all time. Of course, we will formally solicit the 

communities’ views on any service options we receive before making a long-term, carrierselection decision. The communities and air carriers are encouraged to work together in 

advance of the due date for proposals to craft service patterns that are desirable to the 

communities and that meet the operational needs of the airline interested in submitting a 

proposal. In addition, carriers should be very clear as to whether a specific community’s 

proposal is on a stand-alone basis or whether it is part of a larger, inseparable package with 

other communities. 

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

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

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

possibilities -- different hubs, for example -- with subsidy requirements that remain 

competitive.

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

four factors: (1) scheduled service reliability; (2) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier 

to ensure service beyond the hub; (3) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a larger carrier 

at the hub; and (4) community views, giving substantial weight to the views of the elected officials 

representing the users. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 

provides that when selecting a carrier to provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy 

requirements, thus codifying a factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. Interested 

carriers should also be aware that our general provisions governing essential air service will be included in 

the selection order as part of our authorization of subsidy for the selected service. Appendix C of this order 

contains those general provisions.
- 3 -

New Filing Procedures 

Carrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials merged into a 

single document. In addition, because the document will be published on Regulations.gov, 

each page should be formatted to be viewed online.

Historical Traffic

In order to assist prospective applicants in making traffic and revenue forecasts, we have 

included historical passenger data from second quarter of 2006 through first quarter of

2010 in Appendix B.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing 

lobbying activities, drug-free workplaces, and nondiscrimination.2

 Consequently, all 

carriers receiving Federal subsidy for essential air service must certify that they are in 

compliance with Department regulations regarding drug-free workplaces and 

nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of the 

rate term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing 

lobbying activities. Because the Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers 

that do not submit these documents, all carriers that plan to submit proposals involving 

subsidy should be aware that the selected carrier will be expected to complete the required 

certifications. Interested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these 

requirements as well as copies of the certifications should contact the Office of Aviation 

Analysis at (202) 366-5903.3

Community and State Comments

The communities and the state are welcome to submit comments at any time. We 

encourage prospective applicants to contact the community before they submit their 

proposals in order to tailor them to the community’s needs. As noted earlier, we will 

provide a copy of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to submit their final 

comments shortly after July 15, the deadline for filing carrier proposals.

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

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

ACCORDINGLY,

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

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

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

disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance; and 

14 CFR Part 382 -- Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29 --

Government-wide debarment and suspension (non-procurement) and government-wide requirements for 

drug-free workplace (grants).

3 The certifications are also available at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html.
- 4 -

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at Kearney, North 

Platte, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, 

no later than July 15, 2010. The proposals should be e-mailed to EAS@dot.gov, with the 

title: “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Kearney (Docket DOT-OST-1996-

1715), North Platte (Docket DOT-OST-1999-5173), and/or Scottsbluff, Nebraska (Docket 

DOT-OST-2003-14535)”;4

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

3. We will serve copies of this order on the communities and airport managers of Kearney,

North Platte, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., and the carriers listed 

in Appendix D.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s 

Aviation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.50, must file such petitions within ten 

(10) days after the date of service of this order. 

This order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not 

preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

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

http://www.regulations.gov

 4 Questions regarding filings in response to this order may be directed to Michael Martin at (202) 366-6494, 

or michael.f.martin@dot.gov and proposals should be emailed to EAS@dot.gov, no later than July 15, 2010.
Appendix A

AREA MAP
Appendix B

Page 1 of 3

Historical Origin-Destination Passenger Traffic1

Kearney, Nebraska

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements

Total 

Traffic

Enplanements 

per Day2

2 2006 1,986 2,073 4,059 26

3 2006 2,114 2,009 4,123 26

4 2006 2,607 2,747 5,354 34

1 2007 2,799 2,860 5,659 37

2 2007 3,355 3,386 6,741 44

3 2007 3,230 3,155 6,385 41

4 2007 3,191 3,177 6,368 40

1 2008 3,096 3,122 6,218 41

2 2008 2,974 3,026 6,000 39

3 2008 3,159 2,973 6,132 39

4 2008 2,769 2,784 5,553 35

1 2009 2,415 2,414 4,829 32

2 2009 2,385 2,526 4,911 32

3 2009 2,385 2,321 4,706 30

4 2009 2,391 2,483 4,874 31

1 2010 2,162 2,210 4,372 29

 1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76 

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.
Appendix B

Page 2 of 3

Historical Origin-Destination Passenger Traffic1

North Platte, Nebraska

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements

Total 

Traffic

Enplanements 

per Day2

2 2006 2,121 2,103 4,224 27

3 2006 2,293 2,451 4,744 30

4 2006 2,057 2,085 4,142 26

1 2007 2,067 2,184 4,251 28

2 2007 2,806 2,810 5,616 36

3 2007 2,991 3,089 6,080 39

4 2007 2,740 2,652 5,392 34

1 2008 2,414 2,425 4,839 32

2 2008 2,640 2,624 5,264 34

3 2008 2,326 2,413 4,739 30

4 2008 2,183 2,151 4,334 27

1 2009 1,840 1,776 3,616 24

2 2009 1,963 1,983 3,946 26

3 2009 2,243 2,236 4,479 29

4 2009 1,874 1,845 3,719 24

1 2010 1,830 1,821 3,651 24

 1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76 

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.
Appendix B

Page 3 of 3

Historical Origin-Destination Passenger Traffic1

Scottsbluff, Nebraska

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements

Total 

Traffic

Enplanements 

per day2

2 2006 2,436 2,455 4,891 32

3 2006 2,520 2,591 5,111 33

4 2006 2,479 2,590 5,069 32

1 2007 2,444 2,462 4,906 32

2 2007 3,225 3,168 6,393 42

3 2007 3,001 3,081 6,082 39

4 2007 3,010 3,040 6,050 38

1 2008 2,459 2,571 5,030 33

2 2008 3,022 3,113 6,135 40

3 2008 2,292 2,413 4,705 30

4 2008 2,345 2,332 4,677 30

1 2009 2,140 2,144 4,284 28

2 2009 2,255 2,211 4,466 29

3 2009 2,210 2,288 4,498 29

4 2009 2,367 2,454 4,821 31

1 2010 2,240 2,251 4,491 30

 1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T-100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76 

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.
Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

location without regards to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

writing by the Department.

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

under this order.
Appendix D

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Aaron Goerlich Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Charles Mintz Mesa Air Group, Jonathan Ornstein

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Robert Rupard Mesa Air Group, Michael Lotz

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Mesa Air Group, Mike Holcomb

Air Wisconsin, Barbara Jones Mesaba, Max Shemesh

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Mesaba, John Spanjers

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia

Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft Midwest Airlines, David Reeve

Alliance Air, Paul Berliner Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis

American Airlines, Carl Nelson MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado

American Eagle, Jeff Hartz Multi Aero, Darnea

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude NYDC, Henok Araya

Cape Air, Andrew Bonney OST, Dennis DeVany, Kevin Adams

Cape Air, Dan Wolf OST, Michael Martin, Kevin Schlemmer

Cape Air, J. Flaherty OST, Brian Swanson, Renee Williams,

Caribbean Sun Airlines, John Rupert Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams

CommutAir, Andy Price Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Public Charters, Jim Gallagher

Continental, Bruce Keiner Salmon Air, Dan Schroeder

Continental, Dan Weiss Salmon Air, JoAnn Wolters

Continental, Lorry Halloway Scenic, Mary Schneider

Delta Air Lines, Amy Martin Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Delta Air Lines, Jeff Morgan Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D’Amico

Delta Air Lines, Dan Shuman SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney

Delta Air Lines, Joe Esposito Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano

Delta Air Lines, Sascha Vanderbellen SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Delta Air Lines, Karen Zachary SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Great Lakes Airlines, Chuck Howell Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Great Lakes Airlines, Doug Voss Tradewind, Eric Zipkin

Great Lakes Airlines, Greg Stephens Trans States, Bill Mishk

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Trans States, Gerry Wigmore

Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman United, Alicia Gabriel

Gulfstream, T. Cooper United, James Starnes

Homeland Security, Michael Duffy US Airways, Howard Kass

Homeland Security, Randy Webb US Airways, Jason Reisinger

Horizon Air, Dan Russo US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Horizon Air, Jennifer Thompson Vintage Props and Jets, Nate Vallier

Horizon Air, Jeff Cole

ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Island Air Charters, Linda House

Jet Air, Daniel Wolford