Order 2012

- 4

- 21

Served: April 16, 2012



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 16 th day of April , 20 1 2

Essential Air Service at

ALAMOSA, COLORADO CORTEZ, COLORADO

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq

. DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2960
DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 1998

- 3508



### ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary By this O rder, the Department is requesting proposals , by May 15

, 2012

, from air carriers interested in providing E ssential A ir S ervice (EAS) at Alamosa and Cortez, Colorado

, for a new

two

- year period beginning August 1 , 20 1 2 , with or without subsidy. (See Appendix A for map.)

Background By Order 2010

- 7

- 5

, issued on July 13, 2010 , the Department selected Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd

. d/b/a United Express ( Great Lakes )

, to provide EAS at the communities for the two

- year period through Ju ly 3 1 , 20 1 2 . That O rder established annual subsidy rate s of $ 1,987,155 for Alamosa, and $ 1,847,657 for Cortez, for s ervice consist ing of 1 8 nonstop round trips per week from each community to Denver , operated with 19

- seat Beech 1900D aircraft

.

Request for Proposals As the end of the current rate term approaches, in order to provide sufficient time to complete the

carrier

- selection process before the current contract expires, we are here requesting proposals

from air carriers interested in providing service at Alamosa and Cortez , with or without subsidy support, for the two

- year period beginning August 1, 20 1 2

. Air c arriers should file their proposals no later than May 15 , 2012 . After that date , our staff will docket the proposals, thereby making them public, and dir ect each air carrier to serve a copy of its proposal on the civic parties of both communities and other applicants. Shortly thereafter , we will provide a- 2

-

summary of the proposals to communit y officials and ask them to submit their final comments.

We will give full consideration to all proposals filed in a timely manner. 1

Interested air carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial proposals will also be their final and only proposals. We retain the discretion to negotiate proposals with air carriers when we deem it desirable; in such cases, of course, we will give all applicants the same opportunity. We also retain the discretion to reject outright all unreasonable

or unrea listic proposals and solicit 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 air carriers with some basic information to serve as guidance when they prepare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for their proposals. We expect proposals to adequately describe the service being proposed and the annual amount of subsidy being requested. The applicants can make their own judgments as to the level of detail they wish to present; however, they might want to include proposed schedules as well as supporting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block hours, revenues and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, well

- documented proposals that will facilitate their evaluation by the affected community and the Department. 2

Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical levels of traffic. Specifically for Alamosa and Cortez

, we request proposals for service consisting of three

nonstop round trips per day (18 a week) with 19

- seat aircraft , or two round trips a day (12 a week) with 30

- seat or larger aircraft. If eight or nine

- seat aircraft are proposed, we would

entertain proposals for four round trips a day (24 a week)

. Service should be with two

- pilot,

twin

- engine aircraft, unless the communit ies agree to waive those requirements

. 3 Of course, as always, we will formally solicit the communit ies ’ views on any service opti ons we receive before making a long

- term carrier selection decision. The communit ies and air carriers are encouraged to work together in advance of the due date for proposals to craft a service pattern

that is desirable to the communit ies and that meet th e operational needs of the airline interested in submitting a proposal. Air carriers should also be very clear as to whether a proposal is a tw o

city, inseparable package or whether each is a standalone basis.

1 Air carriers should not expect the Department to accept late filings. In cases where an air carrier proposes to provide E ssential A ir S ervice without subsidy and we determine that service can be reliably provided without such compensation, we typically do not proceed with the carrier

- selection case. Instead, we simply rely on that carrier’s subsidy

- free service as proposed.

2 In selecting a n air carrier to provide subsidized EAS , 49 U.S.C. 41733(c)(1) directs us to consider four factors: (1) service reliability; (2) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier at the hub; (3) interline arrangements with a larger ca rrier at the hub; and (4) community views. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110

- 161 , provides that when selecting a n air carrier to provide EAS, the Department may consider the relative subsidy requirements, thus codifyin g a factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. Interested carriers should also be aware that our general provisions governing EAS

will be included in the selection O rder as part of our authorization of subsidy for the selected serv ice. Appendix C

of this O rder contains those general provisions.

3 Previously most EAS communities were entitled to service with 15

- seat or larger aircraft. However, in the Department’s FY 2012 appropriation (Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropria tions Act, P.L. 112

- 55,

November 18, 2011), Congress repealed the 15

- seat guarantee, although communities are still entitled to service

with twin

- engine aircraft.- 3

-

We encourage proposals that meet these req uirements in an efficient manner. Air c arriers are also welcome to propose more than one option, if they choose; they need not limit themselves to those requirements if they envision other, potentially more attractive service possibilities

-- different hu bs, for example

-- with subsidy requirements that remain competitive.

New Filing Procedures

Air c arrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials merged into a single document. In addition, because the document will be published on www. Regulations.gov, each page should be formatted to be viewed online.

Service and Traffic Hi story

In order to assist air carriers in developing traffic and revenue projections for their proposals, we have summarized historical passenger s in Appendix B

. In 20 11

, Alamosa generated 14,040 O&D passengers, averag ing 22. 4 enplanements a day

, slight ly more than in 20 10 wh en it had
13,678 passengers, and an average of 21.7 daily enplanements. Cortez generated 13,938 O&D passengers in 20 11 , an average of 22.1 daily enplanements. This was slightly more than the
12,702 passengers and 20.2 average daily enplanements generated in 20 10

.

Other Air Carrier Requirements The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying activities, drug

- free workplaces and nondiscrimination. 4 Consequently, all air carrie rs receiving Federal subsidy to support E ssential A ir S ervice must certify that they are in compliance with Department regulations regarding drug

- free workplaces and nondiscrimination, and those air 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. All air carriers that plan to submit proposals involving subsidy should submit the required certifications along with their proposals. Interested air carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these requirements, as well as copies of the certificatio ns, should contact the Office of Aviation Analysis at (202) 366

- 5903. The Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to air carriers

that do not submit these documents. 5

Community and State Comments

Civic officials and the State are welcome to submit c omments on the proposals at any time. As noted earlier, we will provide a summary of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to submit their final comments shortly after May 15

, 2012, the due date for air carrier proposals.

This O rder is issued u nder authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f) and re

- delegated to the Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

4 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 20

– New restrictions on l obbying; (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 act ivities 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 req uirements for drug

- free workplace (grants).

5 The certifications are also available on the web at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html.- 4

-

ACCORDINGLY, 1. We request that air carriers interested in providing E ssential A ir S ervice at Alamosa and/or

Cortez

, Colorado, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, no later than May 15

, 20 1 2 . The proposals should be emailed to: EAS@dot.gov with the title “Proposal to

Provide Essential Air Service at Alamosa, Colorado , Docket DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2960 ” and/or “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Cortez, Colorado, Docket DOT

- OST

- 1998

- 3508” ; 6

2. Docket s DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 2960 and DOT

- OST

- 1998

- 3508 will remain open until further

O rder of the Department; and

3. The Departmen t will serve a copy of this O rder on the mayors and airport managers of

Alamosa and Cortez

, Great Lakes Aviation

, Ltd., and the parties listed in Appendix D.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this O rder under the Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.50, must file such petitions within ten (10) days after the date of

service of this O rder.

This O rder 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 line at www.regulations.gov

6 Questions regarding filings in response to this Order should be directed to Scott Faulk at 202

- 366

- 9967, or via

email at scott.faulk@dot.gov . Parties may call 202

- 366

- 5903 to confirm receipt of their EAS proposal s.

### Appendix A



## Area Map

### Appendix B

Historical O&D Traffic and Average Daily Enplanements

at Alamosa and Cortez, Colorado 1

ALAMOSA
Daily Average

YE 12/31/ 10 Origin

Traffic Destination

Traffic Enplanements 2

1Q 10 1,239 1,342 4.1
2Q 10 1,567 1,685 5.1
3Q 10 2,244 2,209 7.1
4Q 10 1,672 1,720 5.4

TOTAL: 6,722 6,956 21.7

YE 12/31/11
1Q 11 1,332 1,310 4.2
2Q 11 1,657 1,714 5.4
3Q 11 2,312 2,054 6.9
4Q 11 1,783 1,878 5.8

TOTAL: 7,084 6,956 22.3

CORTEZ
Daily Average

YE 12/31/ 10 Origin

Traffic Destination

Traffic Enplanements 2

1Q 10 1,619 1,564 5.1
2Q 10 1,790 1,829 5.7
3Q 10 1,272 1,237 4.0
4Q 10 1,661 1,730 5.4

TOTAL: 6,342 6,360 20.2

YE 12/31/ 11
1Q 11 1,431 1,310 4.3
2Q 11 1,638 1,714 5.3
3Q 11 2,142 2,054 6.7
4Q 11 1,771 1,878 5.8

TOTAL: 6,982 6,956 2 2.1

________________________________ 1 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; TranStats Form 41 , Schedule T

- 1 00

. 2 Daily averages are based on one

- half of the total O&D passengers

, divided by 3 13 service days (314 during leap years).

### Appendix C

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 O rder, including the service plans

outlined in the O rder 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 co mpleted, such as certain weather cancellations, only completed flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate its flight s in full conformance with the O rder for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire subsidy claim for the period in question. If the carrier contemplates any such c hanges beyond the scope of the O rder during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of Aviation Analysis in writing and receive writt en 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 oper ated; 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 me t 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 locati on provided for under this O rder, then, at the end of the period for which the Department does make payments in the stipulated amounts or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service to that specific location without regard to any requirement for notice of such cessation. Those adjustments in the levels of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment.

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 pa ragraph.

Funds are not currently availa ble for performance under this O rder beyond September 30, 201 2

. The Government's obligation for performance under this O rder beyond September 30, 201 2 , 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 ar ise for performance under this O rder beyond September 30, 201 2 , until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond September 30, 201 2 , 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 O rder.

### Appendix D

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Sunshine, Inc. Jet Air, Daniel Wolford
Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks
Air West, Inc., John Raatz McCall Aviation and Salmon Air, Dan Scott

Air Wisconsin, Annette Daly McCall Aviation, Michelle
Airline Associates, Bill Mishk Mesa Air, Jonathan Ornstein
Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Mesa Air, Michael Lotz Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Mesa Air, Mike Holcomb Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft Mesaba, John Spanjers
American Airlines, Carl Nelson Mesaba, Max Shemesh American Eagle, Jeffrey Hartz Midstar Airlines, Jeffrey Fonner
Atlantic Southeast, Jon Lindlief Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia Atlantic Southeast, Roger Weston Midwest Airlines, Greg Aretakis Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude Midwest Airlines, J.C. Augustson Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado Cape Air, Andrew Bonney Multi Aero, Darnea Cape Air, Dan Wolf Multi Aero, Shane Storz Cape Air, J.Flaherty Northwest, Tim McDonald Classic Aviation, Tony Henderson NYDC, Henok Araya Colgan Air, Mike Colgan OST, Brian Swanson CommutAir, Andy Price OST, Dennis DeVany CommutAir, Joel Raymond OST, Kevin Adams Consultant, Robert Silverberg OST, Kevin Schlemmer
Continental, Bruce Keiner OST, Michael Martin
Continental, Dan Weiss OST, Renee Williams Continental, Lorry Halloway Pacific Wings, Frank Ford Delta, Amy Martin Pacific Wings, Greg Kahlstorf
Delta, Dan Shuman PenAir, Danny Seybert Delta, Jeff Morgan PenAir, Scott Bloomquist Delta, Joe Esposito Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams Delta, Karen Zachary Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed
Delta, Sascha Vanderbellen Public Charters, Jim Gallagher

Dorato Jets Scenic, Mary Schneider

Dorato Jets, Mark McKenna Scenic, Mitzi Daines
Era Aviation, Mike Lenorman Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D'Amico
Executive Airlines, Kate Soled SeaPort Airlines, Jim Day Frontier Flying, Bob Hajducovich SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney
Gem Air, Dan Schroeder Shuttl e America, Jerry Balsano
Gem Air, JoAnn Wolters SkyWest, Eric Christensen
Great Lakes, Chuck Howell SkyWest, Michael Thompson Great Lakes, Doug Voss Sovereign Air, Bob Karns Great Lakes, Greg Stephens Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton
Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Tradewind, Eric Zipkin Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman TransStates, Fred Oxley Gulfstream, T. Cooper Transtates, Gerry Wigmore Homeland Security, Bill Ragan United, Alicia Gabriel Homeland Security, David Bernier United, James Starnes Homeland Security, Randy Webb US Airways, Benjamin Slocum
Horizon Airlines, Dan Russo US Airways, Howard Kass Horizon Airlines, Jennifer Thompson US Airways, Jason Reisinger
Horizon, Jeff Cole Warbelows Air Ventures, Art Warbelow
ICEPR, Luis Irizarry Wings Air (Air Greco), Aaron Goerlich
Island Air Charters, Linda House