Order 2010-3-34

Served: March 30, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 30th day of March, 2010

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 order, the Department is requesting proposals, by April 30, from carriers interested in 

providing essential air service (EAS) at Alamosa and Cortez, Colorado, for a new two-year 

period beginning August 1, 2010, with or without subsidy. (See Appendix A for map.)

Background

By Order 2008-5-24, May 20, 2008, 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 July 31, 2010. That order established annual subsidy rates of $1,853,475 for Alamosa, 

and $1,297,562 for Cortez, for service consisting of 18 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 carriers interested in providing service at Alamosa and Cortez, with or without subsidy 

support, for the two-year period beginning August 1, 2010. Carriers should file their proposals 

no later than April 30. After that date, our staff will docket proposals, thereby making them 

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

communities and other applicants. Shortly afterwards, we will provide a summary of the 
- 2 -

proposals to community officials and ask them to submit their final comments. We will give full 

consideration to all proposals filed in a timely manner.1

Interested 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 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 unrealistic 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 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 with 19-seat aircraft. Service should be with two-pilot, twin-engine 

aircraft with at least 15 passenger seats, unless the communities agree to smaller aircraft. In that 

event, we would also consider proposals for four or five round trips a day with eight- or nine-seat 

aircraft. If aircraft with fewer than 15 passenger seats are contemplated, service patterns should 

consist of nonstop service between the communities and the proposed hub airport. If a proposal 

offering aircraft with fewer than 15 seats is submitted and the communities ultimately support 

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

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

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

communities’ views on any service options we receive before making a long-term carrier 

selection decision. The communities and air carriers are encouraged to work together in advance 

of the due date for proposals to craft a service pattern that is desirable to the communities and 

that meet the operational needs of the airline interested in submitting a proposal.

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

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

compensation, we do not proceed with the carrier-selection case. Instead, we simply rely on that carrier’s subsidyfree service as proposed.

2 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service, 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 carrier at the hub; and (4) community views. 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 EAS 

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 -

We encourage proposals that meet these requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers 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 hubs, for example -- with subsidy requirements that remain competitive.

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.

Service and Traffic History

In order to assist carriers in developing traffic and revenue projections for their proposals, we 

have summarized historical passengers in Appendix B. In 2009, Alamosa generated 12,447 

O&D passengers, averaging 19.9 enplanements a day, slightly less than in 2008 when it had 

14,175 passengers, an average of 22.6 daily enplanements. Cortez generated 15,212 O&D 

passengers in 2009, an average of 24.3 daily enplanements. This was also slightly less than the 

16,990 passengers and 27.1 average daily enplanements generated in 2008.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing lobbying 

activities, drug-free workplaces and nondiscrimination.3 Consequently, all carriers receiving 

Federal subsidy to support 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. All carriers that plan to 

submit proposals involving subsidy should submit the required certifications along with their 

proposals. 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. The Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers that do not 

submit these documents.4

Community and State Comments

Civic officials and the State are welcome to submit comments 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 April 30, the due date for 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.

 3 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 (nonprocurement) and government-wide requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).

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

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at Alamosa and/or Cortez,

Colorado, submit their proposals, with or without subsidy requests, no later than April 30, 2010. 

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”;5

2. Dockets DOT-OST-1997-2960 and DOT-OST-1998-3508 will remain open until further 

order of the Department; and

3. The Department will serve a copy of this order on the mayors and airport managers of 

Alamosa and Cortez, Great Lakes Aviation, and the parties listed in Appendix D.

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

Regulations, 14 CFR 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 online at

www.regulations.gov

 5 Questions regarding filings in response to this order should be directed to Renée Williams at 202-366-1058, or via 

email at renee.williams@dot.gov. Parties may call 202-366-5903 to confirm receipt of their EAS proposals.
Appendix A

Area Map
Appendix B

Historical O&D Traffic and Average Daily Enplanements

at Alamosa and Cortez, Colorado1

ALAMOSA

Daily Average

YE 12/31/09 O&D Traffic Enplanements2

1Q09 2,575 16.7

2Q09 2,852 18.3

3Q09 3,921 24.8

4Q09 3,099 19.6

TOTAL: 12,447 19.9

YE 12/31/08

1Q08 3,109 19.9

2Q08 3,368 21.6

3Q08 4,419 28.0

4Q08 3,279 20.8

TOTAL: 14,175 22.6

CORTEZ

Daily Average

YE 12/31/09 O&D Traffic Enplanements2

1Q09 2,926 19.0

2Q09 3,623 23.2

3Q09 4,909 31.1

4Q09 3,754 23.8

TOTAL: 15,212 24.3

YE 12/31/08

1Q08 4,776 30.6

2Q08 4,479 28.7

3Q08 4,077 25.8

4Q08 3,658 23.2

TOTAL: 16,990 27.1

________________________________

1 Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; TranStats Form 41, Schedule T-100. 2 Daily averages are based on one-half of the O&D passengers, divided by 313 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 order, including the service plans 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 order beyond September 30, 2010. 

The Government's obligation for performance under this order beyond September 30, 2010, 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 September 30, 2010, until funds are made available to the 

Department for performance. If funds are not made available for performance beyond 

September 30, 2010, 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 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 Shuttle 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