Order 20 10

- 3

- 3 4

Served: March 30 , 20 10



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

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 30 th day of March , 20 10

Essential Air Service at

ALAMOSA, COLORA DO 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 ess ential air service (EAS) at Alamosa and Cortez, Colorado

, for a new two

- year period beginning August 1 , 20 10 , with or without subsidy. (See Appendix A for map.)

Background By Order 2008

- 5

- 2 4

, May 20 , 200 8 , the Department selected Great Lakes Aviation, Lt d . d/b/a United Express ( Great Lakes )

, to provide EAS at the communities for the two

- year period through Ju ly 3 1 , 20 10 . That order established annual subsidy rate s of $1, 853

, 475 for Alamosa, and $1,297,562 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 carriers interested in providing service at Alamosa and Cortez , with or without subsidy support, for the two

- year period beginning August 1, 20 10 . Carriers should file their proposals

no late r 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 su mmary of the- 2

-

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 carriers should prepare their proposals with every expectation that their in itial 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 discretio n 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 s ome 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 requ ested. 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 ex penses. 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 fo r 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 communit ies 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 th e communit ies 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 wou ld not assume that the

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

communit ies ’ views on any service options 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 the operational needs of the ai rline 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 servi ce can be reliably provided without such compensation, we 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 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 th e 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 provis ions.- 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 passenger s in Appendix B. In 2009

, Alamosa generated 12,447 O&D passengers, averag ing 19.9 enplanements a day

, slight ly less than in 20 08 wh en 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 Depa rtment 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. Al l 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 Ri ghts 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).

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 withou t subsidy requests, no later than April 30 , 20 10

. 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 “Propos al to Provide Essential Air Service at Cortez, Colorado, Docket DOT

- OST

- 1998

- 3508” ; 5

2. Docket s 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 petition s 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 line 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 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 12/31/09 O&D Traffic Enplanements 2

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 2 2.6

CORTEZ
Daily Average

YE 12/31/09 O&D Traffic Enplanements 2

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

- 1 00

. 2 Daily averages are based on one

- half of the O&D passengers

, divided by 3 13 service days (314 during

le ap 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 serv ice 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 explan ation 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 fir st 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 Depart ment 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 pay ments 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 ma y 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 cons titute 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 fund s 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 th e 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 S almon 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 S torz 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 Sil verberg 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, Dan ny 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 Schneid er 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 Schro eder 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

Gulfstr eam, 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

H omeland 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