Application under the Small Community 

Air Service Development Program

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069

APPLICANT: Los Alamos County

Sponsor: Los Alamos County

DUNS #: 06-942-3424

TAX ID #: 85-6000679

Congressional District: 03
Page 1 of 16

The Following Supports Los Alamos County’s Grant Application Under the Small 

Community Air Service Development Program

BACKGROUND: 

Los Alamos County enjoyed the benefits of scheduled air service for nearly 50 years. Service 

began in 1948 when the Atomic Energy Commission contracted with Carco Air Service for 

scheduled flights between Los Alamos and Albuquerque, New Mexico; this, in support of the 

Manhattan project. Passenger demand was substantial. The airline maintained a seven round trip 

flight schedule carrying passengers (mostly Los Alamos National Lab employees) to the 

Albuquerque “Sunport” for connecting flights around the world. 

In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission contracted with Ross Aviation for this service. Ross 

raised the number of available round trip flights to nine. In addition to schedule service, Ross flew 

on-demand charter operations to locations in Nevada and California as well as other parts of the 

west. Aircraft utilized during the Ross Aviation era included the de Havilland dash 6, and the 50 

passenger de Havilland dash 7. As many as 35,000 passengers per year flew in and out of Los 

Alamos Airport in the late 1980s. While Carco and Ross Aviation were in business, Los Alamos 

was the second busiest commercial service airport in New Mexico – second only to Albuquerque.

 

In the early 1990’s, financial considerations prompted the Department of Energy to reduce financial 

support of the airline. To meet the challenge, Ross Aviation developed a Workforce Restructuring 

Plan in 1994. Cutbacks continued until Ross Aviation’s contract with DOE was cancelled in 1996. 
Page 2 of 16

Industry observers of the day would assume that Los Alamos’ air service market would be acquired 

by carriers operating with the benefit of Essential Air Service funds. After all, the airport was a 

busy hub for federal business, and scheduled service was being provided on October 24, 1978. 

Unfortunately, wording contained in EAS’ enabling legislation, rendered Los Alamos ineligible to 

participate in the program. Though this remote community was and remains a perfect example of 

why the EAS program was created, the manner in which the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 defines a 

certificated air carrier coupled with the definition of an “eligible point” ruled out Los Alamos’ 

participation.

At the time of enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) in 1978, there were 746 communities 

in the United States and its territories listed on air carrier certificates issued under Section 401 of 

the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Ross Aviation was not among these. Before deregulation, 

operating certificates required air carriers to provide two daily round trips at each point on their 

certificate. (Los Alamos had a nine round trip schedule!) During the pre-ADA debates, the 

prospect of allowing carriers to terminate scheduled service without prior Government approval 

raised concern that communities with relatively lower traffic levels would lose service entirely as 

carriers shifted their operations to larger, potentially more lucrative markets. To address this 

concern, Congress added Section 419 to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, which established the 

Essential Air Service (EAS) program, “... to ensure that smaller communities would retain a link to 

the national air transportation system, with Federal subsidy where necessary.” 

The Airline Deregulation Act amended the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 to stipulate 

that on October 24, 1978, any public airport that was regularly served by a certificated air carrier 

(other than a charter air carrier) would be deemed to be an air carrier airport for purposes of the 
Page 3 of 16

Act. These air carriers had operating certificates issued under Section 401 of the Federal Aviation 

Act of 1958. Proper parlance would note the carrier had a “Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity.” When Section 419 was added to the Federal Aviation Act, this term of art continued. 

By limiting participating communities to those served by a carrier that had a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity rendered Los Alamos County ineligible for EAS. Ross Aviation did not 

have a Certificate of Public a Convenience and Necessity. Ross was operating under the terms of a 

contract with the federal government.

Further frustrating access to EAS was the definition of an “eligible point” (a community eligible to 

receive Essential Air Service subsidies). Section 419(a)(1) defined an “eligible point” to which, on 

the date of enactment, any air carrier –

(A) Provided service pursuant to a certificate issued under section 401; or

(B) Was authorized to provide such service, but such service was suspended on the date of 

enactment. 

Section (b) (1) (A) further defined “eligible point” to include “any point in the United States which 

had been deleted from a certificate between July 1, 1968 and October 24, 1978 and which the Board 

designates.” Again, since Los Alamos was not served by a carrier that had a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity, Los Alamos was not considered an “eligible point” and was therefore 

not identified on the “LIST OF ELIGIBLE POINTS” compiled by The Bureau of Pricing and Domestic 

Aviation (Civil Aeronautics Board) in January 1979. (See Attachment 1)

Though Carco Air Service and Ross Aviation were not certificated under the authority of Section 

401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, these carriers met the requirements necessary to secure 

Economic Authority as required/awarded by the U.S. DOT. They also met the requirements to 
Page 4 of 16

secure Safety Authority (an Operating Certificate) as required/awarded by the FAA. They provided 

uninterrupted scheduled passenger service for Los Alamos County for 48 years. Ironically, air 

service began 10 years before enactment of the Federal Aviation act of 1958 from which Section 401 

evolves. It is unfortunate that Los Alamos has not been eligible to take advantage of the Essential 

Air Service program based on the premise it was not receiving regularly scheduled air service on 

October 24, 1978. It was. 

Even though EAS funding was unavailable, three airlines attempted to pick up the market left by 

Ross Aviation. All three failed for reasons not related to a lack of market potential. The first carrier, 

Peacock Airlines, dropped out due to contract disputes with the provider of its aircraft. This 

service began in late 1996 and only survived a few weeks. Peacock was followed by Mesa Airlines. 

Mesa service began in 2000 and lasted four months. An internal survey conducted at the Los 

Alamos National Lab noted the primary reason for Mesa’s failure was lack of flight frequency and 

the high price of a ticket relative to other options. Of the 600 respondents to a user survey, 86% 

noted the high ticket price and lack of frequency as the number one reasons why they chose not to 

fly with Mesa Airlines. (A $69 air fare thirteen years ago does seem excessive; prior to that, nonLaboratory employees could travel to Albuquerque on Ross Aviation aircraft for $35. As for 

frequency, Mesa Airlines scheduled 4 round trip flights to Albuquerque – not enough according to 

the users.) The third attempt at scheduled air service was made by Rio Grande Airlines which flew 

Cessna 208 Caravans. Rio Grande had the best chance for success, but the fact that they had no 

interline agreements caused their early demise. Rio Grande flew for four months, terminating 

service in 2002.
Page 5 of 16

CURRENT AIR SERVICE NEED

The above treatise begs the question: For a small community of only 18,000 people, how was Los 

Alamos able to produce such large enplanement figures? The answer is the presence of the Los 

Alamos National Lab (LANL), one of the country’s premier national laboratories with a historic 

mission in nuclear safety and a growing mission in national energy security. 

Attachment 2 lists the airports that over 20,000 Los Alamos National Lab employees travelled to in 

2010. The destinations are ranked in the order of frequency used – the most frequent destination is 

first (Dulles, Washington), the least frequented destination is last (Yuma, Arizona). A quick scan of 

the list notes that of the 359 destinations identified, Heathrow, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, and Vienna 

are in the top 35. Frankfurt, Beijing, Kiev, Prague, Milan are among their many other international 

destinations. In fact, of the 359 destinations, 172 were international ports of call (48%). The airport 

of origin for all flights was the Albuquerque Sunport. The main origin/destination market for Los 

Alamos is therefore, Albuquerque.

The Los Alamos National Lab is an immense organization. Eleven thousand (11,000) employees 

work at the Lab and travel is critical to their work production effort. They are the largest employer 

in northern New Mexico and reserve roughly 25,000 air seats, expending $9,000,000 annually on 

LANL related air travel. In 2010, the Los Alamos National Lab enplaned 21,844 passengers at 

Albuquerque’s Sunport. (Source: Rio Grande Travel which handles airline ticketing for the Lab’s 

travel office; and Southwest Airlines.) These people drive to Albuquerque (a two hour drive) in 

rental cars or privately owned vehicles.

NOTE: The 21,844 enplanement figure does not include any of the 

estimated 20,000 official visitors that travel to Los Alamos National Lab 
Page 6 of 16

from around the world on an annual basis. (Rio Grande Airlines’ lack of 

interline agreements was instrumental in their inability to capture these 

passengers which contributed to their failure.) 

As for the non-Lab employee (the local citizen), Los Alamos County is one of the wealthiest 

counties in the nation, and residents and local employees travel more than the average population, 

even commuting to and from work from other states. The median household income of Los Alamos 

County is $103,643. This compares to the national average of $46,326 and the New Mexico average 

of $43,000. Los Alamos has the highest concentration of doctorial degrees in the country. Driven 

by those working at the Lab, it has a diverse populace, both culturally and ethnically. Citizens are 

attracted from around the world, resulting in travel needs for residents, as well as friends and 

family across the country and abroad. The 21,844 enplanement figure noted above also does not 

include travel taken by citizens of Los Alamos who drove to Albuquerque to connect with flights for 

personal or business travel of their own. 

There is a demand for service, but why have successors to Carco and Ross Aviation failed? Based 

on study of the three airlines that tried, it is evident that the reason Ross Aviation’s successors 

failed was due to the lack of: 

- interline agreements

- frequency

- competitive pricing .

To survive, a replacement carrier must successfully wrap these into a workable program – one that 

offers convenience to the user and profitability for the airline. To this end, Los Alamos County has 

been in discussions with New Mexico Airlines, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pacific Wings Airlines. 

New Mexico Airlines presently provides service to the Albuquerque Sunport from various New 
Page 7 of 16

Mexico Communities. They have ticket counter space at the Sunport; they have interline 

agreements with over 65 carriers; and they are hosted on SABRE, Amadeus, Worldspan, 

Travelocity, Priceline, Kayak, Orbitz, etc.

Without question, the primary users of scheduled air service will be the employees of, and visitors 

to, the Los Alamos National Laboratory. These include the staff of the International Atomic Energy 

Commission (a large number of which are Los Alamos employees) federal staff, political 

representatives, contractors, global scientists and others. However of no lesser importance is the 

far reaching impact scheduled air service will have on Los Alamos County, its citizens, and its 

economic development initiatives. The County of Los Alamos is well aware of the importance of 

scheduled air service to its community, including business leaders and average citizens who 

currently must drive nearly two hours to the Albuquerque Sunport to catch connecting flights. In 

2010, the County Council adopted its Economic Viability Strategic Plan (EVSP). A broad, far 

reaching plan, its purpose, to improve and enhance the quality of life of all Los Alamos 

residents. The EVSP enunciated four strategic goals that provide a basis of action for the 

County. Goal #2 states: Diversify the Economic Base. Nine supporting actions were listed that 

would advance this objective, one of the most important being: “Reestablish scheduled 

commercial passenger service.” 

Diversification refers to the extent to which the County broadens its base of primary industry. 

Primary industry activities are those that bring dollars into the community from other places. 

In past studies, more than 97% of the County’s primary industry activity has been estimated 

to be derived from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This is the proverbial “all our eggs in 

one basket” situation that exposes the Community to increased risk in the event the Lab 
Page 8 of 16

experiences fluctuations in their funding. Diversification is important as a means to provide a 

hedge against downward fluctuations in the Lab’s funding. Commercial air service is a 

requisite service to attracting the type of diverse high technology businesses Los Alamos is 

targeting with its Economic Vitality Strategic Plan. Critical national security work is being 

done in Los Alamos. Valuable federal employee travel time and money is being wasted to the 

tune of millions of dollars each year because of a lack of proximate commercial air service, 

not to mention the fact that important public and private sector leaders have no convenient 

air transport in or out of Los Alamos. 

PRIORITY SELECTION CRITERIA

The following supports Los Alamos County’s selection for Priority consideration:

Local Funding:

- a. The total Project Cost is $340,000. The SCASDP grant request is for eighty percent or 

$272,000 – this for development of a pilot program to demonstrate the viability and costeffectiveness of nine daily round trip flights between Albuquerque and Los Alamos, 

scheduled to coordinate with commercial flights to and from primary Los Alamos 

destinations such as Washington Dulles, Regan National, and BWI. The County and its 

partners are prepared to contribute twenty percent or $68,000 towards the $340,000 

total cost of the program.

- b. Los Alamos County has partnered with the State Division of Aviation with regard to 

funding. The New Mexico State Charter prevents Air Service Development funds from 

being used for subsidy payments. However, grant funds can be used for programs that 

support air service development in other ways such as marketing and advertising. A total 
Page 9 of 16

of $50,000 has been set aside for marketing the new air service program. Los Alamos

County will provide $25,000 of this amount. The remaining $25,000 will be provided by a 

grant from the State’s Air Service Development grant program.

- c. Los Alamos County is in the process of developing a funding relationship with the Los 

Alamos National Lab. As of the date of this application, this public-private partnership

has not been formalized, however it is expected that by the time a grant is awarded, the 

Los Alamos National Lab will agree to provide $18,000 towards the local share of the 

program’s 20% match.

Timeliness:

- Inasmuch as this program has evolved over the past two years of discussion among 

County staff, the Los Alamos National Lab, and New Mexico Airlines, little is left to be 

done prior to initiating service. It is believed the first flights will occur shortly (within 90 

days) following award of a grant. 

Multiple Community Cooperation:

- The original air service program (developed two years ago) envisioned a consortium of 

four New Mexico communities: Los Alamos, Taos, Ruidoso and Las Cruces. The original 

program envisioned two round trips to each of these communities for a fixed fee. Over 

the course of time, Las Cruces and Ruidoso dropped out. Coupled with the fact that a 

number of inequities were found to exist in the original plan, the program was 

abandoned. Discussions with New Mexico Airlines evolved to the concept of subsidizing 

the airline base on flight segments flown (further described herein). While this new 

direction has been taken, there have been many discussions with New Mexico Airlines 

about using the new program as a springboard to serve Taos. However, rather than 
Page 10 of 16

commit to serve Taos at this time, it has been decided to establish the current program 

and revisit the “Taos connection” at a later date. Initial indications are that Taos should 

benefit from the proposed air service program. 

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Los Alamos has been in discussions with New Mexico Airlines for the past two years regarding 

regularly scheduled air service between Albuquerque and Los Alamos. Inasmuch as scheduled air 

service to Albuquerque represents an increase in efficiency as well as an overall decrease in 

expenses (fewer rental cars and hotel rooms), the Los Alamos National Lab has figured prominently 

in the development of the business plan discussed herein.

Facts:

- Los Alamos National Laboratory alone produced 21,844 commercial air passengers in 2010.

- Flights from Albuquerque to Washington, D.C. area airports (Dulles, Regan, BWI) accounted for 

27% of all LANL travel booked on legacy carriers in 2010. 

- Flights from Albuquerque to Washington, D.C. area airports accounted for 14% of all LANL 

travel booked on Southwest Airlines.

- Travel from Albuquerque to Washington area airports accounted for 18% of all LANL travel in 

2010.

Los Alamos National Laboratory will be the primary user of any airline service operating between 

Los Alamos and Albuquerque. With a view to securing maximum ridership from the Lab, a flight 

schedule was created that maximized convenience for the Washington bound traveler. Currently, 
Page 11 of 16

there are 72 flights to Washington D.C. area airports, and 77 flights returning from Washington to 

Albuquerque. The flights operate from 5:50am to 12:50 am. 

A nine round trip flight schedule was prepared and evaluated by New Mexico Airlines, Los Alamos 

County staff, and Los Alamos National Laboratory (Attachment 3a). The schedule provides 

exceptional convenience to the LANL traveler. Fully 94.4% of all flights departing Albuquerque to 

Washington area airports can be met at the Albuquerque Sunport. Of the 72 flights, 53 will require 

a less than 60 minute wait time at the departure gate. Only 4 flights to Washington will not be 

served (they leave prior to 5:50am). The draft flight schedule is equally convenient for return trips 

from Washington. Ninety six percent (96%) of all return flights will conveniently connect with 

fights travelling from Albuquerque to Los Alamos (Attachment 3b). All agree, this flight schedule 

represents convenience to the Los Alamos (especially Washington bound) traveler. 

Reliable ridership depends on frequency, convenience, and price. Frequency is aptly met with the 

nine round trip flight schedule. (A nine round trip flight schedule proved itself in 48 years of 

operation by Carco Air Service and Ross Aviation.) Convenience is met with the timing of flights 

that arrive or leave from, Albuquerque’s Sunport. The price break for a one way flight has been 

established at $39. At this price (which is only slightly more than one would pay in gas to drive to 

Albuquerque in their SUV; and the airport door-to-door shuttle is $85 one way), it is expected 

ridership will be stimulated. At the very least, one will think twice before driving. 

A $39 ticket price is clearly affordable. Such would not be allowed were it not for the chosen 

aircraft – the Cessna 208 Caravan. The operating cost of a Ce-208 is among the lowest of the 

passenger carrying fleet. Moreover, flights from Los Alamos to Albuquerque are essentially in the 
Page 12 of 16

“sweet spot” for this aircraft. The field elevation of Los Alamos is 7171MSL and its runway length 

at is 6,000 feet. The Caravan is not known for its speed, but it only takes 20 minutes to fly from Los 

Alamos to Albuquerque. Compared with a 2-hour drive, flying to Albuquerque becomes

increasingly more attractive.

Admittedly, a $39 ticket cost will not cover the cost of operating such an aggressive flight schedule 

– even if the aircraft was fully loaded. The business model developed considers subsidizing the 

$39 air fare with a flight subsidy – a fee assessed to each leg of the flight. A flight subsidy of $58.80 

has been established for flights between Los Alamos and Albuquerque. A round trip flight between 

Los Alamos and Albuquerque would therefore be $117.60 ($58.80 X 2 = $117.60).

By applying this $58.80 flight segment to the nine round flight schedule (see Attachment 4), the 

total cost to subsidize the program is $287,880. NOTE: this assumes all schedule flights are flown 

(nine round trips Monday through Friday; one on Saturday and one on Sunday). A benefit of basing 

a subsidy on flight segment costs is that if a flight is not flown (i.e. no passengers or a weather 

cancellation) no subsidy is paid. The maximum exposure is therefore $287,880. If a less 

aggressive flight schedule is chosen one of two events would have to occur: either the flight 

subsidy increases or the ticket price increases. As of the date of this writing, the chosen path is to 

increase the ticket cost. For example, if only 18,000 passengers or even 14,000 passengers use the 

service, air fare would increase to $49 and $59 respectively. This would not only allow the 

subsidized operation to continue, it provides an indication of what the traveler is willing to pay. (If 

ridership declines at the higher fares, this information will help guide a change in strategy.) In any 

event, the goal is to secure a reliable annual ridership of 22,000 passengers. It has been 
Page 13 of 16

determined that 22,000 passengers with a $55 per leg ticket price will render the operation 

profitable and not require a subsidy. 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this new program is to secure a level of 22,000 annual enplanements. At that point, it is 

expected the operation will be financially self-sufficient. Getting to this level will be the objective of 

a marketing program targeting all Los Alamos National Lab employees; the citizens of Los Alamos

and surrounding region; the world scientific community; and Los Alamos National Lab’s “sister 

laboratories.” With regard to the latter, these include Lawrence-Livermore, California; Oakridge, 

Tennessee; and Sandia Laboratory in both Albuquerque and Livermore, California. Review of past 

failed attempts to secure scheduled service indicates that little or no effort was placed on 

marketing the service to inbound travelers. As was mentioned earlier, Los Alamos National 

Libratory has 20,0000 official visitors a year. Capturing a fair percentage of these inbound travelers 

could very well spell the difference between success or failure.

While a target of 22,000 enplanements is realistic, it is also recognized that it will take time to get to 

this level of service. In the final year of Ross Aviation’s operation, annual enplanements totaled 

17,400. Communication with retired Lab employees note the lower passenger count was probably 

the result of discontinued scientific programs that required frequent travel to distant locations like 

the “Las Vegas Test Site” in Mercury, Nevada. It has been learned that over the course of the Lab’s 

existence, programs like these come and go. Today, a large number of Lab employees travel to 

programs in Carlsbad, New Mexico and Amarillo, Texas. They travel in numbers not previously 

experienced. While Carlsbad and Amarillo are among the many destinations on the Lab’s travel 
Page 14 of 16

itinerary, the frequency to which they now being visited is much greater than before. Trends like 

this are endemic to the mission of the Lab and are likely to continue.

NOTE: The benefit of the proposed air service program can be easily 

demonstrated when comparing how LANL currently travels to and from 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, versus using scheduled air service. (See Attachment 

5) It has been determined that each trip to Carlsbad using New Mexico 

Airlines will result in a savings of 9.1% over the cost of driving. This savings 

does not include transportation related lodging and meal costs, or the 8 

hours of lost productivity incurred by driving to Carlsbad. (Information on 

Attachment was provided courtesy of the LANL travel office.) 

It is the goal of the first year of service to reach the equivalent of 14,000 annual enplanements. 

Lesser patronage can survive, but the goal is to reach a minimum ridership equivalent to 14,000 

enplanements. By the end of the first year of operation all parties (especially New Mexico Airlines) 

will have a sense as to the reality of having scheduled passenger service to and from Albuquerque 

in a Cessna 208 Caravan. It has been determined that all parties have agreed that it would take a 

minimum of one year before a fair assessment could be made. If the program does not take hold at 

the end of one year of operation, serious consideration will be given to abandoning the effort. If the 

program shows promise, the first year’s audit will provide definitive information regarding what 

subsidy would be needed to continue the operation. The Los Alamos County Council and Los 

Alamos National Lab will have to decide whether or not to continue.

For the purpose of identifying goals and objectives that will be incorporated into the grant 

agreement, the following apply:

- The County of Los Alamos will establish itself as the legal sponsor responsible for 

administering the proposed project.

- A one-year agreement with an airline having ticket counter space at ABQ will be entered into 

between the sponsor and the airline. Said airline will utilize aircraft certified to carry less than 
Page 15 of 16

10 passengers. (Larger aircraft are not economically suited for a high altitude short flight 

segment operation. Also, Los Alamos Airport is not presently Certificated under FAR Part 139.) 

This carrier is expected to be New Mexico Airlines.

- The agreement will waive airport use fees. 

- A minimum passenger commitment will be established before the carrier (or sponsor) will be 

allowed to abandon the effort.

- Up to $50,000 will be committed towards marketing and promotion. 

- The carrier will provide marketing and promotion via establish literature, brochures, website(s), 

and/or other routine airline promotional vehicles.

- A monthly reporting program will be established that will serve to facilitate trend analysis. 

- Every effort will be expended to “steer” the program to a minimum of 22,000 passenger 

enplanements. This level of enplanements, at a ticket cost of $55.00 will render the program 

profitable.

- Three years has been established as a target for the 22,000 enplanement goal. A subsidy will 

not be required at this point. (It is recognized a different blend of passenger enplanements and 

ticket price could yield the same result.) 

SUMMARY

Los Alamos enjoyed the benefits of scheduled air service to Albuquerque for 48 years. Service was 

provided by carriers contracted by the Atomic Energy Commission and later the Department of 

Energy. The DOE discontinued financial support of the airline in 1995. In 1996 scheduled air 

service ceased completely. Unable to access Essential Air Service Grant funding, succeeding 

attempts to secure scheduled air service have failed. The Los Alamos National Lab has a 
Page 16 of 16

substantial dependence on air transportation. In 2010 alone, nearly 22,000 Laboratory employees 

boarded flights at Albuquerque to destinations around the world. Travelers currently drive 2 hours 

to Albuquerque or take a shuttle which costs $85 one way. Coupled with the socio-economic 

standing of the Los Alamos citizen, there is no question the community would embrace scheduled 

air service. 

Study of failed attempts to bring scheduled air service back to Los Alamos indicates a successful 

airline must have competitive ticket prices and high flight frequency. Negotiations with New Mexico 

Airlines have yielded a nine round trip flight schedule that offers substantial convenience to: a) 

employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory that travel to distant parts of the world; and b) 

the approximate 20,000 official visitors that travel to the Laboratory for scientific research and 

study. Forty eight percent (48%) of all flights booked by the Laboratory in 2010 went to 

international destinations. It can be assumed these destinations represent the homeland of the 

Laboratory’s 20,000 annual visitors. 

Local funding for the program (20%) is being provided by the County of Los Alamos, State of New 

Mexico, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (contract documents with the Lab are presently 

under construction). A letter of intent has been provided by New Mexico Airlines (Attachment 6) 

and with two years of work invested in the project thus far, it is anticipated, service will begin 

shortly after award. The program has been discussed with leaders in the County and Laboratory 

and all are supportive.



Page 1 of 10

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Reagan National Airport Washington, DC

Dulles International Airport Sterling, VA

McGhee Tyson Airport Knoxville, TN

Chicago O’Hare International Chicago, IL

Atlanta International Airport Atlanta, GA

Baltimore/Washington International Maryland

Heathrow Airport London

Boston Logan International Boston, MA

Fanning Field Airport Idaho Falls, ID

Tri-Cities Airport Pasco, WA

Orlando International Airport Orlando, FL

San Francisco International San Francisco, CA

Greater Rochester International Rochester, NY

Dallas/Fort Worth International Texas

Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City, UT

Charles de Gaulle Airport Paris

Denver International Denver, CO

Oakland International Oakland, CA

Houston Intercontinental Houston, TX

Minneapolis St. Paul International Minneapolis, MN

Pittsburgh International Airport Pittsburgh, PA

Portland International Portland, OR

Augusta Regional Airport Augusta, GA

Philadelphia International Philadelphia, PA

Sheremetyevo International Moscow, Russia

LaGuardia International New York, NY

Los Angeles International Los Angeles, CA

Columbia Metropolitan Columbia, SC

Las Vegas – McCarran Las Vegas, NV

Narita International Tokyo, Japan

Omaha Eppley Airfield Omaha, NE

Raleigh-Durham International Morrisville, NC

Santa Barbara Municipal Airport Santa Barbara, CA

Vienna International Schwechat, Austria

Newark Liberty International Newark, NJ

Kansas City International Kansas City, MO

Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle, WA

Detroit Metropolitan Detroit, MI

Attachment 2
Page 2 of 10

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

San Diego Lindberg Field San Diego, CA

Norfolk International Norfolk, VA

San Jose International San Jose, CA

Cincinnati Hebron, KY

Frankfurt – Main Airport Frankfurt, Germany

Tampa International Tampa, FL

Austin-Bergstrom International Austin, TX

Spokane International Spokane, WA

Tallahassee Regional Airport Tallahassee, FL

Gatwick Airport West Sussex, UK

Dan County Regional Madison, WI

Beijing Capital International Beijing, China

Monterey Peninsula Monterey, CA

Jacksonville International Jacksonville, FL

Dallas Love Field Dallas, TX

Huntsville-Madison County International Huntsville, AL

Chicago Midway Chicago, IL

Keahole-Kona International Kailua Kona, HI

San Antonio International San Antonio, TX

Toronto Pearson International Toronto, Canada

Charlotte-Douglas International Charlotte, NC

Port Columbus International Columbus, OH

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix, AZ

Brussels National Brussels, Belgium

Orange County-John Wayne Airport Santa Ana, CA

Vancouver International BC, Canada

Houston Hobby Airport Houston, TX

Metropolitan Nashville Nashville, TN

James M Cox Dayton International Vandalia, OH

Honolulu International Honolulu, HI

Indianapolis International Indianapolis, IN

Rapid City Regional Rapid City, SD

Richmond International Richmond, VA

Kahului Airport Kahului, HI

Pocatello Regional Pocatello, ID

Borispol International Boryspil, Ukraine

Memphis International Memphis, TN

Miami International Miami, FL

Barcelona-Prat airport Barcelona, Spain

Cleveland-Hopkins International Cleveland, OH

Willard Airport University of Illinois Savoy, IL
Page 3 of 10

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Fort Lauderdale, FL

Prague Ruzyne International Prague, Czech Rep.

Savannah/Hilton Head International Savannah, GA

Lambert-St Louis International Saint Louis, MO

Athens International Athens, Greece

Charleston International Charleston, SC

John F. Kennedy International Queens, NY

Marseille Provence Marseille, France

T.F. Green Airport Warwick, RI

Sacramento International Sacramento, CA

Geneva International Geneva, Switzerland

Palm Springs International Palm Springs, CA

Amsterdam Airport Netherlands

Elmira Corning Regional Horseheads, NY

General Mitchell International Milwaukee, WI

Northwest Florida Regional Eglin AFB, FL

Bob Hope Airport (Burbank Airport) Burbank, CA

Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Fiumicino, Italy

Kansai International Osaka Bay, Japan

Kuala Lumpur International Southeast Asia

Munich Airport Munich, Germany

Singapore Changi International Singapore

Valencia Airport Valencia, Spain

Jeju International South Korea

Easterwood Airport College Station, TX

Colorado Springs Municipal Colorado Springs, CO

Manchester International Manchester, UK

Melbourne International Melbourne, FL

Shanghai Pudong International Shanghai, China

Tucson International Tucson, AZ

Zurich Airport (Kloten Airport) Zurich, Switzerland

Alexandria International Alexandria, LA

Queen Alia International Airport Jordan

Beirut International (Beirut Air Base) Beirut, Lebanon

Bozeman Yellowstone International Belgrade, MT

Tancredo Neves International Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Grand Bahama International Freeport, Bahamas

Madrid-Barajas Airport Madrid, Spain

McAllen-Miller International McAllen, TX
Page 4 of 10

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

LA/Ontario International Ontario, CA

Roanoke Regional (Woodrum Field) Roanoke, VA

Ottawa/Macdonald-Cartier International Ottawa, Canada

Kern County - Meadows Field Bakersfield, CA

Chattanooga Metropolitan Chattanooga, TN

Jackson Hole Airport Jackson, WY

Milano Malpensa Airport Milan, Italy

Los Cabos International Mexico

Astana International Astana, Kazakhstan

Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau Int’l Montreal, QC

Playa de Oro International Manzanillo, Mexico

Aspen – Pitkin County (Sardy Field) Aspen, CO

Bordeaux-Merignac airport Gironde, France

Dublin Airport Dublin, Ireland

Incheon International South Korea

Ataturk International Istanbul, Turkey

Ithaca Tompkins Regional Ithaca, NY

Kaohsiung International Kaohsiung, Taiwan

John Paul II International Cracow, Poland

Capital Region International Lansing, MI

Lynchburg Regional Lynchburg, VA

South Bend Regional South Bend, IN

Warsaw Chopin International Warsaw, Poland

Almaty International Almaty, Kazakhstan

Albany International Albany, NY

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Anchorage, AK

Bradley International Windsor Locks, CT

Burlington International S Burlington, VT

Budapest Liszt Ferenc International Budapest, Hungary

Buffalo Niagara International Cheektowaga, NY

Cancun International Cancun, Mexico

Dresden International Dresden, Germany

Des Moines International Des Moines, IA

Ezeiza International Airport Buenos Aires

Pulkovo Airport (International) St. Petersburg, Russia

Lyon-Saint Exupery Airport Lyon, France

Sangster International Montego Bay, Jamaica

Louis Armstrong New Orleans Int’l New Orleans, LA

San Luis County Regional San Luis Obispo, CA
Page 5 of 10

Lake Tahoe Airport Lake Tahoe, CA

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Tri-Cities Regional Tennessee

Tulsa International Tulsa, Ok

Calgary International Airport Calgary, Canada

Rick Husband Amarillo International Amarillo, TX

Corona Municipal Corona, CA

Garden City Regional Garden City, KS

Chippewa County International Sault Ste Marie, MI

Cavern City air Terminal Carlsbad, NM

Indira Gandhi International West Delhi, India

Kemi-Torno Kemi, Finland

Manas International Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

Gulfport-Biloxi International Gulfport, MS

Grundy Municipal Grundy, VA

Jackson-Evers International Jackson, MS

Jorge Chavez International Lima, Peru

Cote D’azur International Nice, France

Will Rogers World Airport Oklahoma City, OK

Henri Coanda Bucharest, Romania

Hermanos Serdan International Puebla Atlixco, MX

Pensacola International Pensacola, FL

Reno/Tahoe International Reno, NV

State College Airport (Centre County) State College, PA

San Juan-Luiz Munoz Marin International San Juan, Puerto Rico

Salalah Airport Salalah, Oman

Sofia International Sofia, Bulgaria

Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse, NY

Taipei-Taoyuan International Taiwan ROC

Berlin – Tegel Airport Berlin, Germany

Veracruz-General Heriberto Jara Int’l Estado Veracruz, MX

Lehigh Valley International Allentown, PA

Appleton-Outagami County Regional Appleton, WI

Brindisi – Casale Airport Casale, Italy

Birmingham International Birmingham, UK

Bismark Airport Bismarck, ND

Boise Airport Boise, ID

Bremen Airport Bremen, Germany

Christchurch International New Zealand

Copenhagen-Kastrup International Kastrup, Denmark
Page 6 of 10

Casper-Natrona County International Casper, WY

Corpus Christi International Corpus Christi, TX

Daytona Beach International Daytona, FL

Dubrovnik Airport Dubrovnik, Croatia

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Domodedovo International Moscow, Russia

Dusseldorf International Dusseldorf, Germany

Yerevan-Zvartnots Yerevan, Armenia

Key West International Key West, FL

Fresno Yosemite International Fresno, CA

Fort Wayne International Fort Wayne, IN

Rio de Janeiro International Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Greenville Spartanburg International Greer, SC

Great Falls International Great Falls, MT

Hannover Airport Hannover, Germany

Hamburg Airport Hamburg, Germany

Helsinki – Vantaa Vantaa, Finland

Cataratas International Iguacu-Parana, Brazil

Lake Charles Regional Airport Lake Charles, LA

Blue Grass Airport Lexington, KY

Lihu Airport Lihue, Kauai, HI

Lisbon-Portela Lisbon, Portugal

Chennai/Maddras International Chennai, India

Manchester Airport Manchester, NH

Misawa Airport Japan

Palm Beach International Palm Beach, FL

Bay County Panama City, FL

Palermo Airport Punta Raisi, Italy

Portland International Portland, OR

Shevchenko Aktau, Kazakhstan

Louisville International Louisville, KY

Sheridan County Airport Sheridan, WY

Sun Valley Airport Bullhead City, AZ

Marco Polo International Venice, Italy

Malaga Airport Malaga, Spain

Kalamazoo Battle Creek International Kalamazoo, MI

Bangkok International Bangkok, Thailand

Bologna Airport Bologna, Italy

Chhatarpati Shivaji International Mumbai, India

Cape Town International South Africa

Charleston-Yeager Charleston, WV

Columbus Metropolitan Columbus, GA
Page 7 of 10

King Shaka International Durban, South Africa

Fayetteville Regional Fayetteville, NC

Glacier Park International Kalispell, MT

Bishop International Flint, MI

Sioux Falls Airport Sioux Falls, SD

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Nizhny Novgorod Internatinal Russia

Heraklion-Nikos Kazantzakis Int’l Heraklion, Greece

Wilmington International Wilmington, NC

Osaka International Itami, Japan

Kilimanjaro International Kilimanjaro, Tanzania

Kingston-Norman Manley International Jamaica

General Brees Field Laramie, WY

Lawton-Fort Sill Regional Lawton, OK

Long Beach Airport Long Beach, CA

Daniel Oduber International Liberia, Costa Rica

Little Rock National Airport Little Rock, AR

Laredo International Laredo, TX

La Crosse Municipal La Crosse, WI

Nez Perce County Regional Lewiston, ID

Lazaro Cardenas Lazaro Cardenas, MX

Albert J Ellis Airport Jacksonville, NC

Oslo Airport Gardermoen, Norway

Newport News-Williamsburg Int’l Newport News, VA

Phnom Penh International Phonom Penh, Cambodia

Port Moresby-Jacksons International Papua, New Guinea

Tocumen Airport Panama City, Panama

Punta Cana Airport Dominican Republic

Roberts Field Airport Redmond, OR

Diagoras Rhodes, Greece

San Pedro Sula-La Mesa International La Mesa, Honduras

Santo Domingo-Las Americas Airport Dominican Republic

Shreveport Regional Shreveport, LA

Simferopol Simferopol, Ukraine

Saint Kitts-Robert Bradshaw Int’l Saint Kitts and Nevis

Yekaterinburg-Koltsovo International Yekaterinburg, Russia

Tbilisi International Tbilisi, Georgia

Tallinn Airport Tallinn, Estonia

Trieste-Ronchi dei Legionari Ronchi Dei Legionari, Italy

Mariscal Sucre Airport Quito, Ecuador

Chinggis Khaan International Ulan Bator, Mongolia

Vieques Airport Vieques, Puerto Rico
Page 8 of 10

Zagreb Airport Zagreb, Croatia

Abidjan International Ivory Coast

V.C. Bird International St. John’s Antigua

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Abu Dhabi International Abu Dhabi, UAE

Asheville Regional Fletcher, NC

Bangor International Bangor, ME

Birmingham International Birmingham, AL

Bangalore International Hebbal, India

Brisbane International Brisbane, Australia

El Dorado International Bogota, Colombia

Southeast Texas Regional Beaumont, TX

Basel/Mulhouse Airport Basel, Switzerland

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Baton Rouge, LA

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Charlottesville, VA

Houghton County Memorial Hancock, MI

Cairns Airport Cairns, Australia

Fontanarossa Airport Cantania, Italy

Denpasar-Ngurah Rai International Bali, Indonesia

Dubai International Dubai, UAE

Eagle County Regional Eagle, CO

Esenboga International Ankara, Turkey

Mahlon Sweet Field Eugene, OR

Hector International Fargo, ND

Fukuoka Airport Fukuoka, Japan

Glasgow Airport Paisley, UK

Gainesville Regional Gainesville, FL

Jaen-Federico Garcia Lorca International Granada, Spain

Golden Triangle Regional Columbus, MS

AB Won Pat International Tamuning, Guam

Atyrau Airport Atyrau, Kazakhstan

Hobart International Cambridge, Australia

Hefei Luogang International People’s Republic of China

Hong Kong International Lantau, Hong Kong

Hyderabad Airport Hyderabed, India

Wichita Mid-Continent Wichita, KS

Long Island-MacArthur Airport Ronkonkoma, NY

Hilo International Hilo, HI

Djibouti-Ambouli Airport Republic of Djibouti
Page 9 of 10

OR Tambo International Johannesburg, SA

Khrabrovo Airport Kaliningrad, Russia

Leeds Bradford International Leeds, UK

Ljubljana DD Airport Brnik, Slovenia

Lincoln Airport Lincoln, NE

Liverpool John Lennon Airport Liverpool, UK

2010 – AIRPORT DESTINATIONS

IN DECENDING ORDER

Mombasa Moi International Mombasa, Kenya

Muscat International Muscate, Oman

Harrisburg International Middlestown, PA

Melbourne-Tullamarine Airport Gladstone, Australia

Mexico City International Benito Juarez, MX

Quad City International Moline, IL

Minot International Minot, ND

Montpellier-Mediterranee Maguio Cedex, France

General Mariano Escobedo Int’l Monterrey, Mexico

Carrasco International Montevideo, Uruguay

Myrtle Beach International Myrtle Beach, SC

Central Japan International Tokoname, Japan

Nuremberg Airport Nuremberg, Germany

Naha Airport Okinawa Okinawa, Japan

Oporto-Francisco Sa Carneiro Porto, Portugal

Aeroporto Joao Paulo II Ponta Delgada, Azores

Penang International Bayan Lepas, Malaysia

Perth Airport Cloverdale, Australia

Punta Arenas Airport Punta Arenas, Chile

Reggio Calabria Airport Reggio Calabria, Italy

Arturo Merino Benitez Santiago, Chile

Santa Maria Public Airport Santa Maria, CA

Sheppard Air force Base Wichita Falls, TX

Stuttgart Airport Stuttgart, Germany

Steward International New Windsor, NY

Shenzhen-Baoan International Guangdong, China

Tashkent International Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Toulouse-Blagnac Airport Blagnac Cedex, France

Tromso-Langnes Airport Tromso, Norway

Trondheim-Vaernes Airport Stjordal, Norway

Cherry Capital Airport Traverse City, MI

Vilnius International Vilnius, Lithuania

Wroclaw Nicolaus Copernicus Wroclaw, Poland

Fredericton International New Brunswick, Canada
Page 10 of 10

Jean Lesage International Quebec, Canada

Sudbury Airport Sudbury, Canada

Yuma International Yuma, Az
 4

13

10

7

6

3

12

6

5

6

55 <60 min wait at gate

13 >60 min wait at gate 

 4 non connect 5.6%

Los Alamos to Albuquerque 

All 72 Flights to Washington, D.C. Area

94.4%

Attachment 3a 
2

5

12

7

7

7

10

2

11

11

3

37 < 60 min 

37 > 60 min 

 3 Non connect 3.9% 

96.1% 

All 77 flights from Washington, D.C. Area

...... connection times to LAM flights

Attachment 3b 
Los Alamos to Albuquerque

Flight Subsidy Calculation

Assume: 

- Nine daily R/T flights per week plus one on Saturday and Sunday

- One way flight subsidy = $58.50 

Nine round trip flights per day (18 segments) x 5 days = 90 flight segments

One round trip (2 segments) on Saturday and Sunday = 4 flight segments

One week = 94 flight segments

94 flight segments x 52 weeks = 4,888 flight segments per year

÷ 12 months 

One month = 408 flight segments

408 flight segments per month x $58.80 per flight segment = $23,990 per month

$23,990 per month x 12 months = 

One year = $287,880 per year (using a subsidy of $58.50 per flight segment) 

 Attachment 4
Typical Travel History: Los Alamos to Carlsbad

(Base information provided by LANL Travel Office)

Average business trip to Carlsbad, NM is 4 days.

Most travelers drive.

Trip time averages between 10 to 12 hours round trip.

Average trip cost is $1,100.

Of this amount:

- Lodging , meals, etc. = $ 780

- Mileage costs (use of POV) = 320

- Average trip to Carlsbad = $1,100

Round Trip Comparison

Driving vs. Flying with NMA 

Time in route: Cost to travel:

- 10 to 12 hour drive (round trip) $320 mileage

- 3:20 flight (round trip) $225 air fare

 7 to 9 hours savings $ 95 savings:

9.1% savings over the cost of driving plus:

- Transportation related lodging costs.

- Transportation related meals.

- Lost productivity (8 hours saved).

Attachment 5