## :':EPARTMENTOF -:>\ic;'JOR""/\**"r/O~**

. .:,Ji l r 1t11 'II

.. nne
..,1,

I

. ,-,**p~\TI(** "·IQ
• '''t t.._, lr., \.jj\u January 10, 2011

Dennis J. DeVany ChiefEssential Air Service Division, X-52 Office ofAviation Analysis Office W86308 

## u.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20596 Dear Mr. DeVany, I understand that Great Lakes Aviation and Gulf Stream International Airlines will be competing for the next two-year Essential Air Service Contract for Eastern Montana. While I have no experience with GulfStream International Airlines, 

### .I would hope that in deciding who should receive this contract, you will consider that Great Lakes Aviation, when it assumed the Big Sky Airlines contract, in my opinion, breached'the contract from the very beginning. Enclosed is a copy ofa letter that I wrote to Great Lakes Aviation and to which I had no response. The letter explains my concerns and the concerns of many others in this area, especially with the integrity ofthe company that claims to be assuming an existing contract and then immediately deviates from it.

. In my opinion, Great Lakes Aviation is not interested in serving this area so much as in maximizing profits. We need a linkbetween Eastern Montana and Billings and hopefully from Billings to Helena. Traffic between Eastern Montana and Denver is not what we need. Please consider these concerns before you make any decision.

RAS/mb Enc. Very truly yours,

# ~/I~**RICH~** A. SIMONTON P.O. Box' 1249 Glendive, Montana 59330 406-377-2666;

.Monica Taylor Great Lakes Aviation LTD 1022 Airport Parkway Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001-1551 April 13, 2009

RE: Eastern Montana Essential Air Service Dear Ms. Taylor, 

# COpy

While someinEasternMontanamaybecelebratingtheresumptionofair servicebetween Glendive and Billings, including the cities ofGlasgow, Havre, Lewistown, Miles City, Sidney, and WolfPoint, I am not only disappointed, but also confused. Great Lakes Aviation and Big Sky Transportation Co. both submitted proposals to provide essential air service to Eastern Montana. By Order dated November 29, 2007 the U.S. Department ofTransportation selectedBig Sky for atwo-yearperiod beginning March 1, 2008. The Order explains why Big Sky was selected over Great Lakes. That Order notes that Great Lakes' proposal included the prospect ofchanging the hub from Billings to Denver "if such a change canbe agreed upon withthe communities." Canitbepresumed that Great Lakes would not have submitted a proposal unless it had the aircraft and personnel to service the contract? AndyetwhenBig Sky asked for relieffrom the contractfor financial reasons, by an Orderdated just one month after Big Sky's selection, the U.S. Department ofTransportation awarded you a contract for replacement service at the subsidized rate you originally quoted with service as originally required ofBig Sky and proposed by you. You accepted. Even though the new contract was to begin March 1, 2008, your first stop in Glendive was not made until morethan oneyear later. Nor does it appear thatyou are willing to provide the same service as Big Sky since your schedule of leaving Glendive in late morning and returning from Billings in early afternoon makes it so inconvenient that flying is actually discouraged. Ofcourse not only does your schedule discourage flying, your rates, which are two to three times those charged by Big Sky, make it impractical and uneconomical for the average person to fly. You recently spoke with areporter from the Glendive Ranger Review and indicated that Great Lakes would do its bestto accommodate the communities' needs as it expands its aircraft fleet and that while your schedule may not meet everyone's needs right away, your goal is to get service startedbecause some service is better than no service. I was especially surprised by your quote that "This is the best we can do right now as we continue to acquire addition aircraft to cover all ofthe flying we are obligated to. We will continue to work at adjusting schedules as these aircraft come in line." I wonder what occurred with Great Lakes between November 2007 when you represented you had the aircraft and personnel to be awarded the contract and December2007 whenyou acceptedthe contracttoprovidereplacement servicesbutdid nothaveApril 13, 2009 Monica Taylor Page Two

the planes and personnel. According to the Department of Transportation Order, you had informed itthatyou were willing to provide replacement servicebased onyourrecentproposal. Department ofTransportation found, interestingly enough, that "GreatLakes continues to have available adequate financial and managerial resources to provide quality service at the communities at issue here." You were directed to provide essential air service to the towns involved according to an attached schedule for a period of24 months. AlthoughnotmentionedineitheryourorBig Sky'sproposals, itis myunderstandingthat we taxpayers are now paying for three to four part-time TSA employees working 24 to 32 hours per week because that is what Great Lakes wanted. Amazing how we were able to do without TSA for years but now with fewer flyers from Glendive, we have to pay those employees. I again note your original proposal that you would not change the hub from Billings to Denver without the consent ofthe affected communities, and yet your first flights from Sidney did not go to Billings, but went to Denver. I don'tremember any ofthe communities involved consenting to changing the hub of Billings to Denver. When did that occur? Where is the service to Eastern Montana communities and the consideration ofits needs? Having entered into a contract for an $8.2 million annual subsidy for two years, and having set a schedule that is inconvenient at prices that cannot be paid by the typical traveler, is your next step to ask for some type ofrelieffrom the contract requirements because oflow usage? In summary, you bid on a contract representing that you had the aircraft and personnel to service it, butwhen itwas awardedto you, youdidn'tbeginthatcontract as requiredclaiming that you do nothave the aircraft and personnel. You set schedules apparently convenientto the company and not the communities and atrates that will discourage use rather than encourage it. You recently told the Ranger Review that you are happy that the community will no longer be without flight service. As apractical matter, we still are. The award ofthe contractto you will undoubtedly give you an advantage in the future

- ifwe can show there is a continuing need for essential air services, which may be difficult ifthe numbers don't support it. I will be interested in yourresponses to my concerns so that I and others may have some confidence that you really are interested in Eastern Montana. Very truly yours,

RICHARD A. SIMONTON P.O. Box 1249 Glendive, Montana 59330 (406) 377-2666