BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

 )

Establishment of Slot Exemption Proceeding )

At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ) Docket 

Pursuant to 49 USC §41718 ) DOT-OST- 2000-7182

)

Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

James Hnat Jonathan B. Hill

Executive Vice President Corporate Affairs, J. Parker Erkmann

 General Counsel & Secretary Benjamin M. Berlin

JetBlue Airways Corporation Cooley LLP

27-01 Queens Plaza North 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Long Island City, NY 11101 Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20004-2400

(202) 962-8356

jhill@cooley.com

perkmann@cooley.com

Robert C. Land bberlin@cooley.com

Senior Vice President for Government

 Affairs & Associate General Counsel Counsel for 

JetBlue Airways Corporation JetBlue Airways Corporation

1212 New York Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1212

Washington, DC 20005

March 25, 2014
1

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20590

________________________________________________

)

Establishment of Slot Exemption Proceeding )

At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ) Docket 

Pursuant to 49 USC §41718(b) ) DOT-OST-2000-7182

________________________________________________)

Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation

In response to the Notice1 of the Department of Transportation (“Department), JetBlue 

Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”) hereby applies for the pair of slot exemptions to be reallocated 

for service at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (“DCA”) to Jacksonville, Florida 

(“JAX”), pursuant to the provisions of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act 

for the 21st Century (“AIR-21”).2 JetBlue proposes to introduce sorely needed competitive 

service using Stage 3 Embraer E190 jets on a monopoly market presently operated by the 

dominant carrier at DCA, American Airlines (formerly US Airways).

3

 JAX is a medium hub 

airport within DCA’s 1250-mile perimeter that is currently served by a single carrier from DCA. 

Accordingly, JetBlue’s application responds directly to the Notice and satisfies the criteria 

Congress has directed the Secretary of Transportation to consider in awarding slot exemptions at 

DCA.

The Department should award the pair of slot exemptions to JetBlue because its 

Application provides the maximum competitive benefits for the traveling public. JetBlue’s 

Application to provide service to a medium hub, Jacksonville, on a high fare, monopoly nonstop 

 1

 See Notice, Establishment of Slot Exemption Proceeding Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b), 

Docket DOT-2000-7182 (March 5, 2014) (the “Notice”).

2 See 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b).

3 Unless indicated, references to American Airlines refer to US Airways.
2

route meets two4 of the five congressionally-established decisional criteria. As the Department 

stated in the Notice, the award of Air 21 slots is not the product of adding up the statutorilyenumerated criteria, but is the result of critical evaluation of those criteria by the Department to 

arrive at a decision that provides the maximum benefit to the traveling public.

5

The maximum benefit for the traveling public will be realized by the procompetitive

benefits of JetBlue service that have long been recognized and documented by the Department 

and others. The renowned Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Center on Air 

Transportation recently completed a study conducted by co-authors Michael Wittman and 

William Swelbar entitled “Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares: The Impact of 

Competition, Consolidation, and Low-Cost Carriers” (the “MIT Study”). This study looked at, 

among other things, the impact of particular air carriers on pricing in various markets and 

assessed the relative impacts of JetBlue’s and other air carriers’ pricing actions (such as 

Southwest Airlines) on medium hubs such as JAX.

6

 The findings are directly applicable to the 

decision presently before the Department in this docket.

 4

 JetBlue meets a third statutory criterion: that the Department award the slot exemption to a 

limited incumbent air carrier. 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b). Even though JetBlue’s DCA slot portfolio 

is increasing, it remains a limited incumbent carrier. Congress has defined a limited incumbent 

as an air carrier that holds or operates fewer than 40 slots at DCA. See 49 U.S.C. § 41714(h)(5), 

as amended by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. JetBlue will not exceed that 40 

slot threshold until June 2014. Moreover, even as JetBlue expands its DCA service, it will 

maintain the low-fare orientation commensurate with the offerings of any new entrant or limited 

incumbent carrier.

5 The Notice indicates that the Department has the discretion to premise an award of slot 

exemptions on the satisfaction of less than the greatest number of criteria, or even one of the 

criteria, based on the Department’s analysis of the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal. 

Notice at 2.

6 JetBlue hereby requests that the Department incorporate the MIT Study into the record of this 

proceeding. The MIT Study is attached as Exhibit B6-2014-103.
3

As the independent MIT Study establishes, “the presence of JetBlue is one of the most 

important explanatory factors behind which airports have lower fares than others.”7

 The MIT 

Study found that, by 2012, “the presence of JetBlue Airways reduced average one-way airport 

fares by about $32,” while the “Southwest effect” had weakened to about $17.

8

 The dramatic 

difference in fare impacts is vitally important in this proceeding because markets, like JAX, 

which are “medium-hub airports[,] have been the hardest hit by increases in fares as airlines 

[have] removed service and connectivity” due to mergers and capacity discipline.9 Although 

rising air fares in medium-hub markets like JAX are a perfect example of the negative consumer 

impacts of the recent wave of airline consolidation, the remedy is at hand – the introduction of 

service from JetBlue.

Indeed, the independent MIT Study found that uniquely JetBlue “is now the airline whose 

presence is associated with the largest decrease in average fares.”10 The Department should 

recognize that the “JetBlue effect” will deliver the greatest competitive benefits.

Another major competitive benefit realized by an award to JetBlue is the significant 

stimulation of traffic in the city pair where service is provided. Triple digit increases in traffic 

have been routinely experienced upon JetBlue’s entry. After JetBlue entered the JAX-SJU and 

BOS-EWR markets, passengers per day, measured from YE 1Q11 to YE 3Q13, increased 410% 

and 175%, respectively.11 Additional examples of the JetBlue effect can be seen in DCA to 

 7 Michael D. Wittman & William S. Swelbar, Mass. Inst. of Tech. Int’l Center on Air Transp., 

Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares: The Impacts of Competition, Consolidation, and 

Low-Cost Carriers, Report No. ICAT-2013-07 at 3-4 (Aug. 2013). 8 Id. at 20 (emphasis added).

9 Id. at 4.

10 Id. at 20.

11 See DOT O&D Survey, as provided by Diio.
4

Boston (“BOS”) and DCA to Orlando (“MCO”), where passenger counts increased 90% and 

70% between year-end 2010 and the 12-months ending September 30, 2013, respectively.

In addition to lowering fares and growing markets, JetBlue also has introduced its 

award-winning customer service to DCA. Created after deregulation, JetBlue has achieved 

consistent profitability and customer loyalty through its commitment to customer service. Since 

its first flight more than fourteen years ago, its commitment to bring humanity back to air travel 

has proven far more than a marketing slogan. 

JetBlue’s relentless focus on award-winning customer service has been widely acclaimed. 

The loyalty of its customers, more than 30 million last year, and the dedication of our 15,000 

Crewmembers, has enabled JetBlue to receive the prestigious JD Power Award for Customer 

Satisfaction for an unprecedented ninth year in a row. JetBlue’s customer-centric approach has 

enabled its profitable growth and allowed JetBlue to become the fastest airline in United States 

aviation history to achieve the ranks of “major” airline as classified by the Department. A list of 

JetBlue’s awards is attached as Exhibit B6-2014-101. Because of JetBlue’s documented record 

of lowering fares, growing markets and providing award-winning customer service, the 

Department should award the available AIR-21 slot exemption pair to JetBlue Airways because 

it will maximize the competitive benefits from the reassignment of these slot exemptions.
5

I. JetBlue’s Proposal

JetBlue proposes to utilize the two available AIR-21 slot exemptions at DCA to compete 

on the American monopoly route DCA-JAX. JetBlue, within ninety days of a final order 

awarding such slot exemptions, will begin daily roundtrip nonstop service using the Embraer 

E190, with 100 seats.

JetBlue’s Proposed Schedule

Origin Destination Depart Arrive Frequency Aircraft Seats Distance

DCA JAX 09:15 11:15 Daily E190 100 634

JAX DCA 13:10 15:00 Daily E190 100 634

Although the proposed departure and arrival times do not fall within the same hours as the 

Republic slot exemptions being reallocated, JetBlue will work with the Department and the FAA 

on available slot exemption times, consider trades within its slot portfolio, or consider trades 

with other carriers as needed to operate the DCA-JAX service without imposing any delays at 

DCA.

II. JetBlue Will Initiate Competitive Service in the DCA-JAX Market Where American

Currently Operates a Monopoly.

Since JetBlue’s first flight in 2000, JetBlue has always maintained a very simple formula 

for deciding which markets to serve—the market needs to be either (1) under-served; (2) overpriced; or (3) both under-served and over-priced. Once JetBlue decides to enter a market, it 

introduces a meaningful level of service at lower fares than the market has previously 

experienced. In turn, with the introduction of lower fares, market size increases. The DCA-JAX

market will perfectly fit this model.
6

JetBlue’s model has a demonstrably successful history of stimulating demand rather than 

merely shifting existing traffic. When JetBlue enters a new market, the new capacity generally 

causes fares to decrease and enplanements to rise. As traffic increases, rather than following the 

legacy model of increasing fares, JetBlue instead adds capacity, satisfying demand. This 

historical pattern has been replicated time and time again. 

As depicted in the charts below, JetBlue’s entry in the DCA-BOS market, then a legacycarrier, high fare duopoly served by Delta and US Airways, was followed by a 28% reduction in 

the average one-way fare level from $173 to $125. There has been a corresponding increase in 

the amount of traffic on the route, already one of the nation’s busiest; the number of passengers 

per day has nearly doubled from 761 to 1,444, an increase of almost 90%.

JetBlue’s DCA Entry Increased Traffic and Reduced Fares12

 12 See DOT O&D Survey, as provided by Diio.
7

The procompetitive impact of JetBlue’s entry can be observed even before the new 

service begins. JetBlue recently announced that it will use four of its new slot pairs acquired 

from the American-US Airways divestiture to serve both Bradley International Airport, which 

serves Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts (“BDL”), and Charleston, South 

Carolina (“CHS”) twice daily from DCA. The reaction of American, the monopoly operator of 

the only current service, was immediate and to the significant benefit of consumers. As the 

charts below indicate, advanced purchase fares offered by American immediately dropped 52% 

in the Bradley market and as much as 73% in the Charleston market.

American Lowered Fares Significantly When JetBlue

Entered DCA-BDL and DCA-CHS13

 13 Source: ATPCO GFS System (captured Mar. 17, 2014), lowest fare in each advance purchase 

bucket shown.
8

JetBlue expects a similar result following its entry into the DCA-JAX market. 

American’s adjusted average fare for DCA-JAX as of year-end 3Q 2013 was $185.

14 As a 

result, JetBlue’s low fare stimulation model will serve as a powerful catalyst for lower fares and 

increased enplanements. Accordingly, with the introduction of new low fare competitive 

service, JetBlue expects that average fares will fall by more than 41% and traffic in the DCAJAX market will grow by 134,060 passengers in the first year of service. 

A. The DCA-JAX Market Is Currently Underserved and Underperforming Due 

to American’s Monopoly.

Today in the DCA-JAX market, American operates five daily nonstop flights in each 

direction. Although this may appear to be a sufficient level of service, an analysis of American’s

DCA-JAX commercial strategy demonstrates that the market needs competition. American has 

served the DCA-JAX market for decades. Historically, this service included three daily nonstops 

operated with Airbus 319 (124 seats) and Boeing 737 (144 seats), along with occasional regional 

 14 DOT O&D Survey via Diio. This calculation of American’s average fare, which is explained 

in detail in columns D-F of Exhibit B6-2014-102, excludes zero fared passengers and includes an 

estimate of ancillary fees likely charged and collected by American. While American charges 

$25 for a first checked bag, JetBlue does not charge for a passenger’s first checked bag. While 

American charges a ticket change fee of $200, JetBlue charges $75 to change/cancel any ticket 

more than 60 days prior to departure date and from $75 to $150 to change/cancel a ticket less 

than 60 days prior to departure, depending on the total cost of the original ticket. 
9

aircraft. Since 2008, American had operated four daily nonstops, but with regional jet Embraer 

170 (69-76 seats) and Airbus 319 (124 seats) equipment. American experienced brief interludes 

of competition when Delta flew the route, first during 2003-2004 and then again in 2010-2012, 

all with small 50-seat regional jets.15 Since Delta’s exit from the market in early 2012, turning a 

legacy carrier duopoly into a high fare legacy monopoly route, American has continued 

operating smaller regional aircraft in a market in which daily nonstop capacity has fallen by 

nearly 40%. Today, American only operates regional aircraft on this route, flying Embraer 170 

(69 seats) and 175 aircraft (80 seats). Considering that the Jacksonville metropolitan area is 

home to more than 1.3 million people16 and has a high concentration of government/military 

installations with a natural nexus to the nation’s capital, the level of service and enplanements in 

this market should be much higher.

Nonstop Seats Per Day in the DCA-JAX Market Have Fallen by 39% Since Delta Exited

Service from other airports in the greater Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area is not 

a substitute for service from DCA. Although United Airlines offers 3 daily regional jet nonstops 

 15 For American and Delta aircraft configurations flown on the route, see historical OAG 

schedules, as provided by Diio.

16 U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, 

https://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/ (last visited Mar. 25, 2014).

504

310

YE 3Q11 YE 3Q13

AA DL

DL exits
10

from Dulles International Airport (“IAD”) to JAX, service from IAD is not an adequate 

substitute for DCA for travelers due to its distance (approximately 30 miles) from Washington, 

DC’s city center. Indeed, in its recent complaint against the merger of US Airways and 

American Airlines, the United States Department of Justice concluded that: “Airlines do not 

view service at other airports as adequate substitutes for service offered at Reagan National for 

certain passengers . . . .”17 Moreover, the Department also has concluded that “BWI and IAD are 

not economically interchangeable with DCA.” Order 2012-7-26 at 18 (July 24, 2012). 

B. The Lack of Competition Has Resulted in Higher Than Average Fares and 

Lower Capacity.

When competition existed in the DCA-JAX market, as described above, there were 

nearly 200 more seats available per day. American is presently flying smaller aircraft to babysit 

its mainline, large jet slots and take advantage of this monopoly route to the detriment of the 

traveling public.

18 Although the average DCA-JAX fare just recently returned to levels present 

when Delta competed against American, the fare is still well above the average fare for routes of 

similar distance from DCA with meaningful competition. 

A comparison of fares in the DCA-JAX market to competitive DCA routes of a similar 

distance demonstrates the monopoly premium that American charges on the route. Further, on 

other JetBlue nonstop DCA-Florida markets of similar, and even longer, stage length such as

DCA to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood (“FLL”), Orlando (“MCO”) and Tampa (“TPA”), JetBlue’s 

coach fare structures are significantly lower, in all categories, than incumbent carrier American 

 17 Complaint at ¶ 31,United States v. US Airways Group, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-01236 (D.D.C. 

Aug 13, 2013).

18 Slots at DCA are divided into two categories: “air carrier” slots available to any type of 

aircraft, and “commuter” slots that are restricted to smaller aircraft. Since the Delta-US Airways 

slot swap, American has increasingly used commuter-sized aircraft in its “air carrier” slots, 

greatly reducing capacity and wasting these scarce resources.
11

on the DCA-JAX route, as demonstrated in the chart below. Furthermore, compared to 

American’s pricing model of requiring round-trip travel, JetBlue offers its lowest fares even to 

customers who choose to purchase one-way tickets.

American (AA) JetBlue (B6)

Fare Type 19

DCA-JAX

(634 mi)

% higher 

than 

B6 average

DCA-MCO

(759 mi)

DCA-TPA

(814 mi)

DCA-FLL

(899 mi)

Average

14 day Advance 

Purchase $1791 85% $111 $78 $100 $96 

7 day Advance 

Purchase $3521 148% $124 $135 $166 $142 

0 day Advance 

Purchase $5091 93% $283 $235 $272 $263 

1 Only sold as round-trip

Worse yet, American's filed fares for government travel are up to 60% higher than the 

average fare JetBlue offers for government business on other DCA-Florida routes of longer stage 

lengths. Given the numerous governmental ties between Jacksonville and the nation's capital, 

allowing JetBlue to serve DCA-JAX will not only lower fares for the general public, but also 

reduce taxpayer expense. As further evidence, JetBlue’s entry into the DCA-Florida markets has 

stimulated traffic and reduced average fares. For example, when JetBlue entered the DCA-TPA 

market, fares fell by 19% and traffic grew by 36%.

 19 Source: ATPCO GFS System (captured Mar. 24, 2014). 
12

JetBlue’s Entry Has Reduced Fares and Stimulated Traffic Between DCA and Tampa

III. Granting JetBlue’s Application to Serve DCA-JAX Will Produce the Maximum 

Competitive Benefits.

A. JetBlue’s Proposed DCA-JAX Service Will Generate $14.8 Million 

Annually in Consumer Fare Savings and Stimulate 134,060 New DCAJAX Passengers.

In keeping with its model of introducing high quality, low fare competition on monopoly 

routes, JetBlue proposes an average one-way, nonstop fare of $110, which is approximately 41% 

lower than American’s current average one-way fare of $185.

20

 20 DOT O&D Survey via Diio, trailing four quarter data (captured March 22, 2014).
13

JetBlue’s Projected DCA-JAX Fare

Will Be 41% Less Than American’s Current Fare21

Consistent with JetBlue’s experience in other markets, JetBlue’s traffic model predicts that its

lower fares will stimulate a total of 134,060 new passengers (58,400 on JetBlue and 75,600 on 

American) in the first year of service. As JetBlue has done in many other markets, JetBlue will 

upgauge its equipment to right size its aircraft as demand warrants.

JetBlue’s Proposed DCA-JAX Service Will 

Stimulate Over 134,060 New Enplanements

 21 DOT O&D Survey via Diio, trailing four quarter data as of YE 3Q 2013 (captured March 22, 

2014). Average fare excludes zero fare passengers, taxes, and governmental fees, and includes an 

estimate of baggage and rebooking/change fees.

58,400 

75,660 

New Passengers in DCA 1 -JAX

AA pax

B6 pax

Total: 134,060
14

The introduction of low fare competition in the DCA-JAX market will result in significant 

consumer benefit, an estimated $14.8 million annually in consumer fare savings.

JetBlue’s DCA-JAX Service Will Generate

$14.8 Million Annually in Consumer Fare Savings22

As the MIT Study demonstrated, no other air carrier presently has the ability to lower fares like 

JetBlue. 

B. JetBlue Is Dedicated to Competing Against American, Still DCA’s 

Dominant Carrier

Despite a decade’s worth of failed attempts to enter the artificially-constrained DCA 

market, JetBlue’s presence today reflects its willingness to persevere and compete head-to-head 

with the dominant carrier at DCA and with other carriers such as Southwest. JetBlue began its 

DCA operations in November 2010, when it obtained a limited number of slots through a 

commercial transaction with American (prior to the US Airways merger). JetBlue later 

expanded that service by spending more than $40 million to acquire 8 slot pairs in a Departmentmandated and supervised auction ordered in connection with the US Airways-Delta Air Lines 

 22 JetBlue calculated consumer fare savings in accordance with the consumer surplus method 

outlined by the FAA in “FAA Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance,” Office of Aviation 

Policy and Planning, Federal Aviation Administration (Dec. 15, 1999).

$10.0

$4.8

$14.8

Savings to Existing

Passengers

Savings to New

Passengers

Total Passenger

Savings
15

“slot swap.”23 JetBlue’s winning bid of more than $40 million was nearly 24% more than the 

next highest bidder, demonstrating JetBlue’s commitment to grow its low fare, award-winning 

service at DCA.24 Since then, JetBlue has expanded service at DCA modestly until recently,

when it entered into an agreement to obtain 12 new slot pairs from American as a result of the 

divestiture ordered in connection with American’s merger with US Airways. 

As JetBlue has made significant capital investments to grow its presence at DCA, JetBlue 

has used its DCA slot portfolio to introduce meaningful competition, especially against DCA’s 

dominant legacy carrier, American, rather than fly to markets that that have no competition. 

JetBlue recently announced that it planned to use 6 of its 12 new forthcoming slot pairs to 

compete head-to-head with American in the DCA-CHS and DCA-BDL markets, serving both 

twice daily; to backfill service to Nassau, Bahamas25 that American canceled; and to meet 

growing market demand by adding a second daily flight to Tampa, Florida. 26 

As a result of this newly-announced service, by mid-2014 JetBlue will offer 24 daily 

roundtrip flights from DCA to the following eight cities: Boston, Charleston, Hartford, Fort 

Lauderdale/Hollywood, Nassau, Orlando, and Tampa, as well as the only nonstop service to San 

Juan, Puerto Rico. The charts below show JetBlue’s growing presence at DCA before and after 

it obtained the 12 new slot pairs as a result of the divestiture from American.

 23 See Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at 

LaGuardia Airport, 76 Fed. Reg. 63,702 (Oct. 13, 2011).

24 Federal Aviation Administration, Slot Reallocation Final Bid Information with Bidder ID 

Assignments for DCA Bundle (Nov. 22, 2011), 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/ReAllocation/DCABids/ (last 

visited Mar. 25, 2014).

25 Subject to receipt of government operating authority. 26 Press Release, JetBlue Airways Corp., JetBlue Adds Three Nonstop Destinations for 

Customers at Ronald Reagan Washington Nat’l Airport, Offers Introductory One-Way Fares as 

Low as $30 (Mar. 6, 2014), available at

http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131045&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1906649&highlight=.
16

JetBlue DCA Service Prior to June 2014 JetBlue DCA Service Beginning in June 2014

The proposed service to JAX27 is a continuation of JetBlue’s carefully planned growth strategy 

that will specifically address a market sorely in need of low fare competition.

C. JetBlue’s Entry and Expanding Service Has Benefited DCA Travelers.

JetBlue’s entry and expansion at DCA has significantly benefited DCA consumers. 

Indeed, in announcing the settlement of the US Airways-American merger litigation, William 

Baer, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, expressly referred to the procompetitive 

impact of JetBlue’s entry at DCA: “A few years ago, when JetBlue started service from Reagan 

National, prices to Boston dropped 30 percent and consumers saved $50 million per year.”28 

The Department has similarly recognized the benefits:

JetBlue recently began operations at DCA via a lease of slots from American and 

one pair of allocated slots from FAA, in 2010, and plans to expand its operations 

 27 In addition to another 6 daily frequencies from DCA to markets yet to be announced.

28 Press Release, Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer at 

Conference Call Regarding the Justice Department’s Proposed Settlement with US Airways and 

American Airlines (Nov. 12, 2013), available at

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2013/301626.htm.

DCA

BOS (10)

TPA (1)

FLL (3)

MCO (3)

SJU (1)

DCA

MCO (3) TPA (2)

FLL (3) NAS (1)

SJU (1)

BDL (2) BOS (10)

JAX

CHS (2)
17

in June, utilizing the slots it purchased from Delta in 2011. Although its time in 

DCA has been short and its scope of nonstop services is limited, initial data 

indicate that JetBlue, an established low-fare carrier, has generated positive 

competitive discipline in the DCA markets it serves, as it has rapidly gained 

passenger share, while at the same time recording average fares below the 

respective incumbent carriers.29

 

Similarly, JetBlue’s entry into DCA-MCO and DCA-FLL also has led to increases in traffic on 

the routes. As depicted below, traffic has increased by 70% on the DCA-MCO route and 8% on 

the DCA-FLL route.

JetBlue’s Entry Has Stimulated Traffic Between DCA and Florida30

Low fare new entry, especially on monopoly routes held by legacy carriers, is unquestionably 

beneficial to the travelling public and precisely what the Department should be, as Congress 

directed, focusing on with scarce resources such as AIR-21 slots. As the Department has 

 29 Order 2012-5-12 at 19-20 (May 14, 2012) (awarding JetBlue beyond-perimeter slot 

exemptions to serve San Juan).

30 See DOT O&D Survey via Diio, YE 3Q 2013 data.
18

recognized, the addition of “competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly nonstop route 

to DCA . . . would be expected to have an immediate competitive impact on fares in that market 

. . . .”31 JetBlue seeks to expand at DCA with its proposed Jacksonville service.32 As the MIT 

Study explained, no other air carrier lowers air fares to the degree JetBlue does, nor can any 

other carrier provide the benefits to the traveling public as documented with JetBlue service.

IV. Jacksonville Is a Growing, Diversified Metropolitan Area Requiring More 

Frequent and Affordable Service to DCA.

Jacksonville, with a metropolitan population of over 1,377,000 people,33 is a growing 

and thriving market with a diversified economy. With a steadily increasing population, 

Jacksonville is a major intermodal transportation hub. Jacksonville has a thriving port for both 

domestic and international shipping and the cruise ship industry. Many major colleges and 

universities, including the University of Florida, Florida State University, Florida A & M and 

Bethune-Cookman University, which serve more than 230,000 students, fall within 

Jacksonville’s catchment area. These institutions include research universities with government 

grants requiring interface with federal agencies. Jacksonville is also a major East Coast center of 

military operations, including the Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Mayport Naval Base, Kings 

Bay Submarine Base and the Florida National Guard Headquarters, as well as other military 

 31 DOT Order 2010-12-16 at 11 (Dec. 10, 2010). 32 See Notice on Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order Limiting Scheduled Operations at 

LaGuardia Airport, 75 Fed. Reg. 26,322, 26,330 (May 11, 2010) (“DOT believes that, as a 

general rule, in the aviation industry more competitive pressure and pricing discipline can be 

exerted by low-cost carriers than by incumbent legacy carriers. This view is supported by the 

Department of Justice, as well as in the academic literature cited in the Notice and by DOJ in its 

Appendix A. . . . As stated in the Notice, studies indicate that entry by low-cost carriers 

dramatically lowers fares and increases the volume of passengers in a market . . . . ”) (citing 

Comments of the United States Department of Justice, FAA Docket No. 2010-0109 (Mar. 24, 

2010), at 4 & the studies cited therein).

33 U.S. Census Bureau, Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas, 

https://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/ (last visited Mar. 25, 2014).
19

installations. These multifaceted connections between the Jacksonville area and the federal 

government require travel between the region and the preferred airport in the nation’s capital, 

DCA, and the U.S. tax payer deserves to see the documented benefit of lower fares that comes 

with JetBlue service.

Jacksonville is also a regional medical hub, a center for financial and professional 

services, and a tourist destination. Golf is major attraction in the Jacksonville area, and the city 

is home to the Professional Golfers Association (“PGA”) Tour Headquarters. Based on this 

diversified economy, Jacksonville enjoys a higher median household income and a lower 

unemployment rate than the rest of the state of Florida. Traffic at the Jacksonville International 

Airport is very stable with minimal seasonality. All of these attributes suggest a strong need for 

additional service to DCA, yet quite the opposite has happened as American has consistently 

downsized and decreased capacity since Delta’s exit from the market.

V. JetBlue’s Application Satisfies the Statutory Criteria of 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b) 

That the Department Must Consider in Exemption Proceedings.

In 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b), Congress established statutory criteria to direct the 

Department’s decision in slot exemption proceedings. The Notice provided the following 

statement of those five criteria: 

the Secretary [shall] distribute within-perimeter slot exemptions in a manner that 

promotes air transportation: (1) by new entrant air carriers and limited incumbent 

air carriers; (2) to communities without existing nonstop air transportation to 

DCA; (3) to small communities; (4) that will provide competitive nonstop air 

transportation on a monopoly nonstop route to DCA; or (5) that will produce the 

maximum competitive benefits, including low fares.
20

Notice at 2. JetBlue’s proposed DCA-JAX service satisfies the fourth and, most importantly, the

fifth of these criteria in a manner that provides maximum public benefits.

34 Indeed, the Notice 

contemplates that the Department may premise an award of slot exemptions on the satisfaction of 

less than the greatest number of criteria, or even one of the criteria, based on the Department’s 

analysis of the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal.35 

A. JetBlue Will Provide Competitive Nonstop Air Transportation on a Monopoly 

Nonstop Route.

As discussed at length in Section II, the grant of JetBlue’s application will introduce 

competition on a significant route where American has a monopoly. In Department proceedings, 

the introduction of competition in a monopoly market has been a primary justification for the 

award of slot exemptions.36

B. JetBlue Will Maximize Competitive Benefits and Low Fares.

As discussed in Section III, JetBlue’s proposed DCA-JAX service will have significant 

competitive benefits. The Department has explained that “maximum competitive benefits, 

including low fares” means to exert downward pressure on fares.37 JetBlue forecasts that fares 

will be reduced by 41% and traffic will be stimulated by 93%. As the Department stated in its 

most recent slot exemption order, Order 2013-5-6, the most significant criterion in awarding 

those slots was the promotion of maximum competitive benefits, including low fares. The 

American monopoly service inflicts a significant cost on the traveling public in the form of 

higher fares and reduced service. This harm can only be remedied by facilitating more 

 34 As discussed in footnote 4, supra, JetBlue technically satisfies the first criterion that the 

Department consider awarding the slot exemptions to a limited incumbent air carrier. JetBlue’s 

slot portfolio at DCA does not presently exceed 40 slots and will not do so until June of 2014. 35 Notice at 2.

36 See, e.g., Order 2000-7-2 at 20 (Jul. 5, 2000) (awarding slot exemptions to Spirit to facilitate 

its proposal to provide “competitive nonstop air transportation on DCA monopoly nonstop routes 

by offering low-fare service to compete with US Airways’ monopoly”).

37 Order 2008-12-22 at 4 (2008).
21

competition, which the Department has the opportunity to do in this proceeding by selecting 

JetBlue.

C. The Criteria JetBlue Does Not Satisfy Are of Secondary Importance Given the 

Benefits of JetBlue’s Proposed DCA-JAX Service.

Criterion 2 (service to communities without DCA service) is mutually exclusive with 

criterion 4 (introducing competition on a monopoly route). Given the potential size of the DCAJAX market, where JetBlue proposes to introduce initial service with a 100-seat aircraft and 

upgauge as demand warrants, the public benefit will be maximized by introducing more 

capacity, more choice, and more service at a lower cost. Although JetBlue does not propose to 

serve a small community, that factor is outweighed by the fact that JetBlue will introduce 

competition on a route where a significant number of travelers will benefit.

VI. Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, JetBlue respectfully requests that the Department grant its 

application for two slot exemptions to facilitate its new competitive service between DCA and 

JAX.

Dated: March 25, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

Robert C. Land

Senior Vice President for Government Affairs

And Associate General Counsel
EXHIBIT B6-2014-101

LIST OF JETBLUE AWARDS

Year Award Source

2014 Airline Technology Leader of the Year Air Transport World

2013 International Airline Award – Best Service Jamaica Hotel & Tourist Association

2013 Most Innovative Users of Business 

Technology

Information Week

2013 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

JD Power and Associates

2013 Best Terminal Experience / Friendliest 

Terminal / Best Terminal for Cleanliness and 

Condition / Best Concessions – JFK T5

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 

Customer Care Awards

2012 Best Places to Work Glassdoor

2012 Best Domestic Airline Porthole Cruise Magazine award

2012 Best Innovative Consumer Experience 

Concept or Practice - Live From T5 Concert 

Series

Airports Council International-North America 

(ACI-NA)

2012 Ten Best Travel Apps of 2012 SmarterTravel

2012 The new jetblue.com – Best in Class, Gold 

Aware

W3 Awards, The Interactive Media Awards

2012 Best of the Web Mobile Leaders Compuware

2012 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

JD Power and Associates

2011 Best Airline Logo TV’s NewNowNext Travel Awards

2011 Best Airline Website Booking Experience U.S. Air Travelers’ Choice Award

2011 Best U.S. Budget Airline About.com

2011 Excellent Web Service 2010 Compuware Gomez Web & Mobile Performance 

Awards

2011 Best Value Airline (Domestic), Most 

Customer Friendly Airline, and Best Coach 

Class Experience

Travel 2011 Editor's Choice Awards

2011 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

JD Power and Associates

2010 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

JD Power and Associates
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 2 of 7

Year Award Source

2010 Spot on list of Top Technology Innovators 

Across America

Information Week 500

2010 Top Rated Large Domestic Airline' for 

Economy and 'Best In-flight Entertainment' 

for Domestic Flights 

Zagat Airline Survey

2010 Best Cabin Ambiance Passenger Choice Awards, Airline Passenger 

Experience Association (APEX)

2010 #1 Airline Brand 2010 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2010 CIO 100 Award Honoree CIO Magazine

2010 Best Concessions Program Design (T5/JFK) ARN's Best Airport and Concessionaires Awards

2010 Most Unique Services (T5/JFK) ARN's Best Airport and Concessionaires Awards

2010 Best Overall Concessions Program (T5/JFK) ARN's Best Airport and Concessionaires Awards

2010 Best Concessions Management Team 

(T5/JFK)

ARN's Best Airport and Concessionaires Awards

2010 Best Coach-Class Experience SmarterTravel Editors' Choice Awards

2010 Most Customer-Friendly Airline SmarterTravel Editors' Choice Awards

2010 Most Pet-Friendly Airline for Carry-on Pets SmarterTravel Editors' Choice Awards

2009 Best Airline Brand 2009 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2009 Best Environmental Campaign - Jetting to 

Green

Cause Marketing Forum

2009 Best Rated Large Domestic Airline in the 

Economy Category

Zagat Airline Survey

2009 #1 Airline Brand 2009 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2009 Richard A. Griesbach Award of Excellence 

Winner

ACI-NA 2009 Airport Concessions

2009 #1 U.S. Routes/Single-Class Service Airline Condé Nast Traveler 

2009 Top-Rated Large Domestic Airline - Economy 

Seating

Zagat Airline Survey

2009 Best In-Flight Entertainment - Domestic Zagat Airline Survey

2009 5th Annual Extra Miles Awards Budget Travel Magazine

2009 CIO 100 Award Honoree CIO Magazine

2009 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

J.D. Power and Associates

2009 AIGA Corporate Leadership Award AIGA - The Professional Association for Design

2008 Best Large U.S. Economy Class Zagat Airline Survey

2008 Best Inflight Entertainment Zagat Airline Survey

2008 Most Eco-Friendly Zagat Airline Survey

2008 Silver Halo- Best Environmental Campaign -

Jetting to Green

Cause Marketing Forum

2008 Best In-Seat Comfort SmarterTravel Readers' Choice Awards
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 3 of 7

Year Award Source

2008 Best Onboard Entertainment, Domestic 

Airline

SmarterTravel 2008 Readers' Choice Awards

2008 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

J.D. Power and Associates

2007 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Awards 

2007 Top Low Cost Airline for Customer 

Satisfaction

J.D. Power and Associates

2007 Best North American Low Cost Airline Skytrax World Airline Awards

2007 World's Most Reliable A320 Fleet Airbus Operational Excellence Awards

2007 #1 Airline Brand 2007 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2007 Best Low Cost/No Frills Airline OAG, 2007 Airline of the Year Awards

2007 Leading Provider of Domestic Airfare Deals Travelzoo Awards

2007 Best U.S. Airline Airline Quality Ranking Survey

2007 #2 rated airline University of Nebraska at Omaha Aviation 

Institute and W. Frank Barton School of 

Business at Wichita State University

2007 Best Domestic Airline for Value Travel + Leisure, World's Best Values Awards

2007 Most Admired Companies Fortune magazine, #3 rated airline

2007 Best Airline for Customer Satisfaction Market Metrix

2006 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler, Readers' Choice Awards

2006 Extra Mile Award (shut-eye/snack bar 

services)

Frommer's Budget Travel

2006 Top U.S. Airline for Consumer Demand Kanbay Research Institute 2006 Travel Demand 

Today Report

2006 Best Domestic Airline Travel + Leisure World's Best Values Awards

2006 Best Domestic Airline for Value Travel + Leisure, 2006 World's Best Values 

Awards

2006 #1 Airline Brand 2006 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2006 Highest Low-Cost Carrier Customer 

Satisfaction

J.D. Power and Associates

2006 Best U.S. Airline Airline Quality Ranking Survey, University of 

Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute and W. 

Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita 

State University

2006 Best Low Cost/No Frills Airline OAG Airline of the Year Awards

2006 Best Airline Value Entrepreneur Magazine

2006 Passenger Service Award Air Transport World Magazine

2005 Best Value for Cost Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2005 Best Low-Cost Carrier Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2005 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Awards

2005 Best Airline for Economy Class Global Traveler magazine
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 4 of 7

Year Award Source

2005 Best Low-Cost Carrier Global Traveler magazine

2005 #1 Airline Brand 2005 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2005 #2 Domestic Airline Zagat Airline Survey

2005 Great Gay Marketing Award Out & About Travel Magazine Travel Awards

2005 #10 Top Performing Medium Airline Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine 

Top-Performing Companies

2005 #17 Most Improved Medium Airline Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine, 

2005 Top-Performing Companies

2005 #47 & 48 Reasons to Love Your Country GQ Magazine, "62 Reasons to Love Your 

Country"

2005 Silver Award (JetBlue's Self-Service CheckIn Kiosk)Business Week Magazine, 2005 Annual Design 

Awards

2005 #25 JetBlue/Sky's The Limit Wired Magazine, The Wired 40 "masters of 

technology and innovation"

2005 Best Branding The Association of Travel Marketing Executives 

(ATME), 2005 Atlas Awards

2005 World's Best Low-Cost Airline Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2005 #2 Airline in North America Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2005 Top-Hospitality Airline Market Metrix Hospitality Index

2005 Best Airline Quality The Wall Street Journal Airline Quality Survey

2005 Best Airline Service The Associated Press, 2005 Annual Survey

2005 Corporate Community Partnership Award American Red Cross

2005 Best U.S. Airline Customer Satisfaction J.D. Power and Associates

2005 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association

2005 Best Value for Cost Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2005 Great Gay Marketing Award Out & About Travel Magazine Travel Awards

2005 #10 Top Performing Medium Airline Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine 

Top-Performing Companies

2005 #17 Most Improved Medium Airline Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine 

Top-Performing Companies

2005 Silver Award (JetBlue's Self-Service CheckIn Kiosk) Business Week Magazine Annual Design 

Awards

2005 JetBlue/Sky's The Limit Wired Magazine, The 40 "masters of technology 

and innovation"

2005 Best Branding The Association of Travel Marketing Executives 

(ATME) Atlas Awards

2005 World's Best Low-Cost Airline Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2005 #2 Airline in North America Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2005 Top-Hospitality Airline Market Metrix Hospitality Index

2005 Best Airline Quality The Wall Street Journal Airline Quality Survey

2005 Best Airline Service The Associated Press Annual Survey

2005 Corporate Community Partnership Award American Red Cross
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 5 of 7

Year Award Source

2005 Best U.S. Airline Airline Quality Ranking Survey, University of 

Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute and W. 

Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita 

State University

2005 Best U.S. Airline Customer Satisfaction J.D. Power and Associates Reports, 2005 Airline 

Satisfaction Index Study

2005 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association

2004 #1 Airline Brand 2004 Brand Keys Customer Loyalty 

Engagement Index

2004 Best U.S. Service Business 2.0, 2004 Omaha Aviation Institute's 

Quality Ranking Survey

2004 Best Corporate Service USTA/Eastern Corporate Service

2004 Best U.S. Airline Airline Quality Ranking Survey, University of 

Nebraska at Omaha Aviation Institute and W. 

Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita 

State University

2004 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler, 2004 Readers' Choice 

Awards

2004 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2004 Best Value for Cost Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2004 #2 Domestic Airline Travel & Leisure World's Best Awards

2004 #2 Domestic Airline Service Travel & Leisure World's Best Service Readers' 

Poll Awards

2004 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association, 

5-Star Award

2004 North America's Leading Budget Airline 11th Annual World Travel Awards

2004 Top 5 Domestic Airline Departures Readers' Favorite Survey

2004 Best Low Cost Carrier in the World Global Traveler Magazine

2004 Best Low Cost Carrier (Second Place) Executive Travel Magazine

2004 Best in Executive Travel Executive Travel Magazine

2004 Airline Excellence Award, North America Skytrax, 2004 Airline of the Year Survey

2004 Best Low Cost Airline Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2004 Best Cabin Staff, North America Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2004 Best Airline New York Press, Best of Manhattan Readers' 

Poll

2004 Favorite U.S. Airline Salon.com, Readers' Choice

2004 Most Wanted List Gotham

2004 Best Company in North America Global Finance Magazine

2004 Best CFO (John Owen) Institutional Investor Magazine

2004 Airline Customer Loyalty Award Brandweek

2004 Corporate Service Award United States Tennis Association, Eastern 

Corporate Service Award

2003 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler, 2003 Readers' Choice 

Awards
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 6 of 7

Year Award Source

2003 Best Value for Cost Condé Nast Traveler, 2003 Readers' Choice 

Awards

2003 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association, 

Five-Star Award

2003 #1 Airline Brand Brand Keys Customer Loyalty Engagement 

Index

2003 #2 Domestic Airline Travel & Leisure World's Best Awards

2003 Top 5 Domestic Airline Departures, Readers' Favorite Survey

2003 #3 World's Best Low Cost Airline (Best U.S. 

Low Cost Airline)

Business Traveler World's Best Airlines Awards

2003 Best Budget Airline 10th Annual World Travel Awards

2003 Best US Airline (Non-Major) Business Travel News Airline Survey

2003 Best Low Cost Airline Entrepreneur Magazine

2003 Best Low Cost Airline Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2003 Best Cabin Staff, North America Skytrax Airline of the Year Survey

2003 Airline of the Year Airfinance Journal Deal of the Year

2003 North American Corporate Finance Deal of 

the Year

Airfinance Journal Deal of the Year

2003 Airline Customer Loyalty Award Brandweek

2003 IPO of the Year Corporate Finance Magazine

2003 Marketing Award Airline Business Strategy Award

2003 Editors' Choice Travel-Holiday

2003 Outstanding Inflight Entertainment Onboard Services Onboard Services Awards

2003 Outstanding Safety Video Onboard Services Onboard Services Awards

2002 Best Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler, 2002 Readers' Choice 

Awards

2002 Best Domestic Airline, coach Condé Nast Traveler, 2002 Readers' Choice 

Awards

2002 Best Domestic Airline, Value For Cost Condé Nast Traveler, 2002 Readers' Choice 

Awards

2002 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association, 

Five-Star Award

2002 #2 Domestic Airline Travel and Leisure, 2002 World's Best Awards

2002 Best Low-Cost Carrier (Runner-Up) Business Traveler Best in Business Travel 

Awards

2002 "It" Airline Entertainment Weekly It List

2002 Editor's Choice Worth

2002 Marketer of the Year Advertising Age

2002 #4 Brand of the Year brandchannel.com, 2002 Readers' Choice

2002 Finance Award Airline Business Airline Strategy Awards

2002 Market Development Award Air Transport World Industry Achievement 

Awards

2002 Best Overall Airline Onboard Services Onboard Service Awards
Exhibit B6-2014-101

Page 7 of 7

Year Award Source

2002 Best Inflight or Onboard Service Onboard Services Onboard Service Awards

2002 Best Onboard Entertainment Onboard Services Onboard Service Awards

2002 Best Uniforms (2nd Place) Onboard Services, 2002 Onboard Service 

Awards

2001 Best Domestic Airline, Coach Condé Nast Traveler Business Travel Awards

2001 Best Domestic Airline North American Travel Journalists Association, 

Five-Star Award

2001 #2 Domestic Airline Condé Nast Traveler Reader's Choice Awards

2001 #2 Domestic Airline Zagat Airline Survey

2001 Best New Airline Money

2001 Favorite U.S. Airline Orange County Register/Knight Ridder

2001 Seal of Approval Diversion

2001 "A" Rating Planetfeedback

2001 #2 Airline Epinions.com

2000 "It" Airline Vanity Fair It List
EXHIBIT B6-2014-102

Fare Stimulation Calculations

(A) Nonstop miles 

(B) Total fared passengers as of YE 3Q 2013 (DOT O&D Survey via Diio), excludes 4.3% of passengers on zero fare tickets

(C) Conservative estimate of market revenue stimulation based on JetBlue's track record

(D) Total DCA-JAX revenue as of YE 3Q 2013 (DOT O&D Survey via Diio) / (B)

(E) 9.1% estimate of ancillary baggage and cancellation fees (DOT Form 41 via Diio) * (D)

(F) (D) + (E)

(G) Projected JetBlue average fare in year 1 based on comparable DCA markets, includes 4.4% ancillary fee estimate (DOT Form 41 via Diio

(H) (G) - (F)

(I) (H) / (F)

(J) (B) * (F) * (1+ (C))

(K) (J) - (B)

(L) (B) * [(F) - Me], where Me is the new equilibrium price of $113, assuming AA matches B6 fare, weighted by expected market share, plus 

ancillary fee estimate (DOT Form 41 via Diio)

(M) (K) * [(F) - Me] * 0.5, follows method outlined by the FAA in "FAA Airport Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance", Office of Aviation Policy 

and Planning, FAA, Dec. 15, 1999

(N) (L) + (M)

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N)

Fare Change

Market Miles Passengers Before 

Stimulation

Predicted Service 

Stimulation (revenue) Base Fare Fees Total Projected B6 Fare

Absolute %

Pax After 

Stimulation New Pax Existing Pax

New

Pax

Total 

Consumer 

Surplus

DCA-JAX 634 140,419 20% $169.28 $15.40 $184.68 $110 ($75) (41%) 274,479 134,060 $10.0M $4.8M $14.8M

Fare Stimulation

Average Fare Before B6 Consumer Surplus
EXHIBIT B6-2014-103

MIT International Center for Air Transportation White Paper
EVOLVING TRENDS OF U.S. DOMESTIC AIRFARES: 

THE IMPACTS OF COMPETITION, CONSOLIDATION, 

AND LOW-COST CARRIERS

Michael D. Wittman and William S. Swelbar

MIT International Center for Air Transportation

MIT Small Community Air Service White Paper No. 3

Report No. ICAT-2013-07

August 2013

MIT International Center for Air Transportation (ICAT)

Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 2

Introduction to paper series

This report, Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares: The Impacts of Competition, Consolidation, and 

Low-Cost Carriers, is the third in a series of papers written under the umbrella of the MIT Small 

Community Air Service White Paper series. The aim of the paper series is to examine and analyze the 

past, current, and anticipated future trends of small community air service in the United States. The 

series is intended for a general audience of airline and airport executives, aviation policy makers, the 

news media, and anyone with an interest in the evolution of commercial air service at the nation’s 

smaller airports. The authors of this paper series hope that these reports will serve to inform the policy 

debate with relevant and accurate statistical analysis, such that those responsible for deciding the future 

of small community air service will do so armed with factual basis for their actions.

The authors of the MIT Small Community Air Service White Paper series are members of the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s International Center for Air Transportation, one of the nation’s 

premier centers for aviation, airline, and airport research. Financial support for study authors has been 

provided in part by the MIT Airline Industry Consortium, an interdisciplinary group of airlines, airport 

councils, manufacturers, suppliers, policy makers, and advocacy groups dedicated to improving the state 

of the practice of air transportation research in the United States. However, any views or analyses 

presented in this and all future reports are the sole opinions of the authors and do not reflect the 

positions of MIT Airline Industry Consortium members or MIT.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Peter Belobaba and the members of the MIT Airline Industry Consortium for 

their helpful comments and suggestions during the completion of this study.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 3

Executive Summary

Economic theory suggests that prices of goods and services may rise as a result of “supply shocks” such 

as increases in net input prices. In the U.S., the airline industry has met with a number of such “shocks” 

since 2007, from high and volatile fuel prices (which increased by 57% from 2007-2012, according to the 

MIT Airline Data Project) to a global economic downturn. Additionally, airlines have pursued

conservative capacity strategies in recent years in an attempt to regain profitability, putting further 

upward pressure on prices. In all, these supply shocks and disciplined capacity management resulted in a 

14.3% reduction in scheduled domestic flights in the U.S. from 2007-2012. Theoretically, we would 

expect airfares to also increase over the same period, adjusting for inflation. The purpose of this paper is 

to investigate whether average airfares have indeed increased at U.S. airports over the last six years. 

Through an analysis of ticket data, we find that average one-way airfares at the 29 largest airports in the 

U.S. increased by 8.7% on average from 2007-2012, adjusting for inflation. Average inflation-adjusted 

one-way airfares at 35 mid-sized airports increased by 11.9% on average over the same period. Some 

airports saw increases in airfares of over 20%, while others saw net decreases in average fares. As 

economic theory would suggest, airports that gained many new flights over the study period were more 

likely to see their average fares fall. For instance, at San Francisco International Airport (SFO)—where 

domestic departures increased by 20.9% from 2007-2012—fares decreased by 4% over the same period.

We also investigate how airfares changed in regions with multiple airports. In our earlier report on 

domestic capacity1, we found that airlines were consolidating service at larger airports in multi-airport 

regions while restricting capacity at the smaller airports in those regions. Similarly, in many multi-airport 

regions, we find that average fares at smaller airports increased by a greater percentage than fares at 

the larger airports in those regions. This behavior is likely explained in part by recent capacity reduction

decisions by Southwest Airlines, which has a significant presence at many secondary airports, as well as 

network carriers cutting redundant flying to secondary hubs.

Finally, we examine the effect of the presence of low-cost carriers on average fares at 445 U.S. airports. 

Much research has been done on the famous “Southwest effect,” which suggests that passenger traffic 

increases and fares decrease once Southwest Airlines enters a market. Previous research has shown that 

entry by Southwest (or even the threat of entry) has the potential to decrease fares in both directlycompeting and adjacent markets.2

However, recent work3has suggested that the Southwest effect has started to weaken, and no longer 

provides the same degree of downward pressure on fares in city-pair markets in which mergers of other 

 

1 Wittman and Swelbar (2013) “Trends and Market Forces Shaping Small Community Air Service in the U.S.”

2 cf. Morrison, S.J. 2001. Actual, adjacent, and potential competition: Estimating the full effect of Southwest 

Airlines. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 35(2).239-256; Vowles, T.M. 2001. The “Southwest 

Effect” in Multi-Airport Regions. Journal of Air Transport Management 7(4). 251-258; Goolsbee, A. and C. 

Syverson. 2008. How Do Incumbents Respond to the Threat of Entry? Evidence from the Major Airlines. 

Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(4). 1611-1633; and others.

3 bin Salam, S. and B.S. McMullen. 2013. Is There Still a Southwest Effect? Transportation Research Record: 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2025. 1-8.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 4

carriers have occurred. Similarly, we find that while a Southwest effect on average fares still exists at 

U.S. airports, it has diminished over time. The presence of Southwest Airlines at an airport in 2007 was 

associated with a decrease in the airport’s average one-way fare of about $36, controlling for average 

itinerary distance and other low-cost carrier competition; in 2012, that effect had decreased to $17.

Average one-way fares at Southwest have increased by about 25% over the same period, weighted by 

passenger itineraries and adjusting for inflation.

Figure ES-1: Effect of LCC/ULCC presence on an airport’s inflation-adjusted average one-way fare

The effects of other low-cost and ultra-low-cost carriers on average airfares at U.S. airports now exceed

the Southwest effect. In 2012, the presence of JetBlue Airways, another low-cost carrier, was associated 

with a decrease of about $32 in average one-way fare, controlling for average itinerary distance and 

other low-cost carrier competition. In the same year, Allegiant Air service was associated with an

average one-way fare decrease of about $29, and Spirit Airlines service was associated with a decrease 

of about $22. However, it is important to note that these latter carriers often charge ancillary fees in 

addition to the base airfare, so a comparison of changes in base airfares alone does not fully capture 

differences in total travel price.

In summary, we find that average one-way airfares at most U.S. airports have increased from 2007-

2012, adjusting for inflation. As with capacity discipline, medium-hub airports have been the hardest hit 

by increases in fares as airlines removed service and connectivity from those airports. With increasing

prices and lower levels of connectivity than nearby larger airports, these smaller airports face 

considerable challenges in convincing passengers and airlines alike to select them over their larger 

competitors. However, if these airports can attract low-cost carriers like JetBlue Airways, average fares 

are likely to drop and passengers can experience an increase in both connectivity and affordability. As 

managers of smaller airports have realized, attracting additional service from these carriers is a top 

priority if these airports wish to be competitive in a U.S. airline industry landscape marked by 

widespread consolidation.

-$40

-$35

-$30

-$25

-$20

-$15

-$10

-$5

$0

Southwest JetBlue Allegiant Spirit

Effect of Airline Presence on 

Average One-Way Fares

2007

2012
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 5

Introduction

Starting in 2008, the U.S. air transportation market experienced a series of supply and demand shocks. 

First, high and volatile fuel prices raised the operating costs of most U.S. carriers. At the same time, an 

economic recession took hold in the United States, reducing the demand for air travel. The effect of 

each of these events on airfares is unclear; since a supply shock can cause prices to rise and a demand 

shock can cause prices to fall, further investigation is necessary to see which effect outweighs the other 

when both occur simultaneously. However, we can be sure that capacity will be reduced in such a 

scenario; indeed, scheduled domestic flights fell by 14.3% from 2007-2012.

In 2012 and 2013, the U.S. economy started to recover. With the country no longer in recession, 

demand for goods and services, including air transportation, began to increase. Yet even as demand for 

air transportation rose, U.S. airlines kept capacity conservatively low in a strategy that has been called 

“capacity discipline.” That is, even though demand for air transportation is returning to its normal level, 

airlines have kept the supply of available seats from growing quickly. Due to these capacity restrictions, 

we would generally expect to see higher airfares, adjusting for inflation, in 2012 than in 2007. 

This paper investigates trends in average airfares at U.S. airports from 2007-2012. We examine airfares 

for domestic service at various individual airports and airport types, along with trends in airfares at 

various airlines. Since there is a relationship between average fare and the length of a given flight, we 

also examine changes in average passenger itinerary distance at each of 445 U.S. airports. A detailed 

summary of average fares and passenger itinerary distances for these airports are given in appendices.

While an analysis of average airport fares is a relatively straightforward method for comparing changes 

over time in the passenger costs of air travel in the United States, it is important to understand some of 

the limitations to this approach. First, the average fares in this report reflect prices across a variety of 

markets for all types of tickets, including first-class and business-class seats. These premium seats which 

are sold at higher prices are not removed from the average fare calculations. Additionally, average fares 

for travel from an airport include hundreds of different itineraries with varying distances and other 

characteristics. For instance, we would expect routes with heavy business traffic to have higher average 

fares than routes with heavy leisure traffic due to differences in passenger mix. These nuances are 

somewhat obscured when examining average fares alone.

Virtually all airlines sell seats on a given flight at a variety of different prices. Average fare data does not 

provide information about the distribution of prices on a given flight and may mask some of these 

trends. Therefore, average fares shown in this report should not be used by passengers to form 

expectations of how much they should expect to pay for a given flight; prices vary based on seasonality, 

time-of-day, the number of days before the flight that the ticket is purchased, and many other factors. 

Finally, the average fare data given here includes only the base fare and does not include ancillary fees 

for baggage or other services. Many carriers have started to rely on ancillary fees as a significant portion 

of their operating revenues, and the impact of these fees on passenger travel costs should not be 

ignored. However, collected data on ancillary fees is scarce and incomplete; due to these limitations, we 

examine only average base fares in this report.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 6

Data and Methodology

As with most studies of airfares in the United States, this report uses data from the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT)’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The BTS’ DB1B ticket sample provides a 

10% sample of domestic passenger itineraries that were purchased in the relevant time period.4

Information is provided about the marketing and operating carrier, the number of coupons (individual 

flight legs) in each itinerary, the origin and destination of the itinerary, whether the itinerary was nonstop or one-way, and the fare paid for the itinerary, among many other characteristics.

The BTS itself tracks airfares closely and regularly releases reports of average airfares at a variety of U.S. 

airports. These reports are often used in the media to rank the “most-expensive” airports in the United 

States. The BTS also releases information about airfares for the 1,000 most popular air travel routes in 

the United States in their “Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report” publications.

5

Fares in the Domestic 

Airline Fares Consumer Reports are aggregated by metro region and not by airport.

A careful reader will observe that the average fares given in this white paper do not match the BTS 

average airfares for the same period, even though both use BTS DB1B data as the source for their

analysis. This is because this report employs a different methodology for aggregating average fares than

the BTS. For instance, consider two passengers flying from BOS-SFO. Suppose that one passenger 

purchases a round-trip ticket for $400, and another purchases a one-way ticket for $200. In this case, 

the average (one-way) fare out of BOS should clearly be $200, since we can divide the round-trip ticket 

price by two to obtain the average one-way fare.

However, the BTS calculations of average fares do not distinguish between one-way and round-trip 

fares. In our example, both passengers’ itineraries would be treated as equal. That is, using the BTS 

calculation methodology, the “average fare” for the BOS-SFO route would be $300 = ($200+$400)/2. The

BTS methodology appears to skew the actual airfares and presents an inaccurate picture of airfares at 

U.S. airports, particularly with the rising popularity of one-way tickets. 

As such, the average airfares in this report are calculated to control for the differences in one-way and 

round-trip itineraries. The fare data in this report is sourced from aviation data provider Diio Mi, which 

also uses DB1B data. The Diio Mi data provides average one-way net fares, adjusting for round-trip 

itineraries as necessary and removing ticket taxes from the fares reported in the BTS data. 

Average fares at each airport or for each airline are weighted by the number of passengers that flew 

each itinerary over the given time period. This data processing method results in a more representative

calculation of average fares that can be better used to compare prices across airports or airlines. 

Passenger-weighted data on average itinerary distances have also been sourced from the BTS DB1B data 

via Diio Mi.

 

4 The DB1B sample contains information about all itineraries whose ticket numbers end in ‘0’.

5 These reports are available at http://www.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/domestic-airline-faresconsumer-report
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 7

Overview: Average Fares by Airport Type and by Region

Figure 1 shows the average one-way fares paid (in 2012 dollars) at each FAA airport hub type.6Fares 

have been adjusted for inflation using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 

2007 and 2012. Average one-way fares in constant dollars increased at each hub type from 2007-2012. 

Fares at the 29 large-hub airports increased by 8.7% on average during the study period, compared to 

an 11.9% increase at the 35 medium-hub airports and adjusting for inflation. Small-hub and non-hub 

airports, as well as airports that were part of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program7, saw lower 

increases in average fares over the last six years—average fares at small hubs increased by 5.7% and 

fares at non-hub and EAS airports rose by 3.2%, adjusting for inflation.

Figure 1: Average one-way fares by airport hub type (in 2012 dollars), adjusted for inflation

The increases in average fares at each hub type should be put in context by the changes in average 

passenger itinerary distance over the study period. All things equal, we would expect to see a 

correlation between a longer average passenger itinerary distance and a higher fare; passengers flying 

cross-country will often pay more than passengers flying shorter trips. Later in this report, we will show 

that this correlation holds when controlling for airline competition and has remained relatively 

unchanged over the last six years. As such, if average itinerary distances had increased significantly over 

the last six years at each hub type, we could attribute the increases in fares to the longer distances 

instead of economic supply shocks or capacity discipline.

 

6 The FAA classifies each primary commercial service airport in the United States into one of four “hub types” 

based on their level of enplanements in the previous year. The hub types are large-hub, medium-hub, smallhub, and non-hub. Note that in this context, “hub” refers only to the airport’s position as an important link in 

the air transportation network and does not reflect an airport’s status as a connecting hub for a major airline. 

For instance, Indianapolis International Airport (IND) is defined as a “medium-hub,” even though IND is not a 

connecting hub for any major airline.

7 The Essential Air Service program provides federal subsidies to air carriers to offer a minimum level of 

service to small or rural airports to connect those airports to the national air transportation system. Airports 

receiving EAS funding must be located at least 70 miles from the nearest large- or medium-hub airport.

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

$200.00

LARGE HUB MEDIUM HUB SMALL HUB NON HUB/EAS

Average Fare (2012 dollars)

2007

2012
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 8

Hub Type

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change in Avg. 

Fare (07-12)

% Change in Avg. 

Distance (07-12)

% Change in 

Flights (07-12)

Large Hub $164.52 $178.76 8.7% 2.1% -8.8%

Medium Hub $155.13 $173.63 11.9% 1.5% -26.2%

Small Hub $178.63 $188.83 5.7% 0.9% -18.2%

Non-hub/EAS $184.44 $190.34 3.2% 9.8% -13.9%

Table 1: Percent changes in average one-way fare, itinerary distance, and domestic flights, 2007-2012

Table 1 summarizes the percentage change in inflation-adjusted average fares, passenger itinerary 

distance, and number of scheduled domestic flights at each airport hub type over the last six years. On 

average, the changes in passenger itinerary distances were relatively small in comparison to the changes 

in fares. Therefore, it does not appear that the increases in fares over the last six years can be attributed 

to longer itinerary lengths alone. 

Airport City

2007 Fare 

(2012 $)

2012 

Fare

% Change 

Avg. Fare

% Change 

Avg. Distance

% Change 

Flights

HNL Honolulu, HI $173.57 $218.78 +26% 6% -24.0%

MDW Chicago, IL $113.95 $140.00 +23% 0% -13.6%

IAH Houston, TX $185.64 $223.17 +20% 1% -20.3%

PHL Philadelphia, PA $156.01 $186.79 +20% 5% -8.7%

DTW Detroit, MI $154.34 $182.07 +18% 2% -7.8%

BOS Boston, MA $179.18 $178.89 0% 3% -11.5%

DCA Washington, DC $182.01 $179.41 -1% 5% +1.7%

DEN Denver, CO $152.65 $149.65 -2% -1% +0.6%

ATL Atlanta, GA $170.80 $165.28 -3% 0% -6.0%

SFO San Francisco, CA $207.42 $198.50 -4% -4% +20.9%

Table 2: Large-hub airports with largest/smallest increase in average one-way fares, 2007-2012

Examining the data at individual airports, we begin to see some trends emerge on which airports saw

large increases or decreases in fares. Table 2 shows the percentage changes in average fares, itinerary 

distances, and flights at 10 large-hub airports—five airports with the highest percentage increases in 

average fares and the five airports with the lowest percentage increases in average fares. The changes in 

fares, itinerary distances, and flights for all 445 U.S. airports in this study are available in several 

appendices at the end of the report.

For large-hub airports, there appears to be a relationship between changes in service and change in 

fares. Specifically, airports that gained new service from 2007-2012 were more likely to see their 

average fares drop over that period. DCA, DEN, and SFO are each examples of airports that both gained 

new service and saw average one-way fares drop over the last six years. On the other hand, HNL, MDW, 
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 9

IAH, and PHL each saw increases in average fares of at least 20% from 2007-2012. These airports each

lost service over the study period.

Airport City

2007 Fare 

(2012 $)

2012 

Fare

% Change 

Avg. Fare

% Change 

Avg. Distance

% Change 

Flights

DAL Dallas (Love), TX $97.28 $133.21 37% 22% -13.5%

HOU Houston (Hobby), TX $124.89 $157.94 26% 12% -2.2%

OGG Kahului, HI $169.90 $214.26 26% 8% -1.7%

CMH Columbus, OH $144.01 $174.62 21% -2% -21.2%

PIT Pittsburgh, PA $144.84 $173.35 20% 4% -39.7%

OAK Oakland, CA $127.54 $134.90 6% -12% -36.6%

PDX Portland, OR $161.70 $170.07 5% 2% -15.7%

CVG Cincinnati, OH $224.62 $224.01 0% 3% -64.4%

SJU San Juan, PR $185.79 $175.65 -5% -2% -3.3%

MKE Milwaukee, WI $165.36 $153.53 -7% 4% -36.9%

Table 3: Medium-hub airports with largest/smallest increase in average one-way fares, 2007-2012

However, for medium-hub airports, the links between losses in service and changes in airfares are much 

more tenuous. As Table 3 shows, some airports like Houston Hobby (HOU) and Kahului, HI (OGG), which 

had only minimal losses in flights over the last six years, each saw average one-way fares increase by 

26%. Meanwhile, Cincinnati, OH (CVG), which lost 64.4% of its flights from 2007-2012—the largest loss 

in the country amongst all large-, medium-, and small-hubs—saw average fares remain essentially 

unchanged. Milwaukee, WI (MKE), which was one of only two medium-hubs to see fares decrease over 

the last six years, lost over a third of its domestic flights over the same period and saw its average 

passenger itinerary distance increase by 4%.

This suggests that other factors besides changes in average itinerary distance or number of flights help 

to explain the changes in fares. For instance, note that three of the airports with the largest increases in 

average fare—Chicago Midway International Airport in Chicago, IL (MDW), Love Field in Dallas, TX (DAL) 

and William P. Hobby Airport in Houston, TX (HOU)—each have a significant percentage of their flights 

operated by Southwest Airlines. Since changes in capacity were relatively low at these airports, a 

widespread pattern of price increases by Southwest Airlines could explain the increases in average fare

at these airports. However, it is important to note that two of these airports saw large increases in 

average passenger itinerary distance as Southwest expanded the types of markets served from Houston 

Hobby and Love Field from 2007-2012. Nevertheless, average fares increased by 23% at Chicago Midway 

with a negligible change in passenger itinerary distance.

Additionally, MDW, DAL, and HOU could be each considered “secondary airports” in large metro regions 

that are also served by a large hub. O’Hare International Airport (ORD) in the Chicago area is one of the 

busiest airports in the world, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) is the largest airport in the 

Dallas metro region, and George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston (IAH) is a major hub for 
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 10

United Airlines that is also classified as a large hub by the FAA. In each case, a large-hub airport in the

metro region saw fares increase by a smaller percentage than the secondary airport(s) in the region. 

Figure 2: Changes in fares at airports in the Boston metro region, 2007-2012

This pattern repeats itself in metro regions throughout the country. Figure 2 shows the major airports in 

the Boston metropolitan region. Besides Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), the Boston metro 

region is also served by Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (MHT) in Manchester, NH, and T.F. Green 

Airport (PVD) in Providence, RI. While inflation-adjusted average fares dropped by 0.2% at BOS, fares 

increased by 15.5% and 13.5% at MHT and PVD, respectively. Thus, as airlines consolidate service at 

large-hub airports in multi-airport regions, secondary airports are not only seeing fewer flights, but also 

larger increases in average fares. This makes it more challenging for these airports to attract passengers 

away from large-hub airports, since they are unable to compete on frequency or price.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 11

Figure 3: Changes in fares at airports in the San Francisco metro region, 2007-2012

Similarly, in the San Francisco metro region, fares at the largest airport in the region, San Francisco 

International Airport (SFO), decreased by 4.3% from 2007-2012. At the same time, fares increased at

secondary airports in Oakland (OAK) and San Jose (SJC). Note that the average fares themselves at the 

secondary airports in the region are still lower than the fares at SFO. This is partially due to the 

differences in types of airlines typically serving secondary airports versus large-hub airports (low-cost 

carriers versus network carriers) as well as the differences in average itinerary distance and the types of 

itineraries being flown at each airport. Larger airports also are more likely to enplane more business or 

first-class passengers purchasing more expensive itineraries, which could also explain this difference. 

Nevertheless, the growing convergence in fares at primary and secondary airports in multi-airport 

regions is a new phenomenon.

The Los Angeles metro region, which is served by no fewer than five large-hub, medium-hub, and smallhub airports, also exhibits this pattern, as shown in Figure 4. While fares at Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX) increased by 5.4%, the increase was less than at surrounding airports in Burbank (BUR; 

+9.0%), Ontario (ONT; +13.3%), and Santa Ana (SNA; +7.1%). The sole exception to this trend was Long 

Beach Airport (LGB), at which average fares fell by 22%. This airport saw increased service from low-cost 

carrier JetBlue Airways, helping to explain its competitive position relative to other airports in the Los 

Angeles area. As we will show later, the presence of JetBlue is one of the most important explanatory 

factors behind which airports have lower fares than others.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 12

Figure 4: Changes in fares at airports in the Los Angeles metro region, 2007-2012

Table 4 summarizes the changes in fares at primary and secondary airports in various metro regions in 

the U.S. from 2007-2012. The table confirms that in many regions, fares increased at secondary airports 

by a greater percentage than primary airports in multi-airport regions over the last six years. However, 

average fares themselves remained lower at secondary airports, due in large part to differences in 

average itinerary lengths as well as the types of airlines and passengers that fly out of larger airports. For 

instance, the average itinerary distance at LGB was nearly half that of LAX. This regional analysis also 

highlights the importance that individual airline behavior can play in determining the average fare at a 

particular airport. The next section examines in greater detail the trends in airfares at 12 U.S. airlines 

over the last six years to better identify which airlines are most closely associated with lower fares.

Region

Primary 

Airport

Avg. Fare 

(2012)

% Change in 

Avg. Fare 07-12

Secondary 

Airport(s)

Avg. Fare 

(2012)

% Change in 

Avg. Fare 07-12

Boston BOS $178.89 0% MHT, PVD $166.99 +14%

Chicago ORD $175.80 +10% MDW $140.00 +23%

Houston IAH $223.17 +20% HOU $157.94 +26%

Dallas DFW $194.65 +9% DAL $133.21 +37%

San Francisco SFO $198.50 -4% OAK, SJC $149.64 +11%

Los Angeles LAX $191.31 +5% BUR, SNA, ONT, LGB $143.71 +2%

Phoenix PHX $159.85 +10% TUS $174.17 +9%

Table 4: Changes in fares at primary and secondary airports for selected U.S. metro regions, 2007-2012
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 13

Trends in Average Domestic Fares at Major U.S. Carriers

Table 5: Average domestic fares and passenger itinerary distances for 12 major U.S. airlines, 2007-12

Table 5 shows the changes in average one-way fares8and average passenger itinerary distances for 12 

U.S. air carriers from 2007-2012. The airlines in Table 5 are grouped by category: the first four airlines 

(American, Delta, United, and US Airways) are generally classified as “network carriers;” the second four 

airlines (AirTran, Frontier, JetBlue, and Southwest) are typically referred to as “low-cost carriers;” Alaska 

and Hawaiian are both “specialty” carriers with unique network structures clustered around specific 

regions; and Allegiant and Spirit are two of a new breed of “ultra-low-cost carriers” that have primarily 

focused on serving tertiary airports and airports in small communities, offering customers in these 

communities flights to vacation destinations with very low base fares. We will examine the trends in 

airfares in each of these groups of carriers separately.

Average network carrier fares have increased as available capacity and itinerary lengths change

Due in part to changes in capacity and average passenger itinerary distances, average one-way fares at 

network carriers rose between 6-11% from 2007-2012. Many of the network carriers struggled 

financially at times from 2007-2012, with several declaring bankruptcy over the study period. Delta and 

 

8 Average fares shown include domestic itineraries only, have been adjusted for inflation using the Consumer 

Price Index, and are shown in 2012 dollars.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 14

United both completed mergers with other iconic network carriers; American and US Airways proposed 

to merge in 2013. 

These carriers emerged from this tumultuous period of bankruptcy and mergers with leaner operations 

and reduced frequencies across their networks. The network carriers have continued to keep capacity 

low over the last several years as they practice a disciplined capacity management strategy that 

emphasizes flying profitable routes over gaining market share. As capacity is reduced, increases in 

average fares have less of an adverse effect on load factors. This strategy has led the network carriers to 

post their first consistent profits in nearly a decade. For these reasons, the increases in average fares 

seen at the network carriers from 2007-2012 can largely be attributed to the effects of capacity 

discipline strategies and to the differences in these carriers’ networks following a round of mergers.

Low-cost carriers aren’t quite as low-cost for passengers any more

The types of domestic flights flown by network carriers—a mix of short-haul regional service and longhaul transcontinental options—differ from the service provided by low-cost carriers—a significant 

portion of which involves travel to leisure destinations. Hence, it is not surprising that the average fares 

of low-cost carriers have remained at least 25% lower than network carriers. Yet despite this, several of 

the low-cost carriers saw dramatic increases in their average one-way fares over the last six years. 

Average fares increased at AirTran Airways, which was acquired by Southwest Airlines in 2011, by about 

15% from 2007-2012. Southwest Airlines itself saw an increase in average fares of 25% over the same 

period. Meanwhile, average fares at JetBlue Airways increased by just 3% over the last six years.

There are several possible explanations for Southwest Airlines’ significant increase in average fares. 

Southwest itself practiced some capacity discipline over the last six years, particularly in smaller and 

mid-sized airports. Southwest cut scheduled domestic flights by 10% at smaller airports in the U.S. from 

2007-2012; if there is indeed a link between cuts in service and increases in fares (as economic theory 

would predict), this could explain why some smaller airports dominated by Southwest Airlines, such as 

Dallas Love Field (DAL) and Houston Hobby (HOU), saw large increases in average fares coupled with 

deep cuts in service over the study period. 

The last six years have also seen dramatic changes in Southwest’s well-established network strategy. In 

the 1990s and early-2000s, Southwest found a niche in operating point-to-point flights from secondary 

airports in multi-airport regions, often at lower fares than could be found at primary airports in those 

regions. However, over the last six years, Southwest has started to move into those same larger airports 

that it had previously forsaken. Southwest has moved into Boston Logan (BOS), New York-LaGuardia 

(LGA), and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) over the last six years, and it now serves 23 of the 

29 largest airports in the United States. Its merger with AirTran Airways will give the combined airline a 

larger presence at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)—the busiest airport in the 

United States by passenger enplanements.

Moving into larger airports could have increased Southwest’s costs. Larger airports are more likely to be 

congested, leading to more costs in delays and cancellations. On the other hand, larger airports are 
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 15

more likely to attract business passengers, who often have a higher willingness-to-pay for airline tickets. 

Either or both of these factors could have given Southwest leverage to raise average fares. Southwest’s 

operating costs may have also increased for other reasons. The advantages from the airline’s famous 

fuel hedge have evaporated with constantly high fuel prices, and the seniority levels of the airline’s 

employees have started to increase, requiring higher pay and retirement benefits. These increases in 

operating costs could have also led to Southwest’s increase in average fares.

Finally, it is worth noting that Southwest, unlike its network carrier competition, does not rely on 

checked baggage fees as a source of ancillary revenue. It is possible that Southwest could have raised its 

base fares to make up for the lost revenue potential of offering free checked baggage. However, JetBlue 

Airways, which also does not charge fees for checked baggage, had only a modest increase in its average 

fares in the last six years.

Whatever the reason for Southwest’s increase in average fare, low-cost carriers are starting to behave 

more like traditional network carriers. As their brands and their workforces both become more mature, 

the LCCs have entered into larger markets at slightly higher average fares. While the low-cost carriers 

are not quite as low-cost for passengers any more, we do not expect to see a complete convergence in 

fares at network carriers and low-cost carriers. LCCs still offer lower fares to passengers in many 

markets, and we expect that these carriers will continue to maintain unique networks with a heavy 

focus on leisure travel in the next decade—this alone will continue to keep the average fares at these 

carriers lower than at the network carriers.

Specialty carriers are adjusting fares as their networks change

Airline analysts often have difficulty classifying Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines. Both airlines serve 

a targeted area of the United States that remains relatively unserved by other carriers. Traditionally, 

Alaska and Hawaiian generally provided a mix of short-haul service linking together small communities 

and long-haul service connecting the rest of the United States to hubs in Seattle and Honolulu.

However, these airlines—Alaska in particular—have started to change their networks over the last six 

years. Alaska’s average itinerary distance increased by 29% from 2007-2012, reflecting a new 

commitment to longer-haul service. The airline has bolstered its presence at Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport (SEA) while also building new cross-country service. As a result of these longer 

itinerary distances and stage lengths, Alaska’s average one-way fares have increased by 15%. Hawaiian’s 

fares have risen by 12% over the study period, but its average itinerary distance has fallen by 7% as it 

has cut unprofitable long-haul service to focus more on inter-island and international service. We should 

expect to see further adjustments in fares from these carriers as their networks continue to change over 

the next decade.

A new breed of ultra-low-cost carriers is picking up where the traditional LCCs left off

The latter half of the 2000s saw the emergence of a new breed of low-cost airlines with a very different 

business model than that of the “traditional” low-cost carriers. These carriers, such as Allegiant Air, 

Spirit Airlines, Sun Country Airlines, and others, focused on providing infrequent service to tertiary 
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 16

airports in multi-airport regions, or to airports at which there was no currently existing commercial air 

service. At these airports, the “ultra-low-cost” carriers stepped in to provide service to vacation 

destinations at heavily discounted base fares, often packaging a flight with a hotel, rental car, or 

vacation package. Flights to the smallest airports in these airlines’ networks may only be operated a few 

times per week.

Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines have been two of the most successful ultra-low-cost carriers. Targeting 

an exclusively leisure audience, we would expect that their average fares to be lower than network 

carriers or even the existing low-cost carriers, which do serve some business routes. Indeed, average 

fares at LCCs were nearly twice as high as ULCC fares in 2012; average network carrier fares were nearly 

three times as high as ULCC fares in the same year. Additionally, while network carriers, LCCs, and 

specialty carriers alike were all increasing average fares from 2007-2012, fares at ULCCs decreased over 

the study period by as much as 33%.

While the decreases in base fares at the ULCCs are impressive, it is important to note that these fare 

decreases occurred at the same time as these carriers started to rely more on ancillary revenues as a 

significant portion of the full travel price. That is, while the base fare of a ULCC ticket is often very low, 

passengers may need to pay additional fees to check-in, check bags, access customer service personnel, 

or even carry-on a bag on some airlines. Hence, looking only at the base fare may present a skewed 

picture of the total passenger cost on ULCCs if ancillary fees are not taken into account. 

Data on ancillary revenues is currently collected and defined inconsistently and not tied to individual 

itineraries. That is, we currently do not know how much an average Spirit Airlines passenger pays in 

ancillary services. Adding ancillary fees to average fares would assist in making apples-to-apples 

comparisons in total passenger itinerary cost between the ULCCs and other airlines. Absent that data, 

however, we are only able to make comparisons of base fares alone.

The ultra-low-cost carriers have unabashedly targeted extremely price sensitive passengers. Spirit 

Airlines CEO Ben Baldanza has suggested that these customers are likely to choose his airline repeatedly 

if it offers the lowest base fare, even if passengers have to pay substantially more in additional ancillary 

fees.9The business model of Spirit is still relatively new and its sustainability remains to be seen, but 

both Spirit and Allegiant Air have experienced robust financial success, even in challenging periods for 

airline profitability. However, these airlines’ pricing strategies and competitive advantages could be 

eroded if consumer advocates succeed in passing legislation to require airlines to display full costs of 

travel—base fares and ancillary fees combined—on popular distribution systems and travel booking 

websites.

 

9 Maxon, T. 2013. “Spirit Airlines CEO: We have the lowest prices, and that’s what customers care about.” 

Dallas Morning News. May 22 2013.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 17

Determinants of Average Fares at U.S. Airports—the Effects of LCCs

Since the rise of the low-cost and low-fare carriers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, researchers have 

been interested in identifying the effects of these carriers on average airfares. Most early work focused 

on the largest and most popular low-cost carrier: Southwest Airlines. Specifically, researchers were 

interested in investigating whether the presence of low-cost carriers like Southwest Airlines has a 

dampening effect on the fares on a given route. 

Past research on the “Southwest effect” has shown that either direct competition (competition on the 

same route) or adjacent competition (competition in a city-pair market between alternative airports in a 

multi-airport region) by Southwest Airlines tends to be associated with an increase in traffic on that 

route and a decrease in average fare. That is, once Southwest Airlines enters a market directly or 

adjacently, existing network carriers typically lower their fares to match Southwest’s lower prices.10

However, with Southwest Airlines’ average fares increasing by 25% from 2007 to 2012, it is unclear 

whether Southwest still holds the same degree of price leadership as it once did. Recent work by bin 

Salam and McMullen11 found that the Southwest effect had weakened between 2005 and 2010 in 

markets in which mergers had occurred between network carriers, such as United-Continental or DeltaNorthwest. That is, the presence of Southwest Airlines on merger-affected routes did less to lower

average fares than previous research would have suggested. Since the competitive effects of Southwest 

on network carrier airfares are often used by merger advocates as an argument in antitrust reviews, bin 

Salam and McMullen question whether Southwest can still be relied upon as a protection against 

monopolistic competition on air travel routes. 

Meanwhile, the effects of other low-cost carriers like JetBlue Airways and the impacts of ultra-low-cost 

carriers like Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines on airfares have not been explored individually in detail. 

While these airlines have smaller route networks than Southwest Airlines, they are important players in 

the U.S. air transportation system, particularly at smaller airports. This section investigates whether the 

presence of these low-cost carriers at U.S. airports reduces average fares at those airports, and how 

those effects have changed over time. We will also explore the effects of capacity discipline on average 

airfares, and examine if there is a statistically significant link between changes in capacity and changes in 

fares.

 

10 Studies investigating the Southwest effect include: Morrison, S.J. 2001. Actual, adjacent, and potential 

competition: Estimating the full effect of Southwest Airlines. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy

35(2).23-256; Vowles, T.M. 2001. The “Southwest Effect” in Multi-Airport Regions. Journal of Air Transport 

Management 7(4). 251-258; Goolsbee, A. and C. Syverson. 2008. How Do Incumbents Respond to the Threat 

of Entry? Evidence from the Major Airlines. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123(4). 1611-1633; Hofer, C., R.J. 

Windle, and M.E. Dresner. 2008. Price premiums and low-cost carrier competition. Transportation Research 

Part E 44(5). 864-882; and Brueckner, J.K., D. Lee, and E.S. Singer. 2012. Airfare competition and domestic US 

airfares: A comprehensive reappraisal. Economics of Transportation 2(1). 1-17.

11 bin Salam, S. and B.S. McMullen. 2013. Is There Still a Southwest Effect? Transportation Research Record: 

Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2025. 1-8.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 18

Econometric model

Following the research approaches of previous work, we will use a simple econometric model to identify 

the effects of LCC competition on average one-way airfares at U.S. airports. In this case, the econometric 

model is a linear equation that allows us to isolate the effects of one or more independent variables 

(e.g., LCC competition and other airport characteristics) on a dependent variable (in this case, the 

average airfare at an airport). Using statistical techniques, we can test whether the coefficients of this 

linear equation are significantly different from zero (or not) at a given level of confidence. If an

independent variable’s coefficient is significantly different from zero, we can conclude that there is a 

relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. Otherwise, no such 

conclusion can be drawn.

The linear equation used in our econometric model of average airport airfares is shown below. Table 6

describes in detail each of the variables in the equation.

 

 

Equation 1: Econometric model of average airport airfare

Variable Description

FARE Avg. fare at the airport

DIST Avg. itinerary distance

WN Presence of Southwest

B6 Presence of JetBlue

FL Presence of AirTran

F9 Presence of Frontier

G4 Presence of Allegiant

NK Presence of Spirit

VACATION Vacation destination 

(airports in FL and NV)

Table 6: Description of variables in Equation 1

As Table 6 describes, we are postulating that the average one-way fare at an airport will be a function of 

the average itinerary distance at the airport; the number of airlines competing at the airport; the 

presence of low-cost like Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran, and Frontier; the presence of ultra-low-cost 

carriers like Allegiant and Spirit; and whether the airport is a vacation destination or not (here, following 

Hofer et al. (2008), airports in Florida and Nevada are designated as vacation destinations for simplicity). 

Passenger enplanements are not included in the regression equation since there is a possibility that the 

number of passengers using an airport could itself be a function of airfares. Equation 1 also contains an 

error term , which is a common econometric practice to capture effects that are not directly specified 

by the model.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 19

Data on average fares, itinerary distances, and airlines providing service were gathered from Diio Mi for 

445 U.S. airports for the years 2007 and 2012. We estimated the coefficients of Equation 1 for each of 

these years, allowing us to see how the effects of Southwest or other low-cost or ultra-low-cost carriers 

have changed over time. Table 7 shows the results of the econometric model for these years.

Variable

(1)

2007 Fares

(2)

2012 Fares

Constant

92.72***

(4.488)

94.58***

(5.203)

Avg. Itinerary 

Distance

0.122***

(0.005)

0.122***

(0.006)

Southwest -35.78***

(7.105)

-16.65**

(6.692)

JetBlue -29.84***

(7.514)

-32.20***

(7.595)

AirTran

-15.51**

(7.033)

2.04

(7.353)

Frontier

-2.53

(7.517)

7.14

(6.522)

Allegiant -20.47***

(5.374)

-28.52***

(5.364)

Spirit

-27.48***

(9.726)

-22.10**

(9.384)

Vacation Destination

-3.81

(9.122)

-22.57**

(9.810)

N 445 445

Adjusted R2 0.5800 0.5267

Coefficients are presented with standard errors in parentheses

*= 90% significance, ** = 95% significance, *** = 99% significance

Table 7: Regression Results – Fares on Distance and Competition

The top number of each row in Table 7 is the coefficient for that variable in Equation 1 as estimated 

using a standard ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression technique. The number in parenthesis beneath 

each estimated coefficient is the standard error for that coefficient’s estimate. The significance of each 

coefficient (how sure we are that the coefficient is statistically different from zero) is shown using 

asterisks. A single asterisk indicates that we can be 90% confident that the coefficient is different from 

zero, two asterisks indicates a confidence level of 95%, and three asterisks indicates a confidence level 

of 99%. Finally, the adjusted R2value is a measure (ranging from 0-1) of how well the variables we 

selected explain the variations in average fares between airports.

Discussion of regression results: Should we be more focused on the JetBlue effect?

As expected, the average itinerary distance at an airport has a positive and significant relationship with 

average airfares; airports from which passengers fly longer distances have generally higher fares. This 
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 20

relationship has remained essentially unchanged over time. It is also interesting to note that while the 

number of airlines that provide service at a given airport did not have a significant relationship with 

airfares in 2012, the presence of specific competitors is associated with lower average airfares. The 

presence of an LCC like Southwest, JetBlue, Allegiant, or Spirit is associated with a decrease in average 

one-way fare of between $15-$36, depending on the airline and the year and controlling for distance 

and other airport characteristics.12 However, the presence of AirTran and Frontier no longer have a 

significant effect on average one-way fares once other LCC competition is taken into account.

In 2007, the Southwest effect was highly significant. The presence of Southwest Airlines at an airport in 

2007 was associated with a decrease that airport’s average fare of about $36, controlling for average 

itinerary distance and other competition. However, by 2012, that effect had declined to about $17. That 

is, the presence of Southwest Airlines no longer is associated with as much of a reduction in average 

airport fares as has been previously shown by other researchers. Indeed, the presence of some other 

low-cost carriers now outpaces the Southwest effect. In 2012, the presence of JetBlue Airways reduced 

average one-way airport fares by about $32, Allegiant Air service reduced average one-way airport fares 

by about $29, and the presence of Spirit reduced average one-way fares by about $22.

JetBlue is now the airline whose presence is associated with the largest decrease in average fares. As 

such, we would not be surprised to see airports, particularly small community airports or secondary 

airports in large multi-airport regions, work particularly hard to attract JetBlue service. Gaining service 

from an airline like JetBlue not only attracts customers through a decrease in average fare, but also 

through an increase in connectivity and the number of destinations that can be reached through both 

non-stop and connecting service. As Southwest begins to focus its expansion efforts internationally 

instead of domestically, we would expect the “JetBlue effect” to become part of the business 

development and academic lexicon surrounding low-cost carriers.

On the other hand, the recently diminished nature of the Southwest effect is not surprising given the 

scale of Southwest’s fare increases over the last six years. It should be noted, however, that Southwest 

Airlines does not charge fees for checked baggage, as opposed to many of its competitors who charge 

upwards of $25 for a checked bag.13 It is possible that Southwest decided to raise base fares in lieu of 

charging bag fees in an attempt to separate themselves from competing airlines. 

On the other end of the spectrum, Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines have chosen strategies of offering the 

lowest possible base fare and gaining a large portion of revenue through ancillary sources. While 

passengers often see only the base fares when selecting which ticket to purchase, the ULCCs are offering 

a fundamentally different service coupled with their base fare as opposed to the “full-service” LCCs like 

Southwest and JetBlue, which offer free checked baggage, on-board amenities, and other features. 

 

12 We also tested if an airport’s designation as a hub for a network carrier and/or an LCC had an effect on 

average one-way airfares at that airport; this variable was found to be insignificant in all years and was 

removed from the model.

13 As of July 2013, Southwest Airlines offered two free checked bags, JetBlue Airways offered one free checked 

bag, and Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines both charged for checked baggage.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 21

Therefore, it may not be appropriate to directly compare the “Southwest effect” with the “Spirit effect,” 

given that these two airlines are offering different packages of products and services as part of their 

base fares.

Capacity discipline and changes in airfares

Economic theory suggests that restrictions in supply will result in higher prices. Capacity discipline 

strategies on the part of the airlines have restricted the number of available flights and seats in most 

markets. However, is there a direct correlation between capacity discipline and higher airfares? In other 

words, is there a negative correlation between percent changes in flights and seats and percent changes 

in fares? We can test the answer to this question by performing a Pearson’s correlation test on percent 

changes in flights, seats, and airfares (from 2007-2012) for the 445 airports in our sample.

Variable Correlation p-value R

2

% change in flights -0.1988 <0.001 0.0373

% change in seats -0.1488 <0.001 0.0199

Table 8: Correlation coefficients: % change in fares and % change in capacity, 2007-2012

Table 8 shows the Pearson’s correlation coefficients for percent changes in fares and percent changes in 

capacity at 445 U.S. airports from 2007-2012. The correlation coefficient ranges between -1 and 1; a 

value of -1 suggests that the variables are perfectly negatively correlated; a value of 1 suggests that the 

variables are perfectly positively correlated; and a value of 0 suggests the variables are uncorrelated. 

The p-value tells us how certain we can be that the given correlation coefficient is statistically different 

from 0—in this case, we can be 99.9% sure that the coefficients are different from zero. Finally, as 

before, the R2value tells us how well the percent change in capacity explains the variations in percent 

changes in fares.

As expected, there is a negative correlation between percent changes in capacity and percent changes in 

fares. This means that as capacity increases, fares generally fall; conversely, decreases in capacity are 

associated with increases in fares. This suggests that the theoretical relationship between capacity 

discipline and fare increases does indeed exist in practice. However, it should be noted that the 

explanatory power of capacity discipline alone is very low—the R2values are very low, and the 

correlation coefficients themselves are fairly close to zero. Thus, other factors, such as the presence of 

low-cost carriers or changes in the average passenger itinerary distance at an airport, do a better job of 

explaining changes in fares than capacity discipline alone.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 22

Conclusion: Future Changes in Airfares in an Environment of Capacity Discipline

There is no evidence that the current airline strategy of capacity discipline will be reversed in the near 

future. Airlines are experiencing profitability for the first time in years, and the equilibrium in which 

each of the largest airlines continues to keep capacity low (compared to historical levels and growth in 

GDP) seems to be stable in the short run. In the long run, an airline could deviate from the capacity 

discipline equilibrium in an attempt to gain market share—this theoretical increase of capacity would 

likely be associated with lower fares, particularly if other airlines match this strategy. Meanwhile, we 

should expect JetBlue Airways and the ultra-low-cost carriers to continue their pattern of steady growth.

If the levels of available domestic capacity follow the trends described above, we would expect average 

one-way domestic airfares to remain flat or increase slightly over the next five years, assuming that 

there is no shock to the price of fuel or another local or global economic downturn. In this scenario, 

major airlines would keep capacity at current levels (without cutting it further), and base fares would 

remain level as airlines continue their shift to ancillary revenues to bolster earnings. The growth of 

JetBlue and the other ULCCs could result in even lower average fares at airports served by these airlines.

Should it be approved, the merger of American Airlines and US Airways will bring about further 

consolidation of the U.S. air transportation industry and could result in some capacity being removed 

from the system. As economic theory and our analysis suggests, a reduction in available capacity could 

result in higher fares in some markets. Our work and the work of others suggest that it is unclear 

whether low-cost carrier competition will temper the upward pressures of capacity discipline and

mergers on prices; the Southwest effect has diminished in past years, although the effects of carriers 

like JetBlue, Allegiant, and Spirit on average one-way fares at U.S. airports remain strong.

At smaller airports and secondary airports in multi-airport regions, increases or decreases in average 

airfares will likely continue to outpace the changes at larger airports. These airports will face increasing 

pressure to obtain service from low-cost or ultra-low-cost carriers—as network carriers continue to exit 

smaller airports, those airports that have not implemented a contingency plan to replace this service 

with LCC or ULCC flights could see average fares rise as daily departures fall. This is a challenging

combination for a smaller airport, as passengers will often choose to fly out of a nearby larger airport to 

take advantage of lower fares and more flight options, even if this means a significant drive from the 

passenger’s origin point. We have already started to see this pattern take hold in some metro areas at 

which average fares increased substantially more at secondary airports than at primary airports.

Finally, the total system impact of this continued consolidation of flights and connectivity at large hubs, 

coupled with a growing convergence in fares between primary and secondary airports, will be important 

to monitor. Risks of congestion and flight delays increase as passengers and departures cluster at larger 

airports. If current trends of consolidation continue and result in future growth in traffic at large-hub 

airports, improved air traffic management approaches may be necessary to avoid costly periods of 

increased delays in the National Airspace System.
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 23

Appendix A: Summary of Changes in Fares for Large-Hub Airports

Notes: Tables show enplaned passengers (2012 data) from the FAA, as well as passenger-weighted one-way average domestic fares and average 

itinerary distances (in miles) for each airport for 2007 and 2012. All fare, itinerary distance, and capacity data was sourced from Diio Mi. 2007 

fares have been adjusted for inflation and are displayed in constant 2012 dollars. Airports are ranked in order of highest change in average oneway fare to lowest change in average one-way fare. All hub definitions are current as of June, 2013.

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

HNL - Honolulu/Oahu, HI 9,210,270 $173.57 $218.78 26% 1845 1956 6% -24% -20%

MDW - Chicago-Midway, IL 9,431,796 $113.95 $140.00 23% 897 896 0% -14% -10%

IAH - Houston-Intercontinental, TX 19,038,958 $185.64 $223.17 20% 1091 1102 1% -20% -15%

PHL - Philadelphia, PA 14,587,631 $156.01 $186.79 20% 1121 1173 5% -9% -15%

DTW - Detroit, MI 15,599,877 $154.34 $182.07 18% 986 1008 2% -8% -16%

BWI - Baltimore, MD 11,183,965 $133.59 $155.00 16% 996 975 -2% -3% -3%

IAD - Washington-Dulles, VA 10,785,683 $190.02 $220.24 16% 1295 1455 12% -20% -20%

TPA - Tampa, FL 8,216,153 $134.20 $153.42 14% 1040 1047 1% -24% -18%

EWR - Newark, NJ 17,035,098 $188.71 $208.77 11% 1337 1345 1% -9% -11%

ORD - Chicago-O'Hare, IL 32,171,743 $159.33 $175.80 10% 977 991 1% -7% -16%

SLC - Salt Lake City, UT 9,579,836 $166.56 $183.31 10% 1037 1042 1% -23% -16%

PHX - Phoenix, AZ 19,556,189 $145.62 $159.85 10% 1135 1165 3% -14% -14%

DFW - Dallas/Fort Worth, TX 28,022,877 $177.85 $194.65 9% 1020 1030 1% -6% -5%

SAN - San Diego, CA 8,686,592 $157.42 $171.33 9% 1273 1311 3% -20% -12%

MCO - Orlando, FL 17,159,425 $135.06 $145.63 8% 1069 1083 1% -19% -13%

MSP - Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN 15,943,751 $182.70 $196.98 8% 1043 1021 -2% -7% -12%

CLT - Charlotte-Douglas, NC 20,032,426 $174.35 $187.19 7% 864 836 -3% 10% 13%

MIA - Miami, FL 18,987,488 $169.91 $180.64 6% 1212 1233 2% 1% 6%

JFK - New York-JFK, NY 24,520,943 $184.76 $196.27 6% 1525 1640 8% -19% -11%

LAS - Las Vegas, NV 19,941,173 $140.80 $149.44 6% 1208 1200 -1% -19% -17%

LAX - Los Angeles, CA 31,326,268 $181.53 $191.31 5% 1513 1568 4% -7% -2%

SEA - Seattle/Tacoma, WA 16,121,123 $176.05 $184.20 5% 1406 1425 1% -11% -6%

FLL - Fort Lauderdale, FL 11,445,101 $136.91 $141.98 4% 1144 1184 3% -8% -4%

LGA - New York-La Guardia, NY 12,818,717 $159.98 $165.53 3% 909 944 4% -9% -2%

BOS - Boston, MA 14,293,675 $179.18 $178.89 0% 1227 1264 3% -12% -4%

DCA - Washington-National, DC 9,462,206 $182.01 $179.41 -1% 895 938 5% 2% -1%

DEN - Denver, CO 25,799,832 $152.65 $149.65 -2% 1031 1021 -1% 1% 3%

ATL - Atlanta, GA 45,798,809 $170.80 $165.28 -3% 867 870 0% -6% -1%

SFO - San Francisco, CA 21,284,224 $207.42 $198.50 -4% 1665 1604 -4% 21% 22%

Grand Total (Large-Hubs) 518,041,829 $164.52 $178.76 8.7% 1559.5 1183.6 2.1% -8.8% -7.2%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 24

Appendix B: Summary of Changes in Fares for Medium-Hub Airports

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

DAL - Dallas-Love, TX 3,902,521 $97.28 $133.21 37% 478 583 22% -14% -7%

HOU - Houston-Hobby, TX 5,043,708 $124.89 $157.94 26% 730 821 12% -2% -1%

OGG - Kahului/Maui, HI 2,861,278 $169.90 $214.26 26% 1677 1819 8% -2% -12%

CMH - Columbus, OH 3,095,360 $144.01 $174.62 21% 915 898 -2% -21% -18%

PIT - Pittsburgh, PA 3,889,997 $144.84 $173.35 20% 906 943 4% -40% -28%

CLE - Cleveland, OH 4,325,353 $165.64 $195.29 18% 945 938 -1% -26% -24%

BNA - Nashville, TN 4,796,868 $145.67 $171.66 18% 862 841 -2% -8% -10%

IND - Indianapolis, IN 3,585,246 $155.97 $183.71 18% 957 950 -1% -21% -18%

JAX - Jacksonville, FL 2,579,021 $148.53 $174.55 18% 932 947 2% -26% -22%

RNO - Reno, NV 1,685,333 $138.91 $162.37 17% 974 984 1% -31% -35%

BUF - Buffalo, NY 2,588,660 $131.84 $153.44 16% 920 947 3% -9% -5%

SMF - Sacramento, CA 4,357,899 $140.23 $163.19 16% 1034 1101 6% -24% -24%

RSW - Fort Myers, FL 3,630,737 $139.29 $161.52 16% 1130 1139 1% -15% -13%

SJC - San Jose, CA 4,077,644 $142.39 $164.38 15% 1029 1084 5% -33% -28%

MCI - Kansas City, MO 4,866,850 $143.44 $162.97 14% 884 894 1% -30% -25%

PVD - Providence, RI 1,808,317 $147.60 $167.58 14% 1111 1117 0% -38% -36%

ONT - Ontario, CA 2,142,387 $141.25 $160.09 13% 1007 1020 1% -49% -43%

PBI - West Palm Beach, FL 2,796,324 $143.50 $162.38 13% 1092 1079 -1% -25% -21%

MEM - Memphis, TN 3,359,622 $198.39 $223.17 12% 797 834 5% -41% -42%

MSY - New Orleans, LA 4,293,538 $160.10 $179.83 12% 908 937 3% 4% 9%

OMA - Omaha, NE 2,018,526 $157.93 $175.84 11% 944 932 -1% -19% -14%

RDU - Raleigh/Durham, NC 4,489,097 $147.92 $163.68 11% 885 867 -2% -23% -16%

BUR - Burbank, CA 2,027,197 $123.92 $135.08 9% 767 716 -7% -25% -28%

ANC - Anchorage, AK 2,249,475 $238.61 $259.62 9% 1864 1733 -7% -12% -13%

BDL - Hartford, CT 2,647,064 $176.59 $191.00 8% 1228 1217 -1% -24% -24%

AUS - Austin, TX 4,606,143 $164.65 $178.07 8% 1005 1085 8% -11% -3%

SAT - San Antonio, TX 4,036,598 $166.58 $179.34 8% 983 1037 6% -14% -10%

SNA - Orange County, CA 4,381,956 $156.09 $167.17 7% 1071 1105 3% -24% -20%

ABQ - Albuquerque, NM 2,630,570 $153.98 $164.88 7% 950 968 2% -26% -26%

STL - St. Louis, MO 6,200,252 $154.62 $164.57 6% 855 879 3% -27% -20%

OAK - Oakland, CA 4,923,435 $127.54 $134.90 6% 1011 894 -12% -37% -36%

PDX - Portland, OR 7,142,610 $161.70 $170.07 5% 1251 1278 2% -16% -9%

CVG - Cincinnati, OH/Northern KY 2,927,218 $224.62 $224.01 0% 859 886 3% -64% -62%

SJU - San Juan, PR 4,204,478 $185.79 $175.65 -5% 1627 1599 -2% -3% -20%

MKE - Milwaukee, WI 3,707,890 $165.36 $153.53 -7% 972 1011 4% -37% -8%

Grand Total (Medium-Hubs) 127,879,172 $155.13 $173.63 11.9% 1016.1 1030.9 1.5% -26.2% -21.4%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 25

Appendix C: Summary of Changes in Fares for Small-Hub Airports

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

ITO - Hilo/Hawaii, HI 641,904 $68.42 $111.70 63% 527 582 10% -37% -25%

LIH - Lihue/Kauai, HI 1,308,549 $149.14 $210.97 41% 1348 1715 27% -13% -15%

PHF - Newport News, VA 314,139 $140.14 $187.80 34% 743 1095 47% -30% -46%

MAF - Midland/Odessa, TX 497,193 $135.53 $180.10 33% 624 658 6% -5% -12%

KOA - Kona/Hawaii, HI 1,367,091 $156.51 $205.84 32% 1390 1620 17% -8% -19%

LBB - Lubbock, TX 475,680 $128.67 $169.09 31% 605 659 9% -17% -24%

AMA - Amarillo, TX 389,284 $138.21 $175.04 27% 651 680 4% -19% -18%

ISP - Long Island-Macarthur, NY 667,573 $112.12 $141.22 26% 1080 966 -10% -46% -47%

GPT - Gulfport/Biloxi, MS 394,056 $176.82 $220.42 25% 883 985 12% -25% -30%

TUL - Tulsa, OK 1,324,175 $158.87 $196.07 23% 822 815 -1% -26% -20%

BOI - Boise, ID 1,307,505 $144.18 $175.59 22% 843 919 9% -40% -34%

FNT - Flint, MI 409,401 $136.95 $166.47 22% 953 958 1% -34% -29%

MLI - Moline, IL 396,460 $160.46 $194.71 21% 956 964 1% -19% -21%

SAV - Savannah, GA 789,256 $173.47 $207.51 20% 903 979 8% -19% -23%

SDF - Louisville, KY 1,642,697 $157.80 $185.78 18% 832 845 2% -23% -18%

ELP - El Paso, TX 1,442,100 $163.69 $191.85 17% 918 966 5% -11% -18%

ALB - Albany, NY 1,220,286 $166.12 $194.50 17% 1173 1192 2% -18% -19%

GEG - Spokane, WA 1,456,275 $143.71 $166.80 16% 938 990 6% -26% -20%

SRQ - Sarasota/Bradenton, FL 637,260 $143.48 $166.32 16% 1023 1051 3% -38% -24%

MHT - Manchester, NH 1,209,987 $144.09 $166.39 15% 1102 1137 3% -41% -45%

JAN - Jackson, MS 611,592 $176.99 $203.25 15% 850 820 -4% -20% -22%

OKC - Oklahoma City, OK 1,801,613 $169.70 $193.91 14% 892 887 -1% -15% -4%

RIC - Richmond, VA 1,581,617 $170.30 $192.31 13% 910 961 6% -20% -17%

HPN - Westchester County, NY 893,064 $156.06 $174.17 12% 979 1008 3% -12% -11%

LIT - Little Rock, AR 1,111,381 $164.35 $183.41 12% 817 848 4% -20% -12%

CAK - Akron/Canton, OH 910,313 $138.19 $154.00 11% 897 942 5% -4% 16%

BTV - Burlington, VT 615,005 $178.90 $198.84 11% 1181 1091 -8% -24% -18%

BHM - Birmingham, AL 1,412,481 $163.52 $181.49 11% 845 814 -4% -18% -15%

SYR - Syracuse, NY 968,644 $177.40 $196.11 11% 1082 1071 -1% -22% -21%

TUS - Tucson, AZ 1,710,638 $159.49 $174.17 9% 1116 1127 1% -26% -23%

ROC - Rochester, NY 1,199,194 $152.26 $165.49 9% 942 943 0% -21% -20%

PNS - Pensacola, FL 740,852 $179.92 $195.33 9% 909 934 3% -16% -14%

FAI - Fairbanks, AK 450,436 $245.15 $265.91 8% 1481 1300 -12% -2% -6%

ORF - Norfolk, VA 1,649,123 $176.72 $189.53 7% 1093 1059 -3% -19% -13%

XNA - Northwest Arkansas, AR 546,845 $237.51 $253.13 7% 896 887 -1% -14% -15%

MSN - Madison, WI 798,789 $195.56 $208.24 6% 992 998 1% -21% -15%

DAY - Dayton, OH 1,288,541 $161.53 $171.22 6% 874 929 6% -21% -13%

ABE - Allentown, PA 348,905 $176.93 $186.42 5% 1003 1005 0% -25% -18%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 26

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

ILM - Wilmington, NC 391,969 $178.02 $186.51 5% 886 911 3% 3% -2%

GRR - Grand Rapids, MI 1,063,151 $190.77 $198.97 4% 1024 1052 3% -9% 3%

CID - Cedar Rapids, IA 491,651 $197.41 $205.31 4% 996 1026 3% -17% -16%

PWM - Portland, ME 794,468 $182.77 $189.74 4% 1131 1091 -4% -19% -7%

BTR - Baton Rouge, LA 406,093 $202.67 $208.47 3% 946 918 -3% -18% -24%

CHS - Charleston, SC 1,283,952 $185.53 $190.55 3% 878 914 4% -4% 6%

CAE - Columbia, SC 487,255 $224.05 $229.13 2% 931 958 3% -28% -23%

GSO - Greensboro, NC 888,257 $178.72 $181.34 1% 851 850 0% -28% -21%

MDT - Harrisburg, PA 652,843 $210.13 $211.39 1% 1115 1103 -1% -7% -2%

FAT - Fresno, CA 640,350 $197.38 $196.83 0% 1105 1239 12% -25% -17%

SBA - Santa Barbara, CA 370,600 $205.13 $203.24 -1% 1225 1382 13% -25% -21%

DSM - Des Moines, IA 1,018,004 $197.16 $194.88 -1% 987 991 0% -22% -4%

HSV - Huntsville/Decatur, AL 578,993 $230.64 $226.83 -2% 932 913 -2% -18% -2%

COS - Colorado Springs, CO 836,924 $181.07 $177.94 -2% 1013 1008 0% -24% -14%

LEX - Lexington, KY 535,347 $200.20 $196.47 -2% 839 820 -2% -19% -4%

PSP - Palm Springs, CA 867,718 $185.66 $181.89 -2% 1247 1222 -2% -11% -9%

ICT - Wichita, KS 734,647 $193.02 $188.10 -3% 959 948 -1% -26% -18%

STT - St. Thomas, VI 649,691 $222.15 $215.89 -3% 1585 1527 -4% -9% -8%

TYS - Knoxville, TN 846,189 $201.24 $194.53 -3% 891 888 0% -19% -17%

BIL - Billings, MT 440,275 $199.46 $190.85 -4% 992 990 0% -15% -9%

GUM - Guam, TR 1,477,926 $639.57 $606.27 -5% 4259 3897 -9% -4% 0%

BGR - Bangor, ME 239,908 $230.61 $217.22 -6% 1283 1261 -2% -31% 3%

VPS - Fort Walton Beach, FL 373,542 $228.96 $215.35 -6% 945 983 4% -4% -9%

SFB - Orlando-Sanford, FL 865,768 $87.99 $82.63 -6% 790 842 7% 49% 52%

EUG - Eugene, OR 407,098 $184.04 $171.58 -7% 1099 1140 4% -20% -4%

PIE - St. Petersburg, FL 436,024 $95.67 $88.26 -8% 891 871 -2% -1% -6%

FSD - Sioux Falls, SD 453,057 $211.75 $194.59 -8% 1011 998 -1% 4% 0%

GSN - Saipan, TR 411,735 $165.98 $151.73 -9% 895 732 -18% #N/A #N/A

BZN - Bozeman, MT 434,038 $228.65 $201.99 -12% 1180 1138 -4% -9% 4%

MYR - Myrtle Beach, SC 722,775 $140.75 $121.07 -14% 727 723 -1% -15% -9%

GSP - Greenville/Spartanburg, SC 936,288 $205.33 $176.15 -14% 839 803 -4% -15% 10%

BLI - Bellingham, WA 574,287 $149.87 $124.24 -17% 1086 1282 18% 20% 108%

LGB - Long Beach, CA 1,554,844 $144.24 $112.52 -22% 1365 856 -37% 1% 1%

ACY - Atlantic City, NJ 663,277 $105.65 $62.05 -41% 947 876 -8% -5% 23%

Grand Total (Small-Hubs) 60,058,848 $178.63 $188.83 5.7% 1026.7 1035.4 0.9% -18.2% -13.5%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 27

Appendix D: Summary of Changes in Fares for Non-Hub and Essential Air Service Airports

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

LWT - Lewistown, MT 343 $80.72 $226.37 180% 176 97 -45% 0% 0%

JLN - Joplin, MO 24,489 $114.24 $221.21 94% 454 803 77% -49% 29%

VEL - Vernal, UT 7,252 $122.75 $226.12 84% 290 928 220% 46% 46%

DEC - Decatur, IL 7,753 $110.82 $202.21 82% 409 880 115% 29% -36%

SOW - Show Low, AZ 3,852 $94.31 $164.04 74% 217 645 197% 29% 29%

GRO - Rota, TR 13,206 $71.88 $118.82 65% 217 698 222% #N/A #N/A

MCK - Mc Cook, NE 1,623 $124.71 $205.28 65% 276 914 231% 65% 65%

MOD - Modesto, CA 14,739 $114.24 $181.02 58% 951 1341 41% -58% -58%

MLS - Miles City, MT 360 $80.47 $127.04 58% 143 412 188% -8% -8%

IPL - El Centro/Imperial, CA 5,491 $110.54 $172.30 56% 649 975 50% -44% -44%

CNY - Moab, UT 4,035 $141.17 $219.70 56% 418 968 131% 51% 51%

ROW - Roswell, NM 34,598 $161.25 $249.26 55% 611 911 49% -11% 57%

PRC - Prescott, AZ 5,152 $119.08 $182.62 53% 494 760 54% -28% -28%

IGM - Kingman, AZ 924 $113.63 $172.26 52% 357 933 161% -25% -25%

HVR - Havre, MT 1,186 $101.62 $150.02 48% 193 295 53% 0% 0%

FOD - Fort Dodge, IA 5,625 $144.22 $209.37 45% 549 910 66% 7% -23%

MAZ - Mayaguez, PR 5,856 $78.51 $113.80 45% 355 353 0% -6% -6%

FKL - Franklin, PA 1,319 $165.36 $239.59 45% 693 1112 60% 56% 56%

ISN - Williston, ND 40,658 $209.08 $301.34 44% 573 957 67% 123% 142%

ACV - Eureka/Arcata, CA 61,705 $170.64 $243.93 43% 822 1130 37% -25% -45%

ART - Watertown, NY 16,988 $166.42 $236.90 42% 570 1420 149% -70% -31%

ESC - Escanaba, MI 13,480 $175.98 $248.87 41% 805 1023 27% 24% 226%

HON - Huron, SD 1,705 $148.28 $207.66 40% 562 630 12% -4% -26%

BKW - Beckley, WV 2,533 $143.86 $201.41 40% 349 711 104% -35% 5%

DIK - Dickinson, ND 23,729 $180.01 $251.57 40% 503 986 96% -14% -14%

MCE - Merced, CA 3,724 $111.53 $155.68 40% 383 1077 181% -17% -17%

KSM - St. Mary's, AK 12,711 $88.07 $122.14 39% 156 287 84% -3% 27%

CIC - Chico, CA 19,269 $117.64 $162.40 38% 1023 1254 23% -6% -6%

PGA - Page, AZ 23,462 $155.74 $213.82 37% 460 1095 138% 67% 62%

SAW - Marquette, MI 38,294 $197.18 $266.85 35% 911 993 9% #N/A #N/A

GRI - Grand Island, NE 56,122 $107.02 $144.73 35% 312 959 207% -43% 113%

SWF - Newburgh, NY 185,389 $130.70 $176.33 35% 1072 1092 2% -49% -65%

HOM - Homer, AK 39,167 $91.37 $122.89 34% 338 325 -4% -15% -9%

CEC - Crescent City, CA 12,547 $134.90 $181.41 34% 834 928 11% -4% -4%

COU - Columbia, MO 41,357 $140.78 $188.53 34% 438 811 85% -26% 94%

CRQ - Carlsbad, CA 48,474 $114.07 $151.77 33% 1016 1609 58% #N/A #N/A

IMT - Iron Mountain, MI 8,755 $169.37 $223.01 32% 741 552 -26% -45% 45%

GRB - Green Bay, WI 282,870 $191.44 $251.73 31% 1032 970 -6% -32% -39%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 28

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

BPT - Beaumont/Pt. Arthur, TX 5,571 $225.09 $294.66 31% 897 917 2% -60% -63%

CRP - Corpus Christi, TX 313,939 $166.71 $217.65 31% 808 843 4% -21% -19%

LAR - Laramie, WY 8,131 $170.29 $222.20 30% 493 780 58% -9% -5%

VQS - Vieques, PR 56,266 $97.04 $126.57 30% 408 550 35% 21% -9%

ELY - Ely, NV 534 $118.61 $154.41 30% 229 1265 453% 4% 4%

MCW - Mason City, IA 6,027 $189.05 $244.05 29% 956 854 -11% -30% -53%

GGW - Glasgow, MT 1,975 $89.11 $114.93 29% 241 236 -2% -7% -7%

GBD - Great Bend, KS 943 $138.25 $177.82 29% 315 998 217% -18% -18%

SHD - Shenandoah Valley, VA 15,179 $155.43 $197.79 27% 423 1016 140% 32% 107%

IFP - Bullhead City, AZ 109,405 $128.14 $162.40 27% 1181 1114 -6% -100% -100%

DBQ - Dubuque, IA 32,389 $179.15 $226.51 26% 969 1029 6% -28% -34%

BMI - Bloomington, IL 240,153 $144.83 $182.99 26% 882 897 2% -25% -22%

MVY - Martha's Vineyard, MA 50,464 $96.16 $121.41 26% 241 248 3% 3% 4%

HRL - Harlingen, TX 375,472 $130.59 $164.68 26% 679 701 3% -27% -28%

ATY - Watertown, SD 6,296 $183.43 $228.68 25% 443 905 104% -27% -48%

OME - Nome, AK 59,807 $153.67 $190.86 24% 499 547 10% 15% -1%

RDD - Redding, CA 29,175 $166.05 $205.47 24% 714 1224 71% -46% -70%

VIS - Visalia, CA 3,354 $120.22 $147.58 23% 402 1555 287% 17% 17%

HOT - Hot Springs, AR 2,452 $90.36 $110.63 22% 241 225 -6% -12% -59%

SHR - Sheridan, WY 12,889 $186.88 $228.36 22% 649 1036 60% -50% -47%

VCT - Victoria, TX 4,597 $212.06 $258.71 22% 912 1030 13% -40% -50%

DDC - Dodge City, KS 5,784 $166.16 $202.30 22% 481 876 82% -24% -24%

JHW - Jamestown, NY 3,173 $190.28 $230.71 21% 761 807 6% 3% -42%

CWA - Wausau, WI 120,449 $209.27 $252.68 21% 1011 1018 1% -37% -21%

CVN - Clovis, NM 1,694 $152.97 $184.60 21% 332 775 133% -16% -16%

FMN - Farmington, NM 16,337 $178.15 $214.19 20% 507 913 80% -25% -25%

AOO - Altoona, PA 3,256 $160.74 $193.22 20% 561 1022 82% -16% 11%

VDZ - Valdez, AK 16,087 $110.92 $133.22 20% 305 273 -10% 74% 18%

GCK - Garden City, KS 17,998 $175.06 $209.54 20% 561 948 69% -34% 9%

DVL - Devils Lake, ND 2,976 $292.76 $350.19 20% 683 1045 53% 53% -14%

SJT - San Angelo, TX 56,301 $204.63 $244.23 19% 941 964 2% -45% -29%

GDV - Glendive, MT 746 $114.60 $136.68 19% 220 231 5% -13% -13%

AZO - Kalamazoo, MI 127,517 $214.22 $254.20 19% 944 937 -1% -38% -39%

NYL - Yuma, AZ 81,371 $213.77 $253.25 18% 1039 1238 19% #N/A #N/A

ABI - Abilene, TX 74,521 $199.60 $236.04 18% 933 928 -1% -33% -26%

RST - Rochester, MN 105,365 $190.25 $224.79 18% 907 881 -3% -37% -45%

JMS - Jamestown, ND 3,544 $224.69 $265.27 18% 651 902 39% 84% 37%

CDV - Cordova, AK 16,061 $174.38 $205.35 18% 711 754 6% -2% -12%

CLL - College Station, TX 70,352 $195.93 $228.82 17% 991 942 -5% -30% -8%

HIB - Hibbing, MN 11,771 $205.69 $240.12 17% 900 1157 29% -25% 11%

DUT - Dutch Harbor, AK 30,735 $501.63 $582.52 16% 1478 1812 23% -60% -82%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 29

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

LBL - Liberal, KS 5,816 $175.66 $203.83 16% 522 772 48% 14% 14%

LNK - Lincoln, NE 134,772 $198.36 $229.35 16% 868 832 -4% -25% -30%

SDY - Sidney, MT 11,858 $137.68 $158.88 15% 259 381 47% 7% 7%

BRO - Brownsville, TX 85,416 $218.10 $251.53 15% 1074 1087 1% -1% 3%

CMI - Champaign, IL 86,287 $197.20 $227.19 15% 933 1025 10% -35% -34%

OGS - Ogdensburg, NY 5,033 $109.18 $125.69 15% 440 340 -23% -15% -60%

WRL - Worland, WY 2,795 $173.62 $199.70 15% 444 981 121% -2% -2%

BFL - Bakersfield, CA 152,431 $220.32 $253.29 15% 1160 1356 17% -27% -23%

IPT - Williamsport, PA 25,960 $223.48 $256.66 15% 1076 1148 7% -40% -43%

CDR - Chadron, NE 2,037 $157.93 $181.22 15% 448 961 114% 34% 34%

MTJ - Montrose, CO 75,296 $207.91 $237.54 14% 1199 1182 -1% -34% -16%

TXK - Texarkana, AR 28,080 $250.75 $286.43 14% 879 879 0% -44% -36%

ACT - Waco, TX 59,706 $189.15 $215.30 14% 977 943 -3% -39% -10%

TVC - Traverse City, MI 179,879 $210.56 $239.44 14% 1014 1023 1% -2% -18%

CIU - Sault Ste. Marie, MI 19,824 $225.35 $256.24 14% 757 1074 42% -10% 32%

GGG - Longview, TX 18,787 $188.87 $214.23 13% 916 885 -3% -38% 1%

PIR - Pierre, SD 11,740 $215.12 $243.99 13% 637 961 51% -2% -23%

MSS - Massena, NY 4,964 $114.22 $129.54 13% 432 399 -8% 17% -45%

ATW - Appleton, WI 229,246 $201.80 $228.35 13% 964 1018 6% -44% -26%

UNV - State College, PA 133,789 $216.90 $245.07 13% 1058 1147 8% #N/A #N/A

OTZ - Kotzebue, AK 63,032 $146.55 $165.36 13% 411 387 -6% 45% 3%

GRK - Killeen, TX 183,501 $226.02 $254.11 12% 1042 1111 7% -17% -7%

FSM - Fort Smith, AR 84,751 $220.27 $247.34 12% 872 901 3% -31% -24%

UNK - Unalakleet, AK 13,070 $130.40 $146.03 12% 256 350 37% 102% 178%

TYR - Tyler, TX 71,841 $195.50 $218.35 12% 937 897 -4% -21% 1%

GUC - Gunnison, CO 31,181 $191.18 $213.32 12% 1050 974 -7% -53% -33%

MLU - Monroe, LA 101,034 $220.74 $246.04 11% 923 907 -2% -35% -15%

HXD - Hilton Head Island, SC 60,372 $199.38 $222.18 11% 810 818 1% #N/A #N/A

EVV - Evansville, IN 164,681 $212.46 $236.46 11% 821 827 1% -39% -35%

LSE - La Crosse, WI 97,319 $239.72 $265.67 11% 1018 989 -3% -15% -29%

SBN - South Bend, IN 299,482 $169.73 $187.40 10% 973 1015 4% -36% -25%

DRT - Del Rio, TX 11,632 $223.11 $246.29 10% 1009 1018 1% -29% -11%

DLG - Dillingham, AK 28,521 $206.65 $227.76 10% 651 396 -39% -43% -23%

TUP - Tupelo, MS 8,191 $237.21 $261.38 10% 732 454 -38% -46% -34%

SPS - Wichita Falls, TX 38,836 $249.64 $274.37 10% 933 930 0% -44% -6%

ALS - Alamosa, CO 6,959 $172.92 $190.02 10% 548 859 57% 13% 13%

CEZ - Cortez, CO 7,548 $174.95 $192.14 10% 562 1079 92% 22% 22%

LFT - Lafayette, LA 226,453 $218.27 $239.35 10% 941 951 1% -12% 4%

PVC - Provincetown, MA 11,577 $71.29 $78.09 10% 146 185 27% 0% 0%

TVF - Thief River Falls, MN 2,819 $188.92 $206.43 9% 602 765 27% 38% 28%

JAC - Jackson Hole, WY 274,342 $232.36 $253.89 9% 1349 1286 -5% -10% -6%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 30

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

ELM - Elmira, NY 145,262 $181.58 $197.88 9% 1001 1082 8% -6% 29%

SVC - Silver City, NM 1,363 $125.01 $136.21 9% 256 684 167% 7% 7%

AVP - Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, PA 219,540 $201.44 $219.42 9% 1170 1129 -4% -2% 5%

IWD - Ironwood, MI 2,532 $161.64 $175.93 9% 527 941 78% -4% 13%

CYS - Cheyenne, WY 15,010 $206.31 $223.93 9% 635 814 28% -19% -21%

OLF - Wolf Point, MT 2,987 $129.29 $140.09 8% 234 383 64% -3% -3%

HYS - Hays, KS 9,328 $198.21 $214.72 8% 602 854 42% 51% 51%

OTH - North Bend, OR 18,283 $171.30 $185.55 8% 653 775 19% 25% -35%

AEX - Alexandria, LA 189,476 $232.44 $251.07 8% 945 924 -2% -22% -11%

BFF - Scottsbluff, NE 9,839 $172.64 $186.39 8% 504 877 74% 37% 37%

PIB - Laurel/Hattiesburg, MS 13,857 $235.72 $254.43 8% 758 436 -43% -12% 18%

EAR - Kearney, NE 12,467 $187.21 $201.91 8% 688 908 32% 33% -1%

LCH - Lake Charles, LA 56,762 $232.43 $250.67 8% 932 938 1% 15% 30%

BRD - Brainerd, MN 15,630 $218.58 $235.66 8% 954 1051 10% -64% -47%

MFE - McAllen, TX 327,615 $199.25 $214.76 8% 1032 1049 2% -21% -22%

SBP - San Luis Obispo, CA 127,334 $202.88 $218.59 8% 1179 1385 17% -30% -31%

AKN - King Salmon, AK 35,803 $224.23 $240.42 7% 642 434 -32% 41% 17%

VLD - Valdosta, GA 37,030 $224.33 $240.32 7% 1014 960 -5% -2% -5%

LAW - Lawton, OK 55,678 $247.63 $265.29 7% 972 979 1% -20% 18%

PIA - Peoria, IL 286,372 $175.51 $187.95 7% 1038 995 -4% -1% 1%

HVN - New Haven, CT 36,971 $189.27 $202.22 7% 1055 1103 5% -40% -29%

TLH - Tallahassee, FL 331,197 $202.56 $216.00 7% 804 877 9% -35% -31%

LRD - Laredo, TX 102,222 $201.52 $214.05 6% 980 999 2% -14% -6%

DAB - Daytona Beach, FL 290,144 $151.87 $161.26 6% 982 958 -3% -25% -22%

MBS - Saginaw, MI 134,571 $198.02 $209.81 6% 1001 968 -3% -7% -32%

ALO - Waterloo, IA 19,470 $214.45 $226.99 6% 977 948 -3% -50% -40%

HDN - Steamboat Springs, CO 99,969 $190.34 $201.13 6% 1205 1150 -5% -33% -20%

SHV - Shreveport, LA 276,435 $228.95 $241.62 6% 932 952 2% -23% -15%

LAN - Lansing, MI 200,703 $180.02 $188.94 5% 996 793 -20% -16% -21%

BRW - Barrow, AK 43,673 $235.39 $246.77 5% 721 835 16% 14% 0%

BIS - Bismarck, ND 239,014 $229.48 $240.20 5% 1018 1023 0% 24% 6%

RDM - Redmond, OR 229,736 $164.18 $171.75 5% 933 1014 9% -34% -14%

ERI - Erie, PA 106,084 $178.04 $185.63 4% 881 960 9% -35% -30%

LWS - Lewiston, ID 62,197 $180.41 $187.80 4% 769 839 9% -44% -8%

ENA - Kenai, AK 99,814 $106.17 $110.19 4% 313 287 -8% 17% 5%

PUW - Pullman, WA 38,547 $156.09 $161.84 4% 527 637 21% -36% 31%

ANI - Aniak, AK 15,220 $115.67 $119.87 4% 225 241 7% -33% -25%

STS - Santa Rosa, CA 105,728 $125.52 $130.00 4% 525 543 3% 92% 97%

JBR - Jonesboro, AR 4,730 $143.38 $148.42 4% 335 852 154% 50% -26%

ADQ - Kodiak, AK 78,749 $200.27 $207.12 3% 722 784 9% 57% -4%

PLN - Pellston, MI 24,864 $254.25 $262.67 3% 917 996 9% -34% -19%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 31

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

BGM - Binghamton, NY 102,436 $195.97 $202.44 3% 1116 1183 6% -20% -21%

BRL - Burlington, IA 7,887 $167.40 $172.77 3% 697 899 29% 208% 54%

FHR - Friday Harbor, WA 7,802 $45.11 $46.55 3% 63 77 22% #N/A #N/A

EGE - Vail/Eagle, CO 167,901 $223.58 $230.61 3% 1262 1301 3% -36% -21%

ROA - Roanoke, VA 315,548 $209.14 $214.65 3% 880 906 3% -20% -17%

BQK - Brunswick, GA 31,284 $212.86 $217.18 2% 926 883 -5% -4% 11%

PQI - Presque Isle, ME 12,412 $270.91 $276.40 2% 1155 878 -24% 18% 18%

PPG - Pago Pago, TR 49,213 $611.07 $620.65 2% 3618 3541 -2% 7% 7%

BFD - Bradford, PA 2,310 $211.19 $212.83 1% 792 926 17% -31% -61%

DLH - Duluth, MN 158,569 $202.92 $204.32 1% 1086 1060 -2% -1% -22%

MOB - Mobile, AL 277,430 $239.54 $241.01 1% 937 952 2% -13% -11%

RAP - Rapid City, SD 252,578 $233.34 $234.77 1% 995 986 -1% 6% 1%

MEI - Meridian, MS 14,432 $284.48 $286.17 1% 866 400 -54% 3% 3%

BFI - Seattle, WA 23,072 $47.27 $47.45 0% 71 74 4% -60% -62%

MHK - Manhattan, KS 68,955 $224.76 $225.55 0% 648 822 27% 32% 238%

SPI - Springfield, IL 64,872 $191.15 $191.63 0% 895 918 3% -19% -4%

DUJ - Du Bois, PA 5,074 $209.94 $210.46 0% 898 1060 18% 15% 15%

MOT - Minot, ND 222,159 $277.20 $277.86 0% 1138 1109 -3% 268% 144%

PGV - Greenville, NC 61,968 $190.28 $190.63 0% 818 850 4% -1% 6%

CHA - Chattanooga, TN 313,783 $193.97 $192.67 -1% 786 776 -1% -8% -3%

LMT - Klamath Falls, OR 15,237 $190.07 $188.79 -1% 658 1107 68% -28% -42%

SUX - Sioux City, IA 27,168 $212.63 $211.19 -1% 879 827 -6% -63% -57%

SUN - Sun Valley, ID 47,734 $195.93 $194.38 -1% 789 852 8% -49% -46%

FLG - Flagstaff, AZ 62,472 $208.34 $206.45 -1% 998 972 -3% 19% 40%

JNU - Juneau, AK 301,681 $203.18 $200.96 -1% 1020 938 -8% -26% -10%

RKS - Rock Springs, WY 28,270 $225.46 $222.67 -1% 654 880 35% 35% 83%

RIW - Riverton, WY 13,136 $229.72 $226.85 -1% 704 974 38% 1% -9%

FWA - Fort Wayne, IN 280,732 $207.85 $205.06 -1% 954 958 0% -33% -22%

EYW - Key West, FL 370,637 $197.05 $193.89 -2% 934 1023 10% -28% 12%

ASE - Aspen, CO 214,892 $255.19 $249.64 -2% 1143 1116 -2% -2% 16%

FAR - Fargo, ND 370,099 $232.90 $227.79 -2% 1057 1112 5% 15% 12%

ACK - Nantucket, MA 178,918 $87.55 $85.56 -2% 176 100 -43% -17% -13%

PKB - Parkersburg, WV 8,292 $227.88 $222.37 -2% 636 727 14% 52% -15%

MGM - Montgomery, AL 182,313 $236.02 $229.80 -3% 893 922 3% -1% -5%

CRW - Charleston, WV 270,537 $212.92 $206.86 -3% 888 916 3% -27% -13%

GPI - Kalispell/Glacier, MT 192,437 $231.82 $225.14 -3% 1201 1177 -2% #N/A #N/A

ABY - Albany, GA 33,494 $254.61 $247.15 -3% 880 868 -1% -24% -10%

SGF - Springfield, MO 364,665 $211.12 $204.81 -3% 923 975 6% -31% -28%

PSE - Ponce, PR 95,787 $149.55 $144.59 -3% 1500 1384 -8% -68% -29%

AIA - Alliance, NE 1,592 $155.71 $150.46 -3% 404 755 87% -12% -12%

MFR - Medford, OR 313,638 $180.16 $173.84 -4% 1021 1007 -1% -39% -18%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 32

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

GNV - Gainesville, FL 190,324 $211.49 $203.83 -4% 942 959 2% 18% 15%

HLN - Helena, MT 95,374 $245.95 $236.83 -4% 978 1154 18% -19% 0%

EAT - Wenatchee, WA 51,347 $172.27 $165.79 -4% 814 885 9% 0% 40%

EWN - New Bern, NC 125,873 $204.07 $195.95 -4% 974 1008 4% 11% 9%

YKM - Yakima, WA 57,673 $189.42 $181.60 -4% 956 955 0% -14% -11%

GTR - Columbus, MS 38,693 $258.22 $246.60 -4% 841 849 1% 0% 18%

ITH - Ithaca, NY 117,045 $203.99 $194.57 -5% 992 1226 24% -5% 7%

IDA - Idaho Falls, ID 160,454 $213.50 $202.87 -5% 911 962 6% -25% -12%

BET - Bethel, AK 148,168 $154.79 $146.77 -5% 466 365 -22% 200% 114%

TOL - Toledo, OH 78,755 $171.93 $162.74 -5% 855 886 4% -75% -64%

YNG - Youngstown, OH 40,102 $85.89 $81.07 -6% 861 895 4% 213% 218%

MSL - Muscle Shoals, AL 4,160 $184.99 $173.83 -6% 465 232 -50% -35% -13%

CNM - Carlsbad, NM 2,776 $140.03 $131.47 -6% 263 302 15% 36% -34%

SBY - Salisbury, MD 76,370 $179.13 $167.80 -6% 920 981 7% -19% -6%

DHN - Dothan, AL 46,452 $335.78 $314.00 -6% 977 996 2% -17% -15%

SGU - St. George, UT 53,977 $113.99 $106.58 -6% 547 569 4% -44% -19%

IRK - Kirksville, MO 5,744 $128.45 $119.69 -7% 349 387 11% -12% -58%

CHO - Charlottesville, VA 226,396 $221.26 $205.26 -7% 926 997 8% -10% -1%

GJT - Grand Junction, CO 217,369 $222.32 $206.19 -7% 832 970 16% -12% 18%

TBN - Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 7,894 $216.01 $199.99 -7% 725 563 -22% 319% 99%

BQN - Aguadilla, PR 215,448 $163.85 $151.67 -7% 1451 1413 -3% 3% 6%

MSO - Missoula, MT 303,886 $217.91 $201.37 -8% 1088 1076 -1% -28% -12%

JST - Johnstown, PA 6,986 $228.13 $210.47 -8% 924 1123 21% -17% -17%

GST - Gustavus, AK 9,509 $135.36 $123.49 -9% 605 46 -92% 11% 27%

LBF - North Platte, NE 9,017 $220.04 $200.34 -9% 630 819 30% 1% 1%

MCN - Macon, GA 843 $248.14 $225.52 -9% 955 816 -15% 36% -80%

SLK - Saranac Lake, NY 6,018 $161.58 $146.02 -10% 550 517 -6% -9% -57%

SCC - Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse, AK 43,837 $313.11 $282.35 -10% 626 454 -28% -12% -19%

AVL - Asheville, NC 318,371 $217.80 $196.25 -10% 878 869 -1% -4% 6%

ALW - Walla Walla, WA 31,832 $168.17 $151.21 -10% 676 716 6% -41% 25%

MRY - Monterey, CA 196,268 $220.25 $197.53 -10% 1184 1148 -3% -30% -17%

YAK - Yakutat, AK 10,100 $186.57 $167.06 -10% 797 489 -39% 0% -10%

LUP - Kalaupapa/ Molokai, HI 3,186 $44.37 $39.64 -11% 41 164 295% 1% 1%

TEX - Telluride, CO 7,828 $265.65 $236.25 -11% 828 1052 27% -46% -53%

COD - Cody, WY 28,551 $238.79 $212.29 -11% 958 933 -3% -31% -5%

RFD - Rockford, IL 106,412 $123.57 $109.84 -11% 1190 1190 0% -46% -20%

DRO - Durango, CO 186,567 $220.53 $194.41 -12% 926 832 -10% 3% 49%

INL - International Falls, MN 15,240 $249.56 $219.00 -12% 880 628 -29% -39% -18%

TRI - Tri-Cities, TN 206,784 $229.17 $201.10 -12% 838 879 5% -33% -20%

PSC - Pasco, WA 329,833 $211.78 $185.09 -13% 1079 1077 0% -11% 23%

LWB - Greenbrier, WV 9,566 $247.76 $216.23 -13% 713 571 -20% -33% -10%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 33

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

SAF - Santa Fe, NM 47,847 $250.57 $218.34 -13% 857 963 12% 32% 222%

FAY - Fayetteville, NC 255,247 $257.76 $224.29 -13% 933 1051 13% 24% 31%

GAL - Galena, AK 14,563 $131.25 $113.91 -13% 240 220 -8% 1% -16%

PIH - Pocatello, ID 22,214 $185.85 $160.88 -13% 549 572 4% -50% -41%

SMX - Santa Maria, CA 44,737 $175.92 $152.24 -13% 944 1018 8% -20% -14%

CMX - Hancock, MI 25,545 $214.07 $184.96 -14% 1082 974 -10% -32% -14%

CLM - Port Angeles, WA 5,853 $49.83 $42.80 -14% 69 70 2% -66% -67%

MWA - Marion, IL 11,354 $136.79 $117.19 -14% 390 395 1% 98% -6%

KTN - Ketchikan, AK 103,136 $227.46 $194.40 -15% 980 575 -41% 16% 23%

CSG - Columbus, GA 74,336 $310.53 $264.85 -15% 958 975 2% 51% 24%

OAJ - Jacksonville, NC 174,276 $255.14 $217.53 -15% 1027 1048 2% 16% 22%

HRO - Harrison, AR 5,347 $131.23 $111.49 -15% 279 207 -26% 28% -40%

SIT - Sitka, AK 68,218 $204.80 $173.03 -16% 971 517 -47% -6% -6%

LYH - Lynchburg, VA 79,889 $253.45 $212.72 -16% 928 977 5% -12% 0%

ELD - El Dorado, AR 3,059 $137.36 $115.16 -16% 254 219 -14% 0% -52%

GTF - Great Falls, MT 186,776 $232.95 $195.17 -16% 1078 1032 -4% -8% -7%

BTM - Butte, MT 20,895 $223.93 $186.20 -17% 832 762 -8% -55% -63%

APN - Alpena, MI 13,011 $247.15 $205.21 -17% 760 654 -14% -43% -16%

SCK - Stockton, CA 63,149 $63.70 $52.79 -17% 359 564 57% 75% 78%

EAU - Eau Claire, WI 22,871 $195.84 $161.98 -17% 980 818 -17% -63% -45%

GCC - Gillette, WY 32,714 $250.65 $206.83 -17% 695 868 25% 28% 35%

FLO - Florence, SC 67,745 $230.71 $189.81 -18% 830 866 4% -11% 2%

PBG - Plattsburgh, NY 112,493 $155.26 $126.31 -19% 985 1270 29% 186% 1098%

HNH - Hoonah, AK 9,564 $46.31 $37.55 -19% 53 41 -23% -27% 5%

GLH - Greenville, MS 5,181 $242.87 $196.27 -19% 809 516 -36% 15% 53%

GFK - Grand Forks, ND 137,923 $262.41 $211.88 -19% 1088 1161 7% 33% 16%

AGS - Augusta, GA 271,691 $252.17 $203.31 -19% 908 901 -1% 32% 52%

TWF - Twin Falls, ID 26,059 $190.59 $153.42 -20% 591 752 27% -46% -45%

MLB - Melbourne, FL 215,300 $204.33 $164.35 -20% 1069 975 -9% 19% 30%

CKB - Clarksburg, WV 8,921 $294.31 $236.00 -20% 939 768 -18% 18% 25%

EKO - Elko, NV 33,308 $202.35 $160.99 -20% 567 537 -5% -45% -45%

MKG - Muskegon, MI 17,814 $190.03 $150.84 -21% 874 740 -15% -69% -41%

PAH - Paducah, KY 20,734 $208.01 $164.68 -21% 687 819 19% -33% -1%

CPR - Casper, WY 88,011 $260.47 $204.23 -22% 901 845 -6% -41% -12%

RUT - Rutland, VT 5,909 $157.98 $123.48 -22% 460 492 7% 69% -8%

PDT - Pendleton, OR 5,066 $126.68 $99.00 -22% 342 182 -47% 16% -72%

TNI - Tinian, TR 10,203 $39.16 $30.48 -22% 15 14 -6% #N/A #N/A

SLN - Salina, KS 2,919 $116.24 $90.00 -23% 296 161 -46% 24% -41%

CDC - Cedar City, UT 15,881 $126.67 $97.07 -23% 435 398 -9% -59% -9%

PUB - Pueblo, CO 9,812 $168.70 $128.80 -24% 537 864 61% 98% 134%

UIN - Quincy, IL 10,165 $156.87 $119.75 -24% 517 368 -29% 56% -26%
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares 34

Airport Enplaned Pax 

(2012)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2007)

Avg. One-Way 

Fare (2012)

% Change 

Fares 07-12

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2007)

Avg. Itinerary 

Dist. (2012)

% Change 

Dist. 07-12

% Change 

Flights 07-12

% Change 

Seats 07-12

FNL - Fort Collins, CO 34,817 $81.31 $61.52 -24% 628 629 0% 2% 2%

AUG - Augusta, ME 4,791 $208.50 $157.59 -24% 764 967 27% -20% -62%

STX - St. Croix, VI 200,727 $219.13 $162.47 -26% 1175 999 -15% -15% -17%

BHB - Bar Harbor, ME 8,862 $239.25 $176.94 -26% 684 647 -5% -19% -15%

MGW - Morgantown, WV 9,534 $270.35 $198.86 -26% 760 892 17% -2% -2%

CGI - Cape Girardeau, MO 6,226 $173.88 $127.74 -27% 767 379 -51% 292% 85%

LEB - Lebanon, NH 10,189 $173.21 $125.95 -27% 477 431 -10% 92% -27%

LNS - Lancaster, PA 5,779 $126.94 $91.05 -28% 589 416 -29% 135% 12%

HTS - Huntington, WV 105,546 $185.34 $128.86 -30% 767 776 1% -5% 41%

EWB - New Bedford, MA 12,254 $48.36 $33.49 -31% 50 49 -3% 29% 29%

BJI - Bemidji, MN 22,374 $251.08 $170.89 -32% 1052 715 -32% -60% -38%

ABR - Aberdeen, SD 24,877 $260.38 $175.53 -33% 882 713 -19% -69% -52%

RHI - Rhinelander, WI 11,119 $209.38 $135.59 -35% 930 635 -32% -75% -58%

HYA - Hyannis, MA 95,693 $57.74 $35.32 -39% 53 37 -30% -22% -27%

PSG - Petersburg, AK 18,800 $201.62 $122.52 -39% 835 351 -58% -27% -14%

MKK - Molokai/Hoolehua, HI 72,421 $72.90 $44.00 -40% 327 108 -67% -7% -18%

BID - Block Island, RI 10,643 $49.83 $30.00 -40% 17 17 0% 19% 19%

RKD - Rockland, ME 8,160 $220.81 $131.13 -41% 785 565 -28% -22% -63%

OWB - Owensboro, KY 30,795 $165.96 $87.08 -48% 785 681 -13% 509% 984%

WRG - Wrangell, AK 11,434 $193.65 $100.54 -48% 743 199 -73% 0% -12%

LNY - Lanai/Lanai, HI 45,692 $193.45 $88.86 -54% 1038 283 -73% -15% -22%

AHN - Athens, GA 1,694 $248.29 $109.38 -56% 786 260 -67% 4% -55%

MKL - Jackson, TN 2,037 $173.78 $75.00 -57% 519 130 -75% 539% 214%

HGR - Hagerstown, MD 10,207 $167.59 $70.93 -58% 565 767 36% 194% 132%

LBE - Latrobe, PA 79,531 $175.20 $62.10 -65% 871 871 0% -19% 275%

Grand Total (Non-Hubs) 22,873,244 $184.44 $190.34 3.2% 742.2 814.9 9.8% -13.9% -10.6%
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation was 

served this 25th day of March, 2014 via email transmission on the following persons:

robert.wirick@aa.com

francis.heil@aa.com

howard.kass@aa.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

jeff.morgan@delta.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

leslie.abbott@wnco.com

Charles.donley@squiresanders.com

marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

thomas.ting@suncountry.com

dan.weiss@united.com

steve.morrissey@united.com

jonathan.linde@united.com

karine.faden@united.com

lhalloway@crowell.com

gmurphy@crowell.com

john.varley@virginamerica.com

jegillick@zsrlaw.com

jhfoglia@zsrlaw.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com

Jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

mike.morisi@flypex.com

shawn.voyles@flypex.com

dhernandez@vedderprice.com

nssparks@fedex.com

sllunsford@fedex.com

jyoung@yklaw.com

lgrunewald@yklaw.com

steve.grossman@flyjacksonville.com

quince.brinkley@mwaa.com

Susan.Kurland@dot.gov

Esta.Rosenberg@dot.gov

Todd.Homan@dot.gov

brian.ctr.meehan@faa.gov

fbavent@airlineinfo.com

info@airlineinfo.com

and via First Class Mail:

Mayor Vincent Gray

Executive Office of the Mayor

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Suite 316

Washington, DC 20004

Mayor Alvin Brown

Mayor’s Office

City Hall at St. James Building

117 W. Duval St Suite 400

Jacksonville, FL 32202

John Potter

President and CEO

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

1 Aviation Circle

Washington, DC 20001

Arnaldo Deleo

General Manager Aviation Bureau

Port Authority

Government of Puerto Rico

PO Box 362829

San Juan, PR 00936-2829

___________/s/______________________ 

 Michael R. Radlick