e 

U&Depojtnwntof 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

-1 I •pcRAllUINCj 

q O U: UU 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

September 15,2011 

Jerry M. Pacheco 

City Maijager 

The City [of Pueblo 

200 S. MMn St 

Pueblo, (io 81003 

Dear Mr.lPacheco: 

I would like to update you on the essential air service situation at Pueblo and give you 

an opportlunity to submit any comments if you wish. In anticipation of the end of Great 

Lakes' current contract on January 31, 2012, the Department issued Order 2011-8-18, 

August 16, 2011, to solicit proposals from all interested air carriers to provide EAS at 

Pueblo fojr a new two-year term beginning February 1. At this stage, we would normally 

ask for yc^ur preferences for various carrier and service options. However, in response to 

that orderj. Great Lakes, the incumbent, was the or^ly carrier to submit a proposal. 

Nonetheless, we want to give you an opportunity to submit any final comments for the 

record that you may have. A copy of Great Lakes' proposal may be accessed online at: 

http://ww^.regulations.gov by entering DOT-OST-1999-6589 in the "Enter Keyword or 

ID" section. 

Great Lakes' proposal offers two options, each for a two-year period. The first option 

is two noijistop round trips each weekday and weekend to Denver (12 per week), the level 

of service that the Department is currently subsidizing, for a proposed annual subsidy of 

$1,592,27|6, compared to the current aimual subsidy of $1,299,821. The second option is 

three nonstop round trips each weekday and weekend to Denver (18 per week), for an 

annual su^)sidy of $1,988,345. We are currently reviewing Great Lakes' compensation 

requiremelnts. Order 2011-8-18 requested 12 nonstop round trips per week with 15-seat 

or larger aircraft or 18 nonstop round trips per week on aircraft with less than 15 

passenger seats. Great Lakes' three- round-trip pattern exceeds our requested level of 

service. 

Please hote that the average passenger fares shown in the proposal do not necessarily 

reflect the average local fare Pueblo passengers would actually pay. but, rather, reflect a 

prorated pprtion of the total ticket price, e.g.. the Pueblo - Denver portion of a Pueblo -
2-

Denver -I Washington, D.C. ticket that Great Lakes would realize. Also, the fare shown 

is net of certain charges such as Federal transportation security fees, excise or ticket 

taxes, and Passenger Facility Charges. Of course, carriers have the discretion to charge 

fares they deem appropriate, and the passenger fares presented in this proposal have been 

developed for subsidy rate computation purposes only. 

You should also note that the schedules that the carrier has submitted are illustrative 

only, an(| that they may make schedule changes to reflect changing conditions, e.g., to 

better mept shifting cormecting bank times at the hub. The Department expects 

subsidizejd air carriers to maintain well-timed and well-spaced flights in order to ensure 

full combensation. 

We ask that you submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but in any 

case no lifter than October 12, 2011. We will carefully consider your comments before 

we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision. Should you have 

any quesljions or need additional time to draft your comments, please let us know. 

Please send your comments via e-mail to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to 202-366-7638. If 

you have any questions, please feel free to contact Kevin Schlemmer of my staff at 

kevin.sch|lemmer@dot.gov or 202-366-3176. 

A similar letter has been sent to the Director of Aviation. 

Sincerely, 

1.0. y. 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service 

c ^ -