Commercial Aviation
Programs and Options for Providing Air Service to Small Communities Gao ID: GAO-07-793T April 25, 2007Congress established two key programs to help support air service to small communities--the Essential Air Service (EAS) providing about $100 million in subsidies per year and the Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) that provides about $20 million per year in grants. As part of its reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Congress is examining the status and outcomes of these programs. This testimony discusses (1) the history and challenges of the EAS program, (2) the implementation and outcomes of the SCASDP and (3) options for reforming EAS and SCASDP. The testimony is based on previous GAO reports, interviews with Department of Transportation officials and industry representatives as well as program updates.
EAS subsidies support air service to many small communities that would likely not have service if EAS subsidies are discontinued. Since 1997, funding for EAS has increased from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4 million in 2007 and the number of communities has generally increased. The federal government is spending a median of about $98 per passenger, with subsidies ranging from about $13 to $677 per passenger. Concerns exist about the costs of the program, particularly given the federal government's long-term structural fiscal imbalance. In addition, according to industry representatives, the number of air carriers flying aircraft suitable for EAS communities may decrease, raising concerns about the availability of appropriate aircraft to provide small community air service in the future. SCASDP grantees have used their grants to pursue a variety of goals and have used a variety of strategies, including marketing and revenue guarantees, to improve air service. Our analysis of the 23 grants completed by October 1, 2005, found that air service was sustained after the grant expired in a little less than half of the projects. Finally, although the program has seen some success, the number of applications for SCASDP grants has declined--from 179 in 2002 to 75 in 2006. As we have reported, options for reforming EAS, such as consolidating service into regional airports might make the program more efficient, but also could reduce service to some communities. Further, Congress may be able to use some "lessons learned" from marketing and other successful SCASDP strategies that may help it make the current programs more effective.
GAO-07-793T, Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for Providing Air Service to Small Communities
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-793T
entitled 'Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for Providing Air
Service to Small Communities' which was released on April 25, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, April 25, 2007:
Commercial Aviation:
Programs and Options for Providing Air Service to Small Communities:
Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.,
Director Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-07-793T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-793T, a report to the Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress established two key programs to help support air service to
small communities ”the Essential Air Service (EAS) providing about $100
million in subsidies per year and the Small Community Air Service
Development Program (SCASDP) that provides about $20 million per year
in grants. As part of its reauthorization of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the Congress is examining the status and outcomes
of these programs.
This testimony discusses (1) the history and challenges of the EAS
program, (2) the implementation and outcomes of the SCASDP and (3)
options for reforming EAS and SCASDP. The testimony is based on
previous GAO reports, interviews with DOT and industry representatives
and program updates.
What GAO Found:
EAS subsidies support air service to many small communities that would
likely not have service if EAS subsidies are discontinued. Since 1997,
funding for EAS has increased from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4
million in 2007 and the number of communities has generally increased.
The federal government is spending a median $90.15 per passenger, with
subsidies ranging from about $13 to $677 per passenger. Concerns exist
about the costs of the program, particularly given the federal
government‘s long-term structural fiscal imbalance. In addition,
according to industry representatives, the number of air carriers
flying aircraft suitable for EAS communities may decrease, raising
concerns about the availability of appropriate planes to provide small
community air service in the future.
SCASDP grantees have used their grants to pursue a variety of goals and
have used a variety of strategies, including marketing and revenue
guarantees, to improve air service. Our analysis of the 23 grants
completed by October 1, 2005, found that air service was sustained
after the grant expired in a little less than half of the projects.
Finally, although the program has seen some success, the number of
applications for SCASDP grants has declined”from 179 in 2002 to 75 in
2006.
As we have reported, options for reforming EAS, such as consolidating
service into regional airports might make the program more efficient,
but also could reduce service to some communities. Further, Congress
may be able to use some ’lessons learned“ from marketing and other
successful SCASDP strategies that may help it make the current programs
more effective.
Figure: Example of a 19-seat Turbo Prop Aircraft Serving Small
Communities:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-793T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Dr. Gerald Dillingham at
(202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on issues related to the
Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development
(SCASDP) programs. These are the principal federal programs that have
been established to provide air service to small and underserved
communities. Congressional deliberations on the reauthorization of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are an opportune time to examine
the status of federal air service to small and rural communities. As
you know, small community air service helps connect small communities
to other parts of the country and the world. However, such service has
struggled over the past decade. The aviation industry has experienced
financial losses in the last few years, though some airlines improved
their financial conditions in 2006. However, the improvement in
profitability of some airlines has not benefited small communities that
face decreases in the number of available seats and scheduled flights.
According to a key industry association, flights to small communities
are the first flights to be eliminated due to their limited
profitability. Specifically, in July 2006 scheduled flights for small
communities were 26 percent below the number of scheduled flights in
July 2000. This has challenged small communities to obtain adequate
commercial air service at reasonable prices.
Although both EAS and SCASDP are designed to help support air service
to small communities, the programs have several differences.[Footnote
1] EAS, established as part of airline deregulation in 1978, is
designed to ensure that small communities that received scheduled
passenger air service before deregulation continue to have access to
the nation's air transportation system. In fiscal year 2007, Congress
appropriated about $109.4 million for the Department of Transportation
(DOT) for EAS. These funds are essentially used to provide subsidies to
air carriers who provide service to small communities. For fiscal year
2008, the administration, as part of its reauthorization proposal,
requested $50 million for the program. Congress established SCASDP in
2000 and has appropriated $20 million annually from 2002 through 2005
and $10 million for 2006 and 2007 for DOT to award up to 40 grants each
year to communities that have demonstrated air-service deficiencies or
higher-than-average fares.[Footnote 2] For fiscal year 2008, the
administration did not request funds for SCASDP.
While federal programs to support air service to small communities face
increasing financial expenditures, the federal government's financial
condition and long-term fiscal outlook have deteriorated. We have
reported on the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances and the need for a
fundamental and periodic reexamination of the base of government,
ultimately covering discretionary and mandatory programs as well as the
revenue side of the budget.[Footnote 3] Furthermore, in January 2007,
we identified the challenges federal aviation programs are facing
meeting growing infrastructure demands and constrained resources as
part of one of GAO's high risk areas--namely, financing the nation's
transportation system. These federal fiscal constraints lead to
difficult policy choices for the best use of scarce resources.
In light of these challenges, part of my testimony today will discuss
options for reforming small community air service. But first, I will
address (1) the history and challenges of the EAS program and (2) the
implementation and outcomes of SCASDP. Then I will highlight (3)
options for reforming EAS and SCASDP. My statement is based in part on
the reports that we have issued related to these programs, in addition
to recent interviews with and data from key stakeholders. We obtained
information on the status of projects from the Office of the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation (OST) and obtained information on
the current issues in providing service to small communities from DOT
and industry representatives. Based on assessments conducted during
previous reviews, we concluded that the data are reliable for the
purposes of this testimony. Appendix IV contains a list of our related
testimonies and reports. We conducted our work on EAS from March
through December 2002 and our work on SCASDP from September 2004
through October 2005 and updated information in April 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary:
* EAS provides service to many communities that would otherwise not
receive air service. Without these subsidies, air service for many EAS
communities would likely end, since EAS air carriers have to prove that
they cannot serve EAS communities at a profit to be eligible for EAS
payments. However, costs and other concerns about the program exist. In
recent years, a growing number of communities have received subsidies
under EAS--expanding from 95 communities in fiscal year 1997 to 145 in
fiscal year 2007. Similarly, funding for EAS has risen over this 10-
year period--from $25.9 million in fiscal year 1997 to $109.4 million
in fiscal year 2007. The median expenditure per passenger is about $98;
subsidies to communities range from about $13 to $677 per passenger.
While the total number of communities has risen, communities do drop
out of the EAS program--some because their costs exceeded the program
cap on costs per passenger. Furthermore, industry and DOT officials
have raised concerns about the effect of the potential decrease in the
number of air carriers and smaller aircraft suitable for EAS
communities on the future EAS program. The limits on the federal
budget, the increased costs along with concerns about the future of air
carriers and planes to serve small communities, raise questions about
ways to improve the program.
* DOT has awarded 182 grants in the 5 years of the SCASDP program--74
of these are currently completed. In our review of the 23 grants
completed in 2005, we found that SCASDP grantees pursued a variety of
goals and strategies for supporting air service, and some completed
grants have been successful; however, the number of SCASDP grant
requests has been declining. The goals grantees are pursuing include
trying to add flights and destinations, or trying to obtain lower
fares. The different strategies grantees are employing to improve air
service include offering subsidies or revenue guarantees to airlines,
marketing, and hiring personnel. We could not assess the overall
effectiveness of the program, since few projects had been completed at
the time; however, we found a little less than half had resulted in a
self-sustaining improvement to air service. In response to our 2005
recommendation, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General
(DOT IG) began a review of completed grants in March 2007 at DOT's
request. The results of this review should provide further information
on successful grants. Finally, although a number of communities found
the grants helpful in attaining self-sustaining service, the number of
applications for SCASDP has declined--from 179 in 2002 to 75 in
2006.[Footnote 4] According to officials we interviewed, fewer
communities might be applying due to a number of factors, including the
fact that DOT's selection process favors communities that provide some
matching funds that some communities might not be able to fund.
* We have reported on options for changing EAS to potentially make it
more efficient, including (1) targeting subsidized service to more
remote communities, (2) better matching capacity with community use,
(3) consolidating service to multiple communities into regional
airports, and (4) changing the form of the federal assistance from
carrier subsidies to local grants. Although these options might make
the program more efficient and less costly, they could also reduce
service to some areas. In addition, the 2003 Vision 100-Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision-100) provided for a number of
initiatives for the EAS program including marketing grants and an
initiative whereby communities who forego their EAS subsidy for 10
years can get a grant for twice the amount of one year's EAS subsidy.
These initiatives have not been implemented due partly to a lack of
interest from EAS communities and a lack of dedicated funding. The
administration's FAA reauthorization proposal would repeal some of
these programs and initiatives. Regarding SCASDP, as we recommended,
the DOT IG is conducting an evaluation of completed projects. The
results of such an evaluation will be useful as Congress is considering
the reauthorization of this program and could result in identifying
"lessons learned" from successful projects. These lessons could be
shared with other small communities that are trying to improve air
service, and, if needed, to reform and refocus the program.
Background:
Before I discuss these issues in detail, let me sketch the background
of the EAS and SCASDP programs.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress established EAS as part of the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 to help areas that face limited
service. The act guaranteed that for 10 years communities served by air
carriers before deregulation would continue to receive a certain level
of scheduled air service[Footnote 5] by authorizing DOT to require
carriers to continue providing service at these communities. If an air
carrier could not continue that service without incurring a loss, DOT
could then use EAS funds to award that carrier a subsidy.[Footnote 6]
In 1987, Congress extended the program for another 10 years, and in
1998, it eliminated the sunset provision, thereby permanently
authorizing EAS.
To be eligible for this subsidized service, communities must meet three
general requirements. They (1) must have received scheduled commercial
passenger service as of October 1978, (2) may be no closer than 70
highway miles to a medium-or large-hub airport, and (3) must require a
subsidy of less than $200 per person (unless the community is more than
210 highway miles from the nearest medium-or large-hub airport, in
which case no average per-passenger dollar limit applies).[Footnote 7]
Air carriers apply to DOT for EAS subsidies. DOT selects a carrier and
sets a subsidy amount to cover the difference between the carrier's
projected cost of operation and its expected passenger revenues, while
providing the carrier with a profit element equal to 5 percent of total
operating expenses, according to statute.[Footnote 8]
Funding for EAS has come from a combination of permanent and annual
appropriations. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-264) permanently appropriated the first $50 million of such
funding--for EAS and safety projects at rural airports--from the
collection of overflight fees. [Footnote 9] Congress has appropriated
additional funds from the general fund on an annual basis. The
Department of Transportation's reauthorization proposal suggests
changing the source of program funding to a mandatory appropriation of
$50 million per year from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. A new,
small aviation fuel tax would be used to generate this $50 million.
Furthermore, according to DOT officials, since $50 million would not
sufficiently support all currently subsidized service, communities
would be ranked in order of isolation, with Alaskan communities at the
top of the list. Thus, some of the EAS communities currently receiving
EAS subsidies under the roughly $100 million Congress has appropriated
in recent years, might no longer receive air service.
Turning now to SCASDP, Congress authorized it as a pilot program in the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21),[Footnote 10] to help small communities enhance their air
service. AIR-21 authorized the program for fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
and subsequent legislation[Footnote 11] reauthorized the program
through fiscal year 2008 and eliminated the "pilot" status of the
program.
The Office of Aviation Analysis in DOT's Office of the Secretary is
responsible for administering the program. The law establishing SCASDP
allows DOT considerable flexibility in implementing the program and
selecting projects to be funded. The law defines basic eligibility
criteria and statutory priority factors, but meeting a given number of
priority factors does not automatically mean DOT will select a project.
SCASDP grants may be made to single communities or a consortium of
communities, although no more than four grants each year may be in the
same state. Both small hubs and non hubs are eligible for this program.
Thus, small hubs, such as Buffalo Niagara International Airport in
Buffalo, New York, which enplaned over 2.4 million passengers in 2005,
and small, nonhub airports, such in Moab, Utah (with about 2,600
enplanements) are eligible. SCASDP grants are available in the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and
possessions. DOT's SCASDP awards have been geographically dispersed.
Figure 1 shows the location of all SCASDP grants awarded as of August
31, 2006, as well as communities receiving EAS subsidies as of April 1,
2007.
Figure 1: Airports Receiving Essential Air Service as of April 2007 and
All Small Community Air Service Development Program Grantees, through
August 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO map of DOT data.
[End of figure]
The EAS Program Provides Service to Small Communities While Increasing
EAS Subsidies Raise Concerns about the Cost and Efficiency of the EAS
Program and Its Service Providers:
Mr. Chairman, as you know EAS provides service to many communities that
otherwise would not receive air service. However, the increase in the
number of communities receiving subsidies and the cost of these
subsidies raise concerns over the funding needed to provide this
service in an environment of federal deficits. For example, the funding
for EAS has grown from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4 million in 2007.
Furthermore, the federal median subsidy for providing air service to
EAS communities is about $98 per passenger; the subsidies varied among
communities from about $13 to over $677 per passenger in 2006. Finally,
the number of air carriers flying smaller aircraft suitable for EAS
communities may decrease and some industry officials are beginning to
voice concerns about the availability of appropriate planes to provide
small community air service in the future.
EAS Provides Service to Many Communities Where Certain Factors Make
Maintaining Service in Small Communities Difficult:
In fiscal year 2007, EAS provided subsidies to 145 communities. In
fiscal year 2005, the most recent year for which passenger data is
available, the EAS program supported over 1 million passengers. As we
have noted in past reports, if EAS subsidies were removed, air service
might end at many small communities. Since air carriers have to show
financial data to support a subsidy calculation--proving the service is
not profitable to run--it is likely that if the subsidy is no longer
available commercial air service would end.
Several factors may help explain why some small communities, especially
nonhubs, face relatively limited air service. First, small communities
can become cost-cutting targets of air carriers because they are often
a carrier's least profitable operation. Consequently, many network
carriers have cut service to small communities, replaced by regional
carriers.[Footnote 12] Second, the "Commuter Rule" that FAA enacted in
1995 brought small commuter aircraft under the same safety standards as
larger aircraft--a change that made it more difficult to economically
operate smaller aircraft, such as 19-seat turboprops.[Footnote 13] For
example, the Commuter Rule required commuter air carriers that flew
aircraft equipped with 10 or more seats to improve ground deicing
programs and carry additional passenger safety equipment. Additionally,
the 2001 Aviation and Transportation Security Act instituted the same
security requirements for screening passengers at smaller airports as
it did for larger airports, sometimes making travel from small airports
less convenient than it had been.[Footnote 14] Third, regional carriers
have used fewer turboprops in favor of regional jets, which had a
negative effect on small communities that have not generated the
passenger levels needed to support regional jet service. Finally, many
small communities experience passenger "leakage"--that is, passengers
choosing to drive longer distances to larger airports instead of using
closer small airports. Low-cost carriers have generally avoided flying
to small communities but have offered low fares that encourage
passengers to drive longer distances to take advantage of
them.[Footnote 15]
Demand for EAS Subsidies Has Grown Over the Past Decade:
Mr. Chairman, although less than the 405 communities served with the
help of EAS subsidies in 1980, the number of communities served by EAS
has grown over the past 10 years, as has the amount of funds
appropriated for the program. As shown in table 1, for fiscal year
2007, EAS is providing subsidies to air carriers to serve 145
communities--an increase of 50 communities over the 1997 low point. The
funding for EAS has also grown from $25.9 million in 1997 to $109.4
million in 2007. Excluding Alaska, this amounts to an average of about
$754,500 per EAS community in fiscal year 2007. Appendix I lists EAS
communities and their current subsidy amounts.
Table 1: EAS Program Appropriations and Communities Served, Fiscal
Years 1993 through 2007:
Fiscal year: 1993;
Number of communities: 126;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 38.6.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Number of communities: 112;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 33.4.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Number of communities: 107;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 33.4.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Number of communities: 97;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 22.6.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Number of communities: 95;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 25.9.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Number of communities: 101;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 50.0.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Number of communities: 100;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 50.0.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Number of communities: 106;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 50.0.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Number of communities: 115;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 50.0.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Number of communities: 123;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 113.0.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Number of communities: 126;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 101.8.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Number of communities: 140;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 101.7.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number of communities: 146;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 101.6.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number of communities: 151;
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 109.4.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number of communities: 145[A];
Total EAS appropriations (in millions): 109.4.
[A] As of April 1, 2007:
Source: DOT.
[End of table]
While the total number of communities receiving service through EAS
subsidies has generally increased, some communities have dropped from
the program. For example, according to DOT officials 11 communities
that had EAS subsidized service in 2006 were no longer in the program
in 2007. Four of these were terminated by DOT because their subsidy
rose above the EAS cap--Bluefield, WV; Enid, OK; Moses Lake, WA; and
Ponca City, OK. Seven communities secured non-subsidized service. These
communities included Hana, HI; Kalaupapa, HI; Kamuela, HI; Pierre, SD;
Riverton, WY; Rock Springs, WY; and Sheridan, WY.
EAS Subsidies Vary In Relation to Numbers of Passengers:
The level of subsidy per passenger at EAS communities varies
greatly.[Footnote 16] At some locations, the level of subsidy per
passenger is modest. For example, in 2006, of the 110 airports
receiving EAS service for which data were available, 30 communities had
subsidies of less than $50 per passenger. Some communities with
relatively low subsidies per passenger included Escanaba, MI ($12.96)
and Morgantown, WV ($13.68) both with almost 36 passengers per day. In
contrast, 30 communities also had subsidies per passenger greater than
$200. The highest subsidy at that time was $677 for Brookings, SD, and
Lewistown, MT had an average subsidy of almost $473. These two areas
had fewer than 3 passengers per day. Airports may maintain EAS service
when subsidies exceed $200 dollars if they are more than 210 highway
miles from a large or medium hub.
As would be expected, a low number of passengers are associated with
high subsidies. Of the 110 airports receiving EAS service for which
data were available, 17 airports had fewer than 5 passengers per day.
Such airports typically have a subsidy per passenger greater than $200-
-15 of the 17 exceed the $200 threshold. Communities with less than 5
passengers per day also constitute half those with subsidies exceeding
$200 (15 of 30). In contrast, 47 communities had at least 20 passengers
per day, more than the capacity of a single 19-seat aircraft flight.
All 47 of these airports had subsidies of less than $100 per passenger.
See Appendix II for EAS Subsidies per Enplanement.
Future Approach to EAS Service Uncertain Due to Changes in Air Carriers
and Equipment:
DOT and industry officials we interviewed raised questions about the
future of the EAS service as currently provided. As of April 1, 2007,
12 regional air carriers served the subsidized communities in the
continental United States. The carriers serving the communities in the
continental United States typically used turboprop aircraft seating 19
passengers, whereas in Alaska and Puerto Rico, the most commonly used
aircraft seated 4 to 9 passengers.
DOT and industry officials pointed out that 19-seat aircraft are no
longer being manufactured, and some of the current EAS carriers appear
to be migrating to the use of larger aircraft. DOT officials noted that
EAS carriers are getting out of the business that uses 19-seat
aircraft, and are moving into larger aircraft. In addition, industry
consultants noted that as the current fleet of 19-seat aircraft ages,
maintenance costs will likely rise, which will make operating 19-seat
aircraft more expensive. Because 19-seat aircraft are the backbone of
EAS service in the contiguous 48 states, their aging or discontinuation
would significantly affect the program. Figure 2 shows an example of a
19-seat Turbo Prop aircraft commonly used to provide EAS service.
Figure 2: Picture of 19-Seat Turbo Prop Aircraft:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Finally, DOT and industry officials with whom we spoke were not
convinced that the emerging technology of Very Light Jets (VLJs) could
fill this gap, especially in the short term.[Footnote 17] They noted
that current business models discussed for VLJs did not anticipate
their use for the kind of small communities served by EAS. DOT did
provide a SCASDP grant to Bismarck, ND for developing a business model
for point to point, reservation responsive air service using VLJs. The
grantee has developed the business plan; however, given the lack of
operating VLJs, they changed the type of aircraft the business would
use until the aircraft become more available. We will be completing a
more comprehensive report on VLJs for the subcommittee later this year.
The Small Community Grant Program Has Funded Some Successful Projects:
Mr. Chairman, we found that SCASDP grantees pursued several goals and
strategies to improve air service, and that air service was sustained
after the grant expired in a little less than half of the 23 completed
projects in 2005--the time of our initial review. The DOT IG's office
began reviewing completed grants in March 2007 which should provide
more information on the results of completed grants. Although the
program has seen some success, the number of applications for SCASDP
grants has declined for a variety of reasons.
SCASDP Grants Show Promise and Warrant Further Evaluation:
At the time of our initial review of SCASDP, in 2005, it was too soon
to determine the overall effectiveness of the program because there was
not much information available about the "post" grant period. Once
awarded, it may take several years for grants to be implemented and
completed. There have been 182 grant awards made in the 5 years of the
program. Of these, 74 grants are completed as of April 1, 2007--34 from
2002, 19 from 2003, and 21 from 2004. No grants from 2005 or 2006 are
yet completed. In addition, as of April 4, 2007, DOT had terminated
seven grants it initially awarded.[Footnote 18] See Appendix III for a
list of all SCASDP grants from 2002 through 2006.
Our review of the 23 projects completed by September 30, 2005, found
some successful results. The kinds of improvements in service that
resulted from the grants included adding an additional air carrier,
destination, or flights; or changing the type of aircraft serving the
community. In terms of numbers, airport officials reported that 19 of
the 23 grants resulted in service or fare improvements during the life
of the grant (see fig.3). In addition, during the course of the grant,
enplanements rose at 19 of the 23 airports. After the 23 SCASDP grants
were completed, 14 resulted in improvements that were still in place.
Three of these improvements were not self-sustaining; thus 11 self-
sustaining improvements were in place after the grants were completed.
Since our review of the 23 completed projects, 51 more have been
completed for a total of 74. We reviewed the fifty-nine available final
reports. A review of the grantees' final reports for these projects
indicated that 48 increased enplanements as a result of their SCASDP
grant.
Figure 3: Air Service Improvement during the Course of 23 Grants and
after Project Completion:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
For SCASDP grants DOT awarded from 2002 though 2004, we surveyed
airport officials to identify the goals they had for their grants. We
found that grantees had identified a variety of project goals to
improve air service to their community. These goals included adding
flights, airlines, and destinations; lowering fares; upgrading the
aircraft serving the community; obtaining better data for planning and
marketing air service; increasing enplanements; and curbing the loss of
passengers to other airports. (See fig. 4 for the number and types of
project goals identified by airport directors.)
Figure 4: Project Goals as Identified by Airport Directors for Grants
Awarded 2002 - 2004:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO survey of grantee airport directors.
Note: The number of airport directors surveyed may exceed the number of
grants in a year because grants are sometimes awarded to consortiums of
airports. We surveyed all grantee airports.
[End of figure]
Finally, in our 2005 report, we recommended DOT evaluate the SCASDP
grants after more were completed to identify promising approaches and
evaluate the effectiveness of the program. DOT officials told us that
they asked the DOT IG to conduct such a study, which the IG began in
March 2007. DOT expects to have preliminary observations available by
the middle of May. Results from this work may help identify potential
improvements and "lessons learned."
Grantees Used Many Strategies to Improve Air Service in Their
Communities:
To achieve their goals, grantees have used many strategies, including
subsidies and revenue guarantees to the airlines, marketing, hiring
personnel and consultants, and establishing travel banks in which a
community guarantees to buy a certain number of tickets. (See fig. 5.)
In addition, other strategies that grantees have used are subsidizing
the start-up of an airline, taking over ground station operations for
an airline, and subsidizing a bus to transport passengers from their
airport to a hub airport. Incorporating marketing as part of the
project was the most common strategy used by airports. Some airline
officials said that marketing efforts are important for the success of
the projects. Airline officials also told us that projects that provide
direct benefits to an airline, such as revenue guarantees and financial
subsidies, have the greatest chance of success. According to these
officials, such projects allow the airline to test the real market for
air service in a community without enduring the typical financial
losses that occur when new air service is introduced. They further
noted that, in the current aviation economic environment, carriers
cannot afford to sustain losses while they build up passenger demand in
a market. The outcomes of the grants may be affected by broader
industry factors that are independent of the grant itself, such as a
decision on the part of an airline to reduce the number of flights at a
hub.
Figure 5: Strategies Included in Grant Projects:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of grantee proposals and grant agreements.
Note: Since grant agreements were not available at the time of this
analysis, 2006 figures are based solely on proposals.
[End of figure]
The Number of Grant Applications Has Declined:
Since the inception of the program, there has been a steady decline in
the number of applications. In 2002 (the first year SCASDP was funded)
DOT received 179 applications for grants; and by 2006 the number of
applications had declined to 75. Grant applications for 2007 are not
due until April 27, 2007. According to a DOT official, almost all
applications arrive on the last day, so the number of 2007 applications
cannot be estimated at this time. DOT officials said that the past
decline was, in part, a consequence of several factors, including: (1)
many eligible airport communities had received a grant and were still
implementing projects at the time; (2) the airport community as a whole
was coming to understand the importance DOT places on fulfilling the
local contribution commitment part of the grant proposal; and (3)
statutory changes in 2003 that prohibited communities or consortiums
from receiving more than one grant for the same project, and that
established the timely use of funds as a priority factor in awarding
grants.[Footnote 19] According to DOT officials, DOT has interpreted
that a project is the "same project" if it employs the same strategy.
For example, once a community has used a revenue guarantee, it cannot
use a revenue guarantee on another project.
A DOT official noted that, with many communities now completing their
grants, they may choose to apply for another grant. Some communities
have received second grants; however DOT officials indicate first time
applicants get more weight in the grant selection process. Revisiting
selection criteria may increase the access to SCASDP grants and
increase service to small communities.
Options Exist for Reforming EAS and Evaluating SCASDP:
Mr. Chairman, let me now turn to a discussion of options both for the
reform of EAS and the evaluation of SCASDP. I raise these options, in
part, because they link to our report on the challenges facing the
federal government in the 21st century, which notes that the federal
government's long-term fiscal imbalance presents enormous challenges to
the nation's ability to respond to emerging forces reshaping American
society, the United States' place in the world, and the future role of
the federal government.[Footnote 20] In that report, we call for a more
fundamental and periodic reexamination of the base of government,
ultimately covering discretionary and mandatory programs as well as the
revenue side of the budget. In other words, Congress will need to make
difficult decisions including defining the role of the federal
government in various sectors of our economy and identifying who will
benefit from its allocation of resources. Furthermore, given that we
have reported that subsidies paid directly to air carriers have not
provided an effective transportation solution for passengers in many
small communities[Footnote 21], these programs may be ones for which
Congress may wish to weigh options for reforming EAS and assess
SCASDP's effectiveness once DOT completes its review of the program.
Examine Options for Enhancing EAS:
In previous work, we have identified options for enhancing EAS and
controlling cost increases. These options include targeting subsidized
service to more remote communities than is currently the case,
improving the matching of capacity with community use, consolidating
service to multiple communities into regional airports, and changing
the form of federal assistance from carrier subsidies to local grants;
all of these options would require legislative changes. Several of
these options formed the basis for reforms passed as part of Vision-
100. For various reasons these pilot programs have not progressed, so
it is not possible to assess their impact. Let me now briefly discuss
each option, stressing at the outset that each presents potential
negative, as well as positive, impacts. The changes might positively
affect the federal government through lowered federal costs, and
participating communities through increased passenger traffic at
subsidized communities, and enhanced community choice of transportation
options. Communities that could be negatively affected might include
those in which passengers receive less service or might lose scheduled
airline service.
Targeting Subsidized Service to More Remote Communities:
One option would be to target subsidized service to more remote
communities. This option would mean increasing the highway distance
criteria between EAS-eligible communities and the nearest qualifying
airport, and expanding the definition of qualifying nearby airports to
include small hubs. Currently, to be eligible for EAS-subsidized
service, a community must be more than 70 highway miles from the
nearest medium-or large-hub airport. In examining EAS communities, we
found that, if the distance criterion were increased to 125 highway
miles and the qualifying airports were expanded to include small-hub
airports with jet service, 55 EAS-subsidized communities would no
longer qualify for subsidies--and travelers at those communities would
need to drive to the nearby larger airport to access air service.
Limiting subsidized service to more remote communities could
potentially save federal subsidies. For example, we found that about
$24 million annually could be saved if service were terminated at 30
EAS airports that were within 125 miles of medium-or large-hub
airports. This estimate assumed that the total subsidies in effect in
2006 at the communities that might lose their eligibility would not be
obligated to other communities and that those amounts would not change
over time. On the other hand, the passengers who now use subsidized
service at such terminated airports would be inconvenienced because of
the increased driving required to access air service at the nearest hub
airport. In addition, implementing this option could potentially
negatively impact the economy of the affected communities.
The administration's reauthorization proposal also would prioritize
isolated communities, but in a somewhat different way. Under its
approach, if insufficient funding for all communities exists, the
communities would be ranked in terms of driving distance to a medium or
large hub, with the more isolated communities receiving funding before
less isolated communities. This change would protect isolated
communities, but could result in subsidies being terminated for
communities with relatively low per passenger subsidies.
Better Matching Capacity with Community Use:
Another option is to better match capacity with community use. Our past
analysis of passenger enplanement data indicated that relatively few
passengers fly in many EAS markets, and that, on average, most EAS
flights operate with aircraft that are largely empty. In 2005, the most
recent year for which data are available, 17 EAS airports averaged
fewer than 5 passenger boardings per day. To better match capacity with
community use, air carriers could reduce unused capacity--either by
using smaller aircraft or by reducing the number of flights.
Better matching capacity with community use could save federal
subsidies. For instance, reducing the number of required daily
subsidized departures could save federal subsidies by reducing carrier
costs in some locations. Federal subsidies could also be lowered at
communities where carriers used smaller--and hence less costly--
aircraft. On the other hand, there are a number of potential
disadvantages. For example, passenger acceptance is uncertain.
Representatives from some communities, such as Beckley, West Virginia,
told us that passengers who are already somewhat reluctant to fly on 19-
seat turboprops would be even less willing to fly on smaller aircraft.
Such negative passenger reaction may cause more people to drive to
larger airports--or simply drive to their destinations. Additionally,
the loss of some daily departures at certain communities would likely
further inconvenience some passengers. Lastly, reduced capacity may
have a negative impact on the economy of the affected
community.[Footnote 22]
Consolidating Subsidized Service Provided to Multiple Communities into
Service at Regional Airports:
Another option is to consolidate subsidized service at multiple
communities into service at regional airports. For example, in 2002 we
found that 21 EAS subsidized communities were located within 70 highway
miles of at least one other subsidized community. We reported that if
subsidized service to each of these communities were regionalized, 10
regional airports could serve those 21 communities.
Regionalizing service to some communities could generate federal
savings. However, those savings may be marginal, because the total
costs to serve a single regional airport may be only slightly less than
the cost to serve other neighboring airports. The marginal cost of
operating the flight segments to the other airports may be small in
relation to the cost of operating the first flight. Another potential
positive effect is that passenger levels at the proposed regional
airports could grow because the airline(s) would be drawing from a
larger geographic area, which could prompt the airline(s) to provide
better service (i.e., larger aircraft or more frequent departures).
There are also a number of disadvantages to implementing this option.
First, some local passengers would be inconvenienced, since they would
likely have to drive longer distances to obtain local air service.
Moreover, the passenger response to regionalizing local air service is
unknown. Passengers faced with driving longer distances may decide that
driving to an altogether different airport is worthwhile, if it offers
better service and air fares.
As with other options, the potential impact of regionalization on the
economy of the affected communities is unknown. Regionalizing air
service has sometimes proven controversial at the local level, in part
because regionalizing air service would require some communities to
give up their own local service for the potentially improved service at
a less convenient regional facility. Even in situations where one
airport is larger and better equipped than others (e.g., where one
airport has longer runways, a superior terminal facility, and better
safety equipment on site), it is likely to be difficult for the other
communities to recognize and accept surrendering their local control
and benefits. Some industry officials to whom we spoke indicated
regional airports made sense, but selecting the airports would be
highly controversial.
Changing Carrier Subsidies to Local Grants:
Another option is to change carrier subsidies into local grants. We
have noted that local grants could enable communities to match their
transportation needs with individually tailored transportation options
to connect them to the national air space system. As we previously
discussed, DOT provides grants to help small communities to enhance
their air service via SCASDP.
Our work on SCASDP identified some positive aspects of the program that
could be beneficial for EAS communities. First, for communities to
receive a SCASDP grant, they had to develop a proposal that was
directed at improving air service locally. In our discussion with some
of these communities, it was noted that this approach required them to
take a closer look at their air service and better understand the
market they serve--a benefit that they did not foresee. In addition, in
some cases developing the proposal caused the airport to build a
stronger relationship with the community. SCASDP also allows for
flexibility in the strategy a local community can choose to improve air
service, recognizing that local facts and circumstances affect the
chance of a successful outcome. In contrast, EAS has one approach--a
subsidy to an air carrier.
However, there are also differences between the two programs that make
the grant approach problematic for some EAS communities; these
differences should be considered. First, because SCASDP grants are
provided on a one-time basis, their purpose is to create self-
sustaining air service improvements. The grant approach is therefore
best applicable where a viable air service market can be developed.
This viability could be difficult for EAS communities to achieve
because, currently, the service they receive is not profitable unless
there is a subsidy. While some EAS communities might be able to
transition to self-sustaining air service through use of one of the
grants, for some communities this would not be the case. Such
communities would need a new grant each year. In addition, the grant
approach normally includes a local cash match, which may be difficult
for some EAS communities to provide. This approach could systematically
eliminate the poorest communities, unless other sources of funds--such
as state support or local industry support--could be found for the
match, or some provision for economically distressed communities is
made.
Vision-100 Small Community Pilot Programs and Initiatives Have Not
Progressed:
Congress authorized several pilot programs and initiatives designed to
improve air service to small communities in Vision-100. These programs
and initiatives have not progressed for various reasons. In two cases,
communities have not indicated interest in the programs. In one
instance Congress decided to prevent DOT from implementing the program.
In three cases, DOT officials cited a lack of sufficient funds to
implement the programs.
Vision-100 authorized the Community Flexibility Pilot Program, which
requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program for up
to 10 communities that agree to forgo their EAS subsidy for 10 years in
exchange for a grant twice the amount of one year's EAS subsidy. The
funds may be used to improve airport facilities. DOT has solicited
proposals for this program; however, according to a DOT official, no
communities expressed any interest in participating. This is likely
because no community was willing to risk the loss of EAS subsidies for
10 years in exchange for only 2 years of funding. Likewise, the
Alternate Essential Air Service Pilot Program, which allows the
Secretary of Transportation to provide assistance directly to a
community, rather than paying compensation to the air carrier, elicited
no interest from communities. Under the pilot program, communities
could provide assistance to air carriers using smaller aircraft, on-
demand air taxi service, provide transportation services to and from
several EAS communities to a single regional airport or other
transportation center, or purchase aircraft. The administration's draft
FAA reauthorization bill would repeal these pilot programs.
Another program, the EAS Local Participation Program, allows the
Secretary of Transportation to select no more than 10 designated EAS
communities within 100 miles, by road, of a small hub (and within the
contiguous states) to assume 10 percent of their EAS subsidy costs for
a 4-year period. However, Congress has prohibited DOT from obligating
or expending any funds to implement this program since Vision-100 was
enacted. The administration's draft FAA reauthorization bill would
repeal this pilot program.
Three additional initiatives authorized by Vision-100 have not been
implemented, in part due to a lack of dedicated funding. Section 402 of
Vision-100 allows DOT to adjust carrier compensation to account for
significantly increased costs to carriers. For example, an air carrier
that has a contract to provide air service can apply for an adjustment
due to an increase in its costs. If this increase is granted, the air
carrier has increased its revenue without having to competitively bid
for the contract. The initiative also provided for a reversal of this
adjustment if the costs subsequently declined. DOT officials indicated
that a concern they have with this initiative is that an air carrier
could win a 2-year contract with a low estimate, and open it again to
obtain more funds without facing competition.
Also, the Section 410 marketing incentive program, which could provide
grants up to $50,000 to EAS communities to develop and execute a
marketing plan to increase passenger boardings and usage of airport
facilities, was not implemented. DOT officials explained that with the
uncertainty of the number of communities that would need EAS subsidies
and the cost of those subsidies, using EAS subsidy funding for this
marketing incentive program could put the subsidies at risk. One
industry group suggested dedicated funding might improve the use of
this program. The administration's draft FAA reauthorization bill would
repeal this marketing incentive program.
Finally, Section 411 of Vision-100 authorized the creation of a
National Commission on Small Community Air Service to recommend how to
improve commercial air service to small communities and the ability of
small communities to retain and enhance existing air service. This
provision was likewise not implemented because funds were not
specifically appropriated, according to DOT officials. Such a
commission may have been helpful in developing approaches to deal with
difficult policy decisions, such as regionalizing air service. DOT
plans to host a symposium to bring industry experts together to
identify regulatory barriers and develop ideas for improving air
service to small communities which may be a step in the right
direction. DOT officials acknowledge that this symposium should be held
soon to inform reauthorization deliberations.
Recently Started DOT Evaluation of the Effectiveness of SCASDP Should
Add Information on the Effectiveness of SCASDP:
In 2005, we recommended that DOT examine the effectiveness of SCASDP
when more projects are complete; and the DOT IG recently began this
evaluation.[Footnote 23] Since our report, an additional 48 grants have
been completed and DOT will be able to examine the results from these
completed grants. Such an evaluation should provide DOT and Congress
with additional information about not only whether additional or
improved air service was obtained, but whether it continued after the
grant support ended. In addition, our prior work on air service to
small communities found that once financial incentives are removed,
additional air service may be difficult to maintain. This evaluation
should provide a clearer and more complete picture of the value of this
program. Any improved service achieved from this program could then be
weighed against the cost to achieve those gains.
In conducting this evaluation, DOT could find that certain strategies
the communities used were more effective than others. For example,
during our work, we found some opposing views on the usefulness of
certain strategies for attracting improved service. DOT officials could
use the results of the DOT IG's evaluation to identify strategies that
have been effective in starting self-sustaining improvements in air
service and they could share this information with other small
community airports and, perhaps, consider such factors in its grant
award process. In addition, DOT might find some best practices and
could develop some lessons learned from which all small community
airports could benefit. For example, one airport used a unique approach
of assuming airline ground operations such as baggage handling and
staffing ticket counters. This approach served to maintain airline
service of one airline and in attracting additional service. In
addition, the SCASDP program has shown that there is a strong demand on
the part of small community airports to improve enplanements through
various marketing strategies. Successful marketing efforts could
increase enplanements, thus driving down the per passenger subsidy.
Sharing information on approaches like these that worked (and
approaches that did not) may help other small communities improve their
air service, perhaps even without federal assistance.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Congress is faced with many difficult
choices as it tries to help improve air service to small communities,
especially given the fiscal challenges the nation faces. Regarding EAS,
I think it is important to recognize that for many of the communities,
air service is not--and might never be--commercially viable and there
are limited alternative transportation means for nearby residents to
connect to the national air transportation system. In these cases,
continued subsidies will be needed to maintain that capability. In some
other cases, current EAS communities are within reasonable driving
distances to alternative airports that can provide that connection to
the air system. It will be Congress' weighing of priorities that will
ultimately decide whether this service will continue or whether other,
less costly options will be pursued. In looking at SCASDP, I would
emphasize that we have seen some instances in which the grant funds
provided additional service, and some in which the funds did not work.
Enough experience has now been gained with this program for a full
assessment, and with that information the Congress will be in a
position to determine if the air service gains that are made are worth
the overall cost of the program.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of
the Subcommittee may have at this time.
Contact Information:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Dr. Gerald L.
Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Individuals making
key contributions to this testimony and related work include Robert
Ciszewski, Catherine Colwell, Jessica Evans, Colin Fallon, Dave Hooper,
Alex Lawrence, Bonnie Pignatiello Leer, and Maureen Luna-Long.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Essential Air Service Communities and Subsidies as of April
1, 2007:
Table 2: Essential Air Service (EAS) Communities and Their Subsidies
Excluding Alaska, April 1, 2007:
Alabama.
States/Communities: Muscle Shoals;
Subsidy: $1,504,929.
Arizona.
States/Communities: Kingman;
Subsidy: $1,001,989.
States/Communities: Page;
Subsidy: $1,057,655.
States/Communities: Prescott;
Subsidy: $1,001,989.
States/Communities: Show Low;
Subsidy: $779,325.
Arkansas.
States/Communities: El Dorado/Camden;
Subsidy: $937,385.
States/Communities: Harrison;
Subsidy: $1,406,078.
States/Communities: Hot Springs;
Subsidy: $1,015,500.
States/Communities: Jonesboro;
Subsidy: $937,385.
California.
States/Communities: Crescent City;
Subsidy: $957,025.
States/Communities: Merced;
Subsidy: $799,604.
States/Communities: Visalia;
Subsidy: $799,604.
Colorado.
States/Communities: Alamosa;
Subsidy: $1,150,268.
States/Communities: Cortez;
Subsidy: $796,577.
States/Communities: Pueblo;
Subsidy: $780,997.
Georgia.
States/Communities: Athens;
Subsidy: $624,679.
Illinois.
States/Communities: Decatur;
Subsidy: $1,242,250.
States/Communities: Marion/Herrin;
Subsidy: $1,251,069.
States/Communities: Quincy;
Subsidy: $1,097,406.
Iowa.
States/Communities: Burlington;
Subsidy: $1,077,847.
States/Communities: Fort Dodge;
Subsidy: $1,080,386.
States/Communities: Mason City;
Subsidy: $1,080,386.
Kansas.
States/Communities: Dodge City;
Subsidy: $1,379,419.
States/Communities: Garden City;
Subsidy: $1,733,997.
States/Communities: Great Bend;
Subsidy: $621,945.
States/Communities: Hays;
Subsidy: $1,540,392.
States/Communities: Liberal/Guymon;
Subsidy: $1,008,582.
States/Communities: Manhattan;
Subsidy: $487,004.
States/Communities: Salina;
Subsidy: $487,004.
Kentucky.
States/Communities: Owensboro;
Subsidy: $1,127,453.
Maine.
States/Communities: Augusta/Waterville;
Subsidy: $1,065,475.
States/Communities: Bar Harbor;
Subsidy: $1,065,475.
States/Communities: Presque Isle;
Subsidy: $1,116,423.
States/Communities: Rockland;
Subsidy: $1,065,475.
Maryland.
States/Communities: Hagerstown;
Subsidy: $854,452.
Michigan.
States/Communities: Escanaba;
Subsidy: $908,903.
States/Communities: Ironwood/Ashland;
Subsidy: $409,242.
States/Communities: Iron Mountain/Kingsford;
Subsidy: $602,761.
States/Communities: Manistee;
Subsidy: $776,051.
Minnesota.
States/Communities: Chisholm/Hibbing;
Subsidy: $1,279,329.
States/Communities: Thief River Falls;
Subsidy: $777,709.
Mississippi.
States/Communities: Laurel/Hattiesburg;
Subsidy: $917,129.
Missouri.
States/Communities: Cape Girardeau;
Subsidy: $1,147,453.
States/Communities: Columbia/Jefferson City;
Subsidy: $598,751.
States/Communities: Fort Leonard Wood;
Subsidy: $683,201.
States/Communities: Joplin;
Subsidy: $849,757.
States/Communities: Kirksville;
Subsidy: $840,200.
Montana.
States/Communities: Glasgow;
Subsidy: $922,103.
States/Communities: Glendive;
Subsidy: $922,103.
States/Communities: Havre;
Subsidy: $922,103.
States/Communities: Lewistown;
Subsidy: $922,103.
States/Communities: Miles City;
Subsidy: $922,103.
States/Communities: Sidney;
Subsidy: $1,306,313.
States/Communities: West Yellowstone;
Subsidy: $247,122.
States/Communities: Wolf Point;
Subsidy: $922,103.
Nebraska.
States/Communities: Alliance;
Subsidy: $655,898.
States/Communities: Chadron;
Subsidy: $655,898.
States/Communities: Grand Island;
Subsidy: $1,377,877.
States/Communities: Kearney;
Subsidy: $897,142.
States/Communities: McCook;
Subsidy: $918,585.
States/Communities: North Platte;
Subsidy: $976,026.
States/Communities: Scottsbluff;
Subsidy: $520,137.
Nevada.
States/Communities: Ely;
Subsidy: $647,709.
States/Communities: New Hampshire;
Subsidy: [Empty].
States/Communities: Lebanon;
Subsidy: $1,069,606.
New Mexico.
States/Communities: Alamogordo/Holloman;
Subsidy: $717,506.
States/Communities: Carlsbad;
Subsidy: $599,671.
States/Communities: Clovis;
Subsidy: $859,057.
States/Communities: Hobbs;
Subsidy: $519,614.
States/Communities: Silver City/Hurley/Deming;
Subsidy: $859,057.
New York.
States/Communities: Jamestown;
Subsidy: $1,217,414.
States/Communities: Massena;
Subsidy: $585,945.
States/Communities: Ogdensburg;
Subsidy: $585,945.
States/Communities: Plattsburgh;
Subsidy: $853,378.
States/Communities: Saranac Lake;
Subsidy: $853,378.
States/Communities: Watertown;
Subsidy: $585,945.
North Dakota.
States/Communities: Devils Lake;
Subsidy: $1,329,858.
States/Communities: Dickinson;
Subsidy: $1,696,977.
States/Communities: Jamestown;
Subsidy: $1,351,677.
Oregon.
States/Communities: Pendleton;
Subsidy: $649,974.
Pennsylvania.
States/Communities: Altoona;
Subsidy: $893,774.
States/Communities: Bradford;
Subsidy: $1,217,414.
States/Communities: DuBois;
Subsidy: $599,271.
States/Communities: Johnstown;
Subsidy: $464,777.
States/Communities: Lancaster;
Subsidy: $1,377,257.
States/Communities: Oil City/Franklin;
Subsidy: $683,636.
Puerto Rico.
States/Communities: Mayaguez;
Subsidy: $688,551.
States/Communities: Ponce;
Subsidy: $622,056.
South Dakota.
States/Communities: Brookings;
Subsidy: $1,212,400.
States/Communities: Huron;
Subsidy: $793,733.
States/Communities: Watertown;
Subsidy: $1,211,589.
Tenneessee.
States/Communities: Jackson;
Subsidy: $1,179,026.
Texas.
States/Communities: Victoria;
Subsidy: $510,185.
Utah.
States/Communities: Cedar City;
Subsidy: $897,535.
States/Communities: Moab;
Subsidy: $783,608.
States/Communities: Vernal;
Subsidy: $555,771.
Vermont.
States/Communities: Rutland;
Subsidy: $849,705.
Virginia.
States/Communities: Staunton;
Subsidy: $650,123.
West Virginia.
States/Communities: Beckley;
Subsidy: $1,930,759.
States/Communities: Clarksburg;
Subsidy: $306,109.
States/Communities: Greenbrier;
Subsidy: $685,040.
States/Communities: Morgantown;
Subsidy: $306,109.
States/Communities: Parkersburg;
Subsidy: $439,115.
Wyoming.
States/Communities: Laramie;
Subsidy: $487,516.
States/Communities: Worland;
Subsidy: $972,757.
States/Communities: Sub-Total;
Subsidy: $94,112,058.
States/Communities: Alaska;
Subsidy: $9,075,687.
States/Communities: Total;
Subsidy: $103,187,745.
Source: DOT officials.
[End of table]
Table 3: Alaskan EAS Communities and Their Subsidies, April 1, 2007:
Communities: Adak;
Annual Rate: $1,393,384.
Communities: Akutan;
Annual Rate: $350,381.
Communities: Alitak;
Annual Rate: $19,749.
Communities: Atka;
Annual Rate: $449,605.
Communities: Cape Yakataga;
Annual Rate: $32,255.
Communities: Central;
Annual Rate: $61,421.
Communities: Chatham;
Annual Rate: $7,520.
Communities: Chisana;
Annual Rate: $75,743.
Communities: Circle;
Annual Rate: $61,421.
Communities: Cordova;
Annual Rate: $1,436,063.
Communities: Elfin Cove;
Annual Rate: $108,297.
Communities: Excursion Inlet;
Annual Rate: $9,212.
Communities: Funter Bay;
Annual Rate: $7,520.
Communities: Gulkana;
Annual Rate: $224,890.
Communities: Gustavus;
Annual Rate: $1,436,063.
Communities: Healy Lake;
Annual Rate: $71,105.
Communities: Hydaburg;
Annual Rate: $54,733.
Communities: Icy Bay;
Annual Rate: $32,255.
Communities: Karluk;
Annual Rate: $38,880.
Communities: Kodiak Bush (includes 11 locations listed below);
Annual Rate: $149,595.
Communities: Manley;
Annual Rate: $32,904.
Communities: May Creek;
Annual Rate: $83,642.
Communities: McCarthy;
Annual Rate: $83,642.
Communities: Minto;
Annual Rate: $32,904.
Communities: Nikolski;
Annual Rate: $314,694.
Communities: Pelican Bay;
Annual Rate: $108,297.
Communities: Petersburg;
Annual Rate: $449,494.
Communities: Port Alexander;
Annual Rate: $48,746.
Communities: San Juan/Uganik;
Annual Rate: $15,715.
Communities: Wrangell;
Annual Rate: $449,494.
Communities: Yakutat;
Annual Rate: $1,436,063.
Communities: Total;
Annual Rate: $9,075,687.
Kodiak Bush;
* Alitak/Lazy Bay;
* Amook Bay;
* Kitoi Bay;
* Moser Bay;
* Olga Bay;
* Port Bailey;
* Port Williams;
* San Juan/Uganik;
* Seal Bay;
* West Point;
* Zachar Bay;
Source: DOT officials.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: EAS Subsidies per Enplanement:
Table 4: EAS Subsidies per Enplanment:
Alabama.
States/ Communities: Muscle Shoals;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 17.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,364,697;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 125.11.
Arizona.
States/ Communities: Kingman;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,001,989;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 245.41.
States/ Communities: Page;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 14.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,057,655;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 115.68.
States/ Communities: Prescott;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 20.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,001,989;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 78.91.
States/ Communities: Show Low;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 8.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $779,325;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 142.34.
Arkansas.
States/ Communities: El Dorado/Camden;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $923,456;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 218.10.
States/ Communities: Harrison;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 11.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,385,183;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 190.35.
States/ Communities: Hot Springs;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 10.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $923,456;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 143.73.
California.
States/ Communities: Crescent City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 38.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $816,025;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 34.16.
States/ Communities: Merced;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 27.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $645,751;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 37.46.
States/ Communities: Visalia;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $450,000;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 173.14.
States/ Communities: Jonesboro;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 8.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $923,456;
Subsidy per Passenger: $176.13.
Colorado.
States/ Communities: Alamosa;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 16.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,083,538;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 102.29.
States/ Communities: Cortez;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 25.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $853,587;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 52.77.
States/ Communities: Pueblo;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $780,997;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 255.06.
Georgia.
States/ Communities: Athens;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 23.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $392,108;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 27.01.
Hawaii.
States/ Communities: Hana;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 1/;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $774,718;
Subsidy per Passenger: 1/.
States/ Communities: Kalaupapa;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 1/;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $331,981;
Subsidy per Passenger: 1/.
States/ Communities: Kamuela;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 1/;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $395,053;
Subsidy per Passenger: 1/.
Illinois.
States/ Communities: Decatur;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 34.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $954,404;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 44.20.
States/ Communities: Marion/Herrin;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 36.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,251,069;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 54.60.
States/ Communities: Quincy;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 27.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,097,406;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 63.91.
Iowa.
States/ Communities: Burlington;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 22.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,077,847;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 77.99.
States/ Communities: Fort Dodge;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 26.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,080,386;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 64.37.
States/ Communities: Mason City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 43.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,080,386;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 39.59.
Kansas.
States/ Communities: Dodge City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 12.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,379,419;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 176.22.
States/ Communities: Garden City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 28.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,733,997;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 97.53.
States/ Communities: Great Bend;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 2.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $621,945;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 403.08.
States/ Communities: Hays;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 24.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,540,392;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 98.83.
States/ Communities: Liberal/Guymon, OK;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 13.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,008,582;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 116.14.
States/ Communities: Manhattan;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 32.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $360,803;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 17.82.
States/ Communities: Salina;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 7.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $360,803;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 75.75.
Kentucky.
States/ Communities: Owensboro;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 10.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,127,453;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 175.64.
Maine.
States/ Communities: Augusta/Waterville;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 14.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,065,475;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 114.83.
States/ Communities: Bar Harbor;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 33.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,065,475;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 50.91.
States/ Communities: Presque Isle;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 52.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,116,423;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 33.73.
States/ Communities: Rockland;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 23.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,065,475;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 73.87.
Maryland.
States/ Communities: Hagerstown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 20.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $649,929;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 50.42.
Michigan.
States/ Communities: Escanaba;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 35.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $290,952;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 12.96.
States/ Communities: Iron Mountain/Kingsford;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 29.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $602,761;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 33.19.
States/ Communities: Ironwood/Ashland, WI;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 10.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $409,242;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 62.68.
States/ Communities: Manistee/Ludington;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 7.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $776,051;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 156.40.
Minnesota.
States/ Communities: Chisholm/Hibbing;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 33.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,279,329;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 60.72.
States/ Communities: Thief River Falls;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 15.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $777,709;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 81.73.
Mississippi.
States/ Communities: Laurel/Hattiesburg;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 48.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,100,253;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 36.55.
Missouri.
States/ Communities: Cape Girardeau;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 20.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,147,453;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 90.15.
States/ Communities: Ft. Leonard Wood;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 25.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $683,201;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 43.05.
States/ Communities: Joplin;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 30.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $755,762;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 39.01.
States/ Communities: Kirksville;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $840,200;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 306.42.
Montana.
States/ Communities: Glasgow;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 190.25.
States/ Communities: Glendive;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 3.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 368.17.
States/ Communities: Havre;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 5.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 263.55.
States/ Communities: Lewistown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 2.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 472.78.
States/ Communities: Miles City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 3.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 341.17.
States/ Communities: Sidney;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 11.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 114.71.
States/ Communities: West Yellowstone;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 13.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $418,488;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 48.32.
States/ Communities: Wolf Point;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 5.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $823,591;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 229.60.
Nebraska.
States/ Communities: Alliance;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $655,898;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 233.25.
States/ Communities: Chadron;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $655,898;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 215.54.
States/ Communities: Grand Island;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 24.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,198,396;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 78.89.
States/ Communities: Kearney;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 21.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,166,849;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 88.32.
States/ Communities: McCook;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,502,651;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 379.55.
States/ Communities: North Platte;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 24.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $870,504;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 56.29.
States/ Communities: Scottsbluff;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 28.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $494,887;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 27.75.
Nevada.
States/ Communities: Ely;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $698,078;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 161.33.
New Hampshire.
States/ Communities: Lebanon;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 28.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $998,752;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 56.21.
New Mexico.
States/ Communities: Alamogordo/Holoman AFB;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 2/;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $592,170;
Subsidy per Passenger: 2/.
States/ Communities: Carlsbad;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 14.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $599,671;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 68.63.
States/ Communities: Clovis;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $859,057;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 201.75.
States/ Communities: Hobbs;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $519,614;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 168.21.
States/ Communities: Silver City/Hurley/Deming;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $859,057;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 206.85.
New York.
States/ Communities: Jamestown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 26.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $501,937;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 30.10.
States/ Communities: Massena;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 10.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $585,945;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 87.85.
States/ Communities: Ogdensburg;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $585,945;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 146.67.
States/ Communities: Plattsburgh;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $753,964;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 294.17.
States/ Communities: Saranac Lake;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 7.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $753,964;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 161.83.
States/ Communities: Watertown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 16.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $585,945;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 56.11.
North Dakota.
States/ Communities: Devils Lake;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 7.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,329,858;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 296.18.
States/ Communities: Dickinson;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 16.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,697,248;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 165.75.
States/ Communities: Jamestown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 9.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,351,677;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 217.63.
Oklahoma.
States/ Communities: Enid;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 3.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $636,279;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 289.88.
States/ Communities: Ponca City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 2.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $636,279;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 387.03.
Oregon.
States/ Communities: Pendleton;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 21.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $649,974;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 47.99.
Pennsylvania.
States/ Communities: Altoona;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 20.9;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $893,774;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 68.16.
States/ Communities: Bradford;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 19.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $501,937;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 41.48.
States/ Communities: Du Bois;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 33.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $643,818;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 31.01.
States/ Communities: Johnstown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 39.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $464,777;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 18.89.
States/ Communities: Lancaster;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 19.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,611,707;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 135.72.
States/ Communities: Oil City/Franklin;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 10.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $683,636;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 105.78.
Puerto Rico.
States/ Communities: Mayaguez;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 33.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $688,551;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 33.08.
States/ Communities: Ponce;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 11.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $622,056;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 88.54.
South Dakota.
States/ Communities: Brookings;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 2.5;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,039,364;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 677.11.
States/ Communities: Huron;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,039,364;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 361.27.
States/ Communities: Pierre;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 20.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $449,912;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 35.43.
States/ Communities: Watertown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 31.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,211,589;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 62.30.
Tennessee.
States/ Communities: Jackson;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 7.2;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,179,026;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 261.54.
Texas.
States/ Communities: Victoria;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 34.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $510,185;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 23.76.
Utah.
States/ Communities: Cedar City;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 42.4;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,068,607;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 40.22.
States/ Communities: Moab;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 3.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $674,804;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 344.99.
States/ Communities: Vernal;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 4.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $595,436;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 208.56.
Vermont.
States/ Communities: Rutland;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $849,705;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 202.89.
Virginia.
States/ Communities: Staunton;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 18.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $650,123;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 56.73.
Washington.
States/ Communities: Ephrata/Moses Lake;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 11.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $1,698,922;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 230.30.
West Virginia.
States/ Communities: Beckley;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $977,858;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 247.12.
States/ Communities: Bluefield/Princeton;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.3;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $977,858;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 247.25.
States/ Communities: Clarksburg/Fairmont;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 27.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $306,109;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 17.72.
States/ Communities: Greenbrier/W.SulphSpr/LWB;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 15.8;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $540,579;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 54.50.
States/ Communities: Morgantown;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 35.7;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $306,109;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 13.68.
States/ Communities: Parkersburg;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 52.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $439,115;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 13.50.
Wyoming.
States/ Communities: Laramie;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 27.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $397,400;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 23.44.
States/ Communities: Riverton;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 37.6;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $394,046;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 16.75.
States/ Communities: Rock Springs;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 45.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $390,488;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 13.85.
States/ Communities: Sheridan;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 42.0;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $336,701;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 12.79.
States/ Communities: Worland;
Avg. Daily Enplanements at EAS Point FY05: 6.1;
Annual Subsidy Rates at 2/1/2006: $797,844;
Subsidy per Passenger: $ 208.42.
Source: DOT officials.
Notes: Subsidies rates are more recent than enplanement data;
however, this is the most closely timed data sets available.
1/ Incomplete traffic data.
2/ Service hiatus.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Small Community Air Service Development Program Grantees,
Year Grant was Awarded, Grant Amounts and Grant Status as of April 1,
2007:
Table 5: SCASDP Grantees and Grant Status:
Alabama.
Grantee: Dothan;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: $200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Huntsville;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 479,950;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Mobile;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 456,137;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Montgomery;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Tuscaloosa;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Alaska.
Grantee: Aleutians East Borough;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 240,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Aleutians East Borough;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 70,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Fairbanks;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Arizona.
Grantee: AZ Consortium;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lake Havasu City;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 403,478;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Arkansas.
Grantee: Fort Smith;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 108,520;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Hot Springs (reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 195,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Mountain Home (Baxter);
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 574,875;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
California.
Grantee: Bakersfield;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 982,513;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: California Consortium;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 245,020;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Chico;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 44,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Chico;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 472,500;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Fresno;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Modesto;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 550,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Monterey;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Palmdale;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 900,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Redding/Arcata;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Santa Maria;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 217,530;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Santa Rosa;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 635,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Visalia (reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Colorado.
Grantee: Durango/La Plata County;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 750,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Gunnison;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Lamar;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Montrose;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 450,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Steamboat Springs;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Telluride;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 300,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Connecticut.
Grantee: New Haven;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Florida.
Grantee: Daytona Beach;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 743,333;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Gainesville;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 660,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Marathon;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 750,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Melbourne;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 800,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Sarasota;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 1,500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Georgia.
Grantee: Albany;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: $500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Augusta;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 759,004;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: Brunswick;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Macon;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 507,691;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Savannah;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 523,495;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Idaho.
Grantee: Hailey;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Idaho Falls;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lewiston-Nez Perce;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 675,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Pocatello;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 75,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Illinois.
Grantee: Bloomington;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 850,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Champaign-Urbana;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Marion;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 212,694;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Rockford;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Springfield;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 390,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Indiana.
Grantee: Evansville/South Bend;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Fort Wayne;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 398,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Gary;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Iowa.
Grantee: Cedar Rapids;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Dubuque;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 610,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Mason City;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: Sioux City;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 609,800;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Waterloo;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 550,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Kansas.
Grantee: Garden City/Dodge City/Liberal;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 150,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Manhattan;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 388,350;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Kentucky.
Grantee: Big Sandy Region;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 90,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Owensboro;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Paducah;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 304,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Somerset;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 95,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Somerset;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 950,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Louisiana.
Grantee: Alexandria;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lafayette;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 240,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lake Charles;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Monroe;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 50,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Shreveport;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Maine.
Grantee: Bangor;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 310,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Presque Isle;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Rockland/Knox County;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 555,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Massachusetts.
Grantee: Worcester (reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 442,615;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Michigan.
Grantee: Alpena;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 583,046;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Hancock / Houghton County;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 516,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Kalamazoo;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Marquette;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 700,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Muskegon;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Minnesota.
Grantee: Brainerd, St. Cloud;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Duluth;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Hibbing;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 485,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Marshall;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 480,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Mississippi.
Grantee: Columbus;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 260,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Greenville;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: Gulfport/Biloxi;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 750,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Jackson;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Meridian;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Tupelo;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 475,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Missouri.
Grantee: Cape Girardeau;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Joplin;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Montana.
Grantee: Butte;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 360,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Cut Bank;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 90,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Great Falls;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 220,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Kalispell;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 450,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Nebraska.
Grantee: Grand Island;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 380,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lincoln;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 1,200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: McCook/North Platte;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 275,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Scottsbluff;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 950,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Nevada.
Grantee: Elko;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 222,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
New Hampshire.
Grantee: Lebanon;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
New Mexico.
Grantee: Farmington;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 650,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Gallup;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Ruidoso;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Taos Consortium;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Taos/Ruidoso;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
New York.
Grantee: Binghamton;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Elmira;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Ithaca;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Jamestown;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 150,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Massena/St. Lawrence Valley;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Stewart;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Syracuse (reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 480,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
North Carolina.
Grantee: Asheville;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Greenville;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 450,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Jacksonville;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: NC Consortium;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,200,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
North Dakota.
Grantee: Bismarck;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 1,557,500;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Dickinson;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 750,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Fargo;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 675,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Grand Forks;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 350,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Jamestown/Devil's Lake;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 100,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Ohio.
Grantee: Akron/Canton;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 950,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Parkersburg-Marietta (with WV);
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Toledo;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Youngstown;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Oklahoma.
Grantee: Lawton/Ft. Sill;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 570,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Oregon.
Grantee: Baker City;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 300,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: North Bend;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Oregon DOT;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 180,570;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Redmond;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 515,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Salem;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Pennsylvania.
Grantee: Bradford;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 220,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Dubois;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Erie;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Harrisburg;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Latrobe;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 600,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Reading;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 470,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Wilkes-Barre/Scranton;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 625,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Williamsport;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Puerto Rico.
Grantee: Aguadilla;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 626,700;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
South Carolina.
Grantee: Charleston;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 1,000,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: Florence;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Sumter;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 50,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
South Dakota.
Grantee: Aberdeen;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 450,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Pierre;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 150,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Rapid City;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 1,400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Sioux Falls;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 350,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Tennessee.
Grantee: Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 615,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Chattanooga;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 750,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Knoxville;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Texas.
Grantee: Abilene;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 85,010;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Abilene;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 465,100;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Beaumont/Port Arthur;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Del Rio;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 318,750;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Killeen;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 280,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Laredo;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 400,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Longview;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 225,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Tyler;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 90,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Victoria;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 20,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Utah.
Grantee: Cedar City;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 155,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Logan City;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 530,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Moab;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Vernal/Uintah County;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 40,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Vermont.
Grantee: Rutland (reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 240,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Virginia.
Grantee: Charlottesville;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 270,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Lynchburg;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Lynchburg;
Year grant awarded: 2006;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Richmond;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 950,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Staunton;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 100,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Washington.
Grantee: Bellingham;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 301,500;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Friday Harbor;
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 350,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Walla Walla;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 250,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
West Virginia.
Grantee: Beckley/Lewisburg;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 300,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Charleston;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Grantee: Clarksburg/Morgantown (Reallocation);
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 372,286;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Huntington;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Parkersburg-Marietta (With OH);
Year grant awarded: 2003;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Wisconsin.
Grantee: Eau Claire;
Year grant awarded: 2004;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Grantee: Rhinelander;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Completed.
Wyoming.
Grantee: Casper, Gillette;
Year grant awarded: 2002;
Grant amount: 500,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Terminated.
Grantee: Wyoming DOT;
Year grant awarded: 2005;
Grant amount: 800,000;
Status as of April 1, 2007: Ongoing.
Source: DOT officials.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Related GAO Products:
Airport Finance: Preliminary Analysis Indicates Proposed Changes in the
Airport Improvement Program May Not Resolve Funding Needs for Smaller
Airports. GAO-07-617T Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2007.
Commercial Aviation: Programs and Options for the Federal Approach to
Providing and Improving Air Service to Small Communities. GAO-06-398T
Washington, D.C.: September 14, 2006.
Airline Deregulation: Reregulating the Airline Industry Would Reverse
Consumer Benefits and Not Save Airline Pensions. GAO-06-630 Washington,
D.C.: June 9, 2006.
Commercial Aviation: Initial Small Community Air Service Development
Projects Have Achieved Mixed Results. GAO-06-21 Washington, D.C:
November 30, 2005:
Commercial Aviation: Survey of Small Community Air Service Grantees and
Applicants. GAO-06-101SP. Washington, D.C.: November 30, 2005:
Commercial Aviation: Bankruptcy and Pension Problems Are Symptoms of
Underlying Structural Issues. GAO-05-945 Washington, D.C.: September
30, 2005:
Commercial Aviation: Legacy Airlines Must Further Reduce Costs to
Restore Profitability. GAO-04-836 Washington, D.C.: August 11, 2004:
Commercial Aviation: Issues Regarding Federal Assistance for Enhancing
Air Service to Small Communities. GAO-03-540T. Washington, D.C.: March
11, 2003:
Federal Aviation Administration: Reauthorization Provides Opportunities
to Address Key Agency Challenges. GAO-03-653T. Washington, D.C.: April
l0, 2003:
Commercial Aviation: Factors Affecting Efforts to Improve Air Service
at Small Community Airports. GAO-03-330 Washington, D.C.: January 17,
2003:
Commercial Aviation: Financial Condition and Industry Responses Affect
Competition. GAO-03-171T. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2002.
Options to Enhance the Long-term Viability of the Essential Air Service
Program. GAO-02-997R. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.
Commercial Aviation: Air Service Trends at Small Communities Since
October 2000. GAO-02-432. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Small community airports also receive other financial support from
the federal government. For example, under the Airport Improvement
Program small airports receive certain funds for addressing capital
improvement needs--such as for runway or taxiway improvements.
[2] In fiscal year 2005, DOT transferred $5 million of these funds from
SCASDP to EAS. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Pub. L.
No. 109-13, recognized that the funds appropriated for the EAS may not
be sufficient to meet the service needs of communities encompassed by
that program. The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act provided
that the Secretary of Transportation could transfer "such sums as may
be necessary to carry out the essential air service program from any
available amounts appropriated to or directly administered by the
Office of the Secretary."
[3] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of Federal
Government. GAO-05-325SP (Washington, DC: February 2005).
[4] The last SCASDP grants DOT granted were in 2006.
[5] Special provisions guaranteed service to Alaskan communities.
[6] Subsidies are used to cover the difference between a carrier's
projected revenues and expenses and to provide a minimum amount of
profit.
[7] The average subsidy per passenger does not equate to a specific
portion of a passenger's ticket price paid for by EAS funds. Ticket
pricing involves a complex variety of factors relating to the demand
for travel between two points, the supply of available seats along that
route, competition in the market, and how air carriers choose to manage
and price their available seating capacity.
[8] At any time throughout the year, an air carrier providing
unsubsidized service to an EAS-eligible community can file a notice to
suspend service if the carrier determines that it can no longer provide
profitable service, thus triggering a carrier selection case. In
addition, after DOT selects an air carrier to provide subsidized
service, that agreement is subject to renewal, generally every 2 years,
at which time other air carriers are permitted to submit proposals to
serve that community with or without a subsidy.
[9] Overflight fees are user fees for air traffic control services
provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to aircraft that
fly over, but do not land in the United States, as authorized by the
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-264).
[10] P.L. 106-181.
[11] Vision 100, P.L. 108-176.
[12] A network carrier operates a significant portion of its flights
using at least one hub where connections are made for flights on a
spoke system. Regional carriers provide service from small communities
primarily using regional jets to connect the network carriers' hub-and-
spoke system.
[13] Code of Federal Regulations Title 14 Part 121 (14 CFR Part 121)
provides details on aircraft certification requirements for aircraft
that operate scheduled service with 10 or more seats. The Commuter Rule
was instituted with 60 Fed. Reg. 65832, December 20, 1995.
[14] Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Section 110 of P.L. 107-
71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).
[15] Low-cost carriers follow a business model that may include point-
to-point service between high-density city pairs, a standardized fleet
with high aircraft utilization, low fares, and minimal onboard service.
[16] We are referring to average daily "enplanements" per day as
passengers per day.
[17] Very Light Jets are new small, lightweight, jet aircraft equipped
with advanced avionics and priced below other business jets.
[18] According to DOT officials, the agency initiated only one
termination--for the grant awarded to Casper/Gillette, Wyoming. The
communities awarded the other grants requested the termination of the
grants.
[19] The authorizing statute provides one limitation on the timing of
expenditures. If funds are used to subsidize air service, the subsidy
cannot last more than 3 years. However, the time needed to obtain the
service is not included in the subsidy time limit. The statute does not
limit the timing of expenditures for other purposes. In fiscal year
2005, DOT issued an order specifying that in general, grant funds
should be expended within 3 years.
[20] GAO-05-325SP.
[21] GAO, Commercial Aviation: Factors Affecting Efforts to Improve Air
Service at Small Community Airports, GAO-03-330 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2003).
[22] As we reported in our 2002 report, although scheduled commercial
air service is positively correlated with local economic activity, we
were unable to locate reliable studies that describe the extent to
which scheduled commercial air service is directly responsible for
economic development in small communities in the United States (i.e.,
whether air service precedes, follows, or develops simultaneously with
local economic activity).
[23] GAO, Initial Small Community Air Service Development Projects Have
Achieved Mixed Results, GAO-06-21 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2005).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
