AIRLINE
INDUSTRY:
Airline
Compensation Payments:
Almost
immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
Congress passed and President Bush signed the
Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act.
A section of that Act appropriated up to $5 billion, to be
administered by the Department of Transportation, to compensate air
carriers for losses they incurred due to the attacks. Within
three days after the Act was passed, DOT paid over $2.3 billion to
the airlines, an infusion of capital that prevented massive
shutdowns and bankruptcies in the industry. Ultimately, DOT
processed
direct
compensation payments for 427 air carriers, obligating $4.603
billion of the $5 billion. The balance has been rescinded as
surplus to need. Only one open case remains, in which DOT is
seeking recovery of an amount believed to have been overpaid to a
cargo carrier.
Top of page
Airline
Distribution Practices:
Airlines have
significantly changed the way that they distribute their product to
consumers, including a multiple carrier, joint-owned travel supplier
website. For many years, passengers primarily obtained their tickets
by going through travel agents or purchasing ticket directly
from the individual airlines. Over the past several years, the sale
of air transportation has evolved to include sales over the web,
ticketless travel, and the proliferation of numerous distribution
systems through which to purchase air services. The
Office of Aviation Analysis completed a comprehensive study,
Efforts to Monitor Orbitz, that analyzes the consumer and
competitive effects of the newer distribution systems.
Top of page
Airline
Strikes:
A
labor strike at a major airline can result in severe disruption
affecting the traveling public, and high overhead costs can
quickly lead to financial distress of the carrier.
Similar effects can
occur when aircraft manufacturers or their suppliers go on strike.
The
Office of Aviation Analysis is responsible for advising the
Secretary on the effect of such strikes or the potential of these
strikes to affect passenger and cargo air services, including the
continued availability of service to consumers, the financial impact
on the airline, and the markets most likely to be affected by the
strike action. The Department does not take an active role in
aviation strike matters; rather, it monitors these situations to
ensure that senior Department officials are aware of the issues
involved and the impact on consumers and industry competition.
Top of page
Bankruptcies:
The Office
of Aviation Analysis, together with DOT's Office of General
Counsel, monitors bankruptcy proceedings in conjunction
with its responsibilities to monitor the continuing fitness of U.S.
airlines and the overall health and structure of the airline industry.
The Department of Justice represents consolidated U.S. agency
interests in these proceedings. Typical DOT interests include
accounting and remittances of passenger facility charges, and
attempted transfers or sales of certificates, slots, or route rights
by bankrupt carriers.
Top of page
Computer
Reservation Systems (CRS) Rules:
Computer Reservation Systems, also referred to as Global Distribution
Systems (GDSs), provide information on air carrier schedules, seat
availability, and fares and are used by travel agencies to make
airline reservations as well as to book hotel rooms, car rental
reservations, and the services of other travel industry suppliers.
Airlines and other travel suppliers pay booking fees to CRSs when
a reservation is made by an agent using one of these systems. Each
system operating in the United States was originally developed and
controlled by a U.S. airline.
Competitive
abuses by CRSs led to the creation of rules governing the systems’
operations in 1984. After reexamining whether the original rules
were necessary and effective, DOT readopted them with some changes
in 1992. At that time, one or more airlines controlled each of the
systems. In 1997, DOT began a new reexamination of the need for
rules and their effectiveness. After reviewing the comments submitted
in response to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and a supplemental
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, DOT issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking on November 15, 2002, that proposed to readopt many but
not all of the existing rules.
On
December 31, 2003, the Department issued a Final
Rule amending its regulations governing the systems. Most of
the rules were terminated as of January 31, 2004. The Department
readopted the rules prohibiting display bias and adopted rules that
prohibit systems from imposing certain types of contract clauses
on participating airlines that would unreasonably restrict their
ability to choose how to distribute their services. These rules
were effective during a six-month transition period, ending July
31, 2004. The Department found that changes in airline distribution,
particularly the growing importance of the Internet, and the divestiture
of all CRS ownership interests by U.S. airlines had made the rules
unnecessary.
Top of page
Consumer
Air Fare Report: See Domestic
Air Fares.
Top of page
Economic Impacts of Security Measures:
The Department participated in the development of the
Aviation
Transportation System Recovery Implementation Plan and participates in working group
meetings of the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee. The Recovery Plan identifies options
available to facilitate the operational and economic recovery of the aviation
transportation system in the event of an attack against the United States or
U.S. interests. The phased in recovery plan focuses on mitigation,
restoration of essential and emergency operations, resumption of limited
operations in the near term, and options leading to the full recovery of the
aviation transportation system. The Office of Aviation Analysis provides
subject matter expertise in the calculations of economic impacts of various
security measures and system stabilization activities.
Top of page
General Aviation
Reimbursement Program:
In
November, 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed Public Law 109-115,
one section of which appropriated up to $17 million to reimburse fixed-base
operators and general aviation service providers at five metropolitan
Washington, D.C. airports for the losses they incurred due to Federal actions
closing the airports after the September 11, 2001 attacks. DOT administers this
program. DOT promulgated the necessary regulations and received 21 applications
for reimbursement by the June 8, 2007 deadline. Eighteen applicants were found
to have incurred eligible losses and otherwise be qualified for reimbursement,
and reimbursements totaling about $13.5 million were paid.
Top of page
Loan
Guarantees:
Following
the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, Congress passed and
President Bush signed the
Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. Among
other things, that Act established two programs to provide financial
assistance to airlines. One of these, the
Loan Guarantee Program, provided up to $10 billion in loan
guarantees to support air carrier attempts to secure loans to
sustain their operations in the longer term. The Stabilization Act
established the
Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) to administer the
program. The
Office of Aviation Analysis, in conjunction with the
Department’s
Office of the General Counsel, analyzed all applications
submitted to the ATSB and advised the Secretary with respect to the
Department’s recommendation on each application. Sixteen
applications were filed by the June 28, 2002 deadline. The Board
approved six applications:
America West Airlines,
American Trans Air,
Aloha Airlines,
Frontier,
World Airways, and
US Airways.
The ATSB guaranteed $1,558,600,000 in loans for the six airlines
that were approved for federal loan guarantees and the loans closed.
Top of page
Monitoring
the Health of the Airline Industry:
One of the
Department's primary responsibilities is to promote a healthy and
competitive airline industry. The Office of Aviation Analysis regularly monitors the
fares, costs, traffic, capacity, financial positions, and operations
of the airlines, as well as structural changes in the industry and
general industry trends and growth. On a case-by-case basis, and at
times under emergency circumstances, the
Office of Aviation Analysis provides Department decision makers
with "quick-turn" analyses of the industry at a particular point in
time. The Office provided such an analysis right after the terrorist
attacks of September 11 and has continued to do on a periodic basis.
These analyses are also important if an airline files for
bankruptcy. Key decision makers in the Department can use the
results to evaluate the competitive effects of the bankruptcies on
industry structure and consumers. The Office of Aviation Analysis has also
conducted several detailed studies on various industry trends and
competitive issues in conjunction with the Department's oversight
responsibility of the industry. Some examples that are available on
this web page are the
Dominated Hub Fares study, the
Rural Air Fare Study,
Transatlantic Deregulation-The Alliance Network Effect.
Top of page
Passenger
Facility Charges: The Department
of Transportation may authorize a commercial service airport or agency that
controls a commercial service airport to impose a fee on each paying passenger
of an air carrier or foreign air carrier boarding an aircraft to finance
airport-related projects.
49 USC 40117. The fee may be $1, $2, $3, $4, or $4.50. The fees are
collected by the airlines and remitted, less an administrative charge, to the
airport authorities. In order to impose such a charge, the agency controlling
the airport must obtain the approval of its application by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Top of page
Reports, Publications and Studies: Ensuring consumers have public access to
information about the airline industry is a high Department
priority. Access to such information assists consumers and civic
leaders in better understanding the role of air transportation in
local economic growth and how to address their air service issues.
The Office of Aviation and International Affairs, through the
Office
of Aviation Analysis and the
Office
of International Aviation, regularly makes available to the
public numerous reports and studies about airline services, fares,
and competition, most of which are electronically available to
facilitate greater dissemination of the information. Many of these
studies can be found at
http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/reports.htm
Top of page
Rural Airports: A Rural Airports list is prepared annually by the
Office of Aviation Analysis for the Treasury Department/IRS and is used by
airlines to assist in establishing air fares. For travel to and from airports
defined as “rural airports,” the ad valorem ticket tax was reduced and,
presently, flight segments involving the last segment into or first segment out
of a rural airport are exempt from the segment fee. The rural airports
designation originated with The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Section 1031 of
that Act defines a rural airport as any airport having fewer than 100,000
commercial passengers departing by air during the second preceding calendar year
and is not located within 75 miles of another airport from which 100,000
commercial passengers departed in the second preceding year or was receiving
essential air service subsidies as of the date of the enactment of the act. A
link to the present Rural Airports listing is below:
Rural Airport Listing
(PDF)
(XLS)
(HTM)
Top of page
September
11 terrorist attacks: Financial recovery of the airline
industry since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was a top priority for the Department. Many of the airlines in
the industry were facing considerable financial difficulties prior
to the September 11 terrorist attacks due to sluggish economy as
well as high cost structures. The events of September 11 further
exacerbated these problems and plunged these airlines, as well as
several others, into the worst financial position in aviation history.
The Air Transportation
Safety and System Stabilization Act, among other things, established
two programs to provide financial assistance to the industry in
the post-9/11 marketplace. The Office
of Aviation Analysis has played a central role in both of these
programs. The first is the Air
Carrier Compensation Program, which provided up the $5
billion to provide immediate financial relief to the airlines right
after September 11 to ensure that they could continue to provide
service. Within three days after the Act was passed, the Department
paid over $2.3 billion to the airlines. The second program was the
Loan Guarantee program,
which provided $10 billion in guarantees to support air carrier
attempts to secure loans to sustain their operations in the longer
term.
Top of page
Slots:
In 1969, the FAA promulgated rules that limited the
number of operations (takeoff and landing positions or slots) at four
congested airports,
New
York LaGuardia,
New
York JFK,
Chicago
O'Hare, and
Reagan
Washington National. These limits have now expired at all
but
Reagan
Washington National.
The primary administration of slots
is handled by the Federal Aviation
Administration, although the
Office
of Aviation Analysis is responsible for the allocation of slot
exemptions.
Top of page
Slot Exemptions:
Recognizing
the capability of slot-controlled airports over time to support additional
operations, Congress has on several occasions authorized DOT to provide
increased access by way of granting limited exemptions to the slot regulations.
The slot restrictions at O’Hare and the two New York airports have expired,
although the Department has implemented different operational limitations to
relieve congestion at LaGuardia and JFK. Slot restrictions at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport remain in effect, and since 2000 the Office of the
Secretary has awarded 24 “beyond-perimeter” and 20 “within-perimeter” slot
exemptions at that airport to carriers found to best meet specified statutory
criteria. 49 U.S.C. § 41718. These exemptions are community-specific and
cannot be sold or transferred. When Congress authorizes new awards, or carriers
return slot exemptions they cannot use, DOT institutes a public proceeding to
allocate the available exemptions to the best qualified applicants. Examples of
these proceedings can be found at these links:
Beyond-Perimeter
awards (Order 2004-4-1);
Within-Perimeter awards (Order 2004-4-2).
Top of page
AVIATION
DATA:
Airport
Competition and Air Fare Data: The Office
of Aviation Analysis collects air fare data and prepares them
in compliance with Section 155 of Pub L. 106-181, to be used in
the development of Airport Competition Plans. One component of the
Competition Plan is an evaluation of the submitting airport’s
fares compared to those at other large and medium airports. The
fare and traffic data is developed to provide a basis for the requisite
analysis. The source of all data is the DOT’s Origin and Destination
Survey.
Top of page
Airline
Financial Review: On
a quarterly basis the Office
of Aviation Analysis produces a report (Financial
and Traffic Review) that provides detailed information on the
financial condition of U.S. airlines. The information includes staff
comments, charts, and tables.
Top of page
Aviation
Data Modernization:
There have been
several changes in the way that airlines conduct their operations
since the Department's data reporting requirements were established
after deregulation, including tremendous growth in code sharing both
domestically and in international markets. The
Office of Aviation Analysis has taken a leadership role in
instituting a comprehensive rulemaking to harmonize the Department's
aviation data systems with current regulatory and statutory needs;
to improve the quality of the Department's aviation databases; and
to provide improved submission of and access to the data. The
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled "Aviation Data Modernization"
proposed various changes to existing rules codified in Parts 241 and
249 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Top of page
Domestic
Air Fares: A key aspect of deregulation of the airline
industry in 1978 was the discontinuation of the government’s
regulation of the prices that airlines charge customers. While the
government no longer regulates the fares that are charged, the Department
does provide considerable information to the public with respect
to airline fares. The Department through the Office
of Aviation Analysis issues the Consumer
Air Fare Report on a quarterly basis, which provides information
about average prices being paid by consumers in the top 1,000 domestic
city-pair markets in the continental United States. These markets
account for over 70% of all domestic air travel. A section of the
report provides real life examples of concerns and or information
pertaining to U.S. airline service to various U.S. cities.
Top of page
Standard
Industry Fare Level: The
Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA),
Public Law 95-504, substantially
amended the Federal Aviation Act of 1958,
setting both deadlines and policies for the economic deregulation
of interstate and overseas (domestic) air transportation. Among
other things, the ADA significantly limited the Civil
Aeronautics Board's (CAB) discretion to prescribe domestic
fare levels and required the CAB to establish a "Standard Industry
Fare Level" (SIFL),
based upon fares in effect on July 1, 1979. To serve the benchmark
for evaluating a statutory zone of reasonableness for air fares
since deregulation, as required by the deregulation law, the CAB
and now the Department periodically updates the SIFL
by the percentage change in airline operating cost per available
seat-mile. It is also used by others in the government as well as
the public in estimating the economic value of transportation services.
The Office of Aviation
Analysis recalculates the SIFL
twice a year and makes it available to the public via publishable data
tables.
Top of page
Transportation
of Mail:
49
USC 41903 requires that duly licensed U.S. certificated carriers
transport mail on their authorized foreign air transportation service
and their services within Alaska.
49
USC 41901 and 41907
require the Department to “set fair and reasonable rates”
that the
U.S. Postal
Service
will pay air carriers to transport international mail
and mail within Alaska. The
Office of
Aviation Analysis
issues orders
setting mail rates.
Top of page
U.S.
International Air Passenger and Freight Statistics:
The
U.S. International Air Passenger and
Freight Statistics report has been developed to provide the
public with additional access to international aviation data relating
to service and traffic levels in specific international markets.
The report is restricted to nonstop commercial traffic between international points and U.S. airports.
Top of page
COMPETITION
ANALYSIS:
Airport
Access: A
key factor in promoting airline competition is reducing/eliminating
unnecessary entry barriers which make it
more difficult or costly for air carriers to enter a market or expand
operations once they begin serving an airport. Airport managers, as
outlined in DOT study
Airport
Business Practices and their Impact on Airline Competition, October
1999, have a legal obligation to ensure that all air carriers
have reasonable access to essential airport facilities. (e.g, gates,
slots, apron space, counter facilities, etc.)
Top of page
Airport
Capacity (Efficient Use of Existing Capacity):
Many airports
do not have the facilities or ground space to accommodate all of the
airlines that want to serve the airport or the number of flights that
the airlines want to operate. In addition, the number of flights operated
at some airports is very high, affecting the ability of the airlines
to operate their flights on schedule. The Department has identified
31 U.S. airports as congested,
bench-marked
airports. Relieving airport congestion
and flight delays is an important objective of the Department. For
the 31 bench-marked airports, there are 117 commercial airports
that can handle jet aircraft, 45 airports that cannot handle jets,
and 16 surplus military airfields. This information is being used
in policy discussions to determine whether these airports can provide
relief to the congested
bench-marked
airports, whether different policies are needed to encourage more
efficient use of capacity and whether current policies discourage
use of these other airports and whether a regional airport approach
might produce relief to congestion problems.
Top of page
Alliances
and Code Shares Between and Among Major U.S. Carriers: U.S. air carriers are required to submit cooperative service
agreements that they have with each other, such as reciprocal
code sharing, joint frequent flyer and lounge access, and joint
marketing, to the Department for review before they implement
those agreements. 49 USC 41720.
The Department does not approve or disapprove the agreements.
Rather, the Department reviews the agreements to ensure that
they would not harm the public and are not anti competitive. The
Department can take action under its statutory authority to
preserve competition under
49 USC 41712. Following extensive competition and public
benefits analysis, the Division granted antitrust immunity to
Delta Air Lines,
Northwest Airlines, and four of their international partners
(Air
France,
Alitalia,
Czech Airlines and
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) to coordinate their transatlantic
fares, services and capacity as if they were a single carrier in
these markets, subject to certain conditions. This case was
extremely complex and required extensive data analysis,
particularly given the proposed merger between Delta and
Northwest. The office is currently reviewing antitrust
immunity requests from
United Airlines,
Continental Airlines,
Lufthansa, and
Air Canada and from
American Airlines,
British Airways, and
Iberia Airlines. For further information, contact the
Office of Aviation Analysis and the
Office of International Aviation.
Top of page
Anti-Competitive
Practices:
49 U.S.C. 40101 mandates that the Department prevent unfair,
deceptive predatory, or anti-competitive practices in both
domestic and international aviation. The domestic airline
industry was
deregulated in 1978, making it possible for all airlines to
compete in all U.S. domestic markets. The
Office of Aviation Analysis, in conjunction with the
Department’s
Office of the General Counsel, reviews complaints of unfair
competitive practices involving domestic air services on a
case-by-case basis. The
Office of International Aviation handles complaints by U.S.
carriers regarding discriminatory and unfair competitive
practices in international air transportation. See
Complaints by U.S. carriers against foreign governments and/or
foreign carriers.
Top of page
Competitive
Impact of International Code Sharing and Alliances: U.S. carrier
relationships with foreign airlines play a major role in the
U.S. aviation industry's participation and competitive position
in the "global" marketplace. A study by the
Office of Aviation Analysis served as the economic basis for
development of the Department's international aviation policy to
encourage international alliances and spread deregulation's
benefits to world markets. As a result, there has been
considerable growth in U.S. carrier code-sharing arrangements
with foreign airlines as well as growth in the more
comprehensive U.S. carrier alliances (cooperative service and
marketing agreements) with foreign airlines. The alliance
agreements, which nearly always include a code-sharing
component, are frequently accompanied by requests for relief
from the antitrust laws, which otherwise might prevent the
carriers from cooperating on certain aspects of their joint
services, such as fares and capacity, as though they were a
single airline. Major code-sharing and alliance arrangements
require careful examination in terms of their impact on
competition in both domestic and international markets. The
Office of International Aviation processes U.S./foreign
carrier code-share applications and maintains a list of
code-share arrangements between U.S. and foreign carriers.
The
Office of Aviation Analysis is responsible for processing
applications for antitrust immunity and maintains a
list of all immunized alliances. Two major studies by the
Office of Aviation Analysis have been instrumental in developing
the Department's ongoing policies regarding international
alliances:
Global Deregulation Takes Off (1999) and
Transatlantic Deregulation-The Alliance Network Effect (2000).
The Division is currently engaged in
a joint study
of transatlantic airline alliances with the
Directorate General of Competition for the European Union.
Top of page
Domestic
Aviation Competition Briefs:
Learn more
about low-fare entry and competition in the domestic airline
industry with our short analytical briefs and re-issued Special
Features from the Domestic Consumer Air Fare Report.
Top of page
Demand
Management at Airports: Prior to September 11, flight delays at many of the Nation's busiest
airports reached unprecedented levels. Many airports, however, have
little or no ability to build new runways or terminals quickly. To better
utilize scarce airport capacity, some parties advocate the use of
demand-management policies (e.g., peak/off-peak landing and take-off
fees). Other parties contend that such policies would have serious
adverse consequences, such as reducing air service to smaller communities.
The
Department is continuing to review the merits of
demand- management policies or whether to support changes to existing
Federal statutes and regulations to encourage airports to adopt this
approach to allocating airport capacity. The issue will be raised
in the context of congressional hearings on flight delays, airport
congestion, small community service, airline competition, and the
merits of demand-management options that will be considered in the
context of any long-term solution to congestion at U.S. airports.
Top of page
Ensuring
Fair Competition Among Airlines: An ongoing
responsibility of the Department is to deal with complaints of
unfair competitive practices. The domestic airline industry was
deregulated in 1978, making it possible for all airlines to
compete in all U.S. domestic markets. The
Department of
Transportation has a statutory responsibility to ensure that
such competition is conducted fairly. The Office reviews
complaints of unfair competitive practices on a case-by-case
basis. (Also see
Anti-Competitive Practices)
Top of page
Promotion
of Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry:
Increasing
competition in the U.S. airline industry is a fundamental
responsibility of the Department of Transportation under our
governing statute. It is the Department's policy to encourage
the entry of new airlines into the market. New entry not only
increases the level of airline service and choice available to
the public, but also promotes lower airfares for consumers and
brings innovation to the industry. Over the past several years,
new entrants have greatly expanded the scale and scope of their
operations. Increased competition has spurred the incumbent
carriers to lower their fares, to become more efficient, and to
develop new services to compete with these new entrants. Three
major studies by the
Office of Aviation Analysis have contributed significantly
toward the development of this pro-entry policy:
The Southwest Effect (1993),
The Low Cost Airline Service Revolution (1996), and
Dominated Hub Fares (2001).
Top of page
Technological
Solutions to Customer Service Issues: Technology can and should be the cornerstone for airline and airports
to facilitate consumer assess to flight information and to provide
services that minimize the adverse consequences of air travel delays
and cancellations. In an October 2000
report, the Department highlighted opportunities relating
to passenger transfers (e-tickets), scheduling data, weather information,
passenger check-in, on-time performance, and web pages where technology
can enhance the flow of information to airline consumers and reduce
traveler stress and inconvenience.
Top of page
U.S.
Airline Mergers and Acquisitions:
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and
acquisitions that may substantially lessen competition or create
a monopoly. While the
Department of Justice enforces this statute, the
Department of Transportation conducts its own competitive
analysis of mergers and submits its views to the Justice
Department. The
Office of Aviation Analysis provided extensive analyses of
the proposed merger between
United Air Lines’ and
US Airways, the proposal of
Aloha Airlines and
Hawaiian Airlines to merge,
American Airlines’ acquisition of Trans World Airlines,
and the acquisition of Northwest Airlines by Delta
Air Lines. The United/US Airways and Aloha/Hawaiian merger
proposals were later withdrawn . The Department does
exercise jurisdiction over the transfer of international
operating authority in conjunction with airline acquisitions as
well as ensuring that the acquiring entity meets the
Department’s citizenship and continuing fitness requirements to be a U.S.
certificated air carrier.
Top of page
SMALL
COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE:
Service to Small
Communities: The Office of Aviation Analysis
administers two programs designed to preserve and improve service to
small communities: the
Essential Air Service program, and the
Small Community Air Service Development Program.
Top of page
Essential Air Service Program: The
Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines almost
total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and
what fares to charge for that service. The
Essential Air Service program was established as part of that
Act to ensure that communities that were served by certificated air
carriers as of the date of deregulation could maintain a minimum
level of scheduled air service, with subsidy if necessary.
Subsequently, Congress acted to exclude communities from eligibility
for subsidy if they are located fewer than 70 miles from the nearest
large or medium hub airport, or require a rate of subsidy per
passenger in excess of $200, unless the community is greater than
210 miles from the nearest hub airport. (These limitations apply
only to the contiguous 48 States.) The Department currently
subsidizes commuter airlines to serve approximately 100 rural
communities in the contiguous States, as well as about 45 in Alaska,
that otherwise would not receive any scheduled air service. The
Program is funded through annual transfers of FAA overflight fees,
supplemented by annual appropriations. For further information
contact the
Office of Aviation Analysis.
Top of page
Small Community Air Service Development Program: On April 5,
2000, the President signed the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR-21),
Public Law 106-181. Among other things, that statute established
the
Small Community Air Service Development Program, a new pilot
program designed to help smaller communities to enhance their air
service. The Vision 100-Century in Aviation Reauthorization Act,
P.L. 108-176, reauthorized the program for five years, through FY
2008, and eliminated the "pilot" status of the program. Assistance
is provided through grants-in-aid, with priority consideration given
to communities that, among other factors, provide a portion of the
cost of the activity to be assisted, and establish a public-private
partnership to facilitate the service. The statute limits the number
of awards to 40 in each year, limits eligible communities to those
served by a small hub or smaller airport, and requires a showing
that the community has had insufficient air carrier service and/or
unreasonably high air fares. The program is funded through annual
appropriations. Over 220 grants have been awarded through a
competitive selection process since FY2002, and have averaged about
$500,000 in amount. Applicable legal requirements may be found at
49 USC § 41743. For information on the status of awards for the
current year see the “What’s Hot” section above, or for more general
information contact the
Office of Aviation Analysis.
Top of page.
Revised
on
June 26, 2009
(202) 366-5903
