Essential Air Service: Changes in Passenger Traffic, Subsidy Levels, and
Air Carrier Costs (Testimony, 05/25/2000, GAO/T-RCED-00-185).

More than two decades have passed since Congress phased out the federal
government's control over airfares and service. Concerned that air
service to some small communities would suffer in a deregulated
environment, Congress established the Essential Air Service (EAS)
program in 1978 and made special provisions for providing this service
in Alaska. The goal of the EAS program, administered by the Department
of Transportation (DOT), is to ensure that small communities that had
received scheduled passenger air service before deregulation continue to
have access to air transportation. DOT does this by awarding subsidies
to carriers willing to provide service to communities that would not
otherwise receive it. Congress increased the program's annual funding to
$50 million in fiscal year 1998 and directed that overflight fees not
obligated on the EAS program be used to pay for rural air safety
projects. This report reviews the program and determines whether all
communities were receiving the subsidized service to which they were
entitled and whether the increase in funding had been made available for
rural air safety projects. GAO (1) determines how DOT applied criteria
to decide which communities would receive subsidized air service, (2)
describes changes in the level of subsidies provided to EAS-eligible
communities in fiscal year 1999 relative to that provided in 1995, (3)
identifies why the level of subsidies changed between 1995 and 1999, and
(4) determines whether DOT applied any of the increase in program
funding to rural air safety projects. This testimony summarizes the
April 2000 report, GAO/RCED-00-34.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-185
     TITLE:  Essential Air Service: Changes in Passenger Traffic,
	     Subsidy Levels, and Air Carrier Costs
      DATE:  05/25/2000
   SUBJECT:  Airline industry
	     Air transportation operations
	     Airline regulation
	     Subsidies
	     Cost analysis
	     Eligibility determinations
	     Community development programs
IDENTIFIER:  DOT Essential Air Service Subsidy Program
	     Alaska
	     Hawaii
	     Puerto Rico
	     FAA Commuter Safety Initiative

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO/T-RCED-00-185
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE

Changes in Passenger Traffic, Subsidy Levels, and Air Carrier Costs
Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr., Director, Transportation Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT Thursday May 25, 2000

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee Over two decades have passed
since the Congress phased out the federal government's control over airfares
and service. Concerned that air service to some small communities would
suffer in a deregulated environment, the Congress established the Essential
Air Service (EAS) program as part of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978
and made special provisions for providing this service in Alaska. The
objective of the EAS program, administered by the Department of
Transportation (DOT), is to ensure that small communities that had received
scheduled passenger air service before deregulation continued to have access
to the nation's air transportation system. DOT does this by awarding
subsidies to carriers willing to provide service to communities that would
not otherwise receive it. Recently, we issued a report on changes in the
subsidy levels and costs for the EAS program in 1999 compared with 1995. 1
Our testimony today, which is based on information developed for that
report, focuses on three major topics: (1) changes in the number of
communities and passengers receiving subsidized service, (2) changes in the
level of subsidies provided, and (3) reasons why the subsidy levels changed.

In summary, we found the following:

ï¿½ Between 1995 and 1999, the overall number of communities receiving EAS-
subsidized service decreased by 6, from 95 to 89. In addition, the number of
passengers served by the EAS program declined by 4 percent, from 617,000 to
590,000.

ï¿½ Despite the decrease in number of communities and passengers served, the
overall level of funding for EAS subsidies increased by 47 percent, from
$31.4 to $46.3 million in constant dollars. For communities within the
continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, the average subsidy per
passenger increased by 47 percent, from about $56 to $82. For communities in
Alaska, the average subsidy per passenger increased by 23 percent, from
about $25 to $30.

1 Essential Air Service: Changes in Subsidy Levels, Air Carrier Costs, and
Passenger Traffic (GAO/ RCED- 00- 34, Apr. 14, 2000)

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 2

ï¿½ Overall, the level of EAS subsidies increased because increases in air
carriers' operating costs were not offset by a corresponding rise in
passenger revenues. The operating costs of air carriers increased as they
complied with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Commuter Safety
Initiative, adapted to unique circumstances associated with particular
markets, such as airport fees, and/ or upgraded aging aircraft. Although
operating costs increased, the demand for subsidized air service declined
slightly, thus limiting the potential for additional revenues. In addition,
some EAS carriers had difficulty competing for passengers because of the
availability of low- fare jet air service at nearby airports.

Background

According to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, communities eligible to
receive subsidized service are those that could receive scheduled air
service on October 24, 1978. 2 To receive subsidized service, communities
located in the 48 continental states must also meet criteria imposed
annually by the Congress beginning in fiscal year 1994. These criteria
prohibit DOT from subsidizing service to communities that are located fewer
than 70 highway miles from the nearest medium- or large- hub airport or
require a subsidy per passenger in excess of $200. The law makes exceptions
to the subsidy limit per passenger for communities located more than 210
miles from the nearest medium- or large- hub community airport. 3

EAS subsidies are provided to air carriers that provide service to
communities that they would not otherwise serve without the subsidies. DOT
examines the financial records of each airline and sets these subsidies to
cover the difference between a carrier's projected revenues and expenses and
provide a minimum amount of profit. The law specifies that communities
requiring subsidized service, except those in Alaska, are entitled to a
minimum of 12 round- trip

2 Communities did not have to be actively receiving air service in 1978 to
be eligible for EAS, but they did have to be listed on an air carrier
certificate. These certificates, issued under 49 USC 41102, authorized an
air carrier to provide scheduled service along particular routes between
named communities. For additional information on the establishment of the
EAS program, see More Flexible Eligibility Criteria Could Enhance the Small
Communities Essential Air Service Subsidy Program (GAO/ RCED- 83- 97, May
18, 1983).

3 By FAA's definition, air traffic hubs are not airports but communities
requiring aviation services on scheduled carriers. FAA designates an air
traffic hub as small, medium, or large depending on the number of passengers
it handles. A small hub community has at least 0. 05 percent, but less than
0. 25 percent, of the total annual passenger enplanements (boardings) in the
United States in any given year. A medium hub has at least 0. 25 percent and
less than 1.0 percent of total U. S. enplanements, and a large hub has 1. 0
percent or more of total U. S. enplanements. A nonhub community has less
than 0. 05 percent of total U. S. enplanements.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 3

flights per week- 2 daily round- trip flights 6 days per week, with not more
than one intermediate stop on each flight to a hub airport. In Alaska,
communities are entitled to the number of flights provided in 1976 or two
daily round- trips per week, whichever is greater, unless the affected
communities agree otherwise.

Most EAS communities are served by commuter air carriers in turboprop
aircraft with fewer than 30 seats. In 1996, FAA changed the air safety rules
for commuter air carriers to match the operational, equipment, and
performance safety standards required of large air carriers. Collectively
known as the “Commuter Safety Initiative,” these rules imposed
many new requirements on commuter air carriers that flew aircraft equipped
with 10 seats or more. For example, this initiative increased training
requirements for pilots and further limited the number of duty hours
crewmembers can fly.

To determine the number of communities and passengers served by EAS and the
level of subsidies provided, we reviewed and analyzed relevant data for the
years 1995 and 1999. We adjusted subsidies awarded to communities for
inflation. We chose 1995 as the basis of comparison because it was the most
recent year in which the EAS program was unaffected by reduced
appropriations and because it preceded the Commuter Safety Initiative, a
major change in airline safety standards. We interviewed DOT and airline
officials and examined reports that airlines may have filed with the U. S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to determine why EAS funding increased.
However, since we did not have access to all pertinent airline financial
records, we could not determine the exact financial impact that individual
factors (e. g., the Commuter Safety Initiative) had on EAS subsidies in 1995
compared with 1999.

Overall Number of Communities and Passengers Receiving EAS- Subsidized
Service Decreased

Between 1995 and 1999, the overall number of communities receiving
subsidized service decreased by 6, from 95 to 89. Table 1 shows the number
of communities that gained and lost their subsidized service in 1995
compared to 1999 in (1) the continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico and( 2) Alaska.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 4

Table 1: Change in Number of Communities That Received EAS- Subsidized
Service in 1995 Compared With 1999

Change in number of communities receiving

subsidized service Community location

Communities that received

subsidized service in 1995

Did not receive subsidized

service in 1995 but gained it by

1999 Received

subsidized service in 1995

but lost it by 1999

Communities that received

subsidized service in 1999

48 continental states, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico a 77 6 14 69 Alaska 18 2 0 20

Total 95 8 14 89

a The one community in Puerto Rico that received service in 1995 did not
receive service in 1999.

In 1999, 69 of the 89 communities that received subsidized service were
located in the 48 continental states and Hawaii, and 20 were located in
Alaska. Of the communities located in the continental United States, 31 were
located more than 210 miles from the nearest medium- or large- hub community
airport. Figure 1 shows the locations of the communities in the 48
continental states that received subsidized air service in April 1999 and
shows their proximity to medium- and large- hub community airports. Figure 2
shows the locations of the communities in Alaska that received subsidized
air service in April 1999.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 5

Figure 1: Locations of Communities in the 48 States That Received Subsidized
Air Service in 1999

Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data. Note: Since only one community in
Hawaii received subsidized service in 1999, we did not include a map of this
location. Community with EAS- subsidized service

Medium- hub airport Large- hub airport

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 6

Figure 2: Locations of Communities in Alaska That Received EAS- Subsidized
Air Service in 1999

Note: This figure shows the location of the communities in Alaska that
received subsidized service in April 1999, including the 8 Kodiak bush
communities that received subsidized service in 1999. However, for the
purpose of our analysis, we treated the Kodiak bush communities as one
because, in calculating a subsidy, DOT treats them as one community.

Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data.

Between 1995 and 1999, the number of passengers served by EAS declined by 4
percent, from about 617,000 to 590,000. However, the change in number of
passengers served varied widely by community. For example, the number of
passengers flying to and from Kearney, Nebraska, increased by 138 percent,
from about 4,500 to 10,800, while the number of passengers at Kirksville,
Missouri, decreased by 41 percent, from about 4,500 to 2,700. In both years,
commuter air carriers making EAS flights were doing so with aircraft that
were relatively empty. For example, for communities in the continental
United States and Hawaii that received subsidized service in both years, in
1995, on average, passengers filled about 19 percent of the available seats,
and in 1999, on average, passengers filled about 15 percent of the available
seats.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 7

EAS Subsidy Levels Have Increased

Figure 3 contrasts the number of communities receiving EAS- subsidized
service with the change in total EAS subsidies (in constant dollars) between
1988 and 1999. As indicated, between these years, the overall number of
communities receiving subsidized service generally decreased while total
subsidies increased. Between 1993 and 1997, there was a sharp decline in
program funding available for EAS and total subsidies decreased accordingly.
4 However, beginning in 1998, total subsidies increased significantly after
the program's authorized funding was increased to $50 million.

Between 1995 and 1999, total subsidies for the program increased by 47
percent, from $31.4 to $46.3 million in constant dollars. The increase in
total subsidies was more moderate for communities in Alaska than for other
locations. Appendix I contains more detailed information on the number of
communities served, EAS obligations, and the source of this funding.

4 During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, when the level of available funding for
the EAS program was reduced, DOT was not able to provide each community that
qualified for subsidized service the minimum amount of service required by
law.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 8

Figure 3: Change in the Number of Communities Receiving EAS- Subsidized
Service and Change in Total EAS Subsidies (Obligations), 1988- 99

Note: For the purpose of our analysis, we treated the Kodiak (Alaska) bush
communities as one because, in calculating a subsidy, DOT treats them as one
community. For the purpose of this figure, however, to show the historical
change in the number of communities receiving subsidized service, we treated
the Kodiak bush communities as individual communities. Thus, the number of
communities shown includes the 12 Kodiak bush communities that received
subsidized service in 1995 and the 8 that received such service in 1999.

Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data.

Overall, between 1995 and 1999, for service to communities in the
continental United States, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, EAS subsidies increased
by 41 percent, from about $30 million to $43 million. During this same
period, the total number of EAS passengers at these communities declined
slightly, by about 4 percent, from about 537,000 to 516,000. As a result,
the average subsidy per passenger increased by 47 percent, from $56 to $82
per passenger.

To obtain a better understanding of how the costs and the level of service
changed between 1995 and 1999 in the continental United States, Hawaii, and
Puerto Rico, we examined changes in subsidies, aircraft capacity, and
passenger levels in the 63 communities that received subsidized service in
both 1995 and 1999. These communities represented 91 percent of all
communities

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 9

that received subsidized service in the continental United States in 1999.
For these communities, the median change in the average subsidy per
community was an increase of about $223,000 and the median percentage change
in subsidy per community was an increase of 50.2 percent. 5 The median
change in average subsidy per passenger was an increase of $49 and the
median percentage change in subsidy per passenger was an increase of 66.6
percent. Figure 4 summarizes the median percentage changes in passenger
traffic, aircraft capacity, subsidy per community, and subsidy per
passenger.

Figure 4: Median Percentage Changes in Passenger Traffic, Aircraft Capacity,
Subsidy per Community, and Subsidy per Passenger for Communities That
Received EAS- Subsidized Service in Both 1995 and 1999

Source: GAO's analysis of DOT's data.

Although the median change is a useful way of summarizing changes that took
place for these 63 communities, the extent of these changes varied widely by
community. Total increases in the subsidy per community ranged from about
$331, an increase of less than 1 percent, for service to Cape Girardeau,
Missouri, to about $949,000, an increase of about 264 percent, for service
to McCook, Nebraska. Changes in the subsidy per passenger also varied. For
instance, for

5 The median is the statistical point at which half of the communities'
change is greater and the other half of communities' change is less. The
median may not equal the arithmetic average (mean).

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 10

Rutland, Vermont, the subsidy per passenger increased by 4 percent, from $72
to $75, as compared to that for Clovis, New Mexico which increased by 294
percent, from $37 to $146.

For communities in Alaska, increases in the total subsidy level and average
subsidies per passenger were less than in other U. S. locations. Between
1995 and 1999, total EAS subsidies for Alaska rose by 12 percent, from $2.0
million to $2.2 million, compared to the 41- percent total increase for the
other states. During this same period, the total number of communities in
Alaska receiving subsidized service increased from 18 to 20, and the total
number of passengers decreased from about 80,000 to 73,000, or by 9 percent.
As a result, the average subsidy per passenger increased by 23 percent, from
about $25 to $30. In 1999, funding for Alaskan communities represented about
5 percent of total EAS funding, and Alaskan passengers represented about 12
percent of all passengers.

Increased Safety Requirements and Other Factors Contributed to an Increase
in EAS Subsidy Levels

Overall, EAS subsidy levels increased between 1995 and 1999 because the
costs of serving EAS communities increased without an offsetting increase in
passenger revenues. Carriers' costs increased as they complied with FAA's
Commuter Safety Initiative, adapted to unique circumstances associated with
particular markets, such as airport fees, and/ or upgraded their aging
fleets. Despite the increase in operating costs, the number of passengers
using these services was essentially the same, and carriers did not benefit
from an increase in revenues.

Information we reviewed from the four airlines that served 80 percent of the
passengers flying on EAS- subsidized service in 1999 revealed that complying
with FAA's Commuter Safety Initiative was one reason that their operating
costs increased. For example, officials from Mesa Airlines and Colgan
Airlines emphasized that the initiative's new training and personnel
requirements were costly. Mesa officials noted that because pilots who
formerly required 4 hours of cockpit training now require 30 hours, the
company had to hire additional pilots to ensure that it could fully staff
its operations. Colgan officials said that training costs increased by an
additional $27,000 per month, in part due to having to hire full- time
trainers. Great Lakes Aviation reported that commuter rule compliance drove
up wages for its mechanics between 30

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 11

and 35 percent. According to Great Lakes' 1996 financial report, salaries,
wages, and benefits increased about 8 percent from 1995 to 1996, due in part
to the Commuter Safety Initiative.

Factors that affected service to specific communities and airlines also
affected operating costs and potential revenues. For instance, for 16
communities, the cost of flying passengers to Denver increased significantly
because fees at Denver International Airport are much higher than those at
Denver's Stapleton International Airport, which closed in February 1995. DOT
estimated that the cost of airport fees for flights departing from Denver to
Alliance, Chadron, and McCook, Nebraska, increased from $173 per departure
to $235 per departure, about 35 percent, between 1996 and 1997. Moreover,
the cost of providing service to several communities in Montana increased
when Big Sky Airlines upgraded its aging fleet of 15- seat Metro II aircraft
with 19- seat Metro IIIs.

The availability of air service at nearby airports, especially from low-
fare carriers, also adversely affected the ability of some EAS carriers to
compete successfully for local passenger traffic. For example, subsidized
service was suspended at Keene, New Hampshire, in part because local
residents were driving to Manchester, New Hampshire, which is less than 60
miles away, to take advantage of low fares offered by Southwest Airlines and
US Airways' low- fare subsidiary, MetroJet. In addition, changes in the
local economy have reduced the ability of some air carriers to generate
passenger revenues in some communities.

Although difficult to quantify, changes and consolidation in the airline
industry have undoubtedly affected the cost of providing air service to
smaller communities. DOT officials reported that fewer airlines now compete
to serve any given route because of dwindling interest in the program among
carriers, principally because the major carriers and their code- sharing
commuter partners control entire regions around hubs. Between 1995 and 1999,
the number of air carriers serving subsidized EAS communities decreased from
17 to 11. In contrast, in 1987, about 51 different carriers served
communities receiving subsidized service.

-----

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 12

In summary, the EAS program has generally met its objective of ensuring that
communities continue to receive subsidized service where market forces might
otherwise have prevented airlines from offering any scheduled commercial
service. In 1998, when the Congress increased the program's authorized
funding level, DOT used the additional funding to cover the increased costs
of providing subsidized service. Should funding become inadequate to fund
subsidized service to all communities that require it at current levels, DOT
program officials will have to limit its subsidies or look to the Congress
for additional funding or legislative guidance that they can use to target
program subsidies.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be glad to
respond to any questions that you or any Member of the Committee may have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact John H. Anderson,
Jr., at (202) 512- 2834. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Steven Martin and Sonja Bensen.

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 13

Appendix I Number of Communities and Amount of Subsidized Service Provided
to EAS

Communities Since 1978

Fiscal year

a Number of EAS communities

EAS obligations

in nominal millions of

dollars (total subsidy

level) EAS

obligations in 1999 millions of

dollars b EAS

subsidy per community

in 1999 millions of

dollars Source of

EAS Funding

1979 c 11 $1.7 $3.4 $0.31 General Fund of Treasury 1980 24 $9.8 $18.0 $0.75
General Fund of Treasury 1981 57 $15.0 $25.1 $0.44 General Fund of Treasury
1982 88 $26.1 $41.2 $0.47 General Fund of Treasury 1983 119 $42.2 $64.0
$0.54 General Fund of Treasury 1984 146 $35.3 $51.6 $0.35 General Fund of
Treasury 1985 148 $34.9 $49.5 $0.33 General Fund of Treasury 1986 138 $24.3
$33.7 $0.24 General Fund of Treasury 1987 135 $26.7 $36.0 $0.27 General Fund
of Treasury 1988 153 $28.4 $37.0 $0.24 General Fund of Treasury 1989 143
$25.6 $32.1 $0.22 General Fund of Treasury 1990 119 $33.2 $40.1 $0.34
General Fund of Treasury 1991 123 $26.1 $30.4 $0.25 General Fund of Treasury
1992 130 $37.1 $42.2 $0.32 Aviation Trust Fund d 1993 126 $37.1 $41.2 $0.33
Aviation Trust Fund 1994 112 $31.8 $34.6 $0.31 Aviation Trust Fund 1995 106
$29.5 $31.4 $0.30 Aviation Trust Fund 1996 97 $22.6 $23.6 $0.24 Aviation
Trust Fund 1997 95 $23.5 $24.2 $0.25 Aviation Trust Fund 1998 101 $46.1
$46.8 $0.46 Authorization-- FAA Budget e 1999 100 $46.3 $46.3 $0.46
Authorization-- FAA Budget

a Given that the number of communities receiving a subsidy can fluctuate
from month to month, the data provided reflects DOT's estimates for a given
point in time during each year. In addition, for the purpose of this table,
we treated the 12 Kodiak bush communities that received subsidized service
in 1995 and the 8 that received such service in 1999 as individual
communities. However, for the purpose of our analysis provided earlier in
the report, we treated the Kodiak (Alaska) bush communities as one because,
in calculating a subsidy, DOT treats them as one community.

b The subsidy per community estimate serves as a rough gauge of how the
Essential Air Service (EAS) program's costs have changed over time. Since
the number of passengers can vary widely by community, estimates of subsidy
per passenger serve as a better way of understanding how program costs have
changed over time. However, data on the historical number of EAS passengers
is not readily available.

c Previous to the establishment of the EAS program in 1978, subsidies for
air service were provided under the authority of Section 406 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U. S. C. 1376). Between 1978 and 1983,
Section 406 subsidies were phased out as the EAS program was implemented.
Unlike the EAS program, Section 406 subsidized air carriers on the basis of
their overall financial needs, not the cost of providing service to specific
communities. According to DOT, many communities included in this program
generated sufficient air traffic to support unsubsidized service. In 1978,
Section 406 subsidies amounted to $76 million ($ 165 million in 1999
dollars) for service to about 400 communities. In 1983, Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB) officials perceived the EAS

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 14 program as more efficient than Section 406,
because, for example, EAS provided subsidies for service in small prop

aircraft. In contrast, under Section 406, air carriers provided service in
jets and large prop aircraft. d The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (also know
as the Aviation Trust Fund) was established by the Airport and Airway
Revenue Act of 1970 (P. L. 91- 258) to finance the FAA's investments in the
airport and airway system. e In the Rural Air Service Survival Act of 1996,
the Congress instructed that the EAS program was to be funded from fees
assessed on international aircraft flying over but not landing in the United
States. However, since foreign airlines successfully challenged the legality
of FAA's collecting those fees, EAS funding was taken directly from FAA's
appropriations pursuant to the statute.

Source: GAO's analysis of Civil Aeronautic Board's and DOT's data

GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 185 15

Related GAO Products

Essential Air Service: Changes in Subsidy Levels, Air Carrier Costs, and
Passenger Traffic (GAO/ RCED- 00- 34, Apr. 14, 2000)

Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to
Entry( GAO/ RCED99- 92, Mar. 4, 1999).

Airline Deregulation: Addressing the Air Service Problems of Some
Communities( GAO/ TRCED- 97- 187, June 25, 1997).

Domestic Aviation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety Since Airline
Deregulation( GAO/ TRCED- 96- 126, Apr. 25, 1996).

Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at Small,
Medium- Sized, and Large Communities( GAO/ RCED- 96- 79, Apr. 19, 1996).

Airport Competition: Essential Air Service Slots at O'Hare International
Airport( GAO/ RCED94- 118FS, Mar. 4, 1994).

Airline Deregulation: Trends in Airfares at Airports in Small and Medium-
Sized Communities (GAO/ RCED- 91- 13, Nov. 8, 1990).

More Flexible Eligibility Criteria Could Enhance the Small Communities
Essential Air Service Subsidy Program( GAO/ RCED- 83- 97, May 18, 1983).

(348230)
*** End of document ***