Hp r1 9 201 0 5:24P M RLflSK H SEflPLflN E SERVIC E 907790550 6 P- 1 

# Alask aSeaplan e Service , L.L.C P O Bo x 3317 9 Juneau , A K

9980 3 (907 ) 789-788 0 www.flyalaskaseaplBiiAS.coi

n Apri l 19 , 201 0 Docke t Sectio n U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue
. S E Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 Re : Certificat e Applicatio n o f Wing s Airway s Gentlemen. : Alask aSeaplan e Service , LL C hereb y answer s th e Respons e o f Wing s Airway s date d Apri l 1,2010
. W e ar e filin g thi s o n ou r letterhea dan dfiomou r

facsimil e machin e i n orde r t o sho w beyon dan y doub t th e sourc e o f

thi s answer . Alt

previou s Sling s mad e b y Alask aSeaplan e Servic e wer e prepare dat ou r direction , withspecifi c revie w an d approva l befor e eac hdocumen t wa s filed
. Al l issae s raise dno w an di nth e previou s filings ar e o f

concer n t o AlasJc aSeaplan e Servic e an dno t initiate db y an y thir dparty . W e becam e involve di n thi s applicatio nbecaus e i t wa s clear t o u s fiiomth e start

that th e Wing s Airway s applicatio n seeme dt o assert thing s that

wer e clearl y untru e o r

withou t necessary foundation
. Th e pivota l questio ni s \«diiethe r Wing s Airway s ha dth e aircraf t i t propose dt o operat e ove r

th e routes . T o se e i f

Wing s Auivay s "eve r

claime di t

had^ ' possessio n o r

contro l o f

th e tw o Cessn aCaravan s an dthre e Cessn a20 7 aircraf t i n dispute , on e simpl y ha s t o rea dth e origina l application
. O npag e 3 o f th e application , at ite mj.
. Wing s Airway s states , " A descriptio no f tli e flee t o f aircraf t availabl e t o Wing s Airway s i s attache da s Appendi x F, " O nAppendi x F , Airway s list s th e fiv e aircraf t unde r th e headin g "Propose dLis t o f Commut e Aircraft"
. Tt w statu s o f

th e five aircraf

t i s liste da s 'T o B e Leased' \I n fact , thes e five aircraf t wer e no t **available " t o Airway s a t th e tim e o f

th e applicatio n becaus e the y wer e unde r leas e fro mWing s Airlin e Service s t o Alask aJuneau Aeronautics
. Thes e aircraf t ar e not availabl e t o Airway s today becaus e the y remai nxmde

r leas e t o Alask aJuneau Aeronautic s unde r arenewe dlease
. Airway s protest s tha t

Seaplane s di dno t

hav e an y knowledg e o f

th e leas e negotiations , s o ou r assertion s ar e withou t

merit
. I n fact , a s soo na s th e Airway s applicatio nwas filed, w e contacte dsenio r

manager s o f

Alask aJuneau Aeronautic s an daske ddirectl y abou t th e statu s o f th e leases
. AJA' s manager s volunteere dtha t ther e wa s n o intentio nt o retur nth e aircraf t before th e en do f

th e existin g term , tha t

AJ A intende dt o rene w th e leases , an di n &c t wer e i nnegotiation s t o tha t end
. W e no w kno w that , a s state db y Seaplanes , AJ A di d 

# m mRp r1 9 201 0 5:24P M RLflSKf l SEflPLRM E SERVIC E 907790550 G p. 2

rene w th e lease s o n th e five aircraft , an dth e aircraf t ar e no t no w "available " t o Wing s Airways
. W e hav e carefull y reviewe dth e origina l a{^licatio nnarrativ e an dcanno t fin dth e wor d "contingent " anywhere
. Whil e Airway s spok e o f th e deterioratin g relationshi p betwee n Wing s Airway s an dAJA , an dth e possibilit y tha t shareholder s o f

Airway s migh t

los e thei r job s at AJA , ther e wa s n o representatio ntha t it s applicatio nwa s "contingent " o nth e cessatio no f

Juneau basedservic e b y AJA , o r retur no f th e aircraf

t fiomlease
. On e mus t questio nwhos e interest s ar e primar y i f areaso ngive nfo r

th e "reaso nan dpurpos e behin d 4ii s application... " i s *\ , .t o kee p th e five Wing s Airlin e Service s Capston e equippe d aircr«E t servin g th e market s shoul dadisruptio n[o f AJ A service ] occur..."
. Airway s provide ddetaile dfinancial mformatio nabou t Wing s Airlin e Services , bu t no w object s t o providin g ashareholde r

lis t o f thi s obviousl y affiliate dcompany . Seaplane s becam e concerne dwit hth e applicatio nprecisel y becaus e i t kne w tha t

th e five claime daircraf

t wer e no t availabl e t o Airways
. Airway s doe s hav e alarg e flee t o f float aircraft , however , an dSeaplane s i s i nth e schedule dfloat aircraf t business
. W e wan t

t o mak e sur e tha t

If Airway s decide s t o offer

seaplan e servic e instead , that it s applicatio n wil l b e full y vetted
. I n summaiy , th e on e fac t

tha t i s very clear

i s tha t th e five aircraf

t propose dfo r

service , an dwhic hwer e use dfor

al l marke t

an dfinancia l projections , ar e NO T ''availabl e t o Wing s Airways" , an dneve r hav e been
. Seaplane s know s o f n o preceden t

fo r anai r carrie r bein g certificate dcontingen t o nth e cessatio no f

servic e b y asupposedl y unrelate d an drival thir dparty , Ou r concern s abou t

th e actua l intention s o f

Wing s Airway s remain , a s d o th e question s concernin g th e veracity o f th e applicatio nan dfitness o f Airways
. CERXmCATIO N Th e content s o f

thi s E^>plicatio

n an dth e attache dexhibit s ar e tru e an dcorrec t t o th e bes t o f my knowledg e an dbelief
. Pursuan t t o titl e 18 , Unite dState s Cod e sectio n1001,1 , i n m y individua l c^)aclt y an da s th e authorize drepresentativ e o f th e applicant , hav e no t

h i an y manne r

knowingl y an dwillfull y &lsified , conceale do r faile dt o disclos e an y materia l &c t o r mad e an y false , fictitious , o r fiaudulmt

statemen t

o r knowingl y use dan y document s whic hcontai n suc hstatement s i nconnectio nwit hth e preparation , filing o r prosecutio no f

th e application. I undoslan dtha t anindividua l wh o i s foun dt o hav e violate dth e provision s o f 1 8 U.S.C
. sectio n100 1 shal l b e fined not mor e tha n$10,00 0 o r imprisone dno t

mor e tha n fiv e years , o r

both
. Sincerely , rice , LL C ;ra>gdioken ' General Partne r