Order 2014

- 12

- 8

Served: December 12, 2014

U N I T E D S

T A T E S O F A

M E R I C A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T

I O N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 12 th day of December , 20 14

Notice of

SKY KING, INC.

of inten t to resume operations under 14 CFR § 204.7 Docket s DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 3017

and

DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 3113

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Summary

By this order, we tentatively find Sky King

, Inc. (“ Sky King ”) fit, willing, and able to resume

interstate and foreign charter air transportation as a certificated air carrier , subject to conditions. Before we issue a final decision on Sky King’s application for authority to resume operations, we

will afford interested parties an opportunity to show cause why we should n ot adopt as final these tentative findings and conclusions

.

Background

Pursuant to section 41102 of Title 49 of the United States Transportation Code (Transportation) (the “Statute”), any company proposing to provide air transportation as an air carrier must be found “fit, willing, and able” to conduct the services proposed. Moreover, once a n air carrier is found fit initially, it must remain fit in order to retain its authority. 1 If an air carrier ceases operations under its certificate authority

, sec tion 204.7 of the Department’s Aviation Economic Regulations (14 CFR § 204.7) provides that its authority to conduct those operations is automatically suspended as of the date those operations ceased and the air carrier may not recommence operations until its fitness to do so has been re

- established by the Department.

When conducting a redetermination of an air carrier’s fitness under section 204.7, the Department applies the same three part

- test that it uses to determine fitness of new air carrier applica n ts. The three areas of inquiry that must be addressed in order to determine a company’s

fitness to resume operations are whether it (1) will have the managerial skills and technical ability to conduct the proposed operations, (2) will have access to reso urces sufficient to commence operations without posing an undue risk to consumers, and (3) will comply with the Transportation Code and regulations imposed by Federal and State agencies. We must also

determine that the air carrier remains a U.S. citizen.

1 See 49 U.S.C. § 41110(e).2

On January 26, 2014 , Sky King

, a certificated air carrier, ceased all of its operations

. 2 On June 30, 2014, the air carrier filed a notice of its intent to resume its charter passenger services. Sky King accompanied its application with the fitness infor mation required by section 204.3 of our regulations 3 and supplemented its application with additional information on July 16, 2014.

No answers opposing Sky King ’s application were filed and no special issues regarding the applicant have come to our atte ntion. Under these circumstances, we propose to decide the issue of the applicant’s fitness on the basis of the written record and we tentatively conclude that Sky King is a U.S. citizen and is fit, willing, and able to resume interstate and foreign chart er air transportation using large aircraft. However, we will give interested persons an opportunity to show cause why we should not adopt as final these tentative findings and conclusions.

FITNESS

The Company

Sky King was incorporated under the laws of the State of California in September 1990. In 1998, the company was awarded certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property, and mail. The

air carrier co nducted air transportation under these certificates until January 26, 2014 , when it ceased all of its operations following a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

Sky King states in its application that on May 23, 2014, pursuant to a United States Bankruptcy

Cour t approved bidding process, the Chapter 11 Trustee overseeing Sky King’s reorganization determined that AerLine Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”), a Delaware limited liability company, owned by Messrs. Nichol as Finazzo and Robert B. Nichol s, was the successful bi dder for the rights to purchase the stock and certain assets of Sky King. The air carrier notes that i f authorized to resume operations under its new ownership that it intends to conduct interstate and foreign charter a ir transportation on behalf of publi c c harter o perators and other chartering entities, using a fleet of 10 Boeing 737

- 300/400 aircraft.

Managerial Competence

Sky King ’s key management personnel consist of the following individuals , all of whom are U.S.

citizens:

Nicolas Finazzo Board Me mber

Robert B . Nichols Board Member

Frank Visconti Board Member, President, and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)

2 See Order 98

- 3

- 26, served April 1, 1998, and Order 98

- 4

- 14, served Apri1 17, 1998. Sky King’s certificate authority was subsequently made effective by oral action taken on October 15, 2002, and reissued to reflect the effective date of its authority ( See Order 2002

- 10

- 39, issued October 30, 2002).

3 Contemporane ously with its application, Sky King filed a motion for confidential treatment under

14 CFR § 302.12 to withho ld from public disclosure certain information filed in support of its application . By this order, we grant the applicant’s request for confidential treatment. S ee t he CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

section of this order for a more detailed discussion.3

Alan Brandon Director of Operations Angel Marcano Chief Pilot

Elizabeth Sukie Director of Quality Control Michael Wampler Director of Maintenance Timothy J. Camelin Director of Safety

Mr. Nicolas Finazzo is the CEO

, co

- founde r, and co

- owner of AerSale, Inc. (“Aersale”)

, a large commercial jet aircraft leasing company and a Federal Aviation Administration (“ FAA ”) Part 145 repair statio n based in Roswell , New Mexico. In addition to serving as a board member of Sky King, Mr. Finazzo will continue to serve as the CEO of AerSale following the bankruptcy

court ’ s final approval of the sale of Sky King to Holdings. Mr. Finazzio co

- founded Ae rSale in 2008 along with Mr. Robert B. Nichols. Prior to this, Mr. Finazzo was the CEO of AeroTurbine,

Inc.

, a large commercial jet aircraft leasing company and a n FAA Part 145 repair station that he

co

- owned and co

- founded with Mr. Nichols (1997

- 2008)

. He has also served as the Vice President and General Counsel of AeroThrust, Inc. (“AeroThrust”) , a n FAA Part 145 repair station based in Miami, Florida (1997); Vice President and General Counsel of International Air Leases, Inc., a large commercial jet air craft leasing company (1991

- 1997); Vice President of

Contracts at Greenwich Air Services, a FAA Part 145 repair station (1987

- 1991); and President of Southern Express Airways, Inc. (1981

- 1987).

Mr. Robert B. Nichols is the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) of AerSale, a position he intends

to continue hold ing while also serving as a Sky King board member . As previously mentioned,

Mr. Nichols co

- founded AerSale in 2008 along with Mr. Finazzio. Prior to this, Mr. Nichols was

the COO of AeroTurbine , a n FAA re pa ir station that he and Mr. Finazzo found ed in 1997. He

also served as the Vice President of Engine Sales and Leasing at AeroThrust (1990

- 1997) ; Director of Engine Sales and Leasing at Greenwich Air Services, (198 9

- 199 0 ); Manager of Powerplant and Warran ty Administration at Braniff, Inc . (1989); and Account Manager at

Aviall , Inc. (1982

- 1989)

.

Mr. Frank Visconti , Sky King’s CEO , has almost 25 years of executive aviation management experience. He previously served as Sky King’s CEO from February 2012 to January 2014. Prior to joining Sky King, Mr. Visconti owned and operated Centauri Aviation Services, LLC (“CAS”), an aviation services consulting firm (2009

- 2014) and he has also previously served as

President and CEO at Arrow Air, Inc., a now defunct cer tificated cargo air carrier, (2000

- 2005 )

. In addition to his prior executive management experience with certificated air ca rriers,

Mr. Visconti also held executive positions with numerous other aviation service companies, including Aeroservice Aviation Ce nter , LLC ; Cargo Holdings International; LGSTX Services ; Air Global Transport ; and Air Cargo Associates.

Mr. Alan Brandon , an Air line Transport Pilot with more than 17,500 total flight hours , joined Sky King as it s Director of Operations in May 2014. Bef ore this, Mr. Brand on was employed by Vision Airlines, Inc., a certificated air carrier, as its Director of Operations ( January 2012 to

March 2013 )

. He also held numerous FAA key management positions with several other certificated air carriers during his nearly 40

- year career in the aviation industry . Mr. Brandon is type rated for the Boeing 737 aircraft that Sky King intends to use in its operations.4

Mr. Angel Marcano , an Airline Transport Pilot with more than 10,000 total flight hours

, became Sky King ’s Chief Pilot in May 2014. He began with Sky King in 2007 as its Director of Flight

Standards and held that position until the air carrier ceased its operation in January 2014. In addition to his work experience at Sky King, Mr. Marcano w as previously e mployed by Pan Am International Flight Academy as a Ground and Simulator Instructor for the Boeing 737 and 727 aircraft (2008

- 2009); by Amerijet International, Inc., as a Boeing 727 First Officer (2007); by Falcon Air Express as a Boeing 727 First Officer and Captain (2001

- 2006); by Avesa

- Servivensa

Airlines as a First Officer (1996

- 2001); by Turansa Tours & Travel as a PA

- 28 Captain (1994

- 1996); and by Servicios Riut as a PA

- 31 co

- pilot ( 1993

- 1996)

.

Ms. Elizabeth Sukie , an FAA licensed Airframe and Powerp lant Mechanic, has served as Sky King’s Director of Quality Control since November 2012. She previously served as the company’s Manager of Maintenance Planning (2011

- 2012). Before join ing Sky King

, she was employed by a number of companies in her more th an 20 year career in aviation maintenance and inspection , including Centurion Air Cargo, Miami Air International, Focus Air Cargo, and Fine Airlines. In addition, Ms. Sukie has experience inspecting and maintaining large aircraft, including the Boeing 737 aircraft

.

Mr. Michael Wampler , an FAA licensed Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic, has served as Sky King’s Director of Maintenance since October 2011. Prior to this, he w as employed by Vision

Airlines as its Vice President of Maintenance (2011

- 2013). Pr eviously, Mr. Wampler served as

Vice President and Director of Maintenance at Air Transport International , LLC (2006

- 2010)

, a certificated air carrier, where he was employed for more than 20 years holding various maintenance and inspection roles

.

Mr. Ti mothy J. Camelin , an FAA licensed Commercial Pilot and Instructor, joined Sky King in

June 2013 as it s Director of Safety. He briefly left Sky King in April 2014 to serve as the

Director of Safety at Orange Air, a certificated air carrier, but returned to Sky King in July 2014.

Prior to joining Sky King, Mr. Camelin was employed at Army Fleet Support as a Flight Safety

Standardization Pilot (2010

- 2013); at Presidential Airways as Program Manager (2008

- 2010);

and at Aviation Worldwide Service as Man a g e r of Safety and Security (2008

- 2010).

Mr. Camelin also has additional experience as an aviator

, having worked as an EMS Pilot for Omni Helicopters (2006

- 2008) and as a Test Pilot for Lockheed Martin (2004

- 2006) . In addition

to his civilian aviation experienc e , Mr. Camelin served for more than 20 years in the U.S. Army as a helicopter pilot and safety officer.

Based on the background and experience of the above individuals, coupled with the fact that the FAA must also review the qualifications of certain of the company’s key technical personnel, we tentatively find that S ky Ki ng ’s management team is qualified to manage its proposed scheduled passenger operations. 4

4 We also note that the FAA evaluates the air carrier’s Directors of Operations, Maintenance and Safety, Chief Pilot, and Chief Inspector with respect to the minimum qualifications for those positions as prescribed in the Federal Aviation Regulations ( “ FARs ” ). The FAA’s evaluation of these key personnel provides an added practical and in

person test of the skills and technical ability of these individuals.5

Operating P lan and Financial P osition

If authorized to resume operations

, Sky King inte n ds to conduct interstate and foreign charter air transportation between U.S. points, as well as points in the Caribbean and Central America on

behalf of 14 CFR Pa rt 380 public c harter o perators and other chartering entities using a fleet of as many as 10 Boeing 737

- 300/ 400 aircraft within its first 12

- months of operations.

Sky King provided a detailed listing of the costs it expects to incur prior to the resumption of charter operations, as well as a forecast profit and loss statement for the first year of resu med operations. Specifically, the air carrier forecasts that it will incur approximately $1.4 mill ion in

pre

- operating expenses, and approximately $ 28.7 million in first

- year expenses. We have

reviewed these forecasts and find them to be reasonable for t he operations proposed. Thus, we

estimate that Sky King will need approximately $ 8.5 75 million to meet our financial fitness

criteria. 5

Sky King’s September 30 , 20 1 4

, pr o forma projected balance sheet indicates that, at that date,

the air carrier will have $ 750,000 in cash, working capital of $ 723,000 (for a current assets to

current liabilities ratio of 3 : 1 7 to l), negative retained earnings of approximately $ 2.25 million, and positive stockholders’ equity of $ 1.25 million

. To support its resumption o f operations, Sky King is relying on funds provided by Messrs. Finazzo and Nicholas . Mr. Finazzo and

Mr. Nicholas have committed up to $ 14 million to support Sky King ’s proposed operations and provided the appropriate third

- party verification evidencing t he availability of the funds pledged

.

On the basis of the above, we tentatively conclude that Sky King has a funding plan that will provide the company with access to sufficient financial resources to recommence its charter operations without posing und ue r isk to consumers or their funds.

Compliance Disposition

Sky King states in its application that there have been no charges of fraud, felony or antitrust violations, or of unfair, anticompetitive

, or deceptive business practices filed against it, it s owners, any relevant corporation, or its key personnel in the past 10 years. In addition, Sky King

states that

, other than claims that relate to the ongoing bankruptcy proceeding

, which will be extinguished when the air carrier exits bankruptcy, there a re no outstanding judgments against it, its owners, its key personnel, or any relevant corporation.

Sky King also states that there are no pending investigations, enforcement actions, or formal complaints filed by the Department against it, its key person nel, or persons having a substantial interest in it with respect to compliance with the Transportation Code or the Department’s regulations and that n e ith e r it n o r a n y of its k e y p er son n e l h a ve b ee n involv e d in a n a c c id e nt or in c id e nt i n the y e a r p r e c e ding its a ppli ca tion or a t a n y t i me in the p a st whi c h re m a ins und e r

5 To meet the Department’s financial fitness criteria, an applicant should have access to financial resourc es sufficient to cover its pre

- operating expenses and the expenses that are reasonably projected to be incurred during three months of operations. In calculating available resources, projected revenues cannot be used. In this case, the $ 8.5 75 million fig ure is the sum of the $ 1. 4 million in forecast ed pre

- operating expenses plus $7. 175 million, which

is one

- quarter of the applicant’s $28.7 million first

- year forecast ed expenses.6

inv e sti g a tion b y the F AA, the N a tion a l T ra nspo r t a tion S afe t y B o ar d, or the c omp a n y its e l f

. Moreover a review of our records rev eals that Sky King has been involved in no accidents and only on e incident in the past five years. 6

Although Sky King states in its application that there are no pending Department or FAA investigations , the air carrier did identify a June 16, 2014, letter that it received from the FAA proposing to revoke its Air Ca rrier Certificate and seeking certain information regarding the

status of the air carrier’s operations . The FAA has informed us that while this matter is ongoing, Sky King is currently working with that agency to resolve the matter and that th e process is proceeding satisfactorily

.

We also note that while Sky King contends in its application that there have been no charges of fraud, felony or antitrust violations, or unfair, anticompetitive, or deceptive busi ness practices filed against it, its key pers onnel, or any relevant corporation in the past 10 years, there have

been two instances in the past where Sky King has failed to comply with our consumer protection and financial reporting requirements. By Order 2013

- 2

- 7, issued February 7, 2013, the Depar tment foun d that Sky King violated various economic regulation s after the air carrier

transport ed passengers for a public charter operator without having first received full payment of the total charter price from the charter operator as required by the De partment’s regulations . Sky King did not first receive full payment of the total charter price from the charter operator and the

air carrier consequently chose to cancel flights less than ten days before the scheduled departure

date . This resulted in pas sengers who purchased round

- trip transportation on the charter operator’s flights not being returned to their point of origin as scheduled

. Moreover, the Department found that t hese regulatory violations also constitute unfair and deceptive practices

and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. By order 2014

- 3

- 18 issued March 31, 2014, the Department found that Sky King fail ed to comply with financial and traffic reporting requirements. 7

Despite the above note d deficiencies, we do not believe that th e record warrant s a negative finding of fitness for Sky King

. Although many of Sky King’s key management and technical personnel were employed with the company at the time it cancelled the aforementioned flights, we note that Sky Kin g is under new ownership and that the owners, Messrs. Finazzo and Nichols, having substantial aviation experience

, appear to have the managerial competency to oversee and manage an operating air carrier

. In addition, we note that i n each of the above cas es, the Department issued Sky King substantial civil penalt ies and ordered the air carrier to cease

and desist f rom similar violations of the Department’s rules. Moreover

, as discussed more fully

in the CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS section of th is order, given the record of this case, we are proposing certain reporting requirement so that we may more closely monitor the compliance disposition of the air carrier, its management, and its owners.

A review of our records and other information availa ble to us has uncovered no other information which would lead us to conclude that the applicant or any of its key personnel lacks

6 On May 19, 2012, a Sky King Boeing 737 carrying 11 9 passengers and 5 crew members experienced a hard landing at Charlotte Douglas International Airport. Five passengers reported an injury as a result of the incident.

7 See Order 2014

- 3

- 18, issued March 31, 2014, in Docket DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0001.7

the proper compliance disposition to be found fit. In addition, according to the FAA, the air carrier has conducted its opera tions satisfactorily and the agency knows of no reason why the air carrier should not be granted the authority it is seeking. Furthermore , the Enforcement Office

has informed us that it has no pending enforcement matters against the company

.

In light o f these circumstances, we tentatively conclude that Sky King has the proper regard for the laws and regulations governing its services to ensure that its aircraft and personnel conform to applicable safety standards and that acceptable consumer relations p ractices will be followed.

CITIZENSHIP

Section 41102 of the Transportation Code requires that certificate authority to engage in air transportation be held only by citizens of the United States as defined in

49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(15). The Statute also requires that the president and two

- thirds of the Board of Directors and other managing officers be U.S. citizens, that at least 75 percent of the outstanding voting interest be owned by U.S. citizens, and that the air carrier must be under the

actual cont rol of U.S. citizens.

As noted earlier, Sky King is organized under the laws of the State of California , as a corporation

. The company is wholly owned by Holdings, a Delaware limited liability company. Holdings, in turn, is equally owned Messrs. Nicol as Finazzo and Robert B. Nichols

, each of

whom is a citizen of the United States

. In addition, t he applicant has submitted an affidavit attesting that it is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the Statute and that it is

owned and controll ed by U.S. citizens. Finally, there is no other information before us that

would lead us to conclude that Sky King is not controlled by U.S. Citizens

.

I n view of the foregoing, we tentatively conclude that Sky King is owned and controlled by U.S.

citizen s, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(15)

.

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

On June 30, 2014, Sky King filed a motion for confidential treatment under 14 CFR § 302.12 (“Rule 12”) of our rules seeking to withhold from public disclosure ( 1) revenue and p rofit projections contained in its first

- year profit and loss forecast and ( 2) information pertaining to the

persona l financial accounts of Messrs. Nicolas Finazzo and Robert B. Nichols

.

In support of its request for confidential treatment of the above documents, Sky King states that

these documents are financial and/or confidential in nature that fall within the parameters of Exemption 4 to the Freedom of Information Act.

Rule 12 instructs us to evaluate requests for confidential treatment by the stand ards of disclosure found in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. section 552). Information may be withheld

from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) if it is (1) commercial or financial, (2) obtained from a person outside of government, and (3) privi leged or confidential ( Gulf and Western Industries,

Inc. v. United States , 615F.2d 527, 529 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).8

There is no question that the information for which Sky King seeks confidential treatment is

financial or commercial in nature and that it was o btained from a person outside the government. The remaining question is whether the information is privileged or confidential

-- whether “disclosure of the information is likely to have either of the following effects: (1) impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information; or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position from whom the information was obtained” ( National Parks and

Conservation Association v. Morton , 498 F.2d 765,770 (D.C. Cir.1974)). Further, to be privileged or confid ential, the information must not be of the type that is usually released to the public ( Gulf and Western Industries, Inc. v. United States, 615F.2d 527,530 (D.C. Cir. 1979)).

We have reviewed the material submitted and determined that in the past the Dep artment has granted confidential treatment to material of this type, having found that public disclosure of personal financial information and an applicant’s revenue and income projections could cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the app licant or the person from whom it was

obtained

. Thus, we will grant confidential treatment to the information for which such treatment is sought

.

CERTIFICATE CONDITIO NS AND LIMITATIONS

If Sky King is found fit to resume operations, we remind the air car rier that its authority is only effective to the extent that it complies with the terms and conditions attached to its certificat es. Among other things , this includes the air carrier’s receipt of appropriate safety approvals from the FAA, as well as the a ir carrier obtaining a fully executed OST Form 6410 evidencing liability insurance coverage that meets the requirements of section 14 CFR 205.5(b)

.

We also wish to remind Sky King of the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 41110(e). Specifically, that

section re quires that, once an air carrier is found fit initially, it must remain fit in order to hold its authority. To be assured that certificated air carriers continue to be fit after effective authority has been issued to them, the Department adopted sections 204.5 and 204.6 of our rules, which requires air carriers supply information descri bing any subsequent changes they may undergo in areas affecting fitness. Therefore, if Sky King is found fit to resume operations and should it subsequently propose a subst antial change in its ownership, management, or operations, it must first comply with the requirements of § 204.5. 8 Moreover , as noted in the COMPLIANCE

DISPOSTION section of this order, a ny change in these circumstances of this case , in particular

the com pliance disposition of Sky King, its management, or its owners, may affect our

determination of fitness

. Therefore, in addition to the reporting requirement enumerated in section 204.5, we will also require

, pursuant to section 204.6 of our rules, that Sk y King report within 7 days of occurance (1) any charge of unfair or deceptive or anticompetitive business

8 The air carrier may contact our A ir Carrier Fitness Division to report proposed substantial changes in its operations, ownership, or management, and to determine what additional information, if any, will be required under § 204.5. In addition, by notice dated July 21, 1998, the Departmen t requested air carriers to provide a 30

- day advance notification of any proposed change in ownership, restructuring, or recapitalization. If the air carrier fails to file this updated information or if the information fails to demonstrate that the air ca rrier will continue to be fit upon implementation of the substantial change, the Department may take such action as is appropriate, including enforcement action or steps to modify, suspend, or revoke the air carrier's certificate authority.9

practices, or of fraud, felony or antitrust violation, brought against any relevant corporation, 9 or member of the key personnel 10 employed (or to be employed) by any relevant corporation; (2) investigations, enforcement actions, or formal complaints filed by the Department or other government agency, involving any relevant corporations, personnel employed (or to be employed) by any relevant corporation s or person having a substantial interest 11 in any relevant corporation; and (3) any aircraft accidents or incidents experienced by Sky King , its personnel, or any relevant corporation. The compliance of the company with this requirement is essential if

we are to carry out our responsibilities under § 41110(e). 12

Additionally, a s discussed in the FITNESS section of this order, our tentative findings here are based on Sky King operating no more than 10 large aircraft. 13 S hould Sky King wish to expand beyond the 10 large aircraft proposed in its application, it is not clear that our fitness finding would remain the same. Therefore, we intend to require Sky King to provide the Department

with 45

- days’ notice prior to implementing any expansion that would resul t in the operation of

more than 10 large aircraft.

Finally , if Sky King is found fit to resume operations , it would be required to submit a detailed progress report, within 45 days following the end of its first year of certificated flight operations,

to the Air Carrier Fitness Division. The report should include a description of the air carrier’s current operations (number and type of aircraft, principal markets served, total number of full

time and part

- time employees), a summary of how these operations have changed during the year, a discussion of any changes it anticipates from its current operations during its second year,
current financial statements, 14 and a listing of current senior management and key technical personnel. The air carrier should als o be prepared to meet with staff members of the Fitness Division to discuss its current and future operations.

9 Section 204. 2(k) of our rules (14 CFR 204. 2(k) ) defines a r elevant corporations as the air carrier, any subsidiary thereof, any predecessor thereof (i.e., any air carrier in which any directors, principal officers or persons having a

substantial interest have or once had a substantial interest), and any company (including a sole proprietorship or partnership) which has a significant financial or managerial influence on the applicant or air carrier. The latter

includes a ny company (including a sole proprietorship or par tnership) holding more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock of the air carrier; and a ny company (including a sole proprietorship or partnership) holding between 20 percent and 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock of the air carrier and whi ch has significant influence over the air carrier as indicated, for example, by 25 percent representation on the board of directors, participation in policy

- making processes, substantial inter

- company transactions, or managerial personnel with

common res po nsibilities in both companies ( See 14 CFR § 204.2(k)).

10 See 14 CFR § 204.2(i).

11 See 14 CFR § 204.2(m).

12 We also remind Sky King about the requirements of § 204.7 of our rules. This section provides, among other things, that (1) the certificate autho rity granted to a company shall be revoked if the company does not commence actual flying operations under that authority within one year of the date of the Department's determination of its fitness; (2) if the company commences operations for which it was found fit and subsequently ceases such operations, it may not resume certificated operations unless its fitness has been redetermined; and (3) if the company does not resume operations within one year of its cessation, its authority shall be revoked for d ormancy. 13 Section 298.2 of our rules defines large aircraft as any aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 18,000 pounds.

14 These financial statements should incl ude a balance sheet as of the end of the company’s first full year of actual flight operations and a twelve

- month income statement ending that same date.10

OBJECTIONS

On November 21, 2014, Sky King filed a Motion requesting to shorten the public comment period for filing of answers to the Departme nt’s tentative decision from the standard 14 day objection and 7 day answer period to 5 days and 3 days respectively. Sky King states that it is now in compliance with Federal Aviaiton Administration regulatory and operation specification requirements and that the requested relief would permit it an opportunity to initiate its passenger operations immediately.

On December 3 , 2014, Sky King advised the Department that there were no objections to shortening the answer period. Under these circumstances and under authority assigned in

14 CFR 385.12, we have decided to grant Sky King 's request for a shortened answer period in

this case. We will give interested persons 5 business days following the service date of this order to show cause why the tentative fin dings and conclusions set forth here should not be made final; answers to objections will be due within 3 business days thereafter. We expect such persons to direct their objections, if any, to the application and points at issue and to support such objec tions with detailed economic analyses. If an oral evidentiary hearing or discovery procedures are requested, the objector should state in detail why such a hearing or discovery is considered necessary, and what material issues of decisional fact the objec tor would expect to establish through a hearing or discovery that cannot be established in written pleadings. The objector should consider whether discovery procedures alone would be sufficient to resolve material issues of decisional fact. If so, the ty pe of procedure should be specified ( See Part 302, Rules 19 and 20); if not, the reasons why not should be explained. We will not entertain general, vague, or unsupported objections. If no substantive objections are filed, we will issue an order that wil l make final our tentative findings and conclusions with respect to Sky King ’s fitness.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We direct interested parties to show cause why we should not issue an order find ing that Sky King, Inc.

, is a U.S. citizen and fit, willing and able t o resume interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons, property and mail.

2. We direct any interested persons having obje ctions to the issuance of an order making final any of the proposed findings or conclusions set forth here to file the m with Department of Transportation Dockets, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12

- 140, Washington, D.C. 20590, in Dockets DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 3017 and DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 3113 and serve them upon all persons listed in Attachment A no later than 5 business days after the service date of this order; answers to objections shall be filed no later than 3 business days thereafter.

3. We grant the motion of Sky King, Inc., in Dockets DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 3017 and DOT

- OST

1997

- 3113 to shorten the public comment period for filing obje ctions to 5 business days and for the filing of answers to 3 business days.11

4. We direct that should Sky King, Inc., want to operate more than 10 large aircraft, it must first provide the Department with at least 45 days’ notice and demonstrate its fitnes s for such operations.

5

. If timely and properly supported objections are filed, we will accord full consideration to the matters or issues raised by the objections before we take further action. 15

6

. In the event that no objections are filed, we will co nsider all further procedural steps to be waived and we will enter an order making final our tentative findings and conclusions.

7

. We direct Sky King, Inc. to submit to the Air Carrier Fitness Division a first year progress report within 45 days followin g the end of its first year of actual certificated flight operations.

8

. We grant the motion for confidential treatment filed by Sky King , Inc., on June 30, 2014.

9

. We will serve a copy of this order on the persons listed in Attachment A.

By:

SUSAN L . KURLAND Assistant Secretary

for Aviation and International Affairs

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.gov

15 Since we have provided for the filing of objections to this order, we will not entertain petitions for

reconsideration.Attachment A

SERVICE LIST F OR SKY KING, INC.

FRANK J. VISCONTI

PRESIDENT & CEO

SKY KING INC

800 NORTH MAGNOLIA DRIVE

SUITE 510

ORLANDO FL 32803 OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

PETER LYNCH AGC

- 300

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591 MARK MAZOR

CERTIFICATION SECTION MANAGER

FAA AFS

- 900 45005 AVIATION DRIVE, SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

PIERRE MURPHY

LAW OFFICES OF PIERR E MURPHY

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NW

SUITE 590

WASHINGTON DC 20036 MARTIN POLOMSKI

CMO MANAGER

SOUTH FLORIDA CERTIF ICATE

M ANAGEMENT OFFICE

5950 HAZELTINE NATIO NAL DRIVE

SUITE 410

ORLANDO FL 32822

KATHERINE TATUM

TECHNICAL PROGRAMS BRANCH

AFS 260

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATI ON

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591