A ir Excursions 

SCHEDULED SERVICE • FLIGHT SEEING * CHARTERS 

^ P.O. Box 16 

Gustavus. AK 99826 

Phone: 907-697-2375 

Fax: 907-697-2376 

April 19,2010 r.^ 

" d 

— { 

Docket Section ,^T^ 

U.S. Department of Transportation ; ' 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE • i 

Washington, DC 20590 j -^C3 

Re; Docket DOT-OST-2010-0023 ' j § 

To Whom It May Concetn: 

Please excuse the delay in responding to the filing of Wings Airways (Airways) dated, 

appropriately, April 1, 2010. We are submitting this answer on our own letterhead and directly 

to the Docket Section to avoid any claim that this is not our work. All previously filed 

documents on our behalf in this docket were filed at our direction and with prior review and 

approval. We stand by every word of our filings. 

Air Excursions (Air X) has made several direct claims in its filings. We asserted that the five 

aircraft Airways claimed were "to be leased" by Airways were currently leased to Alaska Juneau 

Aeronautics (AJA) and that the lessee had every intention of renewing the leases. As shown in 

the attached photos taken on April 7, the aircraft continue to be leased by Alaska Juneau 

Aeronautics and operated daily by them on their routes from Juneau International Airport. We 

noted that Airways used older traffic data, and that current data shows the continued decline in 

traffic in the total market. We pointed out that the market shares assumed were impossible in a 

three earner market, and that the unit costs assumed were based on historic AJA expenses which 

reflected efficiencies not applicable to Airways. We documented that the assumed passenger and 

freight yields were appreciably higher than those currently experienced in the markets. We 

showed that the assumed passenger and overall load factors necessary to meet Airways' 

projections were higher than even AJA experienced in its monopoly days. All of these points 

were proven true. Airways simply reasserted confidence in its numbers. 

Now Airways stridently claims that Air X had no way of knowing the facts asserted, no matter 

how accurate they are. The aviation community in Juneau is small and inter-related. Some of 

the assertions we have made were originated by current or former Wings Airways employees and 

even shareholders. The rest was straightforward analysis of the Airways' exhibits and 

comparison to current data and operations, The most important thing is whether our claims were 

accurate and relevant Clearly they are. 

One change that has occurred because of our analysis is that Airways now claims that its 

application is only "contingent" We assume this means that as long at AJA continues to operate 

zn d ISZ.IZ6V10Z «isos68ii06i SN0isan:)X3 aiv a-u ei-to-oio?; 
in Juneau, Airways does not intend to activate its authority. The latest statement appears to 

contradict Airways' previous assertion that even if it can't have the Wings Airlines Services 

(Airline Services) aircraft, other aircraft are available. That assertion contradicts Airways' 

original statement that one of the reasons it was applying for the certificate was to assure that the 

five Airline Services Capstone equipped aircraft would continue in service. It is interesting to 

follow the evolution of Airways' positions. 

Airways claims that we argue with ourselves about the involvement of AJA in the application. 

Our suspicions were aroused when it was clear that Airways assumed a 50% or greater share of 

passengers and freight, and extraordinarily high load factors that are impossible in the three 

carrier market. It was only in response that Airways now asserts that it is only seeking authority 

contingent on AJA's exit. Before April 1, the question of which carrier would have the Airline 

Services aircraft available to it was open to question. The leases might not have been renewed if 

AJA had not pursued an extension, or if Airline Services, which shares some common ownership 

with Airways, had refused to negotiate. We now know that the Airline Services aircraft are not 

available to Airways, as it had claimed directly and under cenification. 

Despite the renewal, it is still unclear about whether any collusive relationship exists among 

Airways, Airline Services and AJA. Airways continues to pursue certification, confident that 

AJA will eliminate its Juneau service and make the Airline Service aircraft available. Despite 

renewing its aircraft lease, AJA does not oppose Airway's application. This is in stark contrast 

to the extraordinary efforts AJA made to oppose Air X's application. As before April 1, the 

issue is the terms and expectations of the lease agreement. What is the term of the lease? Are 

there contingent conditions if Airways is certificated? What forgiveness's or even rewards are 

available to AJA if it surrenders the aircraft to Airways ahead of the expiry date of the lease? 

We have shown that Wings Airline Services is related to Wings Airways, and is the leaser of the 

five aircraft Airways proposes to use. The Department should request the current lease between 

Airline Services and AJA to determine the actual relationship and conditions affecting the 

certification of Airways 

All of the argument about the rhetorical difference between aircraft possession and control and 

availability, or how Air X could not possibly have known or suspected what was going on with 

the aircraft leases is puffery. The proof of the pudding is that the Air X assertions are true, The 

aircraft Airways proposes to use are not available, and the market and financial conditions 

assumed by Airways do not reflect current reality, Airways appears to acknowledge that it 

cannot survive in a three carrier market by now claiming its application is "contingenf, 

Department regulations do not allow for "contingent" certification. Either a carrier is fit, willing 

and able to perform, or it is not. Wings Airways is not. 

CCRTTFICATION 

The contents of this application and the attached exhibits are true and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and belief Pursuant to title 18, United States Code section 1001,1, in my individual 

capacity and as the authorized representative of the applicant, have not in any manner knowingly 

and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, 

fictitious, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which contain such 

ziL d iSKEetjoc «i50S68ii06i SNOisyn3X3 aiv 8j:u ei-w-oios 
statements in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of the application. 1 

understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C section 

1001 shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 

Respectfijlly submitted. 

Ai^^Excursiofn;, KLC 

Bv Michael Lovcrink, its Owner 

This photograph was taken on April 7 of the two Alaska Juneau Aeronautics 

Cessna Caravan aircraft with two AJA Cessna 207's (blue paint) behind 

on the AJA assigned ramp area at Juneau International Airport 

£/£ d iszize^ioz « iaOS68ii06l SNOisanDxa aiv 8£:u ei-TO-oioe