Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the in ternational legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with o ffices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Br ussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamb urg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Sin gapore To kyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Wa shington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Za greb Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Direct phone +1 202 637 8898

Direct fax +1 866 728 1992 www.hoganlovells.com

February 25, 2011

By Electronic Submission

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of Republic Airlin e Inc. for Extension of FAA Exemption No. 9346A, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-28086

Dear Sir or Madam:

Republic Airline Inc. (“Republic”) hereby petiti ons the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Pa rt 11, for an extension of FAA Exemption No. 9346A, last issued to Republic on April 16, 2009, exempting Republic from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), t hereby allowing Republic to s ubstitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to obser ve a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424. 1

Exemption No. 9346A terminates on June 30, 2011. Republic respectfully requests that this exemption be extended for at least two additional years, through June 30, 2013. Republic hereby incorporates by reference all relevant informat ion previously submitted in the instant docket. Republic submits that further exte nsion of this exemption is in t he public interest and will provide an equivalent level of safety -- findi ngs that the FAA made in granting the initial exemption to Republic on June 22, 2007, and in the subsequent extensio n of the exemption. 2

1 Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, the PIC mu st be observed in the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one fli ght leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

2 The FAA has made similar findings and has grant ed (and extended) exemptions to similarly situated applicants. See , e.g. , Docket FAA-2002-12009 (Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.); Docket FAA-2006- 26589 (Shuttle America Corporation); Docket FAA-2002- 12947 (Trans States Airlines); Docket FAA-2005- 21877 (Freedom Airlines); Docket FAA-2006-24900 (Air Midwest); Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines).U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration February 25, 2011 Page 2

Good cause exists for the FAA to act on this petition without delay, and without publishing a summary in the Federal Register or awaiting co mments, pursuant to 14 C. F.R. § 11.87. No new precedent will be established by ex tending the existing exemption pr eviously granted to Republic.

Republic urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an extension of Exemption No. 9346A prior to the June 30, 2011 expiration date. In the event that the FAA does not act on this petition prior to that date, Republic hereby invokes and relie s upon the automatic extension provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c), to the extent that such relief is consistent with the FAA’s rules, policies and procedures, in order to continue the effectiveness of Republic’s current exemption pending the FAA’ s final determination on this petition.

Republic submits the following informat ion in further support of this request:

The original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot
received in a visual simulator. Since that ru le was adopted, the airline industry has had 40 years of experience with visual simu lators and advanced simulation. The airlines have successfully trained tens of thousands of pilo ts using sophisticated advanced si mulators. Republic believes the advanced simulation experience of the airli ne industry combined with that of the FAA has made the present rule virtually obsolete.

The FAA has for many years routinely granted simi lar requests for exempti ons, subject to certain conditions and limitations, fi nding that there is an equivalent level of safety in allowing airlines to substitute a qualified and authoriz ed check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the observation requirements. Republic submits t hat (a) the facts presented by Republic do not differ materially from those previously presented pr eviously by Republic and by similarly situated petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA fo r previously granting t he exemption to Republic and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Republic; and (c) extension of the exem ption to Republic is in the public interest.

Republic currently expects that it may need to certify new PICs eac h year. Republic states that granting this exemption would allow --

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on higher priority safety functions;

2. Republic to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE;

3. Republic to significantly increase the us e of qualified pilots and improve its ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and

4. Republic to reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost pr oductivity for those qualified pilots waiting for the FAA observation.

By allowing a company check airman who is highl y qualified in the airplane to complete the observation, a greater level of scrutiny and obje ctivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC, thus enhancing the level of safety.U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration February 25, 2011 Page 3

Finally, consistent with the conditions and limitations set fo rth in Exemption 9346A, Republic proposes that the extended ex emption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as

follows:

1. A Republic check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when—

a. The Administrator pre-approves that s ubstitution for each obser vation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Republic, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office in each instance before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee.

b. The qualifying PIC candi date has completed no less t han 10 hours of supervised OE and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Republic check airman or aircrew pr ogram designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administ rator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as check airman or ai rcrew designee for Republic for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the init ial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. Republic must maintain student, check airm an, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

The FAA has previously determined that complianc e with these conditions and limitations would ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Republic will continue to comply with the conditions and limitations to t he exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for its operations.U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration February 25, 2011 Page 4

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Republic respectfully requests that FAA issue an exemption, as requested herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheryl R. Israel

Counsel for REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com

Attachment

cc: David Enlow, Indianapolis FSDO

Jeff DavisATTACHMENT

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petiti on for exemption, Republic Airli ne Inc. respectfully requests a waiver of the publication and comment requirement s under 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. Nevertheless, in accordance with § 11.81(f), a summary of this Pe tition for an Extension of Exemption No. 9346A, for publication in the Federal Register is as follows:

Docket No.: FAA-2007-28086

Petitioner: Republic Airline Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii)

Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 9346A to permit Republic Airline Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in 14 C. F.R. § 121.424.