U.S. Deportment of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation GENERAL COUNSEL May 30, 2013 1200 Nev1 Jf2rsey Avenue. SE '1'/asr\\ng:on, DC :2C59C

Ccrtit1cd Mail- Return Rercipt Requested

l'ara**Rising~.:r** Onicc o!Tongrcssman Don Young ..J.241 B Street Suitl'

### 2<n Anchorage. Ab:tska 99503

Dear Ms. Risinger: Re: Inquiry regarding Scott Air

1 am writing in response to Congrcssrnan Don Young's March I I. 2013. letter about Scott Air LLC. (!;'bia Island i\ir Express (Scott Air}. vvhich is an air carrier that operates in Ketchikan. /\Iaska. ln that lcttl.?r. Congressman Young enclosed a complaint Jl·om Marcus Sessoms. ('EO of Promcch 1\ir. concerning Sent! Air's operations bctvveen Ketchikan. /\Iaska. and Klawock Alaska. !'V1r. Sessoms· complaint asked Congressman Young to contact the Department of' Iransportation (lkpartmcnt) to ensure that the Ikpartment conducts a thorough invc-stigati\>n into allegations that Scott i\ir continues to conduct interstate air transportation \\ithout prope-r authority even after entering into a consent order vvith the**Departm~:nL** l'hc consent order directed Scott Air to cease and desist ti·om interstate- air transportation until such time as 

### it obtains proper economic authorit; from the IkpartmcnL
On i'cbruar:y l.**201~.** Pacil'ic Ainvays. Inc.. and PM Air. U.(. filed a !(mnal complaint against Scott Air alleging \iolations similar to the allegations Mr. Sessoms included in his cumplaint to Congressman Young. 1\s a result of that filing. the l)cparlment conducted a thorough imcstigation o!'Scott Air's operations. including revie\\'ing evidence

## oran;. interstate opcmtinns since the issuance

# or the consent order in lkcember 2012. This ill\cstigation included. among other things. reviewing a detailed response from Scott i\ir and examining mhertisements on Scott Air's \\Chsite and all the inl'ormation submitted hy Pacilic Airways and Ptv1 /\ir. !\Iter completing !be investigation. the Department determined that Scott 1\ir was not holding out interstate air transportation and to the extent that 

### it was conducting interstate air transportation. such transportation vvas de lllilli/1/is in nature and thcreli.H-c permissible. The Department issued tbe attached Order

## or Dismissal ofthe formal complaint. 'v\c \\i!I place a cupy oI' f'v1r. Sessoms's letlcr. v\hich als(1 addresses Scntl .·\ir.s !itness proceeding. as \\ell as this correspondence. in the Department docket fix thut pending proceeding. DO'I-OST-20 12-017S. l

## r ynu ha\e an;. l'urthcr questions regarding this matkr.please do not hesitate to contact Lisa Swafford Brooks. Chief of the A\'iation Licensing Compliance Branch. at (202) 366-9342. Sincerely.

Assistant General Counsel Oftice ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings

AttachmentUNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFflCEOFTHESECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Issued by the Department ofTransportation on the Tenth day ofApril, 2013 Order 2013-..J-.t

Third Party Complaint of Docket OST 2013-0031 Pacific Ainvays, Inc., and PM Air, LLC Against Scott Air, LLC d/b/a Island Air Express Served April tO, 2013

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On February I. 2013. Pacific Aimays. Inc

.. and Pl\1 Air. LLC (Petitioners) filed a third party complaint against Scott Air. LLC. d/b/a Island Air Express (Scott Air) alleging that Scott Air is continuing to engage in scheduled interstate air transportation without proper economic authority from the Department despite the issuance of a consent order on December 28. 20I2. against Scott Air for such conduct. 1 Petitioners request that the Department find that Scott Air is continuing to engage in unauthorized air transportation in violation ofOrder 20 12-12-16. compel payment ofthe entire penalty assessed by the order. and institute a formal enforcement proceeding in front of a Departmental administrative law judge. Although not specifically requested in Petitioners· pleading. we are treating Petitioners· filing as a formal complaint under 14 CFR 302.404. Background and Applicable Law Section 4110I ofTitle 49 ofthe U.S. Code prohibits the holding out or the provision of interstate air transportation unless a carrier has economic authority from the Department in the form ofa certificate ofpublic convenience and necessity or an exemption from the certificate requirement. In addition to being a violation of49 U.S.C. §4110 l. holding out or providing air service without economic authority is in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712. which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods ofcompetition.
On December 28. 2012. the Department issued Order 2012-12-16 against Scott Air. The order found that Scott Air was holding out interstate air transportation \\ithout Departmental economic authority. Specifically the Department found that Scott Air

1:·;t:c' .\·coltAir /J(·d h a Island.lir Lrpr<!ss. l"iolations**(~{·!9** (

### ·.sc .{:i -If/Ofand .JF/2. Order 2012-12- 16 (D.:c. 28. 2012).ache1tised scheduled sen·ice bet\\een Ketchickan International Airport in Alaska and the Klmvock Airport which serves Craig and Klm\ock. Alaska. and Scott Air's website allowed reservations from passengers outside the State of Alaska. These passengers could also book flights using a toll-free number. Scott Air's website also allo\ved passenger to enter information regarding Alaska Airlines nights carrying passengers from outside Alaska connecting at Ketchikan International Airport. As a result. Scott carried more than a de minimis number ofpassengers moving as part of a continuous journey from outside the State ofAlaska to and from Craig and Klawock.
Order 2012-I2-I 6 directs Scott Air to cease and desist fl·om future violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 41101 and 41712 and assesses a civil penalty of$20.000. IfScott Air fails to cease and desist from fwther violations. it may be subject to additional penalties and further enf(wcement action.
Prior to the issuance ofOrder 20I2-12-16. Scott Air amended its website to note that it only operates intrastate air transportation. On October 22. 2013. Scott Air also tiled an application for a certificate ofpublic convenience and necessity vvhich would allow it to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation. In Order 2012-12-16. the Department stated that ·'in light of the steps taken by Scott and the mitigation factors mentioned above. the [Aviation] Enforcement Office [of the Department] will not oppose Scott being found fit and as a matter of prosecutorial discretion \Viii not take enforcement action against Scott \Vhile it conducts its present operations until its certificate has been granted:· On January 18. 20 13. the Assistant Secretary f(x Aviation and International · Affairs made a tentative finding that Scott Air is tit tor interstate air transportation in an Order to Show Cause vvhich was issued. The orderdirects all interested persons to shO\\ cause V\hy tl]e office should not finalize its findings. That matter is pending bef()re the Department...: Complaint filed by Petitioners
On February I. 2013. the Petitioners filed a ..complaint against Scott Aviation. LLC, tor anti-competitive. deceptive. and**unf~1ir** business practices while engaging in interstate air commerce without authority." In that complaint the Petitioners allege that Scott Air's 1.-vebsite is still

..universally available" and that its disclaimer is not sufficient to notify consumers that it lacks interstate authority from the Department. Additionally the Petitioners claim that Scott Air continues to accept reservations from passengers who indicate that they (the passengers) arc engaged in interstate transportation. Petitioners attach

..reservation contirmations·· to their complaint. \vhich they claim show that Scott Air is accepting**reserva~ions** from persons that also have Alaska Airlines connections in Ketchikan. Alaska. Additionally. Petitioners seem to indicate that Scott Air's utilization of a toll-free reservations number also violates the consent order's cease and desist provision.
Further. the Petitioners allege that Scott Air intentionally times its tlights to connect

..conveniently'. to or from Alaska Airlines· tlights to Ketchikan. In support 

## or this

2 S.:r: Docket DOT-OST-2012-0178 and DOT-OST-2012-0179.-.)
asser1ion. Petitioners provide a timetable. v\hich they generated. of Alaska flights ti·om Seattle to Ketchikan and Scott Air flights from Ketchikan to Klawock. Petitioners also attach several newspaper advertisements from the Ketchikan 

### Daizr Xews that purport to advet1ise Scott Air's connecting service to Alaska Airlines. Petitioners claim that the Ketchikan Daily Nell'S is a ..regional nevvspaper.. and then lists the localities within the State of Alaska where the newspaper can be purchased. The advertisement in question appeared in December 2012. Petitioners also attached two advertisements from the 5,'outheast /<;land JVe11·s. one from November 21. 2011, and one from November 21. 2012. both before the Department issued the consent order. In those newspaper advertisements. Scott Air highlights that it schedules its flights to coincide with Alaska Airlines flights.
Petitioners then list a series of seemingly rhetorical questions as to why a carrier \Hmld choose to fly into and out ofJ-.:.etchikan International Airport and why a passenger would choose to tly into the airport. Petitioners argue that the only way to get between the airpo11 and the City of Ketchikan is via a ferry. which Petitioners argue operates in accordance with Alaska Airlines schedule. Petitioners state that the airpor1 is

..strictly [a] connecting market"' because ofits location. and passengers would only choose to use that airport to connect to an Alaska Airlines flight. Finally. Petitioners attach as appendices various third-party websites for nshing lodges and the Prince ofWales Island's chamber ofcommerce \\hich list Scott Air as providing service between Ketchikan and the fishing lodges. Petitioners maintain that Scott Air has made no attempt to correct the third party websites with a disclaimer of its intrastate authority. Petitioners argue that there is a relationship between Scott Air. Desert Splash Adventures (Scott Air's vvinter season Arizona operation). and El Capitan Lodge. located in Craig. Alaska. Petitioners state that Desert Splash's website lists El Capitan as a "partner:· Petitioners claim that 

### if a person calls Scott Air"s toll-free number and inquires about reservations f()l" El Capitan. callers are directed to a Bremerton. Washington. phone number to make reservations directly with El Capitan. Petitioners also claim that their representative called several local hotels and inquired as to ho"\ to reach the hotels. According to the Petitioners· complaint. each hotel stated that the visitors should usc Scott Air. Petitioners argue that this is evidence that Scott Air has attempted to generate interstate traffic.
Ans·wer ofScott Air On February 20. 2013. through counsel. Scott Air replied to the complaint filed by Petitioners stating that the complaint should be dismissed on factual and procedural grounds. Scott Air states that Petitioners· complaint does not comply with the Department"s requirements f()r filings under 14 CFR 302.4. and Petitioners· representative**f~1iled** to provide an 18 U.S.C.**~** I00I certification. Scott Air states that the complaint should be dismissed due to these procedural deficiencies.
Scott Air replies that the complaint should be dismissed on substantive grounds as well. Specifically. Scott Air argues that the fact that it operates out of an "'International Airport

.. does not mean it conducts interstate transportation. Scott Air notes that itsvvheeled Cessna Caravan aircraft can only land in the area at the Ketchikan International Airport. Regarding its website. Scott Air asserts that its disclaimer is adequate 3• and that its maintenance of a website is common practice for all other intrastate and interstate carriers. Scott Air also argues that it is not required under Department regulations to list the types ofeconomic authority it does not have. Scott Air states that it does not accept interstate reservations on its website. Regarding the local newspaper advertisements. Scott Air points out that the adve11isement from December2012 does not make any reference to connections with any other air carrier. Scott Air also notes that the advertisements are in local newspapers directed to the local community. Regarding the third party websites. Scott Air states that the websites speak for themselves. Scott Air points out that nowhere on the websites mentioned by Petitioners is it stated that there is any connection with Scott Air and Alaska Airlines. Scott Air addresses the allegations regarding the relationship betvveen Scott Air and El Capitan Lodge by stating that the Bremerton. Washington. phone number that Petitioners list as El Capitan·s phone number is not a phone number for El Capitan. Scott Air notes that neither it nor El Capitan has an office in Washington state. Petitioner's Reply to Scott Air's Answer
On February :25. 2013. Petitioners filed an unauthorized reply to Scott Air"s Answer. Under 14 CFR §30:2.6(b) a reply to an answer is not authorized. The Depat1ment will only accept otherwise unauthorized documents for tiling only ifleave has been obtained from the DOT decision maker on written motion and on good cause shown. Such motions must contain a concise statement ofthe matters relied upon as good cause and shall be attached to the pleading or other document for vvhich leave to Jile is sought. In this case. Petitioners incorporated the written motion into the otherwise unauthorized document. We have revievved the motion and have not found good cause to accept the motion to file the unauthorized document. Therefore. we are not considering subsequent pleadings in this matter. Disposition and Analysis
We haYC carefully considered the complaint in Docket 2013-0031. and have decided to dismiss the complaint. The Petitioners have not demonstrated that Scott Air has**l~liled** to comply \\ith the terms ofOrder 201:2-l2-16. The Petitioners do not take into account the steps taken by Scott Air to operate within its intrastate authority during the pendency of their application for authority. Additionally. none of the assertions provided by the Petitioners show evidence that to the extent that Scott Air may still be carrying more than de minimis interstate traffic.

'

..Island Air Express opcratcs its schcdulcd services within thc State ofAlaska. Wc have becn grantcd full FAA authorization as an intra-statc FAA certificate holdcr to operate our Caravans IFR (in or above the cloudsl. day or night using thc advanced Synthetic Flight Vision navigation system making our modern aircraft the safest. most reliable tleet in .-\Iaska:·-5

As an initial mattt:r. a carrier having a website. which by definition is accessible \\Oddwide via the lmernet. and a toll-free number. is not evidence per se that a carrier is operating interstate air transportation. In today"s modern marketplace. having a website is important for small businesses. and it is not feasible for a company to limit its Internet advertisements only to people within a state. There must be other evidence ofholding out interstate transportation in addition to having a website. A toll-free number is a convenient way to allow passengers to contact a carrier. and. in and ofitself. it also is not evidence ofholding out interstate transportation.
Scott Air amended its website to indicate that its authority is limited to operating scheduled service \Yithin the State of Alaska. This disclaimer is on Scott Air"s homepage. There is no Departmental requirement that Scott Air put such a disclaimer on its vvebsite at all. or. ifit chooses to put a disclaimer on its website. list the authority that it does not have. We believe the disclaimer is adequate to inform consumers booking transportation on Scott Air's website that its authority is currently limited to intrastate operations. Similarly. in the absence of collusion. the Department cannot hold Scott responsible for third-party websites that it cannot control orthird-party recommendations to use Scott's services between Ketchikan and Klm>vock. The Department reviewed Desert Splash Adventure's website (www.deset1splashadventures.com). The website mentions that Desert Splash Adventures are "operated by Island Air Express:· but there is no indication that Scott Air is operating interstate airtransportation through Desert Splash Adventures. Desert Splash Adventures does list a partner as El Capitan Lodge. but the link takes you to El Capitan's vvebsite. not Scott Air's. \Ve are not convinced that the link on Desert Splash Adventure·s website to El Capitan Lodge is evidence ofScott Air holding out interstate air transpm1ation. Regarding the scheduling issue Petitioners raise. stating that Scott Air's flights are --conveniently'' timed to Alaska Airlines flights. this matter \\as raised and considered by the Department before the issuance ofOrder 2012-12-16. There is no interline agreement between Alaska Airlines and Scott Air. Scott Air has amended its advet1isemcnt to remove its highlighting ofthe ·•convenient" connection. Scott Air is allowed to make a business decision about vvhen to schedule its flights as long as it does not hold out interstate air transportation or carry more than de minimis interstate air transportation. Scott Air amended its website and its print advertisements to correct the information that could be perceived as holding out interstate service. Scott Air's decision to 

### fly into and out ofKetchikan International Airpo11 is likewise not a determining factor. The newspaper advertisements cited by Petitioner as evidence are not compelling. and. in fact. support the fact that Scott Air amended its advertisements to stop holding out interstate service. First. both the Ketchikan**Daiz~·** ,\'eH·s and the .'·iowheas! !Ylaml Sews are regional newspapers located within the State ofAlaska. and do not reach a broad outof-state audience. Secondly. the achet1isement from the Ketchikan Daizr :\'ews. from '"Decemher 20 1:2" does not mention connecting service to AIaska Airlines. unlikc the t\\'O adve11isements in the Southeast Island Xews. both of which predate the consent order. To the extent that any adve11isements printed befbre the issuance of the consent order adver1ised "comenienC connecti11g service to Alaska Airlines tlights. those-6-

advertisements are covered under Order 2012-12-I6. Moreover. the advertisements sh(m that Scott Air changed its advertising practices to comport with Departmental regulations. Regarding the reservations made on Scott Air. all the reservations proffered by Petitioners as evidence that Scott Air is flying passengers that connected from an Alaska Airlines flight \Vere all made by residents with mailing addresses within Alaska. Also. in one of the reservations submitted. the Alaska Airlines confirmation pages are merged with the Scott Air confirmation pages to make it appear to the reader that Scott Air is providing confirmation for Alaska Airlines tlights. which is not the case. Finally. if a passenger voluntarily decides to schedule his or her intrastate trip to coincide with interstate air transportation. as Scott Air stated in its Reply. Scott Air is not responsible for that connection.
Scott Air does not accept reservations made by out-of-state residents. as Petitioners discovered vvhen they attempted to make purchases out-of-state. While Scott Air requests "Alaska Airlines Connecting Flight Info:· it does so in order to know if a passenger will make its flight on Scott ifthe Alaska flight is delayed or cancelled. While the Department understands v,·hy Scott Air asks for this information. requesting the connecting flight information can be construed to be holding out interstate service. Scott Air points out that 

### it is not operating "connecting

.. service with Alaska Airlines. Scott Air does not have an interline agreement with Alaska. Passengers on Scott Air must check in tor their Scott and Alaska flights separately and must check their bags separately. ·rhis issue was addressed in the consent order issued by the Department. Because Scott Air made changes to its website and reservations process. and it changed its advertisements to eliminate the reterences to connecting service. \Ve find that any interstate traffic Scott Air may have carried as a result of asking for a customer's connecting flight information subsequent to the issuance of Order 20 12-12-16 was 

### de minimis in nature. After uthorough review ofthe information presented by Petitioners. we find that there is insufficient evidence that Scott Air violated the terms of consent order 2012-12-16 and that the intent ofthe order is being fulfilled.
ACCORDINGLY. pursuant to the authority delegated under 14 CFR 302.406. Idismiss the complaint of Pacific Airways. Inc. and PM Air. LLC. against Scott Air. LLC. d/b/a Island Air Express in Docket OST 2013 -003 I. This order shall become effective as u 11nal order ofthe Department 30 days after its service date. By: 

### SAMlJEL PODBERESKY Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
An electronic 1·ersion q(thisdocwnenl is· anlilah/e at 1nnr.n:<sztlalions.go 1 ·i ! I DON YOUNG Cot**Li~ilSS\lAN** FoH At l AtJ\.SKA WASHINGTON OFFICE· :l• :'

Department ofTransportation Attn: Mr. Simon Gras 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

Dear Mr. Gros,**""I'T~' l.!.~tiH~\rt'S'-''**  nf tl]t' lin\tr\'1 §-btt·o:, Hnl!St' nf 1\qJl'l'St'llt:tti\lt•,;**llb·:.l!it·~~~"t'.** D.\!·.**~n:;** l**~** March 1L 2013 COMI\l!TTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES (**~··\lt{i'-.1."\", :)l_;f_<i,•,.J\l'\~11**  Itt !_l'J**!tJ~)L\··;** i\\D ,\1 .:.:·)i< \ h.\1 1'1! _.\cr./,[.;-
COMMITTEE**O~J**

..RANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE

Encloseu is a copy ofcorrespondence 

### 1have received from my constituent, 

### Mr. Marcus Sessoms, concern:'lgthe problems he is having with Scott Air in Ketchikan, £\.Iaska. I have contacted the Departruent ofTransportation on a local level. They have advised 1ne to conta<.:t the appropriate ofiicials

### vvith the Department ofTransportation in Washington 

### D.C.

I would appreciate it ifyou would review the attached documents and provide me with any information that may be helpful to my constituent. Please direct your response to Tara Risinger at 4241 B Street, Suite 203, Anchorage,AK 99503. You rna}· also reply to tara.risinger(@mail.house.gm· orbJ' fax to 907-271-5950. Due to office policy, I am required to receive a response, even ifitis an interim reply n·ith 10 business days ofthe receipt of this letter.

I am grateful for any assistance you may be able to provide in this matter.

DY:tr Enclosures

. ( I**~** . ''

.. ! • .',·. :.>.:: d s ; :,; I'(; !·

.. '. .,;- . •·.·.! ;:; l'•
'>",, ]";··U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Avkltlon AdminWrotion**~~~An** Office ofthe Reqioral Administrator Alaskan Region

The Honorable Don Young Member, United States House of Representatives 4241 B Street, Suite 203 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Young: 222 Wesl7'"Avenue. Suite#14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 Teleph<me (907) 271-5645 Fax (907) 271-5113

Thank you for the copy ofthe February 12, 2013, message on behalf of your constituent, 

### Mr. Marcus Sessoms, CEO Promech Air. Mr. Sessoms has t3Xpressed concerns regarding what t e feels are continued violations of Department of Transportation (DOT) reg! lations, failure of ScottAir, LLC tofile required datafor lts certification application, a ,d, in particular, the DOT review ofthe managerial competence and compliance disposition which he suspects is a reflection oftheir continual violation of Fed :ral law.
As outlined by Mr. Sessoms, this investigation was done by the Departm1mt of Transportation in Washington, DC based on Mr. Sessoms' July 2012 complaintwith the DOT. The Federal Aviation Administration Alaskan Region Flight Standards Division and Juneau Flight Standards District Office were not a part ofthat investigatiCtn and/or any part ofany continued evaluation and/or investigation ofthe complaint issues filed upon. Our recommendation is that you contactthe Department ofTransportation in Washington, DC regarding Mr. Sessoms' request so it may be properly answered. As always, please feel free to contact me ifyou have additional question:;. Sincerely,

# 41/~ Robert N. Lewis Regional Administrator
Enclosure Transmitted CorrespondenceRepresentative Don Young 2314 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515

Re: DOT EnforcementAction Against Scott Air

Dear Congressman Young,
Some time ago anew carrier, ScottAir, set up in Ketchikan. Atfirst offering transpt)rtationfor lodge gueststo PrinceofWales, itthen began offeringscheduled transportation at Ketchikan International Airport tothe Klawock airport. We investigatedthese operations, along with the two otherfederally certificated in Ketchikan, PaclficAirways andTaquan Air, and found thattheyhad n·:> federal scheduled authorityand were noteven registered withthe Department ofTransportationasanairtaxi. Wefiled a complaintonJuly, 2012 with theDOT, alleging unfairand d**~ceptive** business practices, and ar'lticompetitive behavior. The Departmentagreed with all of1'1e allegations, and issued a consent Order justafterChristmas. Intum,Scott agreedtopay afine anc. totransportonly "local" Ketchikan cityto Klawock passengers.
The response from ScottAir whenconfronted with ourcharges wasto denythatthe?y were engagedin interstateaircommerce, andto delay settlementofthe complaint as longas possible. ln themeantime theyhired a DCattorneytofile anapplication for a certificate forfederal scheduled authorityand to push thatapplication as quickly as possible. All ofthese actions have cometo a head,with the Departmenttentativelyproposingto award Scottscheduled interstateauthority. Theaward is basedon assertionthatScott is no longerengaged in interstate aircommerce, andwon'tuntil properly certificated.
lastweekwefiled a newcomplaintprovidingproofthatScottcontinuesto operatein interstate
commercewithoutanyofthechanges it promised the Department. We provided**rE~Servations** records for several people who booked directlyconnectingflights onAlaska Airlines and ScottbetweenSeattle and Klawock. We showedthattheycontinuedtohold outservice onuniversally availablewebsite$/ and offeredtoll free interstatetelephoneandfax numbers.

Wealso answered inoppositiontothe certification ofScott, citing theircontinuingviolations as well as thefactthatthey did notprovidea significantamountofdata specifica!ty requiredby**~partment** regulations. This withheld information isvital to determine boththe managerialcompetencyand true financial position ofthe applicant. Forexample, Scott hasa cumulative operatingdE!ficit approachinga milliondollars. Theyare being keptafloatby continued cashinfusionsfrom oneofthe owners, a wealthyArizonafamily trust.
At thesametimeScotthasfail_ed toshowthatitcan actuallyoperateprofitably, itsillegal serviceshave diverted millionsofdollars ofinterstate revenuefrom the properlycertificated, legitimatelyoperating Ketchikan carriers. You have seen overtheyears the sad results from over-expansi<:n ofservicesand02/12/2013 12:04 3052838393 KEY lEST**SE~PLANE** AOV 110850 p 003/003

cutthroat competition in bu.sh Alaska. The continuation ofservice bythese fegitirn3te carriers, the carriers who currentlyprovide all mail s:uvice h, the region, is injeopardy.

Would you please use yourgood offices tocontactthe Department ofTransportation and simply ask thatthe Departmentthoroughly investigatethe continuingviolationsofScott, andto require Scottto file all required data forits certificateapplication, and in particularreview the mar.agerial competence and compliance disposition which is areflection oftheircontinuingviolations ofFederal law.
Ifyou have questions,pleasefeel free tocall HankMyers, ouradvisor. As you knov;, Hank is a former Alaska Airlines and Wien executive whofurthe last30yearshas worked with bush aircarriersto assure the highest level ofcustomerservice and regulatorycompliance. Hank's phone nurnberis 425-830.. 4265, and his email is hank@hankm.com.
lime is very much cfthe essence. Scott's DC attomeyhas donean excellentjobofsr.'lying belowthe radar onthese two 'ssues and seekingto coordinate the actions to minimize public :; •ersight. Your effortswill b€very.nuch appreciated.by the long time aircarriers in Ketchikan.

# T::~foryoulc jv