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' 

I ransportation ( l kpartmcnt) to ensure that the I kpartment 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 I kpartmcnL 

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 or an;. 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 of the formal complaint. 

'v\ c \\ i !I place a cupy o I' f'v1r. Sessoms's let lcr. v\ hich als(1 addresses Scntl .·\ ir. s !i tness 

proceeding. as \\ell as this correspondence. in the Department docket fix thut pending 

proceeding. DO'I-OST-20 12-0 17S. 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 of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Attachment 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFflCEOFTHESECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the Tenth day of April, 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 Aim ays. 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. 20 I 2. 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 of Order 20 12-12-16. compel payment of the 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 4110 I of Title 49 of the 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 of a certificate of public convenience and necessity or an exemption from the 

certificate requirement. In addition to being a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 4110 l. holding out 

or providing air service without economic authority is in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

which prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition. 

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' .\·colt Air /J( · d h a Island.lir Lrpr<!ss. l"iolations (~{·!9 ( ·.sc .{:i -If /Of and .J F/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 of passengers moving as part of a continuous journey 

from outside the State of Alaska to and from Craig and Klawock. 

Order 2012- I 2- 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. If Scott 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 of Order 20 I 2-12-16. 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 of public 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 order directs 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 of J-.:.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 of its 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 of Wales Island's chamber of commerce \\ 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 of Scott 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. ~ I 00 I 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 its 
vvheeled 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 of economic 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 December 2012 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 if leave has been obtained 

from the DOT decision maker on written motion and on good cause shown. Such 

motions must contain a concise statement of the 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 of Order 201:2- l 2-16. 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 of Alaska. 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 of holding 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 of itself. it also is not 

evidence of holding 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. if it 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 or third-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 air transportation 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 of Scott 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 of Order 2012-12-16. There is no interline agreement 

between Alaska Airlines and Scott Air. Scott Air has amended its advet1isemcnt to 

remove its highlighting of the ·•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 of Ketchikan 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 of Alaska. and do not reach a broad outof-state audience. Secondly. the achet1isement from the Ketchikan Daizr :\'ews. from 

'"Decem her 20 1:2" does not mention connecting service to A Iaska Airlines. unl i kc 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- I 6. 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 if the 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 u thorough review of the 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 of the order is being fulfilled. 

ACCORDINGLY. pursuant to the authority delegated under 14 CFR 302.406. I dismiss 

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 of the Department 30 days after its service date. 

By: 

SAMlJEL PODBERESKY 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

An electronic 1·ersion q(this docwnenl is· anlilah/e at 

1nnr. n:<sztlal ions. go 1 ·
i 

! 

I 

DON YOUNG Cot Li~ilSS\lAN FoH At l AtJ\.SKA 

WASHINGTON OFFICE· 

:l• :' 

Department of Transportation 

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 1 L 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 of correspondence 1 have received from my constituent, Mr. Marcus Sessoms, 

concern:'lg the problems he is having with Scott Air in Ketchikan, £\.Iaska. I have contacted the 

Departruent of Transportation on a local level. They have advised 1ne to conta<.:t the appropriate 

ofiicials vvith the Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. 

I would appreciate it if you 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· or bJ' fax to 907-271-5950. Due to office policy, I am required 

to receive a response, even if it is an interim reply n·ith 10 business days of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 Scott Air, LLC to file required data for lts 

certification application, a ,d, in particular, the DOT review of the managerial 

competence and compliance disposition which he suspects is a reflection of their 

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 complaint with 

the DOT. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Alaskan Region Flight Standards Division and 

Juneau Flight Standards District Office were not a part of that investigatiCtn and/or any 

part of any continued evaluation and/or investigation of the complaint issues filed upon. 

Our recommendation is that you contact the Department of Transportation in 

Washington, DC regarding Mr. Sessoms' request so it may be properly answered. 

As always, please feel free to contact me if you have additional question:;. 

Sincerely, 

41/~ Robert N. Lewis 

Regional Administrator 

Enclosure 

Transmitted Correspondence 
Representative Don Young 

2314 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: DOT Enforcement Action Against Scott Air 

Dear Congressman Young, 

Some time ago a new carrier, Scott Air, set up in Ketchikan. At first offering transpt)rtation for lodge 

guests to Prince of Wales, it then began offering scheduled transportation at Ketchikan International 

Airport to the Klawock airport. We investigated these operations, along with the two other federally 

certificated in Ketchikan, Paclfic Airways and Taquan Air, and found that they had n·:> federal scheduled 

authority and were not even registered with the Department of Transportation as an air taxi. We filed a 

complaint on July, 2012 with the DOT, alleging unfair and d ~ceptive business practices, and ar'lticompetitive behavior. The Department agreed with all of 1'1e allegations, and issued a consent Order 

just after Christmas. In tum, Scott agreed to pay a fine anc. to transport only "local" Ketchikan city to 

Klawock passengers. 

The response from Scott Air when confronted with our charges was to deny that the?y were engaged in 

interstate air commerce, and to delay settlement of the complaint as long as possible. ln the meantime 

they hired a DC attorney to file an application for a certificate for federal scheduled authority and to 

push that application as quickly as possible. All of these actions have come to a head, with the 

Department tentatively proposing to award Scott scheduled interstate authority. The award is based on 

assertion that Scott is no longer engaged in interstate air commerce, and won't until properly 

certificated. 

last week we filed a new complaint providing proof that Scott continues to operate in interstate 

commerce without any of the changes it promised the Department. We provided rE~Servations records 

for several people who booked directly connecting flights on Alaska Airlines and Scott between Seattle 

and Klawock. We showed that they continued to hold out service on universally available web site$/ and 

offered toll free interstate telephone and fax numbers. 

We also answered in opposition to the certification of Scott, citing their continuing violations as well as 

the fact that they did not provide a significant amount of data specifica!ty required by ~partment 

regulations. This withheld information is vital to determine both the managerial competency and true 

financial position of the applicant. For example, Scott has a cumulative operating dE!ficit approaching a 

million dollars. They are being kept afloat by continued cash infusions from one of the owners, a 

wealthy Arizona family trust. 

At the same time Scott has fail_ed to show that it can actually operate profitably, its illegal services have 

diverted millions of dollars of interstate revenue from the properly certificated, legitimately operating 

Ketchikan carriers. You have seen over the years the sad results from over-expansi<: n of services and 
02/12/2013 12:04 3052838393 KEY lEST SE~PLANE AOV 110850 p 003/003 

cutthroat competition in bu.sh Alaska. The continuation of service by these fegitirn3te carriers, the 

carriers who currently provide all mail s:uvice h, the region, is in jeopardy. 

Would you please use your good offices to contact the Department ofTransportation and simply ask 

that the Department thoroughly investigate the continuing violations of Scott, and to require Scott to 

file all required data for its certificate application, and in particular review the mar.agerial competence 

and compliance disposition which is a reflection of their continuing violations of Federal law. 

If you have questions, please feel free to call Hank Myers, our advisor. As you knov;, Hank is a former 

Alaska Airlines and Wien executive who fur the last 30 years has worked with bush air carriers to assure 

the highest level of customer service and regulatory compliance. Hank's phone nurnber is 425-830.. 

4265, and his email is hank@hankm.com. 

lime is very much c fthe essence. Scott's DC attomey has done an excellent job of sr.'lying below the 

radar on these two 'ssues and seeking to coordinate the actions to minimize public :; •ersight. Your 

efforts will b€ very. nuch appreciated. by the long time air carriers in Ketchikan. 

T::~foryoulc 

jv