BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

____________________________________

)

In the matter of the application of )

)

WINGS AIRWAYS ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2010-0023

)

For a certificate f public convenience )

And necessity under 49USC41102 )

____________________________________)

REPLY OF ALASKA SEAPLANE SERVICE, LLC

TO ANSWER OF WINGS AIRWAYS

AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AN OTHERWISE UNAUTHORIZED DOCUMENT

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Craig Loken

Alaska Seaplanes Services

1873 Shell Simmons Drive

Juneau, AK 99801

(907) 789-3338

akseaplanes@alaska.com

March 15, 2010
1

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

____________________________________

)

In the matter of the application of )

)

WINGS AIRWAYS ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2010-0023

)

For a certificate f public convenience )

And necessity under 49 USC 41102 )

____________________________________)

REPLY OF ALASKA SEAPLANE SERVICE, LLC

TO ANSWER OF WINGS AIRWAYS

AND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AN OTHERWISE UNAUTHORIZED DOCUMENT

Alaska Seaplane Service, LLC (Seaplanes) petitions to file this reply to Wings Airways 

filing dated February 26, 2010. Wings not only failed to answer the objections of 

Seaplanes, it also failed to cure the deficiencies of its initial application. While admitting 

that it has no wheel plane on hand, it relies on its hefty bank account to cover it 

omissions. This filing addresses those deficiencies. The owners of Seaplanes have been 

out of town on personal business and a family matter since the end of February, and 

could not have filed this response earlier.

The Answer of Wings Airways (Airways) underscores the accuracy of comments filed by 

Alaska Seaplane Service (Seaplanes). To begin with, Seaplanes’ concern that Airways 

does not have possession and control of aircraft listed in their application is true. 

Although Airways certified under penalty of perjury they that have five specific wheeled 

aircraft in their fleet, it now agrees that it doesn’t possess or control those aircraft. Even 

more, it claims that it has no specific knowledge of the status of the lease of the aircraft to 

Alaska Juneau Aeronautics. This seems a dubious claim given that at some point prior to 

application Airways felt sufficiently knowledgeable of the status of the leases to claim 

possession and control of the aircraft.

Airways says the actual aircraft to be used aren’t important because it has lots of money 

and believes it can find other aircraft. This underscores Seaplanes concern that in fact 

Airways already has several aircraft available in their fleet, and that those planes could be 
2

used to begin seaplane service. If the Department were to certificate Airways even 

knowing it has no wheel planes, what assurance is there that Airways would not use its 

current fleet to service other markets not currently proposed? Airways did not address 

Seaplane’s concern about this bait and switch.

On the matter of the lease of hangar space, Airways claims it has a solid lease on the 

current hangar. The hangar is owned by Fountain Village Development, an Oregon 

company owned by the principal backer of “rival” carrier Alaska Juneau Aeronautics. 

Moreover, Fountain Village is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Fountain Valley has the right to 

terminate the lease with Airways under bankruptcy law. It would seem that a valid 

reason to terminate the lease with Airways would be the fact that Airways would compete 

directly with AJA, which is commonly owned in part by the Fountain Village principal. 

The response from Airways is that there is vacant property available on the Juneau 

Airport, and Airways has a lot of money.

On the matter of the pilots, the point Seaplanes is making is that there is no startup 

expense associated with training and qualification of pilots. Airways justifies this 

exclusion by saying that most of the current pilots are qualified in the aircraft proposed. 

That may be true, but if Airways assigns pilots currently flying seaplanes in its tourist 

operation to scheduled wheelplane service, it will have to hire, train and qualify 

replacement pilots for the seaplane service. These training and qualifying expenses, in 

whatever aircraft, will be a direct result of operating certificated service. Airways 

responded to the various claims about unspecified startup expenses by stating that it has a 

lot of money.

On the issue of ground facilities at Juneau and the out points proposed for wheel plane 

service, Airways simply says that it believes such facilities will become available. It did 

not include the cost of locating, obtaining and setting up these locations in its startup 

expenses but states that it has a lot of money in any case.

Finally there is an elephant in the room that Airways is unwilling to address. That 

elephant is Alaska Juneau Aeronautics. As noted in the application, several of the 

principals of Airways were employed by AJA, and recently left AJA to prepare for 

certificated operations by Airways. Most of the pilots employed by Airways also fly for 

AJA. Airways shares a hangar and freight facilities with AJA. Airways claimed that it 

had control of five aircraft currently being leased to AJA. The counter space available 

for Airways at the Juneau Airport is right next to the AJA counter. One might suspect 

that AJA, which will suffer directly if Airways is certificated, might object in some way 

to this application. AJA has objected strongly to other certificate applications. 

Before the Department can even consider the validity of the claims made by Airways, it 

must first determine who actually has the lease on the two Caravans and three Cessna 

207’s claimed by both Airways and AJA. Next, the Department must determine what 

collusive or control relationships exist between Airways and AJA. As stated in our 

original Answer, the successful operation of the business plan of Airways depends on the 
3

joint good will and cooperation of Airways, AJA and Wings Airline Services. Nothing in 

the response from Airways refutes this contention.

WHEREFORE, 

Alaska Seaplane Service, LLC respectfully requests that analysis and consideration of the 

Airways application be delayed until the questions concerning aircraft leases, hangar 

leases and any cooperative arrangement between Airways and AJA are documented. At 

the minimum, signed leases for the aircraft and hangar should be submitted, and an 

explanation of any formal, informal or verbal agreements between Airways and AJA is 

provided. Finally, the deficiencies of the application must be cured and a new 

certification provided. We know that the existing application includes false, misleading 

and incomplete information, contrary to the language of the certification. Airways should 

not rely on having a lot of money to cure these deficiencies.

Respectfully submitted,

Alaska Seaplane Service, LLC

_________________________

By Craig Loken

March 15, 2010
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have this day had a copy of the foregoing Reply of Alaska Seaplane 

Service, LLC served upon Wing Airways and all persons listed in the Certificate of 

Service appended to the application by first class mail.

_________________________

Craig Loken

March 15, 2010