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 publi c 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 , 20101 BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT O F 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 nec essity under 49 US C 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 t o 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 rel ies 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 earlie r.

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 tru e. 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 fa ct Airways already has se veral aircraft available in their fleet, and that those planes could be2

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 F ountain Village Development, an Oregon company owned by the princip al 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 l ease 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 ha s 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 qualifie d 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 tr aining 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 faci lities 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 employ ed 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 current ly 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 t he 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 A irways 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 the3

joint good will and coope ration 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 t he 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 ver bal 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 , 20104 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I ce rtify that I have this day had a copy of th e 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 L oken

March 15 , 2010