0

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________

)

In the matter of the )

Application of )

)

SCOTT AIR, LLC ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0178

)

For a certificate of public convenience )

and necessity under 49 U.S.C. § 41102 )

to engage in interstate scheduled air )

transportation of persons, property and mail )

__________________________________________)

RESPONSE OF THE KETCHIKAN CARRIERS

TO THE ANSWER OF SCOTT AIR, LLC

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

 Hank Myers

P.O. Box 7142

 Bellevue, WA 98008-1142

 (425) 429-3454

 hank@mtcworld.com

June 24, 2013
1

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________

)

In the matter of the )

Application of )

)

SCOTT AIR, LLC ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0178

)

For a certificate of public convenience )

and necessity under 49 U.S.C. § 41102 )

to engage in interstate scheduled air )

transportation of persons, property and mail )

__________________________________________)

RESPONSE OF THE KETCHIKAN CARRIERS

TO THE ANSWER OF SCOTT AIR, LLC

The Answer of Scott Air, LLC (Scott) is not only one more missed opportunity for Scott to make the 

required case for its certification, it is yet another example of the inability of Scott to comply with 

regulations. Scott’s continuous flouting of regulations and requirements, with which every other air 

carrier has complied, not only demonstrates its lack of compliance disposition, but also calls into serious 

doubt the managerial competence of a group that refuses to accept either its own violations or the 

requirements for curing those violations.
2

The Ketchikan Carriers filed a Motion to Dismiss in this docket, and that Motion was posted on the 

Docket Section website on June 5, 2013. 14CFR302.11(c) requires that answers to a motion must be 

made “Within seven (7) days after a motion is served.” Seven working days after June 5 is June 14. 

Scott’s Answer neither acknowledges that it is filed late, nor does it ask for leave to file late. The Answer 

is dated June 17, 2013, and was received by U.S. Mail by the undersigned on June 20, 2013, and has still 

not been posted on the Docket Section website. The Ketchikan Carriers herein respond to Scott’s 

Answer assuming that it will be filed with the Docket Section, and request leave to file this otherwise 

unauthorized document due to the false, misleading, and vacuous nature of the Answer.

WHAT THE ANSWER SAYS

Scott complains that the Ketchikan Carriers have engaged in a ten month campaign, instigating a 

“veritable barrage of opposition to Scott”. For example, the Carrier filed an informal complaint against 

Scott “which resulted 6 month[sic] ago in Order 2012-12-16. That order upheld each and every issue the 

Carriers complained of, and found that Scott had violated the rules and regulations of the Department 

as well as Federal law. A fine was imposed, part of which depends on Scott complying with all D.O.T. 

regulations in the future. As it has failed to comply with 14CFR204.3(t), the Carriers request that the 

remaining fine be applied.

Scott says the Carriers “improperly attempted on several occasions to make reservations knowing that 

could not be made”. In fact, the Carriers made five reservations, each of which was accepted by the 

online reservation system. The first reservation was made by the undersigned, was accepted, and the 

payment accepted and never refunded. This reservation was part of the evidence of Scott’s illegal 

activities and was quoted in Order 2012-12-16 finding Scott in violation and assessing penalties. After 
3

the Order was issued, the undersigned waited three weeks to allow Scott to comply with Department 

requirements, and then submitted another reservations request using all of the same passenger and 

credit card information. The reservation was accepted and money transferred into Scott’s accounts. A 

day later the reservation was rescinded manually. The next test was to see if anyone not named Hank 

Myers could make a reservation clearly involving interstate commerce. Three reservations were 

attempted, three were accepted, and three payments were transferred into Scott’s accounts and remain 

there today. It is indicative of Scott’s compliance disposition that it seeks to blame the parties making 

the reservations for the violations. Scott says that the Carriers “improperly attempted...to make 

reservations knowing that could not be made.” Aside from being grammatical gibberish, it seeks to 

place the burden of compliance on the passenger rather than the carrier.

Scott faults the Carriers for objecting after the issuance of a Show Cause Order, but that is the purpose 

of the Show Cause Order, to make findings and seek objection. Furthermore, the Carriers were waiting 

to see if its informal complaints were found to be valid. Had Enforcement found that there were no 

violations, the Carriers’ complaints of poor compliance disposition and managerial fitness would have 

been groundless. Once the complaint was upheld on every basis, an objection was filed.

WHAT THE ANSWER OMITS

In its objections to Order 2013-1-12 filed nearly five months ago, the Carriers clearly documented that 

Scott had not complied with the specific requirements of 14CFR204.3(t)(2). Scott did not provide 

quarterly breakdowns for its forecasts, it did not show any load factors, either passenger or total, nor 

did it provide the required peak load factor data. It did not provide any information on how “...the 

underlying traffic forecasts were made”, or “...an explanation of how the estimated costs and revenues 
4

were developed”. Without these data and information, it is impossible to determine the feasibility of 

the proposal, as well as the managerial competence and compliance disposition. Scott describes this as

“the usual mish-mash of distortions and misrepresentations of fact.” More importantly, it failed again 

to provide any of the missing but required data.

A new argument was raised in the Motion to Dismiss, and that was also ignored by Scott. The 

undersigned has been working with Enforcement to determine the interpretation of the phrase 

“operating pursuant to a published schedule”. Previously, the Carriers had complained only of the 

number flights specifically listed in newspaper ads and on Scott’s website. In reviewing Enforcement 

cases as well as interpretation letters issued by F.A.A. Counsel and accepted by the D.O.T., it is clear that 

Scott has historically operated a significant number of flights between Ketchikan International Airport 

and several fishing lodges that were operated pursuant to a published schedule. In each case the 

carrier, Scott, advised the passengers in advance of booking of the departure time of the available flight 

before accepting the booking. This practice, informally known as “seat fares” is operating pursuant to a 

published schedule. Scott should have included all of these operations in its service proposal and 

economic forecasts, including the need to working capital.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The Ketchikan Carriers gave Scott Air several months to cure the deficiencies of its application and 

comply with the requirements of 14CFR204.3. Having seen no apparent attempt by Scott to respond, 

the Carriers properly filed a Motion to Dismiss. Although filed late, if at all, Scott has Answered as 

allowed by 14CFR302.11. The Motion is ripe for decision, and has procedural precedence. 
5

Scott’s Answer contains no refutations of the factual arguments raised by the Carriers. Scott did not 

refute that it had not complied with 14CFR204.3, nor did argue that the regulation did not apply, nor did 

it provide in any form the required data and information. Scott did not refute the allegation that it had 

engaged in operations pursuant to a published schedule which were neither reported nor included in its 

operational and financial projections. Scott’s Answer is entirely silent on these issues.

Based on the proof offered and Scott’s lack of refutation, the Department must conclude that Scott has 

not complied with appropriate regulations and has not filed information sufficient to support a finding 

of fitness. The Department must now rule on the Motion based on the unrefuted facts on the record, 

and dismiss Scott’s application.

The Carriers have long documented Scott’s cavalier attitude toward regulatory compliance, but perhaps 

the best example is on the first page of the Answer when Scott complains of the Carriers’ conduct in 

insisting that Scott comply with 14CFR204.3. Scott says, “This conduct has unnecessarily and improperly

burdened the resources of both the Department and Scott.” We will let the Fitness Division determine if 

it is burdened by having to review a complete submission of data, but clearly Scott is asserting that 

complying with the certification requirements is unduly and improperly burdensome for it. This is the 

same attitude Scott displayed when it was in violation of law and regulations last year, which led to the 

Enforcement action against it. Nothing has changed. Scott is clearly unfit to be certificated.

WHEREFORE, the Ketchikan Carriers request the Department to dismiss the application of Scott Air for a 

certificate of public convenience and necessity in this docket immediately. Scott has caused immense 

harm to certificated carriers who willingly and successfully complied with all requirements, and every 

day of Scott’s service increases the damage. All procedural steps are complete, with Scott having filed 
6

an Answer which left unrefuted all factual allegations. The Carriers also ask that this Response be 

accepted although otherwise unauthorized.

Respectfully submitted,

Pacific Airways, Inc. and PM Air, LLC

___________________________________

By Hank Myers, authorized representative

June24, 2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Response of the Ketchikan Carriers 

upon all parties to this document by First Class U.S. Mail.

_________________________

Hank Myers

June 24, 2013