BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

In the matter of the application of ) 

) 

WINGS AIRWAYS INC. ) DOCKET DOT-OST-2010-0023 

) 

For a certificate of public convenience) 

And necessity under 49 USC 41102 ) 

REPLY OF WINGS AIRWAYS INC. 

TO CORRESPONDENCE OF AIR EXCURSIONS, LLC and 

ALASKA SEAPLANE SERVICES LLC. 

DATED MARCH 15,2010 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Holly Johnson 

Wings Airways 

2 Marine Way #175 

Juneau, AK 99801 

(907) 586-6275 

holly@wingsairways.com 

March 29, 2010 
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 ofpublic convenience) 

And necessity under 49 USC 41102 ) 

) 

I 

REPLY OF WINGS AIRWAYS INC. 

TO CORRESPONDENCE OF AIR EXCURSIONS, LLC and 

ALASKA SEAPLANE SERVICES 

DATED MARCH 15,2010 

Wings Airways, (Airways), hereby replies once again to the untimely, unsubstantiated and 

dilatory objections written by Hank Myers and purportedly submitted by Craig Loken of Alaska 

Seaplane Service, LLC, (ASS), and Michael Loverink ofAir Excursions, LLC, (AirX). 

Furthermore, Airways objects to the Department's acceptance of Myer's untimely petitions and 

objections. None ofthe four objections filed by Myers in this docket, two on behalf ofASS and 

two on behalf ofAirX, have been submitted in a timely fashion and none ofthe four objections 

have been signed by those persons purporting to have submitted them. Furthermore, Airways 

has not received copies the two most recent objections; but had to find them on the 

www.regulations.gov website. Both ASS and AirX provide poor excuses for the late-filed 

objections and then neither signatory authored, signed nor submitted the objections. We are 

submitting our comments within a 10 day period of discovering the second objections on the 

above website. The Department has rules and guidelines in these proceedings and all parties 

offering comment should follow those rules. 

It is obvious to Airway's owners and should be obvious to the Department that Hank Myers has 

authored and submitted all four of the dilatory objections. Myer's name appears as the 

author/submitter on each ofthe pdf documents filed. Airway's owners, being familiar with 

Myers, having worked both sides ofregulatory issues with him and knowing he enjoys being 
paid by the word, objects to the unwarranted claims, the conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated 

allegations Myers has written on behalf of his clients. Airways will provide some examples. 

In the first paragraph ofthe AirX objection Myers states, "In its answer to the Application of 

Airways, Air Ex showed that Airways does not have access to the five aircraft it claims in its 

application... " And again, in the second paragraph ofthe ASS objection Myers states, "To 

begin with, Seaplanes' concern that Airways does not have possession and control ofaircraft 

listed in their application is true. Although Airways certified under penalty ofperjury they that 

have five specific wheeled aircraft in theirfleet, it now agrees that it doesn't possess or control 

those aircraft. " 

Myers cannot show the Department that Airways "claimed it had" or "possessed and 

controlled five wheeled aircraft" in its fleet as Myers purports and misconstrues. In its initial 

application, Airways was and continues to be forthright with the Department. (See Airways' 

Application # f., # j., # n., Appendix F and Appendix L) What Airways clearly said was, "The 

reasoning andpurpose behind this application ... is multi-faceted and in large part a defensive 

strategy to protect the current markets served by AJA should a disruption occur, to protect the 

jobs ofcurrent Wings ofAlaska employees should a disruption occur, to keep the five Wings 

Airline Services Capstone equipped aircraft serving the markets should a disruption occur and... 

The previous owners ofAJA are also owners ofWings Airline Services...that owns and leases to 

AlA the entire fleet ofaircraft currently utilized by Wings ofAlaska in Southeast Alaska. The 

aircraft leases between AJA and Wings Airline Services are scheduled to terminate March 31, 

2010. 

Myers assertions in both objections that Airways "claimed" it controlled and possessed five 

wheeled aircraft under "penalty of perjury" is typical Myers sophistry at its highest and should 

be summarily dismissed by the Department. 

As Myers speculates on the relations between the companies identified in the Airways' 

application, he continues to make statements and allegations that have no basis in fact. For 

example Myers states, "When the Airways certificate application wasfiled, Wings Airline 

Services was negotiating a new aircraft lease deal withAlaska Juneau Aeronautics." Myers has 

absolutely NO knowledge to make such an allegation. In fact Airways is told by the principal 

owner of Wings Airline Services, a party to any negotiations between AJA and Airline Services, 

that Myer's statement is not factual. Myers goes on to have a problem with Airways' Appendix 

K and L, stating, "The application goes so far as to list the financials ofAirline Services as a 

supporting document. The Department should require a list ofshareholders ofWings Airline 

Services, not only to comply with 204 requirements, but to judge the veracity ofAirways 

statement that, "Wings Airwavs is not privy to copies ofcurrent lease agreements [between 

Airline Services and AJA" as they are between two private entities. " 
Once again, Myers is attempting his dilatory tactics requesting the Department to expand the 

requirements of204.3(f)(5) and 204.3(g)(4)(ii). In its initial application, Airways went well 

beyond what is required in 204.3(f) and (g) as respects shareholders, directors, officers, key 

personnel, experience, expertise, responsibilities and identifying the only Airways' shareholder 

who owns a substantial interest in another business engaged in aeronautics. 

Meyer spends nearly half his 8 page AirX objection raising conspiracy theories and then argues 

with himself over the probability or validity ofthe theories he has raised. He raises similar 

issues in the ASS objection stating, "Next, the Department must determine what collusive or 

control relationships exist between Airways andAJA." In the AirX objection Myers states, "The 

lack ofdefinitive information about the three-way relationship among the applicant Airways, the 

already certificated carrier AJA, and the aircraft leasing business Airline Services leads to a 

couple ofplausible motivations. The timing ofthe Airways application, and its repeated 

reference to the stalled negotiations between Airline Services andAJA, and the contingent nature 

ofits request would lead one to believe that the real purpose ofthe application is to gain better 

lease terms for commonly ownedAirline Services from AJA." And then Meyer argues against 

that theory by stating, "The fact that AJA has denied it is giving up the five aircraft, combined 

with the continuedpursuit ofcertification by Airways seems to weigh against this theory. " 

Wings Airways and Wings Airline Services can assure the Department that the real purpose of 

the Application is as stated in the initial Application and NOT to gain better lease terms. Nor do 

any of Myers speculative theories have any basis in fact. Airways can also assure the 

Department, under "penalty of perjury", that there are absolutely no "collusive or control 

relationships" existing between Airways and AJA. They are two very distinct, separately 

managed entities. 

Then Meyer goes on to offer yet another speculative theory which holds absolutely no merit; 

"An alternate possibility is that this application is simply the result ofcooperation among 

Airways, AJA andAirlines Services to provide a lowest cost resolution ofall ofthe claims, 

counter-claims and business plans ofthe three entities. According to statements made by 

Airways, Airline Services leases aircraft to AJA, but would like to lease the same aircraft to 

Airways ifAJA ceases service in Juneau. AJA serves Juneau, but its primary pool ofbusiness is 

in the lower-48, including Essential Air Service in three states. A principal investor in AJA owns 

the Juneau hangarjointly used by AJA andAirways. Airline Services has suedAJA over the 

terms ofits current leases, and one ofthe aircraft was returned. A third Caravan used by AJA 

was returned to its leaseholder (Kenmore Aviation). It appears that AJA is scaling back its 

operations in Juneau and may be preparing to abandon service there. By having a preferred 

successor, AJA can coordinate a changeover ofservice. Airlines Services would have its 

preferred lease, and a possible settlement to the law suits between AJA and Airline Services. This 

theory ofcooperation among the three entities is underscored by the increased number ofAJA 

employees who have left to assist Airways in preparationfor certification, and the fact that AJA 

has not objected to the certification ofAirways. " 
It's difficult to even address Myers' manage-a-tois theory. No matter, this theory is profoundly 

false. As Airways stated in its Application, there are disagreements between the parties. 

Airways can assure the Department there is NOT any collusive, clandestine, or cooperative 

agreement to ease Airways into and AJA out ofthe Southeast Alaska market as Myers theorizes. 

These are challenging times for all parties involved, primarily resulting from the Bankruptcy 

filing in Oregon discussed in Airways' initial application. There are a number of good, longterm and valuable employees who have left Wings ofAlaska and their departure is a significant 

loss to the commuter operations of Southeast Alaska. As Airways stated in its Application, ifthe 

operations ofAJA experience a service disruption due to lack of aircraft, employees or both, 

Airways, with timely certification, will be able to fill that significant void, which will occur in 

the markets, as well as protecting a significant number of valuable jobs. 

Airways has reviewed the projections objected to by Myers, believes they are very attainable and 

stands by them. Given the current environment, Airways anticipates the traffic and revenue 

projected in its application to be realistic. Furthermore, Airways has analyzed and accurately 

depicted its anticipated expenses in its initial application as the current and expected expense on 

airport float docks, downtown waterfront, hangar expense, accounting, computer, drug program, 

etc have been identified. 

Airways' owners are not paid by the word to refute Myers speculative theories, unsubstantiated 

allegations and dilatory maneuvers. Airways has provided the Department complete and 

accurate data addressing all requirements set forth in paragraphs (a) through (v) of section 

204.3. Through its application, Airways has clearly demonstrated it has exceptional expertise in 

its ownership and key personnel. Over the last seven years, Airways has proven it can operate a 

safe and profitable airline. Airways has the fmancial fitness and demonstrated responsibility to 

successfully operate a commuter airline in the markets proposed, markets the Wings Airways' 

owners have served safely and successfully for many years. Because Myers and his clients want 

to delay Airways certification should not be reason for further delay. Should the Department 

require additional or clarifying data to support a fitness determination; Airways will provide it to 

the Department, immediately upon request. The Department may also contact Robert Jacobsen, 

principal owner of Wings Airline Services for additional data to support a fitness determination. 

This reply to Hank Myers' objections on behalf of his clients Alaska Seaplane Service, LLC and 

Air Excursions, LLC has been written by and submitted on behalf of Wings Airways owners. 
Wherefore. Wings Airways respectfully requests the Department make a fmal determination in 

this proceeding by awarding Wings Airways certification for commuter air carrier authority. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Holly A. Johnson, President 

Wings Airways Inc 

2 Marine Way, Suite 175 

Juneau, Alaska 99801 

(907) 586-6275 

holly@wingsairways.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify a copy ofthe foregoing reply of Wings Airways Inc has been served this 29th day 

ofMarch 2010, upon all persons listed on the Certificate ofService within the Wings Airways 

Inc. application. 

Holly A. Johnson