Todd C. Emerson, #8175 444 South River Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 Attorney for SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

# RECEIVED SEP 

## -8 2014 HEARING DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASIDNGTON, D.C. In the Matter of: SkyWest Airlines, Inc. FAA Case No. 2012NM060030 DMS No. FAA-2014-0322 SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST Judge: Richard C. Goodwin
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., by and through its undersigned counsel, responds to Complainant's Initial Discovery Request dated August 1, 2014. SkyWest's investigation is ongoing and SkyWest reserves the right to supplement or amend these Responses as its investigation proceeds, up through the time ofhearing. Finally, SkyWest, in its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("Answer") dated July 16,2014, has asserted numerous affirmative defenses and reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they arise. Notwithstanding any response or admission contained herein, SkyWest reasserts eachand every affirmative defense contained in its Answer, which Sky West incorporates herein by this reference as iffully set forth herein. INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1: Identify by name, address, and telephone number ali persons whom Sky West Airlines, Inc. knows to have personal knowledge ofthe matters alleged in the Complaint. Response: I. Joshua Clark, Captain. Mr. Clark is currently employed by Sky West Airlines and may be contacted through counsel. 2. Gregory Wilterink, First Officer. Mr. Wilterink is currently employed by Sky West Airlines and may be contacted through counsel. 3. Jessica Murray, Dispatcher. Ms. Murray is no longer employed by Sky West. Her last known address and telephone are: 1322 North Rainbow Rd. Spearfish, SD 57783. (702) 540-4312 Interrogatory No.2: Identify by title, author, present custodian, and content, all documents, including correspondence, obtained by you or in your possession, relating to the assertions inthe Complaint, your appeal, your answer, and any affirmative defenses which you anticipate raising in this matter. Response: Sky West objects to the extent that the Interrogatory seeks correspondence between SkyWest and its undersigned counsel, which is protected under the attorney-client privilege and will not be produced. Sky West further objects to the extent this interrogatory calls for communications made with the FAA as part ofthe effort to voluntarily disclose the alleged bag discrepancy, which is protected from disclosure under 49 U.S.C., 

### § 40123 and 14 CFRpart 193. 2Without waiving the foregoing objections, the following documents are in the possession of SkyWest and/or have been obtained by SkyWest's undersigned counsel: 1. All documents or other materials and writings contained in the releasable portions of Complainant's EIRs including, but not limited to the Items ofProofwhich are made a part ofsaid EIR; 2. Sky West Weight and Balance Operations Manual Standard Practice 41 00; 3. Advisory Circular 120-27E; 4. Operation Specification A098; 5. SkyWest Weight and Balance Program; 6. Load Manifest for Flight 4743; 7. Dispatch Release for Flight 4 743; 8. Sky West's response to letters ofinvestigation; 9. SkyWest Customer Service Training Bulletin 2010-14, Designated Loading Agent Responsibilities; 10. Sky West Customer Service Training Bulletin 2011-04, [UPDATED] Aircraft Loading Procedures; 11. Updated aircraft loading procedures to be incorporated into Station Operations Manual SP 5500 in Revision 18; 12. Various Internal Procedure Evaluations/Audits; 13. Bombardier CRJ Weight and Balance Manuals, 01-00-60, for the subject aircraft. SkyWest reserves the right to utilize at hearing any document not listed above for purposes ofimpeachment. Interrogatory No. 3: Identify by name, address, and telephone number, all persons whom you intend to have testify as a factual or expert witness in your defense at the hearing in this matter, and for factual witnesses, provide a detailed summary ofeach person's anticipated testimony. Response: At this point in time, SkyWest does not contemplate calling any witnesses in this matter. Ifthe FAA alleges that safety offlight was compromised by moving 39 bags from the cabin to the cargo hold, then Sky West will call an expert in rebuttal to refute those claims. Carl Salamone, who has filled that role in the past, is no longer employed by Sky West. Ifnecessary, SkyW est will identify a similar expert who can testify about the impact ofthe weight and balance discrepancies alleged on Flight 4 743. Interrogatory No.4: Identify bytitle, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 3documents which you anticipate offering into evidence or using at the hearing in this matter, and through which witness or witnesses the document will be offered. Response: At this point in time, SkyWest contemplates offering no documents related to establishing or defending liability in this matter. SkyWest will ask Judge Goodwin to take judicial notice ofall prior mitigation testimony and exhibits offered and accepted into evidence in the combined weight and balance cases previouslyheard, and currentlypending, so as to avoid repetition and furtherjudicial economy. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and SkyWest reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response up through the date ofhearing. SkyWest reserves the right to utilize at hearing any relevant document for purposes of impeachment. Interrogatory No.5: With respect to each expert witness identified in response to InterrogatoryNo. 3, specify their specific area ofexpertise, and provide a synopsis oftheir credentials, background, training and experience. Response: Carl Salamone is no longer employed by SkyWest and ithas not yet identified a similar expert to opine about the impact ofthe alleged presence of an additional31 to 39 bags on Flight 4743. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and SkyWest reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response up through the date ofhearing. SkyWest reserves the right to call an expert witness at hearing for purposes ofimpeachment. Interrogatory No. 6: With respect to each expert you expect to call as a witness, state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance ofthe facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and provide a summary ofthe grounds for each such opinion. Response: See the Response to Interrogatory No. 5, above. Interrogatory No.7: Describe with specificity all ofthe facts which you anticipate 4presenting in the course ofthe hearing in this matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of the sanction sought by the FAA in this case. Response: The alleged presence ofthe valet bags in the cargo hold had no impact on the safe operation ofFlight 4743 and did not cause the center of gravity to move outside the approved envelope or exceed takeoffweight restrictions. Factoring environmental conditions at the time oftakeoff, the maximum takeoffweight was 49,299 pounds. The flight crew calculated gross takeoffweight at I,234 pounds below the maximum takeoffweight. The additionall,170 pounds in the aft cargo compartment would not have exceeded the maximum runway takeoffweight. The flight crew also calculated a takeoff center ofgravity (CG) located at 10.14 percent mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC). An additional 390 pounds located in the aft cargo compartment would have shifted the takeoffCG to a point located at 14.52% MAC. This incident was self-disclosed to the FAA, yet received the same disproportionate penalty as the prior cases. Please refer to SkyWest's Post Trial briefs (copies enclosed), previously served upon the FAA, in the prior consolidated weight and balance cases, for a detailed recitation ofthe mitigation efforts SkyWest has undertaken to address this issue. Interrogatory No.8: For each allegation in the Complaint that is denied- whether outright or as a result ofhaving insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a belief as to the truth ofthe allegation, in whole or in part- state with specificity the facts that are the basis for that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine that the allegation in the complaint is not correct. Response: SkyWest denied Paragraph 14 ofthe Complaint because it had no employees engaged in baggage handling at SMF on December 4, 2011. No one employed by Sky West filled out a CLR or loaded or unloaded Flight 4743. Any report received by SkyWest about miscounted bags is a hearsay statement made by unidentified personnel from a third-party vendor contracted by Delta Airlines to handle ground operations in SMF. None ofthe hearsay declarants have been identified or interviewed bythe FAA. Neither the FAA nor SkyWest have evidence to verify the alleged bag miscount reported by unidentified eye witnesses. It is unknown whether Flight 4 743 5actually had additional uncounted valet bags in its cargo hold. Interrogatory No.9: For any Requests for Admissions that are denied- whether outright or as a result ofhaving insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a belief as to the truth ofthe allegation, in whole, or inpart- state with specificity the facts and evidence which are the basis for that denial as well as the inquiries taken to determine that the facts in the request for admission are not correct. Response: N/A. Interrogatory No. 10: Describe with specificity all facts and evidence you intend to rely upon in support ofany affirmative defenses raised in any Answer to the Complaint. Response: Please see SkyWest's Response to Interrogatory No.7, which is adopted and incorporated herein as its response to Interrogatory No.9. See also FAA AC 120-27E and FAA Order 2150.3B as well as SkyWest's prior arguments as to the excessiveness ofthe penalties proposed by the FAA in the consolidated weight and balance matters. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Request for Production No. 1: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to Interrogatory No.2. Response: The FAA has copies ofall referenced documents. Request for Production No.2: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your answer to Interrogatory No. 4.

6Response: The FAA has copies ofall referenced documents. Request for Production No. 3: Provide a copy of all documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 8. Response: N/A. Request for Production No.4: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 9. Response: N/A. Request for Production No.5: Provide a copy ofall documents that support your answer to Interrogatory No. 10. Response: The FAA has copies ofall referenced documents. Request for Production No. 6: Provide a copy ofall exhibits that Sky West intends to offer or will use during the hearing in this matter. Response: See SkyWest's response to Interrogatory No.4. REQUESTS FORADMISSIONS Request for Admission No. 1: Admit that, for the 12 month period ending March 2014 7Sky West had operating revenues in excess of$100 million, as shown bythe Airline Quarterly Financial Review (1'' Quarter 2014) published by the Department ofTransportation, Office of Aviation Analysis, Competition and Policy Analysis Division. Response: Admit Request for Admission No.2: Admit that, as ofDecember 31,2013, SkyWest Airlines employs more than 1,500 employees, as shown by SkyWest Airlines' 2013 Annual Report. Response: Admit Request for Admission No.3: Admit that SkyWest Airlines has the financial ability to pay the $40,000 requested civil penalty in FAA Case No. 2012NM060030/FDMS No. FAA2014-0322. Response: Admit DATED this 5th day ofSeptember, 2014.



# ~



# kt-uC~ Todd C. Emerson 

### Attorney for Sky WestAirlines

8CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 5th day of September, 2014, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Rm E11-310 Washington, D.C. 20590 {Federal Express} Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 {Federal Express} Jeffrey Harper Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 {E-mail and Federal Express}

9

# •
Todd C. Emerson, #8175 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 444 South River Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505-andMichael L. Dworkin #64047 MICHAEL L. DWORKIN AND ASSOCIATES 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, California 94118 Telephone: (415) 421-2500 Facsimile: (41 5) 421-2560 

# •rtECElVED SEP 

## -8 2014 

## HFAR\NG DOCKET

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter of:
SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. F AA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

### Introduetion This consolidated matter concerns five flights over a three-month period from November, 2010 to February, 2011, in which the numbers ofbags offloaded from each ofthe respective

# • • flights did not conform to 

### the numbers ofbag reflected on the flight crew copies ofthe Cargo Load Report (CLR). Safety offlight was neither affected nor compromised, as any weight discrepancies were norninal.and 

### iuld no effect whatsoever on the weight and balance, or performance and handling, ofthe aircraft. Specifically, the FAA has alleged: On November 17, 2010, SkyWest operated Flight 6573 on a flight from Denver, Colorado (DEN) to Hayden, Colorado (HDN), carrying among other things, 3 heavy bags, but only counted and/or recorded I in its Cargo Load Report ("CLR") (FAA Case No. 2011NM060010/DMS No. FAA-2011-0486); On November 22, 2010, SkyWest operated Flight 4659 from Billings, Montana (BIL) to Salt Lake City, Utah (SLC) and carried 38 standard bags and 2 heavy bags, but counted and/or recorded 40 standard bags in its CLR (FAA Case No. 2011NM060011/DMS No. FAA-2011- 0485); On December 14, 2010, SkyWest operated Flight 6692 from Los Angeles, California (LAX) to San Diego, California (SAN) and carried, among other things, 19 standard bags and 1 heavy bag, but the CLR listed 20 standard bags and 

### 5heavy bags (2011NM060011/DMS No. F

AA-2011-0485); On December 15,2010, SkyWestoperated Flight 4800 from LAX to SAN, loading 43 standard bags, 4 heavy bags and 12 planeside valet bags, but the CLR listed 59 standard bags (2011NM060011/DMS No. FAA-2011-0485); and On February 11, 2011, SkyWest operated Flight 4451 from SLC to Casper, Wyoming (CPR), and the CLR neglected to list I heavy bag (2011NM060033/DMS No. FAA-2011- 0680/0779). For these alleged violations, the FAA contends that SkyWest violated its Operations Specifications (OpSpecs), in violation ofFAR's 119.5(g) 1 

### and (Ii; 

### operated flights without load 1 119.S(g)- 

### No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. F AA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779

POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page2

# • •
manifests accurately reflecting the weights ofcargo and baggage, in violation ofFAR 121.693(a); operated aircraft when the total weights were not computed under approved procedures, in violation ofFAR 121.693(c) and operated aircraft which had not been loaded in accordance with an approved schedule, 

### in violation ofFAR 121.693(d)3 

### and seeks the assessment and imposition of$165,000 in civil penalties (or $33,000 per flight). SkyWest contends that the alleged violations have not been proven4 

### and that even ifsuch is the case, the proposed sanction is excessive, unwarranted and unreasonable. To keep these allegations in their proper perspective, during this very same period of time, SkyWest operated some 120,000 flights and carried some 5-6 million items ofbaggage, all without incident. As do many US-certificated air 

### carriers, SkyWest utilizes an average weights program to govern the loading and computation ofweight and balance ofits aircraft.l SkyWest's Weight may operate as a direct 

### air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation ofany deviation or exemption authority, ifissued to that person or that person's representative. 2 

### 119.5(1)- No person may operate an aircraft under this part, part 

### 121 ofthis chapter, or part 135 ofthis chapter in violation ofan air carrier operating certificate, operating certificate, or appropriate operations specifications issued under this part. 3 

### 121.693 - The load manifest must contain the following information concerning the loading of the airplane at takeofftime: (a) 

### The weight ofthe aircraft, fuel and oil, cargo and baggage, passengers and crewmembers; (c) 

### The total weight computed under approved procedures; and (d) 

### Evidence that the aircraft is loaded according to an approved schedule that insures that the center ofgravity is within approved limits. 4 An 

### Order Granting in Part Complainant's Motion for Decision was issued in FDMS No. FAA2011-0486, as to the issue ofliability in that matter involving SkyWest Flight No. 6573 on November 17, 20 I

### 0. That flight was allegedly operated with 3 heavy bags on board, while only 2 had been recorded on the CLR, the issue ofsanction has 

### not been resolved. l Under Paragraph A098 ofits Operations Specifications ("OpSpecs") SkyWest is authorized to utilize average weights for passengers, carry-on personal items, planeside loaded items and checked baggage. Average weights for planeside-loaded items and standard bags are 30 pounds FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM0600!0, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 3

# • •
and Balance (W&B) Manual instructs aircraft loading personnel to write the total number of standard checked bags, heavy bags and planeside valet bags loaded onto aircraft on the CLR. SkyWest's W&B Program, upon which the W&B Manual has been based, is incorporated into SkyWest's FAA-issued Operations Specifications (OpSpecs). Complainant has asserted that ifthe numbers ofbags listed in the flight crews' CLR copies do not match the number ofbags unloaded from the aircraft, there is a

### presumption that SkyWest loaded baggage into the aircraft in violation ofits W&B Program and Manual. Complainant asserts that this presumption extends to the preparation and accuracy ofthe load manifests. In other words, 

### ifthe CLR's do not accurately reflect the numbers ofbags loaded into the aircraft, the load manifests 

### are inaccurate and in violation ofthe OpSpecs and applicable FAR's. SkyWest disagrees with this presumption, and denies that it violated its OpSpecs or the applicable FAR's. It is the load manifest itselfthat is controlling. SkyWest's OpsSpecs specifically permit last minute changes to cargo with the concurrence ofthe flight crew. 6 There is no specific requirement that the crew copy ofthe CLR be amended. It is quite conceivable that crews could have permitted last minute changes and have incorporated those changes in the preparation ofthe per item and for heavy checked bags, 60 pounds per item. Pursuant to said OpSpecs, SkyWest has published its FAA-Approved Weight & Balance Operations Manual, SP4100 (hereinafter "W&B Manual'). Although assigned a 60-pound average weight, heavy checked bags 

### are defined as luggage heavier weighing over 50 pounds, but less than 100pounds. 6 Pursuant to SkyWest's Operations Specifications, CLR's are created in duplicate, one copy goes to the flight crew and the originating station retains one copy. In cases where last minute changes are necessary, the flight crew and loading agents verbally discuss any changes to weight and balance. The Pilot in Command (PIC) will either authorize orrefuse the change and then make the necessary change to the load manifest without needing to change the CLR. The CLR copy maintained by the Station Operation will be modified. The modified copy is retained until the end ofthe day. Complainant's Exhibit C-103- Chapter 4, page 16, Standard Procedures 4100, Section 11, 

### Aircraft Loading, (B) Last 

### minute changes. See also, Hearing Transcript 147- 149:1-4. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page4

# • •
load manifests without having amended their copies ofthe CLR's. Absent some evidence that the flight crews used inaccurate information contained in their copies ofthe CLR's to prepare the load manifests, Complainant's case must fail. Case No. :Z011NM060011, DMS No. FAA-:ZOll-0485 This case involves three separate flights: Flight 46S9 on November 22, 2010, from Billings, Montana to Salt Lake City, Utah; Flight 6692 on December 14, 2010 from Los Angeles, California to San Diego, California; and Flight 4800 on December IS, 2010 from Los Angeles, California to San Diego, California. Flight 46S9 contained a CLR that accounted for two heavy bags as standard bags7, which in the worst instance would have created a 60-pound disparity in aircraft weight under the W&B Program. 8 This would have had no effect on the weight 

### and balance or the performance ofthe CRJ-200 aircraft utilized for that flight. 9 During the course ofits investigation, the FAA did not speak with the flight crew or the agent(s) who loaded the aircraft nor did it obtain the departing station's copy ofthe CLR or otherwise submit any evidence that the flight crew improperly calculated the load manifest. 10 The load manifest was not even introduced into evidence.
7 Under SkyWest's W&B Program, standard bags and planeside valet bags are assigned a 30 pound weight and heavy bags (those weighing over SO pounds and less than I00 pounds are assigned a 60 pound weight. 8 This assumes that the weights reflected in the CLR's were incorporated into the Load Manifests for each ofthese flights. However, Complainant has failed to introduce the Load Manifests and has failed to adduce any evidence that the Load Manifests incorporated the alleged CLR errors or that the Load Manifests were in any way inaccurate. 9 Hearing Transcript 79:12-16;98:2-II;IOO:IS-22;101: 10 10 Hearing Transcript 80:11-19- The FAAdid not produce any witnesses so SkyWest could not determine ifAgents asked the flight crew whether there was a last minute passenger change and ifthe PIC gave permission to replace to replace two heavy bags with two standard bags. FAA Case Nos.: 20!1NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-046S; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 

### 5

# • • Flight 6692 involved a CLR that listed one standard bag and four heavy bags that were not on the aircraft. In the 

### worst instance, the aircraft was 270 pounds lighter than 

### represented on the CLR, which iftrue, 

### might have marginally improved aircraft performance. 11 

### The FAA did not speak with the flight crew or obtain the departing station's copy ofthe CLR or otherwise submit any evidence that the flight crew improperly calculated the load manifest. 12 

### The load manifest was not introduced into evidence. Flight 4800 involved a CLR listing 59 standard bags, when 4 should have been listed as heavy bags and 12 should have been listed as planeside/valet. Planeside valet bags are given the same weight as standard bags, so there was no net change in aircraft weight. Surprisingly, if these very same bags had been kept in the cabin, they would have been assigned an average weight ofonly 16 pounds. 13 

### reducing aircraft weight by 

### 168lbs., more than eliminating the 120- pound difference that the FAA aileges was not counted. 14 

### Again, the FAA did not speak with the flight crew or the personnel who loaded the aircraft, nor did it obtain the departing station's copy ofthe CLR or otherwise submit any evidence that the flight crew improperly calculated the load manifest." The load manifest was not introduced into evidence. Case No.l011NM060010, DMS No. FAA-2011-0486 This case involves Flight 6573 on November 17, 2010 from Denver, Colorado to Yampa Valley, Hayden Colorado. A heavy bag that 

### was ofiloaded was not listed on the CLR The FAA did not produce any evidence as to 

### whether this was a recording error 

### or the product ofa last 11 

### Hearing Transcript 102:13-22;103:1;111 :13-22 12 

### Hearing Transcript 50:8-10;52:8-10;53:1-22 13 

### Hearing Transcript 91-93 14 

### Complainant alleges the load manifest accounted for four 

### heavy bags as standard. 15 

### Hearing Transcript55:12-22;56:1-3 FAA 

### Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. F AA-20 11-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779

POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 6

# • •
minute addition that the flight crew 

### had allowed. Had it been a last minute change, no change would have been required to have been made on the crew copy ofthe CLR. It is unknown whether the alleged heavy bag was counted as a standard bag. Hence the weight discrepancy could have been as low as 30 pounds but not more than 

### 60 pounds. Once again, the load manifest was not introduced into evidence. Case No.l011NM060033, OMS No. FAA-2011·0680/0779 

### This case involves Flight 445 I on February 15, 2011, from Salt Lake City, Utah to Casper, Wyoming. The FAA alleges that there was one heavy bag on the flight but none 

### was listed on the 

### CLR. The FAA did not speak with the flight crew or personnel who loaded the aircraft nor did it obtain the departing station's copy ofthe CLR or otherwise submit any evidence as to whether the flight crew allowed the heavy bag to be loaded at the last minute (which would not require a modification ofthe CLR). The load manifest was not introduced into evidence. It is unknown whether the alleged heavy bag was 

### counted as a standard bag. Hence the weight discrepancy could have been as low as 30 pounds but not more than 60 pounds. Once again, the load manifest was not introduced into evidence. In none ofthese cases did Complainant offer any evidence that the flight crews improperly calculated the load manifests using incorrect CLR's or that the load manifests were other than completely correct. 16 

### As such, Complainant's case fails.

16 

### Hearing Transcript 36:11-18 FAA Case Nos.: 20IINM060010, 201INM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. F AA-20 11-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779

POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page7

# • •
Argument 

### Preface Complainant seeks a total sanction of$165,000 in the consolidated cases, or $33,000 per flight for something that Complainant concedes does not affect safety offlight and for which Complainant's allegations may be baseless. 17 During the three-month period which this consolidated matter covers, SkyWest operated some 120,000 flights and carried some S-6 million items ofbaggage, all without incident. As SkyWest's pilot and expert11 Carl Salamone testified, computation oftakeoffweight under an average weights program, may not exactly correspond to the actual weight ofthe aircraft; 19 aircraft weight and center ofgravity and aircraft performance for each ofthe five flights fell within manufacturer's recommendations and requirements,20 and even had there been weight discrepancies between the actual bags loaded versus what was listed in the CLR's (and further assuming, solely for the sake ofargument, that the baggage weights accounted for in the CLR's had been incorporated into the load manifests (for which the Complainant offered no proof), there would have been no effect on aircraft perfonnance or safety offlight and the aircraft would have remained within its operating limitations21 Moreover, Under FAA Advisory Circular 120-27E,

### Average Weigh/Programs, which acknowledges that using actual aircraft 17 FAA Inspector McKenna testified that the load manifest could have been correct. (franscript 35:10-11 and 37:18-22). Also, see Complainant's Post-Trial Briefat p. 12: "Complainant concedes that there were no 

### actual safety consequences to Respondent's operation... Complainant does not allege that some actual 

### harm occurred... or that the operating limitations ofthe aircraft were actually exceeded...." 18 Hearing Transcript 107:18-108:8 19 Hearing Transcript 93:9-94:2 20 Hearing Transcript 94:3-95:20 21 Hearing Transcript 104:14107:2 FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 8

# • • weights are impractical, a 2% tolerance is deemed acceptable. With the exception ofFlight 4800 (FDMS No. FAA-2011-0485) all flights were within the 2% tolerance. Even with any alleged CLR errors, and asswning solely for the sake ofargwnent that any CLR errors had been incorporated into the aircraft weight calculation in the load manifest, the aircraft would have nonetheless met the AC guidance or accepted industry standards.21 In the course ofits investigations ofthese matters, the FAA failed to: • speak with the subject flight crews and the personnel who loaded the aircraft to determine ifthere were any last minute changes where the flight crew had authorized addition(s) or removal(s) of**baggag~ 1**  such that a modification ofthe flight crew copies ofthe CLR's were not necessary 24 ; -inquire whether the originating station had on file the only CLR's required 

### to be amended. While Complainant argues in its Post-Trial Briefthat the "record is devoid ofany evidence that any ofthese [authorized last minute changes] took place on any ofthe flights at issue," 2' the originating stations discard amended CLR's at the end ofthe day,26 which the FAA inspectors could have obtained; and most importantly, -demonstrate any correlation between the baggage count contained in the flight 

### crew copies ofthe CLR's and the aircraft weights listed in each ofthe load manifests. 22 More specifically discussed, infra. 21 Hearing Transcript 50:8-10;52:8-10;53:1-22 (Flight 6692); 55:12-22;56:1-3 (Flight4800); 80:11-19 (Flight 4659); 36:11-18 (Flight 4451). The Complainant did not provide any evidence or testimony that the FAA investigated with the flight crews ofFlight 6573 whether there was a last moment baggage change. 24 Complainant's Exhibit C-103 - Chapter 4, page 16, Standard Procedures 41 00, Section II, Aircraft Loading, (B) Last minute changes. 2' Complainant Post-Trial Brief, page 8, paragraph I 26 Hearing Transcript 144:3-22;145:1-10 FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 

### 9

# • 

# •
Specific Issues before the Court I. 

### Double Doeketlng ofOMS Nos. 0680 and 0779: On October 4, 2012, ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Ronnie Yoder, noting the double-docketing ofFAA Case No. 2011NM060033 under two DMS numbers (0680 & 

### 0779), assigned DMS 0680 to Judge Richard Goodwin and issued an Order apparently "closing" DMS 0779. As Judge Yoder did not assign 0779 to any other Judge, it can be presumed he assigned it to himself. Had Judge Yoder intended to keep DMS 0779 open, he could have recalled DMS 0680 from Judge Goodwin, combined 0779 and 0680, and then returned both cases to Judge Goodwin. Instead, Judge Yoder dismissed DMS 0779. Counsel for Respondent was unable to fmd any case law on point. As this is a procedural concern, not one ofsubstance, Respondent submits to the Court's discretion in resolving any outstanding concerns. 2. 

### Complainant Has Failed to Meet its Burden ofProof: Complainant has alleged that SkyWest violated its Operations Specifications (in violation ofFAR's 119.5(g) and (I); 

### operated flights without load manifests accurately reflecting the weights ofcargo and baggage (in violation ofFAR 121.693(a)); operated aircraft 

### when the total weights were not computed under approved procedures (in violation ofFAR 121.693(c)); and operated aircraft which had not been loaded in accordance with an approved schedule (in violation ofFAR 121.693(d)27). 

### To prove SkyWest violated the FAR's cited, Complainant must show that SkyWest loaded bags in a way not authorized by the W &B program incorporated into its OpsSpecs, resulting in the flight crew incorrectly calculating the aircraft's W &B, and then operating the

27 

### All pertinent FAR's are cited and quoted 

### supra. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM0600!0, 2011NM0600!1, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 10

# • • flight with an incorrect load manifest. To this end, Complainant 

### has submitted several CLR's that do not reflect the number ofoffloaded bags. Complainant suggests that because the flight crew copies ofthe CLR's did not properly reflect the baggage in the aircraft cargo area, then it must be presumed that the load manifests were incorrect. 1bispresumption is shaky, at best It is the load manifest that is controlling as there is no specific requirement that the crew copy ofthe CLR be amended to reflect last minute changes. Absent some evidence that the flight crews used inaccurate information contained in their copies ofthe CLR's to prepare the load manifests, Complainant's case must fail. Complainant would have the Court believe that the use ofCLRdata is the sole means of generating a load manifest. However, Complainant's Exhibit C-102, SkyWest's 

### Customer Service Procedures, provides that the CLR is not the only information used to calculate the load manifest Complainant did not introduce a single load manifest, testimony on how the flight crew calculated weight and balance, or more importantly, the Station Operations copies ofthe CLR's. Ifthe flight crew allowed for a last minute change, the departing stations' copies ofthe CLR's would have been the only correct CLR's amended per Exhibit C-102. 3. Complainant Failed to Prove that SkyWest Operated Aircraft 

### In Violation ofits Operations Specifications

SkyWest's W&B program is incorporated into its operations specifications. The W&B program requires that SkyWest personnel mark the number ofstandard, heavy and planeside loaded bags in the appropriate block ofthe CLR and then provide it to the flight crew who, unless there are last minute changes, use the CLR to calculate the aircraft's W&B and create the load manifest. The program allows for last minute changes--i.e. loading and unloading ofcargo, after the CLR has been completed, provided the PIC 

### has communicated with the designated loading agent about the newly requested weight discrepancy and has given authorization for the change. Accordingly, there may be instances in which the flight crew copies ofthe CLR's may not reflect the numbers ofbags, but the originating stations' will. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 201INM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 11

# • • Complainant's allegations that SkyWest operated in violation ofits OpSpecs is based solely on the flight crew copies ofthe CLR's. However, this does not mean that the load manifests 

### were incorrect or that the flights were in violation ofthe OpSpecs. Again, the best evidence would have been the load manifests and some evidence as to how the load manifests were prepared and what information was 

### utilized to compute aircraft weight and balance. Chapter 4, page 16 ofSkyWest's Standard Procedures 4100, Section II, Aircraft Loading, Subsection (B), states 

### that the designated aircraft loading agent may load or unload baggage after the CLR 

### has been completed and supplied to the flight crewl1 provided the change in weight is communicated to the PIC who in 

### tum has given his orher approval for the change. This section does not require that the flight crew's copy ofthe CLR be amended, so a last minute change could produce some prima facie discrepancy between the flight crew's copy ofthe CLR and the number ofbags oftloaded from the aircraft.

**~** While the Ops Specs clearly provide for operating flights with a bag count that is not represented on the flight crew's CLR, none ofthe FAA inspectors spoke with the SkyWest loading personnel, departing station personnel or the flight crews responsible for computing weight and balance to prepare the load manifests, nor did they review the operation ststion's copy ofthe CLR copy. The FAA did not ask flight crews how they calculated weight and balance, and specifically, whether they had authorized any last minute changes and calculated weight and balance using a verbally amended CLR, resulting in an accurate load manifest. 30 As the CLR's submitted by Complainant are not dispositive, the FAA provided absolutely no evidence to
21 So long as engine one is not operating.

**~** Hearing Transcript 147:8-22;148:1-22;149:1-4) 30 Hearing Transcript 37:18-22;36:11-18 (Agent McKenna);50:8-!0;52:8-10;53:1-22;55:12- 22;56:1-3;51:14-19 (Agent Huymh); 78:10-13;80:11-19 (Agent Gehring) FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 12

# • •
suggest the load manifests were incorrect. 31 In fact, Complainant has admitted in its Post-Trial Briefthat the load manifests could have been correct.32 There is no evidence to suggest that the flight crews on these five flights calculated the load manifests using incorrect weight and balance information, that the aircraft were loaded other than pursuant to authorized procedures set forth in SkyWest's OpsSpecs, that the flight crews did not correctly calculate weight and balance data, orthat SkyWest operated aircraft in any manner contraiy to its OpsSpecs. Complainant has failed to prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence that there were any violations ofSections ll9.S(g),(l) or Sections l21.693(a), (c), and (d). 4. The Sanction Sought in these Cases is Inappropriate and Unwarranted by the Facts While SkyWest contends that no violations occurred, the sanctions sought by Complainant are unreasonable and should be reduced. It is important to note that Complainant does not attempt tojustify its proposed penalties by applying evidence to the sanction guidelines. Each flight is simply assigned the same penalty, with no consideration ofthe myriad differences between those flights. Instead, Complainant runs through a rote recitation offamiliar cases and simply expects this court to give it deference in the penalty it has selected -without bothering to show the math on how $33,000 per flight was calculated. Itdrops the thirteen factors set forth in 

### Warbelow in a footnote without explaining how any ofthese factors moved the proposed sanction up, or down, by a dollar. No deference need be given to a number so arbitrarily chosen. 31 Other than testifying that they counted bags and compared their count to the CLR's received from the flight crews, Agents McKenna (Hearing Transcript 37: 18-22), Huymh (Hearing Transcript 54: 14-19;60: 19-22;61: 1-11) and Gehring (Hearing Transcript 80: 11-19) did not provide any testimony suggesting that the flight crews used incorrect baggage counts when calculating weight for flight planning purposes. 32 Complainant Post-Trial Brief, page 7, states that corrections to the load manifest might have been made to correctly reflect each aircrafts' loading. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. F AA-20 11-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779

POST 

### TRIAL BRIEF Page 13

# • 

# • Although Complainant is quick to argue that SkyWest has the means to pay its proposed penalty, it does not, and cannot, argue that its demand is remotely proportional to the alleged technical, non-safety, violation. Take a moment to consider that in 2011, SkyWest Inc. (Express Jet and SkyWest Airlines) reported a net 

### loss of$27.8 million 33 • By itself, SkyWest Airlines operated 602,000 flights with a profit of$58 million- or $96 per flight. Thus, in order to pay the $165,000 in total penalties for alleged miscounted bags, 

### SkyWest would have to operate 1, 719 

### flights. This penalty, which the FAA readily admits is based on non-safety and technical violations, is draconian and needs morejustification than "we get deference." No, the FAA has the burden ofshowing that its penalty is fair, reasonably calculated 

### and specifically tied to the underlying facts. It has not done that here. Instead it has ignored SkyWest's efforts to mitigate and blown past the maximum allowable penalty by alleging multiple violations, based on the same set ofunderlying facts. 

### a. Nature. Circumstance. Gravity and Extent ofthe Alleged Violation SkyWest strives for baggage count and aircraft weight and balance accuracy and its efforts to control risks associated therewith are ongoing and a top priority. However, the aircraft ramp is a very difficult work environment-it is busy, noisy, exposed to the elements and there are other factors that come into play that can alter and limit human performance. 34 Human limitations on the process ofloading and counting baggage on aircraft can make it impossible to ensure I00% accuracy.35 33 SkyWest respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge takejudicial notice of SkyWest's Form 10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2011, on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and specifically, pages 1-6, 39, 40, 45, 46 and 65 thereof, which are attached hereto as Appendix A to this Post-Trial Brief. Under 

### Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE'') 201, Courts may takejudicial notice ofcontents ofdocuments filed with an administrative agency, 

### FindWhatlnvestor Group v. FindWhat.com (lllh Cir. 2011), 658 F. 3d 1282, 1297, 

### fn 15. 34 Hearing Transcript 118:2-9 35 Hearing Transcript 124:11-22;125:1 FAA Case Nos.: 20llNM060010, 2011NM0600ll, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-20 11-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 14

# • •
True, improper aircraft loading can cause a hazard. But that is simply not the case here. The aircraft weight and balance and 

### perfonnance calculations remained well within FAAapproved manufacturer limits as it had been calculated for each flight. 36 

### Safety offlight was never at risk. Moreover, computation oftakeoffweight under an average weights program does not exactly correspond to the actual weight ofthe aircraft. 37 

### Complainant has long recognized this and has fully acknowledged that the use ofactual baggage and passenger weights is impractical, which is why the FAA allows for an average weight programs contemplated in AC 120-27E. Under the AC, the FAA has recognized that there is no implicit or automatic danger caused by small discrepancies between the aircraft weight specified in the load manifest and the actual weight ofthe aircraft. Because using actual weights is impractical, AC 120-27E allows for an average weights program wherein a 2% tolerance or 2% error is allowable. 38 

### Ofthe five flights at issue in this case, only one was outside ofthe permitted 2%, although not by 

### much.39 

### b. Degree ofCulpability SkyWest handles an estimated 23 million bags per year;40 

### the sheer volume ofmanually handled items makes it impossible to assure absolute accuracy. SEALED- Which is presumably why the FAA has agreed to allow other airlines, DELTA specifically, to have bag counts offby 

### as many as 20 bags on similar aircraft (Sealed Transcript 6:9-21; 7:5-20; 10:7-22:11:1-8)- UNSEALED 36 

### Hearing Transcript 94:3-16 37 

### Hearing Transcript 91-94: 1-2 38 

### Hearing Transcript 108:9-17;109:4-22;110:1 39 

### Hearing Transcript 110; 111; 112 40 

### Hearing Transcript 123:19-22;124:1-4 FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 

### 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 15

# • •
Under its 

### Human Factors Policy41 

### Complainant has acknowledged that it should consider error tolerance systems that take into consideration human limitations, and has done so for other airlines.42 Unfortunately, the FAA has refused efforts by SkyWest to amend its approved W&B 

### Program to provide for tolerance or variance for small miscounts in nature that result in slight differences between the actual baggage counts, the numbers ofbags reported on the CLR or the weights reported on the aircraft load rnanifest.43 SkyWest had previously requested that the FAA allow it to amend its W&B 

### Program 44 to provide for this. Although the FAA has granted such reliefto atleast one other air carrier operating aircraft ofsimilar size to SkyWest's CRJ-900's, the FAA, for no specified reason, declined to do so, evidently preferring to impose civil penalties for technical infractions having no adverse effect on safety. 4' c. Attitude; Corrective Actions Although Complainant suggests that SkyWest's corrective actions were ineffectual (Complainant's Briefat pp. 12-13), SkyWest has always been an industry leader in compliance 41 FAA Order 9550.8, publically available at http://www.hf.faa.gov/docslhforder.htm 42 Hearing Transcript 115:4-13, referencing Exhibits 4-6 43 Hearing Transcript 112:19-22;113:1-17 44 Exhibit R-4, Original W &B Program Amendment Proposal, dated March 2, 2011; in person meeting on March 3, 2011; Exhibit R-5, Follow-up Jetter dated March 5, 2011. Hearing Transcript 123:3-13. SkyWest sent multiple letters, met with the FAA in-person and provided excerpts ofOperations Manuals from other airlines that FAA had already approved forjust such an amendment. SkyWest's request sought a 60lb tolerance for the CRJ-200 and 90lbs for the CRJ-700/900. Hearing Transcript 115: 19-22; 116:18. The tolerance request was within the 2% margin specified in the advisory circular for the CRJ-200 and very close for the CRJ-700/900. The reason it made sense for the 700/900 is because ofthe approved program already in place for three bags. Hearing Transcript 118: I0-20. 4' SEALED- The FAA granted Delta Airlines a 20-bag tolerance, yet denied SkyWest a 2-bag tolerance. Sealed Transcript 7-8. -UNSEALED FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM0600!0, 2011NM0600!1, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-20ll-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 16

# • 

# •
and training. Where SkyWest sees bestpractices used by 

### other airlines, it incorporates those practices where applicable46 

### (and when allowed by the FAA). At the 

### hearing SkyWest presented extensive evidence ofcorrective actions taken to prevent and/or minimize human error in counting baggage, including, among other things, four years ofweight and balance workshops and conferences, self-audits to ensure compliance, the addition ofimproved online CLR training courses; the introduction offocus groups with frontline agents to better understand where the potential for discrepancy and error exists; enhancing basic employee training; follow-up conference calls with contract stations to ensure compliance with new procedures; and issuance and dissemination oftraining bulletins and ground operations bulletins.47 

### FAA's Salt Lake City, Utah, Certificate Management Office attended and 

### participated in SkyWest's 2009, 2010 and 2011 Customer Service Training conferences focusing on weight and balance issues. There was never any indication from them that SkyWest's training or procedures were anything other than 

### adequate. 48 

### SkyWest had monthly teleconferences with the FAA Certificate Management Office and a Principal Operations Inspector to ensure SkyWest's compliance efforts were satisfactory, and again, the FAA never offered even a hint that SkyWest's actions were in anyway inadequate.49 On 

### page 13 ofits Post-Trial Brief, Complainant cited 21 different measures taken by 

### SkyWest, claiming 14 did not work and 7 arejust a "rehash [of] previous efforts known to 

### be ineffectual". 50 

### This statement calls into question the 

### nature ofthe FAA's enforcement policy as 46 

### Hearing Transcript 172:15-22;173:1-15 47 

### SEALED Hearing Transcript 14-30 41 

### SEALED TRANSCRIPT 21:19-22;22:1-2 49 

### SEALED TRANSCRIPT 26-27 5

# ° Complainant's Post-Trial Brief, page 12-13 FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM0600ll, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 17

# • 

# • SkyWest took extensive efforts to collaborate with the FAA to ensure that its W&B Program and baggage loading and accounting procedures were adequate, since the FAA is now suggesting that 

### it was not enough." Complainant's churlish comments about SkyWest's "ineffectual" attempts at compliance show the FAA's unrealistic expectations. On multiple occasions SkyWest met and 

### worked with the FAA in formulating many ofthese corrective actions. d. Compounding ofMultiple Violations Simply adding up individual penalties for each violation can result in compounding a sanction in a disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved.52 

### When a single instance ofnoncompliance resulting in multiple violations ofgeneral and specific regulations involving the same or similar conduct, the FAA should not compound the sanction to reflect the amount of sanction recommended in the table for each regulatory violation.' 3 

### Complainant alleges that Sections 119.5(g) and 

### 119.5(1) are separate violations as each requires proofofa fact the other does not; the critical distinction being that (g) regulators operations as an air carrier and 

### 0) regulates the operation ofan aircraft. Complainant's argument is vacuous. No effort has 

### been made to set forth the different elements of 119.5(g) versus 119.5(1) or make 

### any meaningful distinction between the violations. Complainant has 

### alleged that SkyWest violated section 0) 

### for operating an aircraft in violation of its Ops Specs and section (g) for operating as an air 

### carrier in violation ofits Ops Specs. Complainant has 

### doubled its penalty on a truism: SkyWest cannot operate as an air carrier without operating an aircraft.

51 

### Transcript Hearing 155:2-22;156:1-7 52 

### FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program. 2150.3B(6)(b). General Sanction Guidance 53 

### FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program. 2150.3B(6)(c). Single Act ofNoncompliance Resulting in Multiple Violations FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 

### 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 18

# • •

e. Violation History Complainant argues that SkyWest's violation history for incidents relating to miscounted baggage suggests that SkyWest's corrective actions are ineffective and sanctions imposed to 

### date have not had a deterrent effect. This argument is without merit. As elicited above and as set forth in the FAA 

### Human Factors Policy, transporting millions ofbags every year will inevitably and unescapably result in a miss-counted bag (and unfortunately a lost bagjustwhen you need it). The FAA has 

### attended and participated in SkyWest's annual 

### Customer Service Training conferences and has 

### had monthly teleconferences with SkyWest in effort to minimize any such occurrences. It 

### is patently unfair 

### for the FAA to tell SkyWest that its training is adequate when conducted, and inadequate when the trained employees make a simple mistake. While the degree ofhazard is 

### de minimis, and the act ofmiscounting cannot be avoided, SkyWest continues to show its attitude ofcompliance by taking steps to control an uncontrollable risk. Ironically, the violation history shows, in the 

### past, Complainant took a reasonable approach to a miscounted bag, settling for penalties that were 67% less than 

### those proposed here. Now Complainant comes with treble penalties and no 

### otherjustification than "this has 

### happened before." But Complainant has shown no commonality in the alleged violations. SkyWest has 

### more than 

### l0,000 employees and is 

### regularly handled by 

### Delta Airlines and United Airlines. Complainant has not alleged that a single employee involved here was also involved in any prior violation. It

### points to 

### no common member ofmanagement. It gives no credit in its penalty calculation for the massive amounts ofenergy and resources that SkyWest has dedicated to achieving a perfect bag count. No matter what measures SkyWest takes, human error will always exist. But in order to drastically elevate a penalty on violation history alone, Complainant should at least show the same humans were involved.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 20llNM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST 

### TRIAL 

### BRIEF Page 19

# • •
f. Due deference Complainant requests substantial deference in the civil penalty it seeks, however, such deference should no longer be assumed as automatically owed. When Congress passed and the President signed into law the Pilot's Bill ofRights (PBR), Public Law 112-153, removed 

### was special statutory deference to the FAA. While specifically, PBR relates to National Transportation Safety Board reviews ofFAA actions and the instant case is before the Department ofTransportation, generally, the legislative and executive branches have made it clear that there are some limitations to due deference. With the disproportionate and draconian penalties demanded here, SkyWest's only recourse is to petition this court for relief-- and as such, this court should decline Complainant's invitation to cede its power to determine a reasonable penalty. ConclWiion In each ofthese cases, there is no evidence oflack oftraining or proficiency on the part ofSkyWest or its employees. SkyWest has promulgated extensive procedures for the loading and accounting ofbaggage in its aircraft. SkyWest has been an industry leader in training its employees--training ofwhich SkyWest is very proud and which the FAA attended and participated in. There is also no doubt that the flights were conducted with the utmost levels ofsafety and that there was no compromise in same. Assuming that the baggage counts contained in the crew copies ofthe CLR's were used to compute load and balance and the load manifest (for which the FAA has produced not one iota ofevidence In all the subject flights there are two possible explanations, either: I. A violation ofthe FAR's occurred when SkyWest loading agents miscounted bags while loading a SkyWest flight and incorrectly filled out the CLR which the flight crew used to calculate the aircraft's W&B, as alleged by Complainant; or FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 201!NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 20

# • •
2. There was no violation ofF ARs because the SkyWest Pilot in Command (PIC) simply authorized a last minute change ofthe cargo loaded on the aircraft after the CLR bad already been provided to the flight crew. The later situation is not a violation ofthe FAR's as SkyWest's OpsSpecs clearly provide that a modification ofthe flight crew's CLR is not necessary 

### ifthe PIC gives authorization to load orunload bags after verbally communicating any weight and balance changes with designated loading agent. 54 Ifnot the latter situation and the CLR's in fact contained errors, these cases all involve the simple inescapable and undeniable" factor ofhuman error. 

### In conclusion, Complainant has failed to meet its burden ofproofto show that SkyWest operated in violation ofits OpsSpecs. SkyWest did not violate the cited FAR's and the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. 

### In the alternative, ifthe Court determines that the presence ofan incorrect CLR in the flight crew's possession creates apresumption ofincorrect load manifests in violation of OpsSpecs, SkyWest submits that the $33,000 per violation civil penalty is unreasonable and excessive. To the extent that these incidents were the product ofsimple human error, no civil penalty, small or large, is going to prevent recurrence. Should the Court determine that a sanction is required, Respondent request that it be reduced for those reasons set forth above.

54 Complainant's Exhibit C-103 -Chapter 4, page 16, Standard Procedures 4100, Section II, Aircraft Loading, (B) Last minute changes. (Engine one cannot 

### be operating). 55 FAA Order 9550.8, Human Factors Policy FAA Case Nos.: 20IINM060010, 201INM060011, 201INM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 21

# • •
DATED this 22nd day ofJanuary, 2013.

Michael L. 

### Dworkin Co-Counsel for SkyWestAirlines



### FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM0600ll, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 22

# • •
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 23nl day ofJanuary, 2013, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing: POST-TRIAL BRIEF 

### was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 (FEDEX} federal Aviation Administration 800 

### Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 (FEDEX} Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Robert Spitzer, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Fax: (425) 227-1007 {FEDEX}

CAI1LIN M. 

### MILLER Legal Assistant

FAA Case 

### Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) DMS Nos. F AA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779

POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 23

# •
Todd C. Emerson, #8175 SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 444 South River Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505-andMichael L. Dworkin #64047 MICHAEL L. DWORKIN AND ASSOCIATES 465 California Street, Suite 210 San Francisco, California 94118 Telephone: (415) 421-2500 Facsimile: (415) 421-2560 

# •

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### In the Matter of:

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

### FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060010, 2011NM060011, 2011NM060033 (Consolidated) OMS Nos. FAA-2011-0465; -0486; and 0680/0779 APPENDIX A to POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Judge: Richard C. Goodwin SkyWest respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge takejudicial notice ofSkyWest's Form 10-K, dated as ofDecember 31,2011, on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and specifically, pages 1-6, 39, 40, 45, 46 and 

### 65 thereof, which are attached hereto. Under 

### Federal Rules of 

### Evidence ("FRE ") 201, Courts may takejudicial notice ofcontents ofdocuments filed with

# • •

an administrative agency, 

### FindWhat Investor Group v. FindWhat.com (ll111 Cir. 2011), 658 F. 3d 1282, 1297, fu IS. Respectfully submitted this 22"d day o 

### Michael L. 

### rkin Co-Counsel for S/ryWestAirlines

# • • UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WasbJDpn, D.C. 20549 

## FORM 10-K

**~** ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECriON 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the IIBcal year ended De<ember 31, lOll OR 0 TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITlES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For tbetransillon period hm to Commission File No. 0·14719 

## SKYWEST, INC. Incorporated under the Lawo of Utah 87·0292166 444 South River Road St. Georae, Utab 847!10 (435) 634-3000 (IRS Employer ID No.) Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the A<:t: None Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the A<:t: Common Stock, No Par Value Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes 0 No Iii! Indicate hy check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of this A<:t. Yes 0 No Iii! Indicate hy check mark whether the registrant (I) has filed all documenlll and reporlll required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange A<:t of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or such shorter period that the Registrant waa required to file such reports) and (2) baa been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes 181 No 0 Indicate hy checkmark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes Iii! No 0 Indicate hy check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in the definitive proxy statement incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K, or any amendment to this Form !O.K. Iii! Indicate by check mark whether the registrant ;sa large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a
**non~accelerated** filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of ..large accelerated filer/'

**~'accelerated** filer," and "smaller reporting company'' in Rule 121>-2 of the Exchange A<:t. Large accelerated filer Iii! A<:celerated filer 0 Non-accelerated filer 0 (Do not check if a smaller reportina company) Smaller reporting company 0 Indicate hy check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes 0 No Iii! The aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held hy non-affiliates (based upon the closing sale price of the registrant's common stock on The Nasdaq National Market) on June 30, 2011 was approximately $756,373,134. AJJ of February 10, 2012, there were 50,975,156 shares of the registranes common stock outstanding. Documents Inwrporated hy Reference Portions of the registrant's proxy statement to be used in connection with the Registrant's 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated hy reference into Part Ill of this Report as specified.

# •
SKYWEST, INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I 

# •

Cautionacy Statement Concerning Fotward Looking Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Item 1. Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Item lA. Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 18 Item lB. Unresolved Staff Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Item 2. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Item 3. Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Item 5. Item 6. Item 7. Item 7A. Item 8. Item 9. Item 9A. Item 9B. Item 10. Item 11. Item 12. Item 13. Item 14. PARI'll Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer

Purchases of Equity Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . Selected Fmancial Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................••... Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ..............•.................................... Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk ............... . Financial Statements and Supplementary Data .......................... . Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial

Disclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Controls and Procedures ......................................... . Other Information .............................................. . PARTm Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance .................. . Executive Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related

Stockholder Matters ........................................... . Certain Relationships and Related 'Ihnsactions ......................... . Principal Accountant Fees and Services ............................... . PART IV 37 39 41 60 61 96 96 98 98 98 98 98 98 Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

2

# • •

PARI' I Unte.s otherwise indicatm in this Reporr, "SkyWest," ''we," "us," "our" and similar terms refer to

**SkyWes~** Inc. and "SkyWest Airlines" refers to our wholly-owned subsidiary,

**Sky~**Airlines, Inc. Effective December 31, 2011, our subsidiary, ExpressletAirlines, Inc. was merged into our subsidiary, Atlantic SoutheastAirlines, Inc., with the surviving corporation na-.iExpressltlAirlines, Inc. (the "&presslet Combination"). In this Report,

**'~/antic** Southeast" refen to At/anti& SoutheastAirlines, Inc. forperiods prior to the Expresslet Combination, ''Expresslet Delaware" refers to ExprusletAirlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation, forperiodsprior to the Expresslet Combination, and "Expresslel" refm to Expresslet Airlines, Inc., the Utah corporation resultingfrom the combination of Atlantic Southeast and Expresslet De/aware, forperiods subsequent to the consummation of the Expresslet Combinatio11. Cautionary Statement Concemlng Forward-I.Goking Statements Certain of the statements contained in this Report should be considered "f01ward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward· looking statements may be identified by words such as ''may," "will," "expect," uintend," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "plan," "project," "could," "should," "hope/' "likely," and "continue" and similar terms used in connection with statements regarding our outlook, the revenue environment, our contractual relationships, and our anticipated financial performance. These statements include, but are not limited to, statements about our future growth and development plans, including our future financial and operating results, our plans for SkyWest Airlines and

**&pressJe~** the anticipated benefits of our acquisition of ExpressJet Delaware and the ExpressJet Combination, our objectives, expectations and intentions and other statements that are not historical facts. Readers should keep in mind that all forward-looking statements are based on our existing beliefs about present and future events outside of our control and on assumptions that may prOYe to be incorrect. If one or more risks identified in this Report materializes, or any other underlying assumption proves incorrect, our actual results wiD vary, and may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated, projected, or intended. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those described below in Item lA, Risk Factors, and the following: • our ability to achieve potential benefits from the ExpressJet Combination; • relations with our employees, including organized labor groups at ExpressJet and the impact of

labor negotiations and agreements with our unionized and non-unionized employees; • our labor and maintenance cost increasing at a faster rate than increases in our contractual

rates; • changes in our code-share relationships; • competitive practices in the airline industry, including significant fare-restructuring activities,

consolidation of major carriers (which reduces the number of potential code-share partners), capacity reductions and other restructurings by major and regional carriers; • global and ostional economic conditions; • the impact of increasing fuel prices on the airline industry; • ongoing litigation with Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"); • our ability to attract and retain code-share partners; • the cyclical nature of the airline industry; • security-related and insurance costs; 3

# • •

• weather conditions; • government legislation and regulation; • reduced utilization levels of our aircraft under our code-share agreements; • unionization efforts among SkyWest Airlines' employees; and • other risks and uncertainties listed from time to time in our reports filed with the SEC. There may be other factors that may affect matters discussed in forward-looking statements set forth in this Report, which factors may also cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed. We assume no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting these statements other than as required by applicable law. ITEM 1. BUSINESS General Through SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet, we offer scheduled passenger service with approximately 4,000 daily departures to destinations in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. Substantially all of our flights are operated as Delta Connection, United Express, Continental Express, US Airways Express or Alaska under code-share arrangements with Delta, United Air Lines, Inc. ("United"), Conrinental Airlines, Inc. ("Continental"), US Airways Group, Inc. ("US Airways") and Alaska Airlines (''Alaska"), respectively, with significant presence in Delta's, United's and Continental's key domestic hubs and focus cities. SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet generally provide regional flying to our partners under long-term, fixed-fee code-share agreements. Among other features of our fixed-fee agreements, our partners generally reimburse us for specified direct operating expenses (including fuel expense, which is passed through to our partners), and pay us a fee for operating the aircraft On December 31, 2011, Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet Delaware completed the ExpressJet Combination. Since November 17, 2011, the operations formerly conducted by Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet Delaware have been conducted under a single operating certificate issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA:'). We currently anticipate that we will complete the full integration of the operations of Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet Delaware into ExpressJet during the next few years. SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet have developed industry-leading reputations for providing quality, low-cost regional airline service during their long operaring histories. SkyWest Airlines bas been flying since 1972 and ExpressJet (and its predecesso!S) since 1979. As of December 31, 2011, our consolidated fleet consisted of a total of 732 aircraft, of which 443 were assigned to United and Continental, 268 were assigned to Delta, eight were in preparation for new code-share assignments, five were assigned to Alaska, four were subleased to affiliated entities, two were assigned to US Airways and two were subleased to unaffiliated entities. We currently operate two types ofregional jet aircraft: the Bombardier Aerospace ("Bombardier") regional jet, which comes in three different configurations (the 50-seat Bombardier CRJ200 Regional Jet (the "CRJ200"), the 70-seat Bombardier CRJ700 Regional Jet (the "CRJ700") and the 70-90-seat Bombardier CRJ900 Regional Jet (the "CRJ900")) and the 50-seat Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet ("ERJ145"). We also operate the 30-seat Embraer Brasilia EMB-120 turboprop (the "Brasilia turboprop"). We were incorporated in Utah in 1972. Our principal executive offices are located at 444 South River Road, St George, Utah 84790, and our primary telephone number is (435) 634-3000. We maintain an Internet web site at www.skywest.com. Our website provides a link to the web site of the SEC, through which our annual, quarterly and current reports, as well as amendments to those reports,
4

# • •

are available. In addition, we provide electronic or paper copies of our filings free of charge upon request. Our Operalin11 Platforms SkyWestAirlines SkyWest Airlines provides regional jet and turboprop service primarily located in the midwestern and western United States. SkyWest Airlines offered approximately 1,650 daily scheduled departures as of December 31, 2011, of which approlimately 1,110 were United Express flights, 500 were Delta Connection flights, 30 were Alaksa-coded flights and 10 were US Airways Express ffights. SkyWest Airlines' operations are conducted from hubs located in Chicago (O'Hare), Denver, Los Angeles, Houston, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, San Francisco and Salt Lake City. SkyWest Airlines' fleet as of December 31, 2011 consisted of 21 CRJ900s, all of which were flown for Delta; 96 CRJ700s, of which 70 were flown for United, 21 were flown for Delta and five were flown for Alaska; 153 CRJ200s, of which 82 were flown for United, 61 were flown for Delta, eight were in preparation for service under a code-share agreement with US Airways and two were flown for US Airways; and 45 Brasilia turboprops, of which 35 were flown for United and ten were flown for Delta. SkyWest Airlines currently conducts its Delta Connection operations pursuant to the terms of an Amended and Restated Delta Connection Agreement, which obligates Delta to compensate SkyWest Airlines for its direct costs associated with operating Delta Connection flights, plus a payment based on block hours flown (the "SkyWest Airlines Delta Connection Agreement"). SkyWest Airlines' United code-share operations are conducted under a United Express Agreement, punuant to which SkyWest Airlines is paid primarily on a fee-per-completed block hour and departure basis, plus a margin based on performance incentives (the "SkyWest Airlines United Express Agreement"). During 2011, SkyWest Airlines entered into code-share agreements with Alaska and US Airways, pursuant to which SkyWest Airlines is paid primarily on a fee-per-completed block hour and departure basis, plus a fixed margin per aircraft each month. Expresslet ExpressJet provides regional jet service principally in the United States, primarily from hubs located in Atlanta, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago (O'Hare), Denver, Houston, Newark and Washington Dulles. The combined operations of Atlantic Southeast and Express.Jet Delaware offered more than 2,100 daily scheduled departures as of December 31, 2011, of which approximately 650 were Delta Connection flights and 1,450 were Continental Express or United Express flights. As of December 31, 2011, the combined fleet of Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet Delaware consisted of ten CRJ900s (all of which were flown for Delta), 46 CRJ700s (all of which were flown for Delta), 113 CRJ200s (99 of which were flown for Delta and 14 of which were flown for United) and 242 ERJ145s all of which were flown for United or Continental. Under the terms of a Second Amended and Restated Delta Connection Agreement initially executed between Delta and Atlantic Southeast and to which ExpressJet is now a party (the "ExpressJet Delta Connection Agreement''), Delta has agreed to compensate ExpressJet for its direct costs associated with operating Delta Connection flights, plus, if ExpressJet completes a certain minimum percentage of its Delta Connection flights, a specified margin on such costs. Additionally, the ExpressJet Delta Connection Agreement provides for incentive compensation upon satisfaction of certain pedormance goals. Under the ExpressJet Delta Connection Agreement, excess margins over certain percentages must be returned to or shared with Delta, depending on various conditions. ExpressJet's Continental and United code-share operations are conducted under a Capacity Purchase Agreement between ExpressJet and Continental (the "Continental

**CP~')** and two United Express Agreements between Express.Jet and United (collectively, the "Express.Jet United Express 

# s

# • •
Agreements''), pursuant to which ExpressJet is paid by Continental or United, as applicable, primarily on a fee-per-completed block hour and departure basis, plus a margin based on performance incentives. Competition and Economic Conditions The airline industry is highly competitive. SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet compete principally with other code-sharing regional airlines, but also with regional airlines operating without code-share agreements, as well as low-cost carriers and major airlines. The combined operations of SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet extend throughout most major geographic markets in the United States. Our competition includes, therefore, nearly every other domestic regional airline, and to a certain extent, most major and low-cost domestic carriers. The primary competitors of SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet among regional airlines with code-share arrangements include Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation ("Air Wisconsin"), American Eagle Airlines, Inc.

**('~erican** Eagle") (owned by American Airlines, Inc.

**('~erican")),** Comair, Inc. ("Comair") (owned by Delta), Compass Airlines ("Compass"), , Horizon Air Industries, Inc. ("Horizon") (owned by Alaska Air Group, Inc.

**('~aska** Airlines")), Mesa Air Group, Inc. ("Mesa"), Pinnacle Airlines Corp. ("Pinnacle"), Republic Airways Holdings Inc. ("Republic") and nans State Airlines, lnc.("'nans State"). Major airlines award contract flying to these regional airlines based upon, but not limited to, the following criteria: low cost, financial resources, overall customer service levels relating to on-time arrival and departure statistics, cancellation of flights, baggage handling pedormance and the overall image of the regional airline as a whole. The principal competitive factors we experience with respect to our pro-rate flying include fare pricing, customer service, routes served, flight schedules, aircraft types and relationships with major partners. The principal competitive factors for code-share partner regional airlines are code-share agreement terms, customer service, aircraft types, fare pricing, flight schedules and markets and routes served. The combined operations of SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet represent the largest regional airline operation in the United States. However, some of the major and low-cost carriers are larger, and have greater financial and other resources than SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet, individually or coUectively. Additionally, regional carriers owned by major airlines, such as American Eagle and Comair, may have access to greater resources, through their parent companies, than SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet, and may have enhanced competitive advantages since they are subsidiaries of major airlines. Moreover, federal deregulation of the industry allows competitors to rapidly enter our markets and to quickly discount and restructure fares. The airline industry is particularly susceptible to price discounting because airlines incur only nominal costs to provide service to passengers occupying otherwise unsold seats. Generally, the airline industry is highly sensitive to general economic conditions, in large part due to the discretionary nature of a substantial percentage of both business and leisure travel. Many airlines have historically reported lower earnings or substantial losses during periods of economic recession, heavy fare discounting, high fuel costs and other disadvantageous environments. Economic downturns, combined with competitive pressures, have contributed to a number of reorganizations, bankruptcies, liquidations and business combinations among ml!ior and regional carriers. The effect of economic downturns may be somewhat mitigated by the predominantly contract-based flying arrangements of SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet. Nevertheless, the per-passenger component in such fee structure would be affected by an economic downturn. In addition, if Delta or United, or any of our other code-share partners, experience a prolonged decline in passenger load or are harmed by low ticket prices or high fuel prices, they will likely seek to renegotiate their code-share agreements with SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet, as applicable, or cancel flights in order to reduce their costs.

6

# • •

Stock Porfonnano:e Graph The foUowing Peiformance Graph and related Information shaU not be deemed "soliciting material" or "filed" with the Securiliu and Exchange Commission, nor shaU such information be Incorporated by reference into anyfuture filing undu the Securities Act of1933 or Securities &changeAct of1934, each as amended, except to the extent we specifically incorporale it by reference into suchfiling. The foDowing graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return on our common stock over the five-year period ended December 31, 20ll, with the cumulative total return during such period of the Nasdaq Stock Market (U.S. Companies) and a peer group index composed of regional and major passenger airlines with U.S operations that have equity securities traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market or the New York Stock Exchange, the members of which are identified below (tbe "Peer Group") for the same period. The foUowing graph assumes an initial investment of $100.00 with dividends reinvested. The stock performance shown on the graph below represents historical stock performance and is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance. Comparison of Cumulative Five Year Thtal Return

-- SkyWest, Inc. --r- NASDAQ Composlla $150 .....,._ Peer Group



### sso 

## ..... 

# -

**~~~** 

# ------- "---1 $100

2008 2007 20118 2009 2010 2011 INDEXED RETUIINS Baoe '"an Endlna Period CompBII]' Name /Index Dec06 DecO? Dodll Jlodl9 DeclO Doell SkyWest, Inc:. ................ 100 105.75 73.83 67.96 63.47 51.76 NASDAQ Composite 0 ••••••••• 100 ll0.26 65.65 95.19 ll2.10 110.81 Peer Group ................. 100 66.27 46.75 48.20 58.35 40.91 The Peer Group consists of regional and major passenger airlines with U.S operations that have equity securities traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market or the New York Stock Exchange. The members of the Peer Group are: Alaska Air Group, Inc.: Allegiant 1Iavel Co.; AMR Corp/DE; Delta Air Unes, Inc.; Great Lakes Aviation, LID.; Gulfstream Inti. Group Inc.; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.; JetBiue Airways, Corp.; Pinnacle Airlines, Corp.; Republic Airways, Holdings Inc.; SkyWest, Inc. Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines Inc.; United Continental Holdings, Inc.; and US Airways Group, Inc. ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA The foUowing selected financial and operating data should be read in conjunction with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report 39

# • 

# •

Selected Consolidated Financial Data (amounts In tboaaands, except per share data): Opera'!Dg

**~evenues** ............. . Operatmg mcome .............. . Net income (loss) ......•..•..... Net income (loss) per common share:

Basic ..•............... · · · · · Diluted .................... . Weighted average shares:

Basic ......•................ Diluted .................... . Thtal assets . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . Current assets ................. . Current liabilities ............... . Long-term debt, net of current

maturities . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . Stockholders' equity ............. . Return (loss) on average equity(1) .. . Cash dividends declared per common Ylar Eacled December 31, lOll 1010(1) 100!1 lOOI $3,6S4,923 $2,765,14S $2,613,614 $3,496,249 41,106 201,826 212,19S 25S,231 (27,33S) 96,3SO 83,658 112,929 $ (O.S2) $ 1.73 $ l.SO $ 1.9S $ (O.S2) $ 1.70 1.47 1.93 S2,201 SS,610 SS,8S4 S1,190 S2,201 S6,S26 S6,814 S8,633 $4,281,908 $4,4S6,148 $4,310,802 $4,014,291

1,280,464 1,379,203 1,254,099 1,220,668

624,148 S12,218 449,83S 386,604 1,606,993 1,738,936 1,816,318 1,681,705 1,334,261 1,420,923 1,3S2,219 I,21S,S21 (2.0)% 6.9% 6.4% 9.0% 1007 $3,374,332 344,S24 1S9,192 $ 2.S4 2.49 62,710 64,044 $3,990,S2S

1,210,139

398,219 1,732,748 1,246,007 13.1% share ....................... S 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.16 $ 0.13 $ 0.12 (1) Calculated by dividing net income (loss) by the average of beginning and ending stockholders' equity for the year. (2) On November 12, 2010, we completed the ExpressJet Merger for $136.S million in cash. Our 2010 consolidated operating revenues contain SO days of additional revenue and expenses generated subsequent to the ExpressJet Merger. Selected Operating Data Year Eoded December 31, lOll 10t0 1009 1001 1007 Block hours . . . . . . . . . ........... 2,250,280 1,S41,S62 1,363,257 I,376,81S 1,438,818 Departures .................... 1,390,S23 1,001,766 870,761 872,288 904,19S. Passengers carried . . . . . . . . . . . .... SS,836,211 40,411,089 34,S44,772 33,461,819 34,392,1SS Revenue passenger miles (000) . . . ... 29,109,039 20,227,220 17,448,9S8 17,101,910 17,892,282 Available seat miles (000) •••• 0 ••• 0 36,698,8S9 25,S03,84S 22,142,6SO 22,020,250 22,968,768 Revenue per available seat mile ..... lO.Oe 10.8e 11.8e 1S.9e 14.7e Cost per available seat mile . . . . .... 10.1e 10.4e 11.2e IS.2¢ !3.7e Average passenger trip length ....... S21 SOl 

## sos Sll S20 Number of operating aircraft at end of

year ...............•........ 732 704 449 442 436

The following terms used in this section and elsewhere in this Report have the meanings indicated below: "Revenue passenger miles" represents the number of miles flown by revenue passengers.

**·~vailable** seat miles" represents the number of seats available for passengers multiplied by the number of miles those seats are flown. "Revenue per available seat mile" represents passenger revenue divided by available seat miles. "Cost per available seat mile" represents operating expenses plus interest divided by available seat miles. 40

# • •

the book value of our aircraft is impaired. Based on the results of the evaluations, our management concluded no impairment was necessary as of December 31, 2011. However, there is inherent risk in estimating the future cash flows used in the impairment test If cash flows do not materialize as estimated, there is a risk the impairment charges recognized to date may be inaccurate, or further impairment charges may be necessary in the future. Stock-Based Compensation Expense We estimate the fair value of stock options as of the grant date using the Black-Scboles option pricing model We use historical data to estimate option exercises and employee termination in the option pricing model. The expected term of options granted is derived from the output of the option pricing model and representa the period of time that options granted are expected to be outatanding. The expected volatilities are based on the historical volatility of our common stock and other factors. Fair 11tllue We hold certain asseta that are required to be measured at fair value in accordance with United States GAAP. We determined fair value of these assets based on the following three levels of inputs: Levell- Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2- Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Some of our marketable securities primarily utilize broker quotes in a non-active market for valuation of these securities. Level 3- Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions. We utilize several valuation techniques in order to assess the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities. Our cash and cash equivalents primarily utilize quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. We have valued non-auction rate marketable securities using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. If a quoted price is not available, we utilize broker quotes in a non-active market for valuation of these securities. For auction-rate security instruments, quoted prices in active markets are no longer available. As a result, we have estimated the fair values of these securities utilizing a discounted cash flow model. Results 

## or Operations Our Business Segruents For the year ended December 31, 2011, we had two reportable segments which are the basis of our internal financial reporting: SkyWest Airlines and ExpressJet (which reflects the combined operations of Atlantic Southeast and ExpressJet Delaware). On December 31, 2011, we completed the ExpressJet Combination, which ended ExpressJet Delaware's existence as a separate entity. On November 12, 2010, we completed the ExpressJet Merger. Our 2010 operating revenues, airline expenses and segment

45

# • •
profit contain 50 days of Exprcssiet Delaware operating results. 'Therefore, the 2010 amounts represent Atlantic Southeast's results and 50 days of EJ:pressiet Delaware's operating results. lOll ZOlO SCiwlp .,. Cllaaae Amoaul Amount Amouat l'lor<ml Operating Revenues:

SkyWcst Airlines Operating Revenue ........... $2,002,830 $1,904,472 $ 98,358 5.2% ExprcssJet Operating Revenues ............... 1,640,837 855,095 785,742 91.9% Other Operating Revenues .................. 11,256 5,578 5,678 101.8% Total Operating Revenues 

## .................... $3,654,923 $2,765,145 $ 889,778 32.2% Airline Expenses: SkyWest Airlines Expense ................... $1,944,816 $1,813,406 $ 131,410 7.2% Expresslet Expense ........................ 1,739,623 832,043 907,580 109.1% Other Airline Expense ..................... 9,762 4,387 5,375 122.5% 'lbtal Airline Expense(!) ...................... $3,694,201 $2,649,836 $1,044,365 39.4% Segment profit (loss): SkyWest Airlines segment profit .............. $ 58,014 $ 91,066 $ (33,052) (36.3)% Exprcsslet segment profit (loss) ............... (98,786) 23,052 (121,838) (528.5)% Other profit ............................. 1,494 1,191 303 25.4% 

# -- 'lbtal Segment profit •• '0 •••••••••••••• 0 ••••• $ (39,278) $ 115,309 $ (154,587) (134.1)% Interest Income ............................ 8,236 14,376 (6,140) (42.7)% Purchase accounting gain (adjustment) ........... (5,711) 15,586 (21,297) (136.6)% Other ................................... (13,417) 630 (14,047) (2229.7)% Consolidated Income (Loss) before taxes 

## ......... $ (50,170) $ 145,901 $ (196,071) (134.4)%

**~** (1) 'lbtal Airline Expense includes operating expense and interest expense 1011 Compared to 2010 Operational Statistics. The following table sets forth our major operational statistics and the associated percentages-<Jf-changc for the periods identified below. \brEaded Dectmber 31, lOll zoto -,. Cllonae Revenue passenger miles (000) ............ . 29,109,039 20,227,220 43.9% Available scat miles

**('~Ms")** (000) ........ . 36,698,859 25,503,845 43.9% Block hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 2,250,280 1,547,562 45.4% Departures .......................... . 1,390,523 1,001,766 38.8% Passengers carried ..................... . 55,836,271 40,411,089 38.2% Passenger load factor ................... . 79.3% 79.3% 0.0 pts Revenue per available seat mile ........... . 10.0¢ 10.8¢ (7.4)% Cost per available seat mile .............. . 10.1¢ 10.4¢ (2.9)% Fuel cost per available seat mile . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6¢ 1.3¢ 23.1% Average passenger trip length (miles) ....... . 521 501 4.0%

46

# • 

# •
SKYWEST, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOUDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except per shan amoanto) 1U< lladed DecombH 31, OPERATING REVENUES:

Passenger ...................................... . Ground handling and other .•........................

Thtal operating revenues . . . . . . . .................. . OPERATING EXPENSES: Salaries, wages and benefits ........................ . Aircraft maintenance, materials and repairs ............. . Aircraft fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . Aircraft rentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... . Depreciation and amortization ...................... . Station rentals and landing fees ...................... . Ground handling services .......................... . Acquisition related costs ........................... . Other, net ..................................... .

Thtal operating expenses ......................... . OPERATING INCOME ............................ . OTIIER INCOME (EXPENSE):

Interest income ................................. . Interest expense .....................•............ Impairment on marketable securities .................. . Purchase accounting gain (adjustment) ................ . Other, net ..................................... .

Thtal other expense, net ......................... . INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE INCOME TAXES ........... . PROVISION (BENEFIT) FOR INCOME TAXES ......... . NET INCOME (LOSS) ............................. . BASIC EARNINGS {LOSS) PER SHARE ............... . DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE ............ . Weighted average common shares: Basic .•.......................... · ·. · ·. · · • · · · · · Diluted ...................................•.... ZOII $3,584,777 70,146 3,654,923 1,155,051

712,926 592,871 346,526 254,182 174,838 131,462

5,770 240,192 3,613,818 41,105

8,236 (80,383)

(5,711) {13,417) (91,275) (50,170) (22,835) (27,335) $ (0.52) $ (0.52) 52,201 52,201 ZOIO $2,724,276 40,869 2,765,145

764,933 487,466 340,074 311,909 236,499 129,537 110,649

8,815 173,437 2,563,319

201,826

14,376 (86,517)

15,586 630 (55,925) 145,901 49,551 $ 96,350 $ 1.73 $ 1.70 55,610 56,526

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements. 65 Z009 $2,582,238 31,376 2,613,614

698,326 436,039 390,739 300,773 221,548 116,312 95,805 141,877 2,401,419

212,195

11,121 (86,330)

(7,115)

1,862 (80,462) 131,733 48,075 $ 83,658 $ 1.50 $ 1.47 55,854 56,814

# • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 23nl day ofJanuary, 2013, a true 

### and correct copy ofthe foregoing: 

### APPENDIX Ato 

### POST-TRIAL BRIEF was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 {FEDEX} Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 {FEDEX} Jeffrey M. Harper, Esq. Robert Spitzer, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Fax: (425) 227-1007 {FEDEX}



# Qruft<m' I

# /JZd1uu CAITLIN M. MILLER Legal Assistant. I 

# • ·. ···.. .... . . i{ . ·. ..··

# :'J~:•;r~i~ .· ·**s~'Y\VEsTAJJU,~es.wc~**



### 444S\)uthRi

### yer R,oa!l .**$t.Jie rs~'•**  

### Uta)),**6~790** 

### .
.Tt:lepJiOll.il: · ·{435)634-3p30



### . fac;simil<i( (435}634•3505**-artd~··**

### .



### .

# Micha~IL,~~ciiwn#§4979 ......... ·. . .· .....

MICHAELL

## DW()RKIN AND ASSOClA

## TES 465 

### California Street, Suite 210 San 

### francisco,· CaUfomia 94118 Telephone: (4.15)**~21-2500** 

### ..· Facsimile: (415) 

### 421-2560 .· ·

. tlNlTEP STATES OFAMERICA · PEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

. . OFFICE. OF HEARJNOS WASf{INOTQN,D.c•. IN THE MATTER OF· SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.

. . 

### (Civil PenaltyAction)
· -CONSOLIDA'l'EO- 

## . ... ···... SEP 

# ls 2014.· .. .·

# HEA~II\JG DOCKf;T

FM CASE NO. 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FM-2012-0874 FM CASE NO. 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FM-2012-0872 FM CASE NO. 2011NM060063 

## I FDMS FM-2012-0873 FAA CASE NO. 2011NM060072 

## I FDMS FAA-2012-0869 FAA CASE NO. 2011NM060073 

## I FDMS PM-2012-0868 FAA CASENO. 2011NM0600Sl/ FDMS FM-2012-0904 . FAA CASE NO. 2011NM060095 / FDMS FM-2013-0617 FAA CASE NO. 2012NM060014 

## I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'s POST-TRIAL BRIEF

# ..

[. 

### II;

. Ill..



### IV, ·

# sAcaAali

**·cb4~iJ:,~c~BPAN~~~§~~r;N6!ia~~·R~~~Yi~~fE~t•.••···.•**

# (•···... . ·. **AIRCg.AFTWBIGH'l'i\.l'l:£181\f..ANCH,·C~NTE:RQfGRAVITYQRAIRC!{AFT**



### PERFORMANCE .. .. . .. . . . 14.


# v. VI.

VII. 

### ·::.;-::·-" " . ·---·><' :<" ·.' ·.. _:·=--.- .:·:·,.-':.-. - ·. -· '. ' -- . .·_ _--:·-:::.---:_ --.: ·-; . 

### A. 

### 'l'lle



## {liscrep~rtci~s.Were**DeMir!lin~;** 

# ·. B. Case-by-Case

**Analysl~.** 

### SKYWEST'S PROPOSEDW&B MANUAL REVISION

. - '- . - ,- .·



# SKYWEST'SCORR~CTIVE AC'I'IONS . 14 

### 18 29 

### 31 

### CONCt.USioNl-cAsES lNVOt.VlNGSIMPie



# IN~(JCENT HUMAN 

## ERIWROO NOT MBRITTHHSBVERE SANCTION 1'HATCQMPLAII\IANTSEEKS 41,

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 2011NM06o047/ FDMS I'AA-2012-0872; 2Q11NMQ60063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 20UNM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM060095/ FDMS FAA2013-0617; and 2012NM0600H 

### I FDMS FM-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page2**witnes$1!~;·<~nd.**

### W'!ding thrpugn a !llOUIJtl!il'!.

### ofd!.!Piiel!tiv!'l**I!Vi~l!nc~,. p~rhap~**  tJ!.El;•



### .

# Courtwonder~·~hiit·h~$·J~~·~··~.~~.~~···~~···~~·~~~·ik~~~~;~~~sii9~s**itpre~tu~l~** .

# ·an~~ered,qui.te.·

# cle'!rl~cih•··~ai ?,

# z6[d,•.**····irtcludlh·~··th~ rirk~** **Je~riJ~ tn~** **~LJ** ha$

# n~w**examin~d** evidence

# ofn;riete~n**~i~hti/.allof**which

# co~lllh~~i6e~q**eia~~~~d ~tth~··**  .

. first nearingin Salttake 

### City

## in OctohE!r

# zoh. B4tin

# t~l!**in~e~stb~~la;ity** and

judh;ial economy, SkyVf1!$t

# ~nd**~~iAA** aireed to

# consoli~~tetlv¢oftheninet~en flights

# <!hd~rlng two bellwet!ter cases: 

## )nthe

# ftrst.cas~.sto/w~~t··contestepfi~bility,

.In

## the second case, SkyWest contestj!donly 

## tlle siZe ofthe proposed;enalty. This· way the 

### parties could get ansWer$

# a~out**H~biUty <~nd**  sanction

# ~om a nelltraland . authoritative arbitl!r- and tl)en**resolv~**

### the remaining, identical, ceses without burdening thecourtwjthJepetitive and C\lmbersome litigation. At

### least that\\las the plan.

. . . 

### Unfort1lnately, 

### the FAA has utterly rejected this Court's prior decjslons, Notably itdid

### nat appeal

### either decision, but preferred to reprocess its arguments and take the proverbial "second bite at the apple" in thehope this Courtwill 

### reverse

FAA Ca$e Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 20ilNMd60047 / FPMS FAA·2012·0B72; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·2012-087l; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2dllNM0600iil 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 20UNM060095 

### I FDMS FAA2013-0617; and2012NM060014/ FDMS FM•2013·0619 (Con$olldatedJ 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page3•· . . 

### '

.

sanction, arguingthat the



# incre<~sed penalty



# isju~tifiedbecause**Sky~est** did not ·•·. • . learn its lesson-butonly days separatethe flights 

### fr01n



# th~ first cpnsolidated cases .. to the instaJJt casesno\Vpending,



# ~nq again,



# e~ezy flight



# predate~ the first



# h~adng, · ... ·. As always, Complainantdemands thatthis Courtgive ''due



# d!lf!lren~e"

# t; itsproposed . penalty, butComplainantgives absolutely!\Qn!lto



# ~e**Court'spr~~iousi~itial** Decisions.

. . . . . . ' . . . . The Courtwould not be burdened nowifComplainanthadproposed a penalty

. . in line, oreven in the same galaxy, i!S die prior Initial Decisions



## b~t the Complainant

. . ' . . ' . . . . . . . remains unregenerate. SttYWest comes again to ask relieffrom the draconian penalties meted outon

**technica~** non-safety violations.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060Q38 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA·2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2QliNM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012•0904; 2011NMOEi0095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Pase 4

### ;1n(llive

**anit\'111IS)Jfldri!!¢9rd.I11ilofth~**

### ..
**~llmbefll.ofsu¢h 1;~il!s** 

### tin thl!!.<:arg9

**~o~dRep&-1;$··** 

### ··

-- _-:-·:::·= ·-::=-= -: :::,:>:-; :::·:__: .= . :=- .:':,:= :·-::::: -. -,-_-,:: ;_-

**-:'i\':~~:-::::,**-=:_::.:::··,-::: :·: :-_ );_ ::.;;:_=:_:: ,:;.:::: :-.'::::__**':::::.::::"::;:-::_~:-:_·::::** .:::·.::;.:,.- ::::-:-_:_:::::'::::==:._--=:·;:::_::·::);.:'::..::-:::·=\:':'·::)C_·:;>_:.-::_=-:=:k:,·;:--,::I:·:=:-.):':.:'':::·.--::-:_:::.::;':·t=: __-::<:,:::(--::\=::·.: ::-=}·_. :_:,.:_:(:--:':- :·-.- . 

### (CLR's) on

**fourt~~n** 

### (14)

**~iglJts** 

### overan,

**~ightand, ()l)e·Ji111f{llJ%Jm~Jnth**  **peno~Jn 2P~t.**  

### · 

### Fromthe



# test(~onies**of~~~~~ ill~p~ct~~~** **~bd J6$~~e~~~e** **dffloa~ibidtbkgg~~~~k··** ..· .. 

## these



# tlights.·t6e~e**i$~q·(li~p~teth~~~~~~~&~~~;~~g~~~JiH~~~~~fb~~~~tiar~hks~•.··** flights·



# d.iffere(l·.fro~··what'~~··~eJ9r~la**o~· &~ti~~Ht~r~W~~~6J\~~···~.·~··~·~.··~~~k~·[~a4···········•·** 

# · .

. ·Reports (CLit), . HtiWe.ver,



# S~West**su6~its that~e~~Ji~cre~:ncies**  were



# ~f~r~duct of ·

. human. etror1



# ~s.the



# r~~persfoUowed apkroved



# p~;,~:~~r~$.httg~d~misfuke$,

. :' _, .- -. ·--::.:·::.: '-. - . ; - . . .. ·: . . . . .. · .·.



### ~ Compoundingiitherenthum;tit efrors in



### colil)~ng is the ramp environment i

**t~el**

### f-i,e., multiple

**actiVitie~** 

### involvingmultiple .ain;r!lllth!lt !lre.arriving, departing

**;~n(l** 

### being serviced, we<1ther and envir9omental conditions,. exposure tothe elements,

**differln~** 

### conditions oflightand d,arkness and noise, which witnesses · described as 

### hostile or chaotic (for example,pleijse see testimony ofSkyWest Manager ofGround

**Ope)'ationsTr<~ining.**

### Jay 

### Cbristensen,Tr. 428:22·429:20, 

### among several ofthe SkyWestwitnesses tq testified. t.o same), Complainantdid not contest or rebut this extensive testimony, In fi!q,SkyWest's expert, CarlSalamone (Wh9 

### holds a degree in

**~viation** 

### HumanFae1:9rs ['rr. 232]),

### testified that he ';Vas

### not surprised to see baggage count discrepancies when humans are Jqa<ling aircraft (Tr. 280:19·281:15).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM06003!1 / FDMS FAI\·2012·0874; 20l1NM060047 / FDMS FM·Z012·0872; 2011NM060063/ FDMS FAA·2012·0873; 2011NM060072/ FOMS FAA·2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA·2012-0868; 2011NM060081/ FOMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NMO!i009S / FDMS FAA· 2013·()617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA-2013-061!1

**(Con~QUdated)** 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 5

### npt ''lmpw"the

**W~ig!1t**

### ofits 11ircra,(tp.rt9rt94ePIIrt\1r'

**~I!AAU$¢ ~lo/W~~t,Ii~¢.ilil)~~~;itr!et$,**  

### ·.··•·· ·



# utill~~~···~n**at~i~~g~·~¢igh~·~f~~t~m; ~~f~h~~t~~ih** **s~W~~~~~~~~h~~,~~]~h~~ bp~r;~ti9~s** ..· .. ·

# Mllllu~l.··~r~~iai#f~~~~Jrer§~]~ioh·t~~~~.lt~~~~[;J#~~~~~~¢~i.:tW~W~aij~ll~~r·J~il··········•·•·.·. govern the ·loading



# aml.com!lu~tiPn&t~Jr~ltt**~~J ~~~n~~~g~;~;ft~~~**  **s~W~st** ¢an 

### ' ,_ -_:- -- -',- ·:-:_:: ·>· . . ..-:-·-:.-- _·-,-

**-.--:~:·.::::': ':-::::-.-::.:::,·:_::./·:,:.:::,~:::.:--**  

### ._·,:_:·_:_---::·:,--'::·:·-_.._---:__·- .--

**--~-:~-:**

### ____,_·-·--.. .-=': =:-' -- 2 

### UnderParagraplti\098



## ofits0pera~pl1s Specifltat!()n$("OpSpeC$'')SI<)IWest ·· 

### is authorized tp 

### utili:z;e avf!rage weights for

**p;~ssengers,c;p:t"¥·Pn** 

### personalltems1 · 

### · ·planeside

**lo;;~ded;**

### ite111s ;;tnd c)lec:k.ed

**baggag~.** 

### t\Yerageweighl:$. fPr "baggage

**;~r¢** 

### as

folloW$: · · ... .... · . .· .... "



# planesid~loadeciitems and standafd bags:



# ~Q**pP~Qps perit~m.** **(lt~houlcl** be noted t}1atwhile

**~~my-on it~ms**  

### [indl!d!ng

**!Wn~ plac~ci.in**  **t~e ov~rhead~ins)hav!l**  

### zeroweight, iftbos(! Items [for any.reaspn].are removed frQtn 

### tht! pverheacl.bins ;lnd placed in th!l carg() hold, they thenare given itJO-p.Qunf:iweight Likewise a 

### cartY·on item that would fit in the overhead b!n pfone ofSk}rWest's regional jetsand given a · zero weightwoul.!fbe gjvena ;30-pound,weight on the EMB•l20 Brasilia

# a$ the overhead bins on the Brasili<I <Ire considerably smaller. See Tr. ;378;21-380;6); ·



# ~ heayy checked bags: Although heavy bags



# a~~ defihed as



# anyba~\Veighing more than SO 

### ppunds, but less than 100 ppunds, they are accorded a 

### weight of60 pounds per itl!!lll anf:i . . ·live animals: 30-60 pounds per anim11l.



### (HPw~ver, as SI<)IWest'sJeremy Barclay testified, ifthe live animal is carried on board the

**passengercompartmen~** 

### It is accorded zero weight and ifthe animal is shipped as cargo, it and its kennel or container, are assigned actual weight [Tr, 380:17-381;14]).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·Z01i·0874; Z011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0672: Z011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NMQ60072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869: 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; Z011NM0600Bl 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 20l1NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·01!19 [Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 6' .

.never exceeded. Thanks



# tothes~**buffer~,the** aircraft



# isal~aysheavieron paper than itIs in·.. reaHty, and as



### th~ FM adroit!:, none ofthe alleged discrepancies resulted in an overweigln or out-of-balance operation, The



# incangrui~**ariseswhen~e** FAA



# r~ads precisian into an
· estimated program and demands $40,000 forazero



# pou~d**disc~**epa

### !Icy



# (Fli~ht 4540), .·· .. ·. Average weightS for passengers are as follows;

. -adult: 195 pounds (winter); 190 pounds [slimmer), In other words 

### a. · ballerina and a linebacker are accorded the same weight; and ·

. . . . . . . . . -child: 87 pounds (winter) and 82 pounds



## (summ~r), In other words, for weight and balance purposes, a three-year 9ld and a 12-year old are treated

### the .. · same,

FAA

**C~se** Nos.: 2011NM06003BI FDMS FAA·2012·067<f; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA•2012-0672; 20llNM060063I FDMS FAA·2012·0B73; 2011NM0600721 FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA·2012-086B; 2011NM0600Bll FDMS FM-2012·0904; 2011NM060095 / FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA·2013·0619 [Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST 

### TRIAL BRIEF Page 7. ;:_



### Avi'!tiq!)jl.egQ!atioJis **[FAR.l$!'!~Uons.11~~~(g}.4,~1~,$0)5;J~~.99~(a); lZ~;!i93(¢J••ajl~·····**  

### ·.····

.•



# ~.~**1.~9**3 (d).••·ti



# ·ro~··~ixbi\~r**ia~~ ~~a~(t~h~~~~··i~~t~~** **~n~·.~.·~u'h~~~Vrl·~·~p~lti~~**

# M

**f~~~LTI04**nt.•

. '· ;'-', -' : - ·=· .. ·.-' ·:



### . of

### $33,0oo.oo per

# flight



# '•i~.,;;~~;1~;~~~uOhl;~~~i~t"'~**~.~** ..····· SkyWest's Requestfor

**JIJdi~i!ll** 

### NQtice

**dat~dApril ~!I;**  **2014;whic~ ir~<;lQded**  

### the Ini\:ial· Decisions meml.a.), . . ...· . . 4,_t9.S(g}- 

### Nbpersbnmay



# ope~~te as a


# dir~ct~i~c~tr\er~rah**¢ornmer~ial··** operator without, orin':'iolation of, an appropriate

**cenific~te ~l'ldappropriate**  

### .

.operations

**spec;lfi~'l~!ons,.Nq pe~soJlrnay**  **op~rate** <IS. 

### a

**~irClc!: ~ir**  

### carrier.or as a·· . commercial

**operat()ritlvi~la~ol'lqf**

### anydeyiae!!ll'i!lr

**~J~:emPulln** 

### allthority1 if

### issued tO· .• that person.orthat person'srepreseiltative; · · ·· · · · st19.s(l)-No person



# ma;op~t~teah aircr'lftiJndertltis part, part

## qtofthis chapter, or part 135. ofthi$.diapterin violation ofan air carriiWqperatiflg certiflcatll, operating certificate, or appropri<tte

**()peration~** 

### spt:!clfications jssuedunder thispart.

. '
- ' . . •· 6 

### 121.693 -The 

### load manifestmustcqntain the follqwing Information. concerning the loading ofthe ah"planeat takeofftime: ··.. . ....··.·. .. . . . (aJ The weight qf

**th~** 

### '!ircraft,Juel and oil, c(lrgo an\l baggage, passengers and crewmembers; · ··


# ... (c)The

**tot<~.l** 

### weightcomputed under approved

**prqce~ures;** 

### and . (d) Evidence that the aircraftis loaded ilq:qrding to an apprqved schedule that insures that the center ofgravity is within approil'li!d Ihnits, ·

FM Cas<: Nos,:

**~011NMQ60038** 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I F!IMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS

**FM·201~·0873:** 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 20l1NM06007a



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904:

**~011NM060095** 

### I FDMS FAA2013·0617; anc;12012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013.0619 (Consolidatec;l) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 8FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012•0874; 20llNM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-i012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FPMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM060095 / FDMS FAA·

**2013-0617;~nd** 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FM-2013·0619 [Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, 

### INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page9

### (4) 

### (S] 

## ···.·••·•·.·. yioiati9lt$

**fi"?lll•~ st#~!~·•lli.s~g~** **9Ellpl1~91ilB'i~h~~ ~~~~**  **~~irt.t9•i**

## \·.··.· /••···•·••·.··.·..···•·.· · 

# ·.

**#~~;'d~~i~~ ~~~~** * **!~i~~~\1~mt; ~~~Pr9~~~~ttqn~s?nt~~9~dji)**  ·. · · 

# .·.···i~J~di~~~J~~g;~~~p!~it~irii~~rif~~~~~dt~i~tii~;,~~~~~~~~ti(lti····•········ ·

**•~\lffi<;es;** 

## redu,cjng

**~M ~1Vilp¢tl.\llt!~~Jr9$$~M99** 

### .l!C!t.

## fl!ght

**~o** 

## $?SO

**p~t" fllg!l,~**  

### ·• ..............· ..•

..·

....·

..•.···.·· ...·.·.·..·.··.·.··· ..• .....•·.··..·.···.·.·········· ..........•.•• ....•. .. . ·.·........· ...



## .

# Aithough¢~~pt~ihap~~id~~~i~~B~~f*~i~i~~~~~~~~~~~~.iPh4~sC!~k~~y~&~t¢~te.r·•·•

.·

# penaJt.ies.·for.s~·bs~~rlcl~llj•i4~&~~~~~~~~~~~4f~fd~~~~~~.~fu1~~1ri!~~s~~~itijthe1;i~r·•.·• .·

· pnes,



# to~auy..


# lgn9rln~**~e JJJ,;.~** **A~J;~iJ. ~~~~C!** **~f}~~ ~~~;)bitl~~~~~~)lF;qJ~~t~ehkl~l** **~s**· ·.of$33,06;perOight,



# wh!ch~b~**;J~~e i;Ja~!cti6$~sd.~e~tli;h{~6w;** **<;(l~~~~i!lanbeE!ks.** penalties of$40,0,00.00 per



# f[ight,f~t**a·tot~l ~e~al~** **sl$~~ri.oo6,~o**

# ..

**·ll¢ferenc~f~** the•· .• ·.··court, o;



# perha~~hiimui~.**fuig~t1at;$t~e!l tbmpl~iilan~** **~J~~ p~~l!**  tieftirl!if<lemanc!ed .

apenalty 169



## ti~es**~~at!!r**p¢r.flig}Jt



## th~~ thi*·G<lt;rt



## 4~4~t~ddnMaY:2, 2013, b11t .·.

. . . - . - - - -. . . ' .. ' 

### As 

## in the priorcases, safety offlight was neitheraffected nor cornpromised•-any ' . ·- : _. ·:_· .. - .- ,- ' ,- ._ - . . ', 

## weight c!iscrepancies caused by the lniidvertent

**O)iScpuntin~** 

## ofbags 

## were nominal

**~nd** 

## had no effect on the weight and balance, otperformance 11nc!

**h~ridling** 

## ofthe aircraft. There is absolutely nothing thatdistihgllisheHhe instantcases fromthe prior

**on~s.** 

## These cases do not arise from aculture ofnoncompliance. Rather, th¢y are the productofinescapable

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038/ FDMS FAA-2QlZ•087t; 20llNM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 j FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 20i1NM060072 j PDMS FAA-20ti·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012•0868; 20llJ'IMQ60081/ FDMS FAA·2P12·0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM06Q014/ FDMS

**FM-201~·0619** (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL UlUEF Page 10

### whe!lltlnevitabJYljapperisr··· ;his



# coilrth~s**alt~ad1 :n~Q~~~d** **th~~~~esti9n; th~si~~~e~sh~~ld** **li~ disp~sed** 

# of• ·.· with 

## miuhnal•.



## d~it **penaltiesf6rtn~4~Jtt~rtt t!:~~u~~~~n~rt9ql11pltArt~~-**  

# ·.·· 

# •

**;.:.:~l2~~1~~~~~~.**

**The.fAAhastortgr;cog~if~dt~~~~~qse~f~~tu~lb~~g~g¢~n~passe~gerweights.** is lmpractlcali which Is \\lhythe



# FAAAb2~:Z~E.AVeragi



# WeiQ~tpr¢grabspermi~ average> weight programs.9 In essence; in PJ!bllshing 

### this Advisorypircul!lr. wqich pennits a Z% Il1argino;error,andin



# ap~t~vi~g**airca~;ieta~~r~~; ~eig~b** **progr~~s,** the

# FJ\Ahas . acknoWledge" that there is ilo al!tOrnljt!C



# q~ngeraused



# bfs~alf**~lstrepand~sbetweert**

. the load manifest ;md

**a~tual** 

### aircraftwelghtUnderthese averag¢ weightprograms, it is

9The Court, 

### in its Order dated May 5, Z014 has given AC1ZO-Z7Ejudicial notke.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FOlliS FAA-2012·0874: 2011NM060047/ FOMS FAA·2012•08n; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FM-2012·0873: 2011NM06007Z 

### I FPMS FM-2012·0869; 20i1NM060073



### I FOMS FAA·2012·0B68; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (ConsQiidated) 

### S:K\'WEST 

### AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page II

### Uie

**.tot~**

### I

**n~mbefgf~t~ridard ~he#~~dif\ea\'Y~h~ckedariapJ~rie~id~\·~lefbagij;liveanimals**  

# .. 

# ···~nti•·~~~~,i~'~s~t~h~~tdM~i.··.~~~~~~i~~~··~~~l~~~~~~~a~~tdkh~~~~bt~~9~•·~~·~i~ii·•···.·.•..

. · ..This is



# a··m~~P~itr~~~~~**a~~ir~~~J~~f~~~h~l#i~~~tJJJa~~~ t~~set~~** **t~II~ st;~~e;heet**  · .... on

# the



# revers~**~~aeJtthe ~tkcrr.** **39~=4-tW1! s~~~~rroriiillaltya~sli~edto.** **trac~·** .


# ~o\lement•~rbagiaget1lrri~ili~~#~~~~~~J~Is~W~~4t~~~~~~~~~GPJ~•.~~~q~···

**CQd~sh~rlngCafri~ti;~cffially ~~tfr~m(n~the~it¢f~~~Pa~~~~** **~@b~g~age ~OUn~.**  Cfr; ·.



# 39S.:16-39•~:1)).•~hi;e·ili~·•·c:I.R'Jhich;sp~~~~rea.··.;;~G;ilc~~~.~.~..

# ·pri~hatihtstatron ·

. copyand fligntcrew

**~opyl** 

### iHPPPP$ed toreflect

## tlt!" baggage!lndcarg0 

### 1oaded onto the .

aircraft. there are provisions fotlast



# ~inute**c~an~~s aftert~e**  C[.Rhas



# be~npreparedand

' . . . : _. .- . . ' ' _: .·

· .1P 

### SkyWest!sDirectorofSafetyPoUcy

**andSe~urity,**

### Jeremy Sarclay,

**t~~tified** 

### that

**th~weight**

### reflected in aload

**m;;mifest(~ven** 

### if

**corre~;tly prepar~dl**  

### retleds

**th~** 

### average Weights and may notcarrespopd tp tile

**actu~l** 

### weight ofthe aircraft. Tr. . · 

# 381:22-382:111 As such, Complainant's

**$~tern~nt;** 

### "A$ 

### a

**r~g\llatory** 

### minirnPm, the load manifest mustreflect thealrcraft's actual loading...," (Complainant's Post-Trial Briefat 6) 

### isincorrect.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0&74:

**2011NM0~0047** / FDMS FAA•2012·0B72; 20UNM060063/ FDMS FAA·2012·0873; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 20liNM060073



### I FDMS FAA.201Z·Q868; 2011NM0600Bl/ FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM06009S / FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA,2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 12

### . the<:LR's

**ti~mll@**

# bY. the 

# FM are

**th~ ttight~r~wcilil!e$;**  **\·\!Wffu~$~t\V9e~4~il~til#$, ~~J~FJ\A··**  

### .··4id•.

# llot.xe~~e~~·ilie••P~~:¢d~trJK~i·~h~~~i~~~itrh~~~~~~;,dt~·t~~4.i~~~.~~6.~,~~~tid~•······

**·.cbpr~s··~f·ili·~•·2r~;~~~J~di~~6i~dlitH~o.t~ih~~···~~~·~~~··~;·6~;~h~~~.··•as~h;f~r~r~q~ircik·•·•** ··.



# to···b~ retain¢4



# r<Jr~~~;·on~~~~y•.



# ··~wJJ~~6~~~~8,t~wcB~·swould!Ut~stlik~,tn~J~.**r~.~ect~d·** any..

# modificatio~~of<lmend~¢.i~~~d···rh~f~v:r~~··~ld¢s~t~~~~tirih·co!JI¢~w~uldhave · had . the tally



# sh~ets**sho~tll~ ~o~l~a~~Jitefus** **ha~ ~~e~** 

# c6Jn

**t~d, ~··.·** 

. --, _. __ · ·_ .... '": -..._ ... ', .- _-·_ ; . l1 

### SP4100, Chapter4, page 16,



## S~ctfimH.Aircrartioa<Ung, (B) 

### L;tstmlnqte changes. · · · · · ·
.·.



# ~ FAA



# In~pectorStevenAII¢~ didnqt thiltkthl!titWas necessary to



# o~tain the stati!)ll copies (Tit 33:20)..•

**Whenaskedwh;~twasoltthe** 

### reverse side qfthestation copy of

### the CLR,lnspectorAdam Perki?s

**t7stl~ed** 

### th<!tt;Jtere was <1 

### "formattp help ·· the ramper t:;OUntth:

**bag~•** 

### ('J'r,

**7():~n bet~use"itwould**  **b~ ~:as_y**  

### tO Josetrack in yoqr head• It

### gives hhnawi!Y

**m;~nul!llyto** 

### keep trackofbags as they

### go .on 

## tlte

**airplane~JTr. 76:~,8}.**  

### Even SkyWest FA!\

**PrincipalOpera~ons** 

### Inspector Andrew Ayerstestitled

**th~t**

### itwoqld havebeen

**benetl~iaifor**

### the FMto haveobt<!ined the station copies of the C(..R's, with the tally sheets, tosee how the load)ng persqnnel came up with theircount(Tr. 210:+211:4}; Yet. oniy one 

### FM inspector, investigating two flights, obtahted the station copies ofthe CLR, and 

### in one ofthose cases, it showed. thatthere was no violation (See Exhibit R·21}..

FAA

**C~se** Nos.: ZOllNM060038/ FDMS FAA-2012·0874: 2011NM060047 / FDMS i'AA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063/ FDI-1S FAA·2012-0B73; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA·2012·0869; Z011NM060073

/ FDMS FAA-2012·086(1; 2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA·20li·0904; 2011NM060095 / FDMS l'AA• 2013-0617; and Z012NM060014/ FDMS l'AA·2013·0619

**(Consolfda~ed]** 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 13final manifest-"soyou could have several printed

**~opies** thathave gone to the.
·trash.•.that are quiteirrehwant," 

## (Tr. 319:7-13). ··· ...·

A. The Discrepancies Were De Minim us:

13 SP 4100, Section 11, Aircraft Loading, (13} Last minute changes (Exhibit 

### R-1- · 1}.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874: 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FM•2012-0872; . 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FM-2012·0869; 2011NM06007S



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617;and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMSFM-2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S 

### POST TRlAL BRIEF Page 14

## for ¢ac:h.9ftlie 14 **fllght~ltheWeighf4i~ctet:!4n¢fe~w~r~·dg mill/mu~:**  **A$Int~~** 

## Pri6r ..



# ~ase~,··t~~r~**~a~ tlo~dt~r~~** **e~reit d~** **~if¢~~~·~elghf~~d ti~~riJ~** **~i p·~;i~r~~ll~.e** .

. · •.

# ·Th~·aircraft.rem~;~e4~~~~~~~~ti~~~r~~rfJr~aut~~A~~~J~e~.•.•r~er~was••uh



# degrad;~tion a;



# qltnPrd~i$~**t!ls;(~~.**



# ~h~···a.ir~raftu~·IJ~~d··anthe~Ii~ged.fli~h~~~recett~trititarg~¢nJ~gh•a~d. operated 

## at


# Conliiderablyl~ss·than**~~;r maXirnurn.certlfic~t~d·~il~l!offW~Igpts,**  · wherentinor



# bag~age count aridweight



# d)screpanc;e~would**h~ve** had abso.Mely no . effect These aircraft irtcl(ldeli: ·

. . ; ' .

**·Sombari:lierCL-60o~ZQ24,** 

### also known as aCR)9QO,a 76-passengert:Wfn· engine reglon.iiljethaving a



### m<~Xhnum grCiss


### take(]ffweij~llfof84,SQOpounds: · ...:aambardlarCL-600-2Cl0, also kn.own as aCRJ 700, a



## 70-~assenger tWin·· engine regionaljethaving amaximum gross takeoffweight



### ~f75,QOO pounds; ·Bombardier CL-600·2819, also known as 

## ac::;R) 

### 200, a50-passengert:Win· •

. . - 

### . . . 

### engine regionaljethaving amaxhnumgross takeoffweight ofS3,QOO pounds; and

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM0600391 FDMS FAA-:1.012'0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FM·20lZ-0972; 2011NM060063 / FDMS FAA-201Z·0873; 2011NM0600721 FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM0600ii11 fDMS FAA•2012•0904;2011NM0600951 FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM0600141 FDMS FAA-2013·0619 [Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRlEF 

### Page 15

### F ;\Ainsp¢eto.rs· t9mp\ltell>i<!riged

# (tom o tp

**~9(') ppi.}~dli** 

## •CW($

# th¢\ii!strrif)jo(i\;Y 

### be)rig. •••··. 

# r11.the36·1tO**p4~na~~~~).~~~~~~bb~tr~~~bll~&~«~~~~~~fcr~~ten~er~fg~a~r~·**

# ..

**or··.p~rt6~!~~~.·ittef~tl9wl~g f~~~~~4n~~~~Jri~~~i~~.** 

# \ ······•···•··•·.··

**Q•.······•~r.Sall!rnon~.you.p~rforlned ~rtaitcr~~t~k~~ffwei;bt** ..

# ~n~lysrs(or.·tlte · . 14

**Oi~h~h~.q~estion** 

### !ntbese

**c~se.sin yourrePort,~f**  

### Uf!dertbev.>eights.tb.ae• .. the

**c~ew** 

### hl!d recorded.andbelieve4tba.ttbi!Ywen:!operatlngunder,ln

**~nyof** 

### those 

### 1.4 flights, did the
**ain:ra~takeoffweight** 

### exceed the m<!Ximuins?· 

## A.. No; they 

## 4td not:· · 14 

## Mr.

**Sal<~rnqne** 

### testifiedas to his methodology:

. . . ;;·-.- . . . 

### .•.1took

**<~II** 

### information

**tb<~twas** 

### <!V<!Ilahle to me,thecar$oload reports,the load manifests;. electronic, ifavailable,thefnsp¢ctor'$ sta.tement from the FAA, as. fat as the alleged

**wei~htor**

### items th<it.

**mayh<~ve be~n**  

### present. And also tben,.tbe manufacturer documentation.for the <;anadair

**serie~**

### jets to determine performance and theweight and

**bal<~l'lce** 

### In that respect. (1'r. 237:10•19}; . . . .

. . ' 

### . . . 

### Mr. Salamone also con$idered.runway lengths ITR. 237:20"22), air temperature ITr. 238:1·2),

### f!iel and fuel weights (TR. 238:3-4), 

### p<!ssenger weight ITr: 238:20·22), 

### cargo, luggage, ballast and the actual weigilt ofthe

**<~ir~raft** 

### itself(Tr, 239:lc11\). . .

FAA Case Nos.: 20l1NM06003B 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-08?4; 2011NMil60047/ FDMS FM-2012-0874: 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FM-2012·0869; 2011NM060073

/ FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM06009S 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617;

**~lld** 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FM-2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 16. . : . . . -. '. ·: '• -----::::,.'::<>, _. ,. -- ,·'.---: . -· _·-: Q 

### HoW !!bo\!t for an


# ~ircra~takeoff**~en~~r**of



# gra\'i~i**~~<li~two** parts, as .· ·¢alc\llated by

**~h!!** 

### crew IJ!l 

### those 

### :1.4

**fll~ts.** 

### did}Tou fin!!. <Jnyofthose 

### 1.4

**fligh~** 

### where the cen.ter ofgr!lvityleft

**them~nufact\lrer's ~ugges~ecj**  

### llmii:S? · · 

### A Idid not.. Q 

## How



# alliJ\1~**asperceiv~db;th~** FM

## inspect?rt ·. A Idid not

'", . ', --.- : . . -: - : ' . . .. ·. .- .· Q .

### Then the last factor for

**airc~aftrunway** 

### Perform;1nce and climb performance and

**IT\~imum** 

### operating altitude, In yo\lr calqJI!Itions; werethe crew calculations accurate as pert!linlngtothecargo ancjweight they believed.· thattheY had? A 

### Yes. Q· 

### And did those calculations exceed.the manut'ac:turet's suggested · limitations? · · · A. 

### It did not FAA Case Nos.; 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874: 2011NM060047 / FOMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FAA-2012•0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868;2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012-0904: 20i1NM060095 / FDMS FAA· 2013-01!17; and 201ZNM0600H 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWE:ST MRLINES, 

### INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 17_I- . 

# ...................•.• /·

···········)···············A.i

# #~.~~~~~~~~t•••·········.·.it·············.·

# ........ 

# q

**s~ ~~** **~n ~;t~~r·~~sl** **r~iidt~!li~l~~~i~~iJ~~~~~~ ~~** **~~~Qw~~f**

# ··

**ct~\'fsa~ ~he**  

## time.9t

**~dN~~ng f9r,th.~.**  **OP$etv~d ya.fli\~911~**  

## by

## FA..<\

**insp~~to;rs,.**



### npn~of

### the

**nig~~** 

### '#<JYld

**h~ve** 

### be!!llill

**eJCt;es$.()f~!! P)a.nl,!fac~~re~'ll·**  

### .·• 

### i

**l.imitatio!lllfllrtakeqff\¥el~h~ .c!!nter.~fgr~vil:y,rHnway!lerfor!li~nc!!,SiiWP···**  

## PE!rfqrmanc!i!, ormill'im4m

**(Jp~tilqng** 

## a!ti!;Udel ·· · · · · 

# A

**;h~tt~bo~rec~ ~4~~~t~~~~ri~~~~wJHt~~;~e~a4~~~¥~~e~~h~~.**  (tt

**24~:1~c~43:2Q;** 

### 8xhibii:S 

### R-3A apd R:3•3}( . . . .. . .

B. • ..Case-by-Case AnalYsis: 

### FAA-20:1.2-0ilt4t201iNMtr6003B: . On Mar!'h 3, 

### 2Q1i, 

## atSan Oie;pfnternationalAirpprt 

## CSAN), S({yWest · .. operated 

### NSOOSK, a CRJ 

### 900, as



# Flight4SS~ to SaitLakeCitr,



# l1tab(~LC). 

# FM.·· inspectors atSLC observed 43 Standard Checked Bags, three Heavy Checke(i Bags,

. . . '
- . - . - . - . 

### ·and one live

**anhnalbein~** 

### offloaded. TheCLR1isted 46 StandardChecked

**Ba~s,** 

### 0

. ·. . 

### Heavy Checked Bags, 

## <1nd no liVe

**anim<~ls. 15** 

**Howev~r,** 

### t)le total bag co1,1nt (comparing IS 

### According to 

### Exhibit R-9, the aircraftwas loaded and the CLR was prepared by Delta Air Lin!lS personnel.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 2011NMOI'i0047/ FOMS FAA•i012-0812; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873: 20i1NM06Q072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-20U-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-21}12-0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA2013-0617; aml2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 [Consolidated) · 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES; INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 18its 

### maximumtakeoffweight(Salamone Repoit, Exhibit



# ~-3-2, p. 4), ·•• On March 3, 20 

### 11;



# a~ Phoenix



# SkyHarborA!rpor~(PliX), SkyWestopera:ed ·.•.• ·· ..

·

. ' . : . . - . .. . . . . . . . 

### N614SK, a CRJ 700, 

## i!s



## ~ight444StoSLC. 

# FM inspectors <!tSLC observed 43 

### standard checked 

## 0 ags ;tndthree heavycheckedbags being offioaded. However, the. CLR listed 46standardbags and no heavy bagsP However, the totalbag count .· (comparing the CLR and the 

### FAA Inspectors counts) was

**thes<~me.** 

### The total weight

.. ' . 

### : .. ·. . .. ·_-.. ··.. . . . ·. ' . . . .

. 16



## Exactlywha~ were the "live animal$'' on 

### Flig!lts 4557 <1nd 4613? None ofthe 

### F

M inspectors seemed til 

### recall what theywere or whetherthey were checked as. baggageor shipped as freight (Tr. 79;2·8; 

### TR. 84:1-4). · · 17 

### According to Exhibit R-9, the aircraft was loaded and the CLR was prepared by DeltaAir Lines personnel.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NMil60038l FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM0600631 FDMS FM-2012-0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FM-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FM-2012·0868; 2011NM0600Sll FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0o17; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 19

### R"3"2• 

## p. 5),



# ·········(}~March··~.z~•rK~t.~i~~JHl~r~titri~t~d~l~i~~~{~~6~$~~~~~~~·~~~~e~•·. ·. 

### ·


# N46$s~.a..

# ·cki

**~Jo,a$ ~~~~ti~~$~~** **t4$~G. P.~~td~~~X~~~~t~r~~~~'r\Teais·~•••.•······•···** 

# ·

pounds



# ofb~uast and

# ioo·

**~~~~~a$**

# toi4Af

**b~~ri~~r~~ad~c~, 4h~~z·h::** **aire~ed tJa~** 

# · the CLB Hste!I3SO



# pdun!l~·ofC0Mt\T.1S 

# HCiwev~r.the~o~aJw~ight**Ofth~C()~t\T** and ballast were exactlythe



# sa~~ **wlth** absoiJtely



# nocll~n~~**i~ aircraftp~rfor~;ince** (tr.

. 2S0:4·25i:S;



# Ex~ihitR·S·;, p.6), Moreover,



# ~s subsequently



# ~rQdu,e!l**~actill1entsfro~** the

### f'M



# indi~te, there . was a second CLR(i.e., the correcte!l station copy)which reflects 

### ari update by the departing station, carrecUylisting 250 

### poupds ofba.JiastandlQ.(J pounds qfCOMAT (Exhibit

**R~**

### 2l ). 

### This CLRwas

**corre~t**

### and theweights 011 

### the load 111anifest

. ' . ..--_. . -. :.

- ·.-· ,· ... 

### corresponded to the

**CL~** 

### Sowhere)s the violation?
lB 

### According to Exhibit R·9, 

### the aircraftwas loaded and the CLR was prepared by Regional Elite Airline Services, a DeltaAir Lines subsidiat'Y•

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·0B74; 2011NMQ60047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 / FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FM·2012·0868; 201lNM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NMOI1009S 

### I FDMS FAA• 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA·ZOU-0619 (Consplidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page20

## po\)ndsoffreight,

**~~ililliWely**

## reftec;ted
**~e~eig!tt6.rtij~aqlm~t~.~ o.t!'t~~**  **th<~n.t!t&**

# .·..


# . · orrils$iori··.PftAe**d§~c~i~.~~·ri···~rth~tf~l~6~as"lt~&~~~~11~i;,·.~~··l§~~~~hifeJf~a~········** 100%aci:urat!!

# rr~···i§••~;6~~s~;~;"~~hibl~ R·a•?,



# ~. 7). >•···•·········•••······••·•····



# ........**=~~"""'-....,..,"'=.~.""·** 

# ...·

**~** 

# ..

**~·**



# .. '"'··. . . . .. OnMarch 8, 201:1.



## ~tLosAilgele~ **Int~rnational A,irpor~**  (I..AXJ,SkYWest operated NB04Sk, aCRJ 900, asFiigJt4464to

# ,.as



# Y;~as,**~e\l~~a (Vf~).**  F 

# M . inspectors 

### at LAS observed 

### t\VO heavy chec¥ed



## ~ag$ **~eih~ oJQb<~cte~:**  **Ho~ever** the CLR listed no heavy fhecked ba$5.2Gfi

### 0 wever•.

### lt

**lsnotposs~ble**

# to

**d~termineifthe** 

### heavy bags were includedin tbe standard bag piece coullt, or not counted. a 

### tall, If 

### the heavy bags had been included in t!te tot;d piec!:!

**~;aunt,** 

### the CLR weightdifferential
19 

### According to ExhibitR·9, the aircraftwas



### Io<.~decl af!dt!leCLI\ was prepared . by Regional Elite Airlin¢S Services, a IJeltaAir Lines subsidiary•. zo 

### According to Exhibit R·9, aircraft loading

**<~nd** 

### the CI.Rwas prepared by DeltaAir Lines; In fact, FAA 

### Inspector Steven Allen conceded thatbefore he contacted SkyWest, he contacted Delta, which loaded the aircraft (Tr. 

### 34;19·36;5).

FAA Case Nos.: 2Di1NM060038 

### I FDMS F'AA·2012'0B74; Z011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-201Z·OB72; Z011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·2012-0873; Z.011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA·2012-0B6B; 2011NM0600S1/ FDMS FAA-2012•0904; 20l1NM06009S 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 [Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AlR.LINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL SRIEF Page 21

### However, the CLR listed no


# he~vychecked**bag~.** 2

### 1TheF.J. clid pot



# deter~ine

**whe~her** the observed heavy bag had been lnduded in thestandard bag piece count, ·. ornot counted at aU. As 

### Mr. Salamonetestified, ifthe 

### total piece count was correct,

. the CLRwelght differentialwould havebeen30pounds.22



## Whether~rn(Jt



## th~**h~avy** •.

. •"._.,,,b>Exhlblt



# ·~;**"'"~··** ,..... 

# ~·cc< preporntioo



# ~oan• was handled by United Airlines. · · · · · 22 

### FAA Inspector MichelleWallentlne was positioned at COS onthree different dates (April7, May 5 and july14, 2011) to countbaggage as part oftheFAA's special emphasis inspection ofSkyWest She observed and participated inthebaggage counts for some 

### 30 flights over !:hose furee days and. with the exception the three cases in which she is involved, she saw no irregularities or baggage miscounts (Tr. 125:22-127:14).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FM-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·ZOU-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904: 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM0600l4 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 222, p.9.) .



# ··•·bn·~·~rth. 9,.



# 20~t;**.alP~~,$~~~;~ ~P~~lt~i~99~~W~~~~l** **~~Q)atfii~h~** .

. 6991 

## bol!ntliQr

# dos. FM

**trsJ~¢~~~~l~~~~h;~ti~d ~~** **~~~~~~~~ ~~~ri~···.** 

# · .. \-\· ._,_.__ -- .



## . ·

**oftloac!~tl. H9w~vet,** 

# th¢ctliJi$tednoheilwbag$.·

**ihe.i:M;.jlisp~~tor~4it!Ooe>** 

# · ·



# de~erm.lne**whethe~··th~ obse~e4he~vyb~~~.•wer~i~~~~~a~di~~e~~lld~rc!·~~~··plece.** 



# c(lun~ or

### not counted.

# at all.



# A~~;.**~a~~~on~te$~i~ed.lrtll~t~tai~i~ce~~upt~as**



# come~**~e** CLR



# w~ight**differen~aiwo~ldhaveb~~h~6~o~~~~/ li~ehea~ha~s.**  had not been h1duded!n



## til~ piece



## count,th~ weight 

### d)ffereritial would



## ha~ebeen 120

### pounds;



# ~ftherway, there



# W0\1[~**h~ve** beennci



# ~ffe~tori~trcra~**we:~hfand** . ' -· . . . -·: ·:_: .- '- . - ··;>.. ' . ·:. . .. '• .... ,' ·,·-- . 

### l:lalance, center 

### ofgravity 

### orperfomiancea$ t!te ain:raftwa$ 2,523 

### pQunds 1Jel9W 

### its · maxlmumtakeoffweight limit[Tr. 256:2·257:17) 

### Exhibit

## R-N.p.io). On March 14, ZOll, 

### at Denver !ntetnationa!Airport 

### (PEN), SkyWest



### opera~ed N679SA, 

### a CRJ 

## zoo, as Flight 6960 

### to 

### Sioux Falls Regillnal 

### Airport (FSDJ, SioLixFalls,

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM06003B 

### I FOMS I'M-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FM-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 / I'OMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM060095/ FDMS I'AA2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013•0(11!1 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S 

### l'OST TIUAL BRIEF 

### Page23

### to CO$. FAA lnl!pectors who had.been



# dis~atcbed t11COS 1

### SDiely fDrthe



# purpos~ of ..·· counting 11ffloadedbag$ from SkyWestaircraft



## ~bserv~d

# 33 standard theckec:l



## b~gs and 2heavy checked bags coming 

### off the



# aimaftl~ The CLRfor Fligllt 67S61isted30 ·•

.·

# ..·· 

### .•.
. · ...· .... ·

# ...•..
· .· 

# ..... · ...·· .··•..· ...·... ·

# ... · .. ··. ··. ·..··..

# ·.· .· ··.····.·•· ....· 23 

### Ofthe 14 flights alleged, this flight and Flight4559 (DEN-RKS; Case FAA, 2013-061f2012NM060014) were theonlyflight.s inwhich SkyWestpers11nnel loaded the aircraft and prepared the CLR's•. AUother flights were handled by · SkyWest's codeshare major partners, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Continenta.l. Airlines, who loaded the aircraft and prepared the CLR's, ·· · .· · · · 24 

### Denver-based FAA Inspector Michelle Walhintlne was dispatchedto COSon three occasions solely for the purpose ofcounting bags coming offofSkyWest aircraft She performed no surveillance for any other air carrier; While she observed three flights with baggage count discrepancies (Flight 6751\ and Flights 1160 on May

I'MCase Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 / FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869: 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868: 2011NM060081 IFDMS FM-2012·0904;2011NM060095f FOMS FAA· 2013-0617: and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FM-2013-0619 · [COnsolidated) · 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 24.inspectQrsobserved

### 3S



# standar!l~~ecke<l bags being



# ofB~ade!l N744SK.



# HoW~ver, .•.•.· .· . theCLRfor Flight ll6Q2S listed23 standard checked bags. Vvith



# th~**~d~itionall2** ··•· ... standard bags, the CLRweightdifferentiatwould have been• 360 

## ):JOuricls.

**Th~re** . . . . . . . . : . ' ' . . would have been no effecton aircraftweight and



## balan~e, center ofgravity or · performance



### ~s tlte aircrafhvas5,488 pound$belowitsmaximumt<!keoffweight limit (Tr. 262:2-264:1; Exhibit

**R-~-2,** p.13). ·• 5 and July 14, 2011), over the three visits, she

**insp~cted** and co1Jnted bags from some thirtySkyWest flights and with the exception ofthe threeflights, there were no discrepancies (Tr.126:6-21). · 

### zs All aircraft loading and CLR preparation at 

### IAH washandledbyContinental Airlines.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### f FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047/ FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063/ FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM06009S 

### f FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 · [Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S 

### POST TRIAL BRIEF Page25**bag~** 

### and

**40.planesid~**

### .loadE!q

**J)ag~pel!\g.qm().aciMi. HQW~V!i!t**  **!ll~C~Rli$~M** 

### 1!),•.······.



# ~t~~ci~tci.ch~ck¢4.ba~~·~d4i.s~l~~~;;a;:~Q~~.~.·~i~~.·w;~t~~:~~~m·~~;~~~t~ri~.~ra


# artds··pl~rie~ld!t·6~~~~~~·2t~W~ight~~~~~~~~~;~tJ&~~~6~~!ij~~h··~;qp~t~4~· There. wo"lci



# h~~eti~~~~·~**~;fe~tbn~irbf;~\$~ig~tkhab:;~hc~~e~~~~&r•gt~~~~··br.** performance as.the



# air~raft**Was2,~}4 pbun~s** **h~loWitslliJ~r~4tn~ke(')kW~~~ht•••** limit (Tr; 2fi4:2·266:11:



# ~hi~lt**R·3~2,** p.



# i~J• 

# •

·.· Pt\A-2012.0904 I 

### 2011NM060Q8f(



### on June 15, 

### 40it/atSLC,

**S!tYW~st** 

### operateci

**~~Msl<.**

# a CRl700, 

### as Fligl)t 4

781, to Reno-Tah6eJnternatlona!Airport;



# ~evad;**t~O}•** At



# R~O, FAA



# inspect~rs observed 190 

### pouncisofCOMAT, 

### consisting oftwo itelnS, a

**130~pound** 

### cableanci ;t 

### 60-pouqdbox beinl!

**oftloade~.** 

### This seems tQ l)avebeen a#mple arithmetic error and the CLR 

### weight d.ifferentialwas 30 

### pounds. As 

### FAAinspec:tor Benjamin Blauer testified: Q 

### So basically, whoever prepareci the CLR 

### showing 160 pounds probably couldn't <!dd right;. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM0600381 FDMS FAA·Z01i-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·087Z; 2011NM060063/ FDMS I'AA·2012·0873; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NMOI;i0073



### I FDMS FAA·2012·0868; 2011NM060081 / FPMS FAA·2012·0904; 2011NM060095/ FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012N)'>I0600141 FDMS FAA-2013·0619 [Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page26

### .Onjuly 

### 14, ;!011, at

### lAli SkyWestoperatedN742SI<,



### ~ CRJ 700, as Flight 1160

. to COS; At COS,



## ~AAinspec:t~rs observed 43 standard checked



## ~agsbeing oftloaded..

. The CLRfor Flight



# 1160Iiste~ 36 standard checked



# ba~. With 

### the additfOn<!l7 ·.

standard bags, the CLR weightdifferential wouldhave



## be~n 210 P!>unds..There would have been no effect ort aircraftweight <!nd balance, center ofgravity qr · 

### performance as the aircraft was 4,364pounds below its maximum takeoffweight limit (Tr. 

### 268:11-270:3; Exhibit R-3-2, 

### p. 16). In fact, CG would have changed "no ' . . ' 

### more than perhaps the width of<! pencil dot on the chart" (Tr. 2tl9:19-270:3).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038/ FDMS

**FAA-201~·0874;** 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063/ FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012•0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM060095/ FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2Q12NM0600l4/ FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 27

### ~~~d.~d**·bne.li~a0/ch~~~~~h~g~~tbN2~6sW:AltliAullh. tli~··¢i.~jl~t~~i19~~~V}f<?·.·•··** 

## ..·•.·.


# . **·~hec~edbajj~.•th¢~~bi;~~~J··~··it~!~W~;t~l~ti~~~~~a~~if~;~~Jt ~~~~ftU~J~f\al···** 
**·~a~.·.~o.kounds~ndtli~r~~~s·~~~tf~ci~~itr~~~tt~~~~Hi·~~~~~j~~2e,c~hi~f~f**

.

# gr~~~~9r·6~rrbrma~¢*{T~.aib;4-~;2:S;E~hlpttk.$.~;k:fi),•··········· ··DePp

### lte·the



# evj~erlti~ry-la~~i~~**ho~ifi~s ~i~t~~~~.·** **~d~~flin~ota~empt$·**t9··..



# buttress.~~**case~~.Mr, Sal~moh~;~** **t~stimortyarldhi~Wj.i~l~;epd;t(Exhihit** lt-3-2)

. l 6
.

### i.e.,that.•



# ~~West**ope~ated.aircr*m~out;~:ing:h~t**was.aboard ···. thereby endangeringthe

### lives of

**so~e{SO** 

### people (Complainant'$Post·'I'ri"-l Brief<1t 2), **ignoringpot~ntials~fety ha2;~rds**  **~ffecting aircr;~ft** **Pe~f9nnajl~e** 

### (Complail)ant's Pos.t-Trial.Briefat 13.14): 

### that

**S~West's op~rati9ns**  

### were

**tall~rnountto** 

### "test flight''(s) (Complainant's

**Po~t-Ti'liil** 

### B).'iefat 14); 

### thatSky)Vestc()ntin4es to operate aircraft withotltkrtoWillg their correctweightandbalai}Ci! (Complainant's

**Pos~·Tri;~l** 

### Briefat 15}; 

### and that<'violations are

**oc~u.rring** 

### even now (Complaln!lnt's Post·

**Tri~l·**

### .·· Sriefatl8J, ln

**SUPP9rtoftlle~e** 

### lasttw9>9ut!andish assertions! <:omplainantdtes

**Sk:yW~st's**

### Jeremy Sarc!ay's testimony at

**Tr,4Z2:tf!-42~~6;** 

### Mr•.

**~arclay's** 

### testimony says nothing ofthe sort: · ·· · · ·

. . .



### ..Q Now, Mr.



## Barcl;~y, **(In~** ofthe things you testified that

...**[S~Westl** 

### is doing in ao effort to get

**;~head 9fthisprobl~m**  

### is you are continuing to 

### c9nduct audits oftbeWeigbtand Balance Program. Isn't it true that those audits show thatthere is still an issue with weightand balance,

**tb~se** 

### sorts ofissues on ...[SkyWest] today? FAA Case Nos;: 2011NM060D38 /FDMS I'M-2012·08?4; Z011NM060047 

### I !'OMS I'AA-2012-0872; 20UNM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·01)73; 2011i'/M060072/ FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011i'IM06007S



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FM·2012·0904; ZOlli'lM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NMD60014/ FDMS I'M·ZD13-0619

**(ConsoU~ated)** 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 28

### thatwhi.ch the.

# F AAhas



# pr~Yiously approved

### for



# others~1,topertnit small



# v~riances in

.baggage



# co~nts, necessitated



# bypp~r~tioil~I**c~nsideration~ZS** Despite SkyWest's

showing ofan equivalent



### lev~l ofsafety, Ute

# fAA declined to



### gr~nt this> apparently .. · A There are errors that do occur, that's correct. Mr. Barclay explainedthat although SkyWesthas addressedthe issue,

**;~bsolute** 

### human perfection is impossible to

**;;~chieve** 

### (Tr. 

### 424:16·17). ··
Z7 

### Exhibit 

### R-4. · za Please see Exhibits R·S-1 through R·S-7. FAA Case Nos,: 201lNM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·2012-0B74; 2011NM060047 / FDMS FAA·2012-0B72: 2011NM060063/ FDMS FAA-2012-0873: 2011NM060072/ FDM.S FAA-2012·0869: 2011NM06007.3

/ FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012.-0904; 2011NM0&0095 

### I FDMS FAA· 201l-0617; and 2012NM0600H 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Copsolldated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 29

## fM

**·~.a r~tw~$~r9r!!X~mp#on** **t~n4~r f'Ailr~tU~** **CC~J#pl~l~~llt'$ pqs~J'fl~J** **~def~t** 

## . •· .

..··.22-23).



# wbi~ij~~~~sn~~ Xll



# ~a~~~s**;~~t~~t~a~.;; ~** **i~~:~~J~fJI~w~~~~~~~~~(!l/** 

# ·.··

**~dd;;~~ ~~~:Q** **f~~to;s) A~** **$~~~s~·; riti~~~~~:~f~i~~f~t~** **6t~~~tj~J~; ~~;~~~J~~er** 

...itis


# ~~~~~~izingtha~~u~an**ract~rsplay** ak!!y



# ~~~~fn\he pr()per .

**c~mpletion** 

### andcounting ofa 

### bag,.-proper tompletH>n oftlle CLR 

### ahd

**countingofbags,•~** 

### · · · · · · 

### ••••

. ·- :· . ', ·-.- . . •, . .



### ..W!!'re



## notmaki~g **exc~s~s** for fhose errors.



## W~**~rl!**justacceptiilg 

### the

**fa~rt)l~t**

### there isJ!sk 

### in

**t~e** 

### erw!r()nmentthapllese

**~Dllll.d** 

### age11ts · are wprklng 

### In; Thatthere

### is

## a

**ris~**

### thattile)! could 

### .misCOil?ta bag or not 

### puttbe

**rightnulllb~r on~.**  

### cargo load rep()rt. that;. it)

### Jurn. would · 

### lead, to a loadmanifest that

### was in

**error.a~**

**·~** 

### Tr. 304:5-a. Jo 

### Tr. 304:15-22. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM06Q038/ FDMS FAA-2012'0874; 2011NM060047 

### JPDMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM060063/ FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073

/ FDMS FAA-20U·OB68; 201lNM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM06009S / FPMS FAA· 2013-06t7; aild 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA-2013"0619 {Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page30

# .•·tornplalrt~nt~l~d**st~ggest£ thats~~~~tcould** **ha~~··f~sJ~IIIi#~**it$



# p~dpl)$itl··· ·



# ~o add a



# speciti~d**arn~uritof~~rg~~t~f~~~~sic~p~r~ting~ei~Hi ~reabh** **aifi~a~.···**

This



# sugge~tlci~**~~··TI~~a~ingl~s~a~~~~~~Ui~arit$t~i~~~~t¢i~~th!$~o~ld•nqthaJe** . excused itfrom

# b~ggage.rniscou~tviolatiJ~s;·C~~plaina~t~Is~i~nores.th~**fac~tha~**.. in each ofthe l4flightS, the



# *ircrafttak~~tf~eig!lts(even \'.'ltb the FAA's corrected bag



# loads)r~rnained sl!bstarttlally



# bel~w**t~e** maximull!



# iros~**tal<~off w~ights,** **~~** even ifSkyWestfollowed Complainant's suggesl;icmand ad.ded

**some~ing** 

### to the bas!c: operatirtgweight oteachofthe



# air~raft,**~is ~oJidh~v~ac~ieved**  riothing 

## as



# IJaggag~ '.

- . - '. ·.___ .- . . . : - 

### count violations, in Colllplainant's eyes, 

## itre inellcl!sable. VI,. SltVWEST'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:·

. 31 

### As Exhibit R-4 

### reflects, that carrierha.s a 20-bag/600-pound. "cushion": As 

### Mr. Brown testified, the reliefthatSkyWestwas seeking was but 

## afraction ofthat (Tr.107).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FPMS FA/1•2012·0874; 2011NM0600'17 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDM.S FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM06007a



### I FDMS FAA-201Z·086a: 2QllNM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-()904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617;

**~nd** 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS l'AA-2013-0619 · (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 31

### .Ul. . 

### · ·limited



## t~. those set



## fo~ in

### its Station Operations Manual andWBtB · Man11al tospecificallyaddress saidproblems and ensure future •· compliance:. iv. Updated ahd.revised tlleaircraftloadingprocedures set 

### forth in 

## itsStation Operations Manual 

### SP 5500 to specifkally addr!!Ss said problemsand ensure future complhmce; v. Implemented initiatives to ensure all stations are physically staffed to 

### allow one agent to directly account for the aircraft loading process on each flight, to 

### ensure accurate physicalbaggage counts,

**car~:~o** 

### weights, and weight and balance communication with flight deck crews; FAA Case Nos,: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·0B74; 2011NM060047/ FDMS FAA·2012-0B72; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073

j FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081/ FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM06009S 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page32

### .Any an.!i

**illl.di~crep;;!n.ci~s** 

## liPanWhi¢1'!

**th¢~1!c i!li~iilfi$**  **~t~ !iM~il**  

## aft;!.tlW

**.Pi't>!i\1¢~**



### .

# ·ofshn~le**h~rnari~;~}l~~~c~~t~t~~~··ih~b~~j·~~:~h~i~~fi~~·~t~~W~~~····••···•••·····** ·.·. '_.- \. ::: :_-_::-:_ ----: ,::: -_: . :·- ;':::::,::._

**'~-** ,:.-:::<:·.:, ,'::;-?::_..:::. (<_,:-:--:>:__::-.::,::_=

**,:~:-.:::;::**·<_;_·,:· _:·::':::·: :<-.:,__,_:.._:: :=: ::::_\::::/-':-, :: :::

**:-~:-::-_=·::_=-:=::::::·::·:--** ..: ..:- ;.-':,·,;x-:·-_::-..
**:::·-~=::·_,:·::-:;,**_:,:::·<·:-_:·:,: -- . ·_ \:: ..:-::- :.: :::::::::-:: =::::-:- :._: :.:_-;::·.:::.:- -- - 

### · regulatoryc:gmplia!lce.((ispositial)

**a~ allreleV;lht~rrtplciy~es.**  **Wei:~ a4eqUat~lytrail)ed** 



# a~!iq6ati~eilJrit~M~ih~~fJ~~ivJ~~~~~~Jh~r~r~r~(h~~~~~h~th~f~4~~~~ave·.·.•·•·•·.• shown



# fu~t·cb~~ll~nie•ha~b~eda~hie~~J.~a. .



# SkyWest.!'!~s t<tken <til



# necessaryco;recti\1~ actfonsio•.avoid



# repe~ted·fl)isbap$ . such thatadditlonalpenalt!e$ •are



# red~ndant and 

## \'/til



# nofr~s~ftin<tnY



# decreas~ In S<!fety,34. SkyWest's corrective

**<~ctionstaken** 

### since 2009 

### (\.vherrthe

**baggag~** 

### count·

.problemslirsi



# S\ltfaced)~rid**to!i~te ha~e** **amotint~** tC)



# sb~;~SiiO,()()O(tr.40S:11···

16; 

### Exhibits 

### 6•1, 

## 6-1



# an~ 6·3). 

### These corrective



# <tct!~ns**~ere** fi!Jlysubstan.tiated in

**2** 

### SkyWest's Answer

## to Complaint, Fourth Affirmative Defense; . a:J 

### SkyWest's Answer til 

### Cqrrtpl<tJnt, Sixth AffirmativeDefense.. Of

### c:ourse this is .. subjectto consideration ofthe interplay ofhurl).anfactors; Which as s1,1bst<tntialevide11ce hils shown, makes

**lt.irnpossi~Ie.to.** 

### ensure 100% 

### accuracy.

**~** 

### SkyWest's Answer to Complaint, Seventh Affirmative Defense. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NMQ6QQ38/ fDMS fAA·2012·0874; 2011NM060047 

### I fDMS FAA·2012-0812; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FM-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM06009S 

### I FOMS fAA· 2013·0617; a!id 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 33**.testim~ril**

# es have

**eorroh~?.ited ~adi**  

## oiliei:'aiii:l femaln

**iiii¢oritii)~¢ft\\i:li·····**

## .

..



# ·.·····.AsMr.~arday'e~~J~~:)>

_-_ ..._ ,.-- ,:• _, __·-: -. _-- .· ' ,., ..,-. . - -----'·:-'". .;:''•" -.-·-. :,-· 

## A ; ..

# ~~ha~~**trr~~ ~~** **i~e~~iiy et~ry** **PPi#~orr~9J~~~~~ossl~l\\** With t!lis.

**P~oces~,** 

### V(J:Iic;hincll\41ls 4e\'elopingand.

**enha.~sing** 

### ·

**~t;~nd.apl pro~~d.Pr~s,** **qiss.~.n.ipa~ipg O:ainir~**  **tpfr!)p~·ll~e** 

### · ...·

·

**.e!IIP19reesthro.ugb,.?ur.C~ttifiecl~t~tip#1'rainer**

## prograJl'l;······· ·· .

·•Partnl!ringWitli 

### other regjonal

**p~rrlers** 

### ill; 

### partnerSl:al)d;trgjzatiCin·.
.groups, We

**l!~ve** 

### condUcted. nljmerousJoad.

**audi~;** 

### We've·

enhanced the

**proces~** 

### thatwe previously used to kifid ofknow · where we are With outlo.ad counts: ·

I'm sure thel'e's alot<!fothefthing$



## tl!a~we've gone, 

## bl!t



## tl!o~e ar¢ prob;tbly

**th~** 

### big

**ones,~$** 

### · ·



# Yet,Complai~a~tnow<l~s~rts**thatskyWestmereti;~ays**

# ltp

**~erVlce**

# td reg\llatorycompliance



# wl!ileteroai~i~gfocused on the



# bottornli~:..

# ~Conip!ainant's .. Post-Trial Priefat 24); 

### thatith;;ts "failed to take several actionswhicl!would be

**-~-,.......,...--..-..-.......**. . . ... .

·35 

### Tr. 397:19·398:11. Mr. 

### Barclay also. testified

**thatSkyWesth<~S** 

### notonly Included representatives ofUnited and Delta inits trainin& buthas

**ateempt~d** 

### to · standardize procedures for other regional carriers servingUnited and Delta (Tr. 398:18·399:4).

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS

**FAA-2012~0874;** 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 201lNM0600n 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904: 2011NM060095 

### I FOMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM060014/ FOMS FAA-2013-0619 (Co11soUdated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 34

### •. ···.·· .. .(! ··.......

# ln~~nijJ~~9n~i~theseF~~;~~i:~~~L.Jt4·····•••. ·· **.,.[~kyW!!s~llnvit!! FMPi.!~tlc:ipagcm?·** 

### ·.



## . ..•... ·•···.·A.....

# W~~~~

# .. **~~~c:i#~~hYWtfK~4J2~~~ri~~~ktl~hfrairler**
. ·

.. CPnfereoce, 

## WN91i

**1,\1~** 

### helg ann\Ially dl!ring 

## q;z 

## 9.t'

**Q~.** 

### of

**~!l.~b** 

### year; •..

wherl!

**~heywer!!** 

### invit!!d t(! 

### cci.Ue

**~lld** 

### Pi.!rtitipate, !lndevl!n at !Jmes present theirfindings and surveillance;. . Q 

### And, didtheypartjc:ipate ahd present?•.. ·

. A 

### Thl!ygld;

**~.~.· complainalll;'$c!luns~!hM**  

### sugg¢stedthat

**Slo/Wes.tsh#~ld** 

### c:onsider.... "delaying departures''

**(CO!nPlainal11:'~ Post~Triall'!flefi.!t** 

### 7:3)

**~11dprovide ''in~:elltives"**  

### (albeit undefineci)for it$ ramp persPnl1ei(Id. at 

### 24)1.!!14

**mi.!~ b~9ause**  

### S)cyWesthas nottak!!n

**theses~eps,it**

### hM nptdone

**~ver,vthing tha~Itcoidd**  

### doJoremedytM situation. Suffice. it 

### to say there is no evidencethatthe measures proposed by Complainant's learned counselwouldbe eithedea.sibleoreffective, In fact, Complainant's counsel's suggestion

**th~t**

### departures should l:!edelayedretlects 

## a substantial lack ofawareness ortoday's

**ai~Hne** 

### operating environment As 

### SkyWest's

**Mag~iAiken** 

### testified, whl)nshe startedWith SkyWestapprOJP)JI!Itely 33 years ago · (tr. **439:16),SkyWestp~rsonnel**

### bandied 100 **percentof~~l}/f!srs** 

### ground . operations, where. as todaySkyWest onlyhanc:lles 20-30 

### percent ofits operations (Tr. 444:2M45:3]; This is also reflected in

**Eit:hj~it** 

### R-9, whh;fishows that th!! vast·. · majority ofground operations,including aircraftloadingandweightaml balance, are handled by SkyWesrs majorc:odeshare partners who have contracted with SkyWest to provide regional air service on their behalfattheir stations.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FPMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FOMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FOMS FAA-2012-0869: 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NMQ(j0081 

### I FOMS

**FAA-~Ol2-o904;** ZOllNMo6Q095/ FOMS FAA2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL JJRIEF 

### Page 35

### ·······•··/I············>>••·····•.. ···.····



# .·· ...•·•············.•.•.•••..Q ...•...• .............Witb.••



# r~s~e~t.t9•.



# s~w~~rs**cqn~~~iye~~~ns.~~veyqu.** <>>····•·•••·•·•····· ·..ever



## t~ceive~.**~I)~ f&\J~~~b<!c~**  **~~ ~o** **tll~**

## ...**!l~~ll~; tfi~.** **Br~!i¢1)ta,~Jp~{ot** 

## < ·••·•·•·•······.··•····.•..• ··· . **tb~St!IJlPietel!~~~~** 

## .qf

**~ll~ ~I!l~en~~~pij,** 

# qr

**tlle~91J1Pt!!Pilil~lvE;!W$~** 

# qfthll<···· ·

**pre~!!ntatiou?.** i · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · ··· · · ··· · ·· · · · · · · · A ••



# tti~i.~h~oiiJI;,**~6t\J 1~~~~~~~~~~** **~b~~~ih fd~** **ili~**

# \• ... prl)ces$. 

### \'VIl¢1)

**they~tt¢J1qe~ tbe5~nfer~~~¢s1**  **ltlo~t?f~h~.~~~~ti~F~ th~t··** 

**wereceived.w~~** 

### always

**pci~ftive•\•.ittgen~t\11 it\V!!~very**  

### Po$itive ··• feedb<tck. Q 

### the CM:? ··..

# cbir.ect,.tbet~Gutds.~nd~i~h~~~pirt$p~ctoto~·su~erviJGrtoi

**~ttend.** 

### At tlrries o1,1r **prlnc!paJiJper~tiou$ln$Pe~torw9til4,,,** 

### as .well, · Q · .. bid

### the 

### FAA



# ~verco~ITii!ni~~t~t~**y~J brto~nyhody**  ·..:that

**,.,effor~** 

### were not enough, 

# or

**insllffit:ien~.** 

### l.)rdefect!ve? · A ..·

# Againprimar!ly,)!lstconcern(or,youkrio~,th~~II~g~d. violations athand; Butfor themostpart, we had monthlytelefons,Ifmetnocy serves me corrfilctly, 'Nehad

**mo11thlytel~cons** 

### \<\lith them•. explainingwhat our .· corrective actions were in

**order,.mad~ at~elllPtS**  **~o bever~** 

### transparent, and dgring those conversations

# we didn'treceive any negative

**fe¢dl:!ac~;,.,l~**



### .

# Complainant'sb~iefisthe**firstnoticeSkYW~sthasr~c~iyed~b~~~~six·year** ·

. . ' .· .. : . . ' ' ' : 

### effortto

**redu~e** 

### bag counterrors is 

### insufficl¢nt. The criticismwould carry 

### Illore weight ifit had been elicited; on the stand, rr(lm 

### the various members ofthe CMO who monitored and participated int!le programs.· Instead it rings as a la\'\'Yer's argument, based on an opinion formed far away tram the actual operation,· 37 

### Tr. 403:13-405:12 FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA•Z012-0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-087a;2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869: 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868: 2011NM060081/FDMS FAA·2012-0904; 2011MM060D95 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013-0617; and 2012NM0600141 FDMS FAA·2013·061!i (Cons!llldated) · 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page 36

### revising

**lli!J'Pr()c!!dur~~** ;!rid tf)lliig

**~ ljia~~**  

### th!!!i\

**l;n~~~i"/'3~ .~~~~~ifi¢.lllyi\VIthtesp~** **c~** 

## · •··· to



# weight;ndbal~n~~**~j;~~~~~.**

# Mr.

**ehri~t~a~~;{i1~·~h~d;?········.·** ..



## ...

# th~~spretty P1uchbl!e6:



# tanstantlmRtoy~$ent,**Jr¢t~mU~h~QQ1**the ti!#e

**w~ •s~rt~d.** **~ol'\e~rpftll~~~ cas~s,**  **k~owin~ ~~t** **til~!'~. )V~Pti.~~!Jes**  

### O\lt.therE! i1t •··· 

### the:!

**s~at!pn,**

## and

**sp:m~** 

### qf

**~hese idlege4vloli.\tiim~}**  

### · ··· · · · · · 

## •

We

# exb~~4~4&~ig~thi~~~~~~~JJJ.~··~JJi~bij~il~W~~~~fe~·;.b&4~4~··o~ ·..**tr<!iningb~~k** 

### !!ilfly

**wb~~** 

### I

**~sin** 

### tbepepartlfil!%wbl!:h rrettr

**ntll~~**

**inc:lud~dhow** 

### tp fiUouta.GL!l.·l"· V{e¢xpandedth:it [initjajtrainh'lg}tot:Wo hours, then el(panded itto four hotJrS;l9 ·· · · ·· · · In

### addition to

### initial training enhancen\.ents.SeyWesthas

**enhan~ed** 

### recurrent

. - - . -· . . . 

### training and revised tlleir SP's 

## 41011 and.$SQQ 

## to.

## prescribe best

**pra~tices.**40



## V{h~n.· asked ifthere is.



# an~hing else



# Sky~~~t~ul~Possihlyd~tci**e;a~~~~te** thea\lege!l miscountS, Mr. 

### ChristenSen stated;

38 

### Tr. 433:6-7. 39 

### TR. 433:13-434;7, 40 

### Tr. 434:7-435:1S. FAA Case Nos,: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA•2012-0B74; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA·Z012-0B72; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-201;!-0873; 2011NM06007Z 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 IFDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM06009S 

### I FDMS FAA2013-0617: and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS

**FAA-2013·061~** (CunsoUdated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page37

# · ·. **The···~~~t···ili~t···¥g:tt~f~Jr$ ~~~~~~~~$** **q~~~·~·J~~····.•~o~··~~~h<~~~~~~;~\~bti.** following



# i~spro~rarosor



# att~~~tih~to**ac6t~Jfp~rfe~dbn; ~J~J** **~!G~d~d~~~w~~·**

41 

### Tr. 431): 1·8, FAA Case Nos.: 201iNM060038 

### I FD!'-IS FAA-2012·0874-; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-20i2·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060012 

### I FDMS FAA•2012-0869;2011NM060073



### I fDMS FM-2014-0868; 2ollNM060081 

### I FOMS FAA-.2012-0904: 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS 

### FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FOMS FAA·2013·01il9 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 38

# ·~t}~~;IJit21I~~~~~!fiiJ~~~,i;,, · **···~QJ~s~~~~~~v~ri~~~ehi~fiiih~~~~~~~~Jh~i~~~~~~~~~iW~i~¢~~~~~~,** 

# ;( ?··'·}·.·.·



# .SkyWes~s··b~ectatlr~ti~i~~~L2id:~:~iii~~~~~~~h~~~i}~:~~;~I~iri.•>.··



# s~mmc!i.up•.sky~~~t's~6r~4~~i~~~@~~~h~~iki~~~~~i~~r:~Ji~~~w~~~~~~~~~~l··························

**proc~qlire. •<~.llli•** 

## .•**t~ere~la,ti?.l1$t··Yf~ill~!i!rl)!.;~··.y.ri~h·.e!lr c~g;.** **~rt~.~ey.Ji~Y!lc•··.•·**

# · · ·

requestedHhe;:

**ma4e.~ ~tatel)lt:ntto\l~t~attheYwill~oi~I** 

# qs tovery high · · 

# standards ;ls

# a regio11al

**c~r.rier,** 

### because y.ie

**a,reav~ry !am:~t:u::~rtier;**  

### ··..··. · 42 (Tr; 

### 4S):l0},. See. 

# dlso.the



# ~stlmollY bffAA Principal



# O~tlliilli)!!IhspectotAndrewAyers: Q 

# Xnd sometiMe$ coY!!

# tine

**c~~ec;!y c~** **~; ~** **cha)teri~~.** ·.• A. It cart•.. 

### Q 

### Whether itis marbles, pokerchips, money; bags•.

**Iti~>**

### noppa) 

### human behavior to

**misco~t** 

### or forget where youwere. · A Sure. 

### Q f{ave you

**.:ver:roisc:o~ted** 

### something? A [ 

### have.(Tr.21 l;lh20).. 43 

### "Perhaps

### itproves 

### (bepohitthat SJtYWest

## ha5 been lllakingthat 

### the nwnbers get confusing.'' Complainant's coiu!sel athearing (Tt, 194:lH95:1). ·

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038/ FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM01i0047 

### I FDMS FAi\·2012•0872: 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873: 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAi\'2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS Fi\A·2012·0S68; 2011NM01i0081 

### I FPMS FAA·2D12·090f; 2011NM060095 

### I FPMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (Consolidated) · 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL 8RlEF 

### Page 39

### ;\iken suJllll)ed

**jtup.asJqU(:IW~:** 

### !!It's

**qon-heg(Jtl~bl~l'**

### ('J't; 414:JQ-11

### );i\



# SkyWe~t'sc9rJLate**phi1Qs9ph~~~~a;:i~g~~;Mh~.~c~i~di~gto.** Ms•.



# Ai~en**i~•·.·** .



### . "one

# ofthebestill~eill~u~trt&r,4~3:2·jj:C ·. We



# h~ve**~ ve@4uatl~t~i~L~p~o~a~,aA~~~~~~~a~~~~~~** **~b~~\** from

**othe~.airlines**

## a11iltell

**uss.o;.tna~** 

### ..wego

**a,bpv~ .~n~**  **~~yond.in** 

### a Jot pf

### thE:training, ci)rnpared to

### \Vhatilie;y hag

**re~~ived** 

### atother · carriers.4S. · · · · · · · ··



### . The goal ofthis trai11ingi$; ·.

T

Q 

### teach OUi' 

### people

## h6'N toJolid

**~he** 

### alr<=raft. al'\d 

# to ensutewe run 

## a safe operatlol), 

### to

**tea~h** 

### themhow to 

### be

**~e** best

### agents. · ·
<;o;ll 

### To minimize tne h\lmanfactors, certainly• Due

### to



## tlt~nutllberof people handling our aircraft:,we 

### do, with our ()Wn people, the best thatwe 

### can do in our training tominimize that..b£lcause

**w~** 

### knowit's

44 

### Tr, 442:10-21. 45 

### Tr. 443:15-19. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·2012-0874; 2011NM060o47 

### I FPM.S FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA·2012·Q868; 2011NM0600$1 

### I FDMS FAA•2012·0904; 2QUNM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST 

### AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page40

# ofstand~rdizadon among



# ,arri~tsl**i,e.,evecy~irllnl! ~~~** **alftfr~t~~i*~i~hr** i ·.··•



### . and

# bai~h~E!·pro~~lll.~ihll~~~~r~~~cl~~~§~nJ@~~~.~~Jr~l~~i~~~~ ,.



# Aikeri;



# s~w~sthas..

# he~~···~···!;ad~~~~~~~a~t~i~~J~~~~f$a~;~f~~.4g~j~{·····/·•··

# ·.··..... 4Sl:S)

# to reduce tlle



# p~~e~tial**~~r ~4~~~** **e;~bf{t\)~j~~~~~fiJ ~~t~~~J~~~iuf**  

# ·•·.·.· the result oflack ohrainlng,



# bu~1$



# ratherthe.prodllcf.bf~u~~II**t~bt~rs~l1d**.·. the ramp environment ('fr. 451:9-lS). 

### As 

### SkyWestexpertCariSahul1one testified:

.. I 

### think that the most



# djf~cult**asp¢¢tpfaircra~lqal)(l!gaml** baggage ·. . ·. handling has to do 

### with

**t~e ~nviri11imeiitarl)unli**  **W'~ic!l** 

### it

### is · · ..

centered; The ramp environment 

## itmayhave temperature · .. swings ...noise and vibration...light, darkne$s iSS\!I!$, 

### aswell as a flurry ofactivity maklngfocus difficult....

...humans,..havl! adifficult timeinherenl:l:Ywith counting, and

.when youthrow in SOmE!

### difficult environmental fllttors,it makeS .

that task even mare difficult; And lt.ls really the effects of

**th~** 

### environment onhuman performance thatcoull) have neg'!tive implications.... · · · ·· 46 

### Tr. 449:7-19. FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I l'DMS FAA·2Q12·0874; 20UNM060047 { FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·0873; 2011NM0600n 

### I FDMSfAI\·2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FM-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FOMS FAA·2012·0904; 20liNM06009S 

### I FDMS FAA• ;!013·0617; and 2012NM060014/ FDMS FAA-2()13·0619 (Co!ISolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page 41

### · vJr.•·coNct.IJstoN;•tAsllstNvdtviNG•siMPtgiNNdcllNT .

**HHl\1~!'!{ ~IUl()R**  **DO.NOTME~ITTfl§$1nlERE** 

### SANCTioN··· 

### THAT COMPLAIN.AIIIT silllkSti · .. . ..· . . . . . 

# ·

**·~11~s~~~~~~~~~~~tM~~ci~~KJff~~r:w~~~4~w~i~~~~.~~~··i.·••••···········.**



# reco~nizeij**~~ ~e/6~** **~~~~s~~~~61~>~riJ ~~a~nl~6,~·;,.~** **~~~ ~~~~~~~k~~~**  presents a



# cha!I~ri~ng**~rlvif~~~;ht~-~oi~~;Vthr1~on,··i~~~~ra~e·$~i~~$;** distractions,



# psyc~olog;c~l.s~ciru,~Iol6~~~andoth~Frac~~r$~~Jcoine Int4 play that call



# ~Iterana



# ![~it**1Iuman~~rf9rih~n~e, 49** 



# ~~malti~lt~6onim the •. . . process ofloading and



# counti~;**bai~a~~~~aircraf~ ~~k~~it** **~;~~tic;Ily** impossible to



# en~ure

# iho%

**aC~\Ir;IC;.~J** 47 

### Testimony 

### ofSkyWesl's e1Cpefi1 

### .CIIf! Slllamont; (Tr.

**~80:11-281** 

### :1S), 4B 

### FAA Order9550.8, 

## fl

**\lf!i~n**Factors PolicY 49 

### Asldt; from Messrs. Sahi!Jione's, 

### )3r0

### wn's, Barclay's 

### amt Christensen's and·. Ms. Aiken's testimonies in 

### theinst;ant matter, see FDMS Nos,

**FAA~ZOU-0485/0486** 

### · and FAA-2011-0779 HearingTr;ulscriptl18:2-9 so 

### ld. at 124:11-22;125:1
FAA Case Nos.: 20i1NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0974: 2011NM060047 / FPMS FAA-2QH-0872: 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 201iNM06008ll FDMS FAA·2012·0904-; 20UNM06009SI FDMS FAA2013-0617; and 2012NM06Ci014/ FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (Consolidated} 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page42**Mor~ovfi!r,** 

### t)ler¢ is no.

## in

**dt~:ationiwhat§oever;**

## of;iriy

**Cbillpany~widif ~ori~omplian~e** 

## ·• mindset.



# .Quitet~**~e corltra~,** **~~§~Wes~~Wl~¢~s~~ t;s~lled/$~W¢~it~~~~··•**  ·.reguiatory.•

# corpplla~teJ~f)i·s~rl6JJty,~~~~#~~~2~~Jj,~6~;~~ **~~~~~~~ ~ril!g~**  _.' . ·-- -. - -,.- .- "_·._. :---·- ',-',' -' : '•- ', ·. _-" :- '-' ,.. ,_ --' ' ·-.-,-· · .. : ..... . - :-: ' -, ... - '.' \:- -: .-: -·.._,_•:.--· .: .. -' ,•, .....- ...._. ·-·-:--:,:- ':- ·: -.. ' - •"•' .. 

### Aiken is

**"noth~gotiab!~.·· si<YiA'~$t'spoi\!lY~bwar$f.IMc:il6\IJtlai\c~** 

## jst:q·p@••



# .·complian~~**tirst;.tof()ll~~.lli~t~~ul~~i:~s,~hdU.s~t~t~()~·~~~~#te.~t~lni~~Is··.** intended to



# beproacti~e andto be



# thebestln~elndus~. **W~eJ~s~Westsees** best

. - ' - - 

### . - ' ' ' . 

### practices used by otherairlir\es1

### it



# iilcprp~rates those practices



# V\lher~**appU~ble .l**  (and wllen allowed bythe FAA), 

### Complainant.seeks·a total penalty of$560,0pO,.•or



# ~40,Q00per**·flig~~·rorsimpte** · human cpunUng <!nd arithmetic errors--m<!tters inwhich theAdministrative Li!w judge inthe priorcases dearly concluded weretechnic<!l in nature ami did not affect

. . •. . .. ·.·· .· .. · . .· .... 

## ·. .· . . . . 

### . . . .· . . 

### s1tn addition to Mr. Barclay's, Mr. Christensen's <!rid Ms.Aiken's testimony in the instant c<!se, see FDMS 

### Nos.

**2011~0485/0486** 

### and FAA 

### 2011-0779Hearing Transcript atl72:15·22;173:1·15

FAA

**C~se** Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAJ\.ZOlZ-0874; Z011NM060047/ FDMS FAA,2012·0872; 20UNM060063/ FDMS FM-Z012-0873; 2011NI\I06Q072/ FDMS FAA·201Z·0869: 2011NM06Q073



### I FDMS FM-2012·0868; 2011NM060081/ FDMSFAA-2012·0904; 20llNM060095 

### I FDI\IS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NI\I0600l4 

### I FDMS FM-2013·0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF 

### Page43Programto address human



## performanceis~uess• .:.while



## w~stilig agency



## reso~r~es. 52 Initial Decision$ in

### rOMS FM-2011-0779



# andF~·ZOUQ0485/0486: . The



# vio[;~oons found were



# te~hnical in dature. They had no material effect on weight andbalani:e oron aircraftperformance. Respondent showed · tha.t in no instance was safety offlight at even the slightest risk. (Initial Decisions at 7). · 53 Again, these "prior cases" arose contemporaneouslywith the instant cases. They were merely litigated 1 

### 'h years earlier. · · 54 FDMS Nos. 2011-0485/0486 and FM 2011·0779 Hearing Transcript 112:19-22;113:1-17

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM06003B 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·0873; Z011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 · (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page44

# · rtlcirehas**be~!l extenstVee~id~~ci~ofili~~rih~~n~~~~~~~~ctiv~** actiohs

# that·

# skywe~~··h~~·~k¢kto.pre~~~~~I~ma~e~t~r.Idc~t\h~rtg,~~gga~¢,f~~;~ding,·'·~o,ong •.· '.

. ·.

# othei·'tltihg~.**e~ha~~ed.·i~;ri~~•·~~d~~~ut~eht~ainliiJ,#Jntijw~~w~rk~h~k•,··** 

# .·.**2~~.f¢rentels~;f~udi~~~~~~J~.~··c~~Jit~h~~.~hliR~t£~f~~~hif~'~6J~s~~;i~li~~**



# group$**.coll~ucteJ V/1~** **~ontnh~**·age!lts

# to

# be~¢~Jn~~~~~~j~~~f~**·~~te~tla!sf~r** error exist; bettercoordination with conttactstations

# a~d**~~~~-sharing** carriers . ; -._.·. '• - : . :-:, .. . :, -:·: ' ', . '. 

### handling SkyWest's

## air~raft loading; manual, 

### policy

## ~nd procec\Grl) revisions;

## <~hd working with other carrh!rs

## a~c\ the 

## pJ\..1\ss to desig1'lltid1J$kr-leading tr;!iniM and standardization

# ~fgrau~j**operat~o!ls~~ll** with

# ~Cllnte~d~~**~bl~~~ve ofirttpt~ving**  ·accuracy amfredudng theHI<elih6od

## oflt~manerror. 55 

### The FAA's Salt; l.ake Cjty 

### Certificate ManagernentOftlce (CM(J) participated.in SkyWest's effort$,**Repr(lsentativesofth~C~O** 

### attended and participated in . ·· SkyWest's W&.S training!\nd never statedthatitwas insufficientor ineffective, · SkyWesthad periOdic teleconferences with its CMO to ensure SkyWest's compliance efforts were satisfactory, anda3ain, theFM never offered even a hintthat SkyWest's actions were in anyway inadequate or ''ineffectual". ·

FAA Case NQs.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA·Z012·0874; 20liNM060047j FJ;JMS FAA·Z012·087Z; 2QHNM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0873; 2011NM06007.2 

### I FDMS FAA·Z012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA·Z012·0868; Z011NM060081/ FOMS FAA·ZQ1Z·0904: 201lNM06009S 

### I FOMS FAA· 2013·0617: and Z012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013-0619 (Consolidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC::.'S POST TRIAL BlUEF Page45

### Qat wqrk**an~.7•arejus~** 

### a**«re~~~lt(ofj pr~yit)4sflffi1ttl;**  

### krio\.Vp.**~Q !?~** **i!t!lf(ecQ,li\IJl',$~**

# •· ·this

# state~entcallsiAtb**'u~~h~~t~rln~iuf~~f~~ ~M'~** **~Ar!l~~;~~~~~&!!Cir** a$• ·.····

# Skr\Vesttocik.ex~erisiJ¢edgr~fo·c~JI~go~~~~~~th·*~~~tq·~A#fu.¢i~W$4~···

# ~rair~fi1 and••

# J?~g~:ge}~~gciJo~~~~gpfbced~tg~W~r~~Je~l!~t~··~nJ**~e.FM.Is·hqw,** . •.·with apparent Z0-20

# h;ndsi~ht**1~yin~** I tWas

# ~~~en~\!g~. bn

# ~~Iti~I~**~c~~sions** SkyWest

# metarJdwor!<e~widt**~e FAA;~formuiating~anyot(~~cgtre~~veactions;.** 

# Th~fact is. thereis no magic

# silv~;bullet that

## is

# abs~lutelyiu~r~llteed to

# ptflven~ h1.1rnan error 100

### percentafthetime. AIJdtoJhe exteiJtthatthese m;atters arose 

## !Is a ·.r¢suJt ofsirn!lie htiman err9r,

# ~o• dvn.pepalt)',

# la~g~**~.t ~!It~** I!,

# ~~**;qi~;**to prevent

. . . . 

### Cornplain<!nt**<~d!fitlon<!IIY** 

### attempts tojustify the proposed penalty on the gro1.1nds that SkyWest can afford it,

### dtlngSkyWest's 2013

### Ann\Ia! Reportwhich

56 

### Complainant's.Post-Trial Brief, 

### page 12-13 FAA Case NQs.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 20iiNM060041/ FDMS FAA-2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-08731 2011NM060072/ FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS**fAA-2012~Q904:** 2011NM06009S / FDMS FAA2.013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (ConsQJidated) 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL 

### BRIEF 

### Page 46

# • •

shows a net profit for thatyear of$135,519,000,57 SkyWest operated 620,500 flights in 2013, which means it made $218.40 per Hight. At the proposed $40,000 penalty, SkyWest would have to operate 184 flights to pay for a single miscounted bag! Ability to pay should not in and ofitself justify a sanction which is unreasonable, excessive and unwarranted. In conclusion, should the Administrative Law judge determine that a sanction is required, SkyWest requests that it be reduced for the reasons set forth above. DATED this 4th day ofAugust, 2014.


## ••m""''" L. Dworkin 

### Co-Counsel f(J]" 

### SkyWestAirlines

57 

### Complainant's Post-Trial Briefat20. However, SkyWest's Annual Report is not in evidence, nor has Complainant requestedjudicial notice ofsame. Moreover, the Annual Report is for 2013, but these cases arose in 2011. In 2011, according to SkyWest's Annual Report for thatyear, it had a net loss of$27.8 million.

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA•2012·0872; 2011NM060063 

### I FDMS FAA·2012·0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012·0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012·0904; 2011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA· 2013·0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA·2013·0619 (Consolidated] 

### SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page47

# • •

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 4<11 day ofAugust, 2014, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing: 

### POST-TRIAL BRIEF was served as follows: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 NewjerseyAvenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 Email: richard.goodwin@dotgov {FED

### EX and Email} Federal Aviation Administration 800 IndependenceAvenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 {FEDEX} jeffrey M. Harper Federal Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 Fax: (425) 227-1007 Email: Ieffrey.harper@faa.gov (FEDEX, FAX and Email} 

# ()ulf)dtJ.

# t:1!i&d. ; c CAITLIN M. MILLER ..

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM060038 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0874; 2011NM060047 

### I FDMS FAA•2012·0872; 2011NM060063f FDMS FAA-2012-0873; 2011NM060072 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0869; 2011NM060073



### I FDMS FAA-2012-0868; 2011NM060081 

### I FDMS FAA-2012-0904; Z011NM060095 

### I FDMS FAA2013-0617; and 2012NM060014 

### I FDMS FAA-2013·0619 (Consolidated) SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.'S POST TRIAL BRIEF Page48