Todd C. Emerson, #8175 

444 South River Road 

St. George, Utah, 84 790 

Telephone: (435) 634-3530 

Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 

Attorney for Sky West 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: 

Sky West 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 Sky West reserves the right to supplement or 

amend these Responses as its investigation proceeds, up through the time of hearing. 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 each 
and every affirmative defense contained in its Answer, which Sky West incorporates herein by 

this reference as if fully 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 of the 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 in the 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 of the effort to voluntarily disclose the alleged bag 

discrepancy, which is protected from disclosure under 49 U.S.C., § 40123 and 14 CFRpart 193. 

2 
Without 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 of said 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 7 43; 

8. Sky West's response to letters of investigation; 

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. 

SkyW est reserves the right to utilize at hearing any document not listed above for purposes 

of impeachment. 

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 of each person's anticipated 

testimony. 

Response: 

At this point in time, SkyWest does not contemplate calling any witnesses in this matter. 

If the FAA alleges that safety of flight 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. If necessary, 

SkyW est will identify a similar expert who can testify about the impact of the weight and 

balance discrepancies alleged on Flight 4 7 43. 

Interrogatory No.4: Identify by title, date, author, present custodian, and content, all 

3 
documents 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, SkyW est contemplates offering no documents related to 

establishing or defending liability in this matter. SkyWest will ask Judge Goodwin to take 

judicial notice of all prior mitigation testimony and exhibits offered and accepted into evidence 

in the combined weight and balance cases previously heard, and currently pending, so as to avoid 

repetition and further judicial economy. Investigation and discovery are ongoing and SkyWest 

reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response up through the date of hearing. 

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 

Interrogatory No. 3, specify their specific area of expertise, and provide a synopsis of their 

credentials, background, training and experience. 

Response: 

Carl Salamone is no longer employed by SkyWest and it has not yet identified a similar 

expert to opine about the impact of the 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 of hearing. SkyWest reserves the right to call an 

expert witness at hearing for purposes of impeachment. 

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 of the facts and 

opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and provide a summary of the grounds for 

each such opinion. 

Response: 

See the Response to Interrogatory No. 5, above. 

Interrogatory No.7: Describe with specificity all of the facts which you anticipate 

4 
presenting in the course of the hearing in this matter pertaining to the avoidance or mitigation of 

the sanction sought by the FAA in this case. 

Response: 

The alleged presence of the valet bags in the cargo hold had no impact on the safe 

operation of Flight 4743 and did not cause the center of gravity to move outside the approved 

envelope or exceed takeoff weight restrictions. 

Factoring environmental conditions at the time of takeoff, the maximum takeoff weight 

was 49,299 pounds. The flight crew calculated gross takeoff weight at I ,234 pounds below the 

maximum takeoff weight. The additionall,170 pounds in the aft cargo compartment would not 

have exceeded the maximum runway takeoff weight. The flight crew also calculated a takeoff 

center of gravity (CG) located at 10.14 percent mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC). An 

additional 390 pounds located in the aft cargo compartment would have shifted the takeoff CG 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 of the mitigation efforts SkyW est has undertaken to address this issue. 

Interrogatory No.8: For each allegation in the Complaint that is denied- whether 

outright or as a result of having 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 of the 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 of the hearsay declarants have been 

identified or interviewed by the 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 7 43 

5 
actually 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 of having insufficient information or knowledge from which to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegation, in whole, or in part- 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 of any 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 of the 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 of all referenced documents. 

Request for Production No.2: Provide a copy of all documents referred to in your 

answer to Interrogatory No. 4. 

6 
Response: 

The FAA has copies of all 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 of all documents that support your 

answer to Interrogatory No. 9. 

Response: 

N/A. 

Request for Production No.5: Provide a copy of all documents that support your 

answer to Interrogatory No. 10. 

Response: 

The FAA has copies of all referenced documents. 

Request for Production No. 6: Provide a copy of all 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 FOR ADMISSIONS 

Request for Admission No. 1: Admit that, for the 12 month period ending March 2014 

7 
Sky West had operating revenues in excess of $100 million, as shown by the Airline Quarterly 

Financial Review (1'' Quarter 2014) published by the Department of Transportation, 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 of September, 2014. 

~ 

Todd 

kt-uC~ C. Emerson 

Attorney for Sky West Airlines 

8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 5th day of September, 2014, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S 

INITIAL DISCOVERY REQUEST was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, 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, 84 790 

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 of bags offloaded from each of the respective 
• • 

flights did not conform to the numbers of bag reflected on the flight crew copies of the Cargo 

Load Report (CLR). Safety of flight 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, of the 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, Sky West 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 5 heavy 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, Sky West 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 Sky West violated its Operations 

Specifications (OpSpecs), in violation of FAR'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 of cargo and baggage, in violation of FAR 

121.693(a); operated aircraft when the total weights were not computed under approved 

procedures, in violation of FAR 121.693(c) and operated aircraft which had not been loaded in 

accordance with an approved schedule, in violation of FAR 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 if such 

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 of baggage, all 

without incident. 

As do many US-certificated air carriers, SkyWest utilizes an average weights program to 

govern the loading and computation of weight and balance of its aircraft.l Sky West's Weight 

may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation or 

exemption authority, if issued to that person or that person's representative. 

2 119.5(1)- No person may operate an aircraft under this part, part 121 of this chapter, or part 135 

of this chapter in violation of an 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 takeoff time: 

(a) The weight of the 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 of gravity 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 of liability 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 of sanction has not been resolved. 

l Under Paragraph A098 of its Operations Specifications ("OpSpecs") Sky West 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. F AA-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 if the numbers of bags listed in the flight crews' CLR 

copies do not match the number of bags unloaded from the aircraft, there is a presumption that 

Sky West loaded baggage into the aircraft in violation of its W &B Program and Manual. 

Complainant asserts that this presumption extends to the preparation and accuracy of the 

load manifests. In other words, if the CLR's do not accurately reflect the numbers of bags 

loaded into the aircraft, the load manifests are inaccurate and in violation of the 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 itself that is controlling. Sky West's OpsSpecs specifically permit 

last minute changes to cargo with the concurrence of the flight crew. 6 There is no specific 

requirement that the crew copy of the CLR be amended. It is quite conceivable that crews could 

have permitted last minute changes and have incorporated those changes in the preparation of the 

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 100 pounds. 

6 Pursuant to Sky West'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 or refuse 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 of the 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 of the CLR's. Absent some evidence that 

the flight crews used inaccurate information contained in their copies of the 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 of the 

CRJ-200 aircraft utilized for that flight.9 During the course of its 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 of the 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 Sky West'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 I 00 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 of these 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 F AAdid not produce any witnesses so SkyWest could not 

determine if Agents asked the flight crew whether there was a last minute passenger change and 

if the 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 if true, might have marginally improved aircraft performance. 11 The FAA did 

not speak with the flight crew or obtain the departing station's copy of the 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 of only 16 pounds. 13 reducing aircraft weight by 168lbs., more than eliminating the 120-

pound difference that the FAA aile ges 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 

of the 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. F AA-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 of a 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 of the 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 of the 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 of the 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 of these 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 of flight and for which 

Complainant's allegations may be baseless. 17 

During the three-month period which this consolidated matter covers, Sky West operated 

some 120,000 flights and carried some S-6 million items of baggage, all without incident. 

As Sky West's pilot and expert11 Carl Salamone testified, computation of takeoff weight 

under an average weights program, may not exactly correspond to the actual weight of the 

aircraft; 19 aircraft weight and center of gravity and aircraft performance for each of the 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 of argument, 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 of flight 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 Brief at 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 

of the 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 of Flight 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 of argwnent 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 of its investigations of these matters, the FAA failed to: 

• speak with the subject flight crews and the personnel who loaded the aircraft to 

determine if there were any last minute changes where the flight crew had authorized addition(s) 

or removal(s) of baggag~1 such that a modification of the flight crew copies of the 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 Brief that the "record is devoid of any 

evidence that any of these [authorized last minute changes] took place on any ofthe flights at 

issue,"2

' the originating stations discard amended CLR's at the end of the 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 of the CLR's and the aircraft weights listed in each of the 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 of Flight 6573 whether there was a 

last moment baggage change. 

24 Complainant's Exhibit C-1 03 - 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 of OMS Nos. 0680 and 0779: 

On October 4, 2012, Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie Yoder, noting the 

double-docketing of FAA 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 of substance, Respondent submits to the Court's discretion in resolving any 

outstanding concerns. 

2. Complainant Has Failed to Meet its Burden of Proof: 

Complainant has alleged that Sky West violated its Operations Specifications (in violation 

ofF AR's 119.5(g) and (I); operated flights without load manifests accurately reflecting the 

weights of cargo and baggage (in violation of FAR 121.693(a)); operated aircraft when the total 

weights were not computed under approved procedures (in violation of FAR 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 of offloaded bags. 

Complainant suggests that because the flight crew copies of the CLR's did not properly 

reflect the baggage in the aircraft cargo area, then it must be presumed that the load manifests 

were incorrect. 1bis presumption is shaky, at best 

It is the load manifest that is controlling as there is no specific requirement that the crew 

copy of the CLR be amended to reflect last minute changes. Absent some evidence that the 

flight crews used inaccurate information contained in their copies of the CLR's to prepare the 

load manifests, Complainant's case must fail. 

Complainant would have the Court believe that the use ofCLR data is the sole means of 

generating a load manifest. However, Complainant's Exhibit C-102, Sky West'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 of the CLR's. 

If the flight crew allowed for a last minute change, the departing stations' copies of the CLR's 

would have been the only correct CLR's amended per Exhibit C-102. 

3. Complainant Failed to Prove that Sky West Operated Aircraft In Violation of its 

Operations Specifications 

Sky West's W&B program is incorporated into its operations specifications. The W&B 

program requires that Sky West personnel mark the number of standard, heavy and planeside 

loaded bags in the appropriate block of the 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 of cargo, 

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 of the CLR's may 

not reflect the numbers of bags, 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 of the CLR's. However, this does not mean that the load 

manifests were incorrect or that the flights were in violation of the 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 or her approval for the change. 

This section does not require that the flight crew's copy of the CLR be amended, so a last minute 

change could produce some prima facie discrepancy between the flight crew's copy of the CLR 

and the number of bags 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 of the FAA inspectors spoke with the Sky West 

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 of the 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 

Brief that 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 Sky West's OpsSpecs, that the flight crews did 

not correctly calculate weight and balance data, or that Sky West operated aircraft in any manner 

contraiy to its OpsSpecs. 

Complainant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there were any 

violations of Sections 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 to justify its proposed penalties by applying evidence to the sanction guidelines. 

Each flight is simply assigned the same penalty, with no consideration of the myriad differences 

between those flights. Instead, Complainant runs through a rote recitation of familiar 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. It drops the thirteen factors set forth in 

Warbelow in a footnote without explaining how any of these 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 Sky West Airlines) reported a net loss of$27.8 million33• 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, Sky West 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 more justification than "we get deference." No, the FAA has 

the burden of showing that its penalty is fair, reasonably calculated and specifically tied to the 

underlying facts. It has not done that here. Instead it has ignored Sky West's efforts to mitigate 

and blown past the maximum allowable penalty by alleging multiple violations, based on the 

same set of underlying facts. 

a. Nature. Circumstance. Gravity and Extent of the Alleged Violation 

Sky West 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 of loading and counting baggage on aircraft can make it impossible to 

ensure I 00% accuracy. 35 

33 Sky West respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge take judicial 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 take judicial notice of contents of documents 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. F AA-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 of flight was 

never at risk. 

Moreover, computation of takeoff weight under an average weights program does not 

exactly correspond to the actual weight of the aircraft. 37 Complainant has long recognized this 

and has fully acknowledged that the use of actual 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 of the 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 Of the five flights at issue in this 

case, only one was outside of the permitted 2%, although not by much. 39 

b. Degree of Culpability 

Sky West handles an estimated 23 million bags per year; 40 the sheer volume of manually 

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 off by 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 11 0; 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 of bags 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 Program44 to 

provide for this. Although the FAA has granted such relief to at least one other air carrier 

operating aircraft of similar size to Sky West'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 Brief at pp. 12-13), Sky West 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 of Operations Manuals from other airlines that FAA had already approved for just such 

an amendment. Sky West'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 of the approved program already in place for 

three bags. Hearing Transcript 118: I 0-20. 

4

' SEALED- The FAA granted Delta Airlines a 20-bag tolerance, yet denied Sky West 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 Sky West sees best practices used by other airlines, it incorporates those 

practices where applicable46 (and when allowed by the FAA). 

At the hearing Sky West presented extensive evidence of corrective actions taken to 

prevent and/or minimize human error in counting baggage, including, among other things, four 

years of weight and balance workshops and conferences, self-audits to ensure compliance, the 

addition of improved online CLR training courses; the introduction of focus 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 of training bulletins and 

ground operations bulletins. 47 

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

Sky West's 2009, 2010 and 2011 Customer Service Training conferences focusing on weight and 

balance issues. There was never any indication from them that Sky West's training or procedures 

were anything other than adequate.48 Sky West had monthly teleconferences with the FAA 

Certificate Management Office and a Principal Operations Inspector to ensure Sky West'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 of its Post-Trial Brief, Complainant cited 21 different measures taken by 

Sky West, claiming 14 did not work and 7 are just a "rehash [of] previous efforts known to be 

ineffectual".50 This statement calls into question the nature of the 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 
• • 

Sky West 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 Sky West's "ineffectual" attempts 

at compliance show the FAA's unrealistic expectations. On multiple occasions Sky West met and 

worked with the FAA in formulating many of these corrective actions. 

d. Compounding of Multiple Violations 

Simply adding up individual penalties for each violation can result in compounding a 

sanction in a disproportionately harsh manner for the conduct involved. 5

2 When a single instance 

of noncompliance resulting in multiple violations of general 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 proof of a fact the other does not; the critical distinction being that (g) regulators 

operations as an air carrier and 0) regulates the operation of an 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 Sky West violated section 0) for operating an aircraft in violation of 

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

Complainant has doubled its penalty on a truism: Sky West 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 of Noncompliance 

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 Sky West's violation history for incidents relating to miscounted 

baggage suggests that Sky West'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 of bags every year will inevitably and unescapably result in a miss-counted bag (and 

unfortunately a lost bag just when 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 

Sky West that its training is adequate when conducted, and inadequate when the trained 

employees make a simple mistake. 

While the degree of hazard is de minimis, and the act of miscounting cannot be avoided, 

Sky West continues to show its attitude of compliance 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 other justification than "this has happened 

before." But Complainant has shown no commonality in the alleged violations. Sky West has 

more than l 0,000 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 of management. It gives no credit in its penalty 

calculation for the massive amounts of energy and resources that Sky West has dedicated to 

achieving a perfect bag count. No matter what measures Sky West 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 of Rights (PBR), Public Law 112-153, removed was 

special statutory deference to the FAA. While specifically, PBR relates to National 

Transportation Safety Board reviews of FAA actions and the instant case is before the 

Department of Transportation, 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, Sky West'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 of these cases, there is no evidence of lack of training or proficiency on the part 

ofSkyWest or its employees. Sky West has promulgated extensive procedures for the loading 

and accounting of baggage in its aircraft. SkyWest has been an industry leader in training its 

employees--training of which Sky West 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 of safety and 

that there was no compromise in same. 

Assuming that the baggage counts contained in the crew copies of the CLR's were used 

to compute load and balance and the load manifest (for which the FAA has produced not one iota 

of evidence 

In all the subject flights there are two possible explanations, either: 

I. A violation of the 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 Sky West Pilot in Command (PIC) 

simply authorized a last minute change of the cargo loaded on the aircraft after the CLR bad 

already been provided to the flight crew. 

The later situation is not a violation of the FAR's as SkyWest's OpsSpecs clearly provide 

that a modification of the flight crew's CLR is not necessary if the PIC gives authorization to 

load or unload bags after verbally communicating any weight and balance changes with 

designated loading agent. 54 

If not the latter situation and the CLR's in fact contained errors, these cases all involve 

the simple inescapable and undeniable" factor of human error. 

In conclusion, Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof to show that Sky West 

operated in violation of its OpsSpecs. Sky West did not violate the cited FAR's and the complaint 

should be dismissed with prejudice. 

In the alternative, if the Court determines that the presence of an incorrect CLR in the 

flight crew's possession creates a presumption of incorrect load manifests in violation of 

OpsSpecs, Sky West submits that the $33,000 per violation civil penalty is unreasonable and 

excessive. 

To the extent that these incidents were the product of simple 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-1 03 -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 of January, 2013. 

Michael L. Dworkin 

Co-Counsel for Sky West Airlines 

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 of January, 2013, a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing: 

POST-TRIAL BRIEF 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, 

Room E 12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(FED EX} 

federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

(FED EX} 

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 

{FED EX} 

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, 84 790 

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 

Sky West respectfully requests that the Administrative Law Judge take judicial 

notice ofSkyWest's Form 10-K, dated as of 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. Under Federal Rules of Evidence 

("FRE ") 201, Courts may take judicial notice of contents of documents filed with 
• • 

an administrative agency, FindWhat Investor Group v. FindWhat.com (ll 111 Cir. 

2011), 658 F. 3d 1282, 1297, fu IS. 

Respectfully submitted this 22"d day o 

Michael L. rkin 

Co-Counsel for S/ryWest Airlines 
• • 

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, "Sky West," ''we," "us," "our" and similar terms refer to 

SkyWes~ Inc. and "Sky West Airlines" refers to our wholly-owned subsidiary, Sky~ Airlines, Inc. 

Effective December 31, 2011, our subsidiary, Expresslet Airlines, Inc. was merged into our subsidiary, 

Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc., with the surviving corporation na-.i Expressltl Airlines, Inc. (the 

"&presslet Combination"). In this Report, '~/antic Southeast" refen to At/anti& Southeast Airlines, Inc. 

for periods prior to the Expresslet Combination, ''Expresslet Delaware" refers to Expruslet Airlines, Inc., a 

Delaware corporation, for periods prior to the Expresslet Combination, and "Expresslel" refm to Expresslet 

Airlines, Inc., the Utah corporation resulting from the combination of Atlantic Southeast and Expresslet 

De/a ware, for periods 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 opera ring 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 of regional 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 

Sky West Airlines 

SkyWest Airlines provides regional jet and turboprop service primarily located in the midwestern 

and western United States. Sky West 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 any future filing undu the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities &change Act of 1934, each as 

amended, except to the extent we specifically incorporale it by reference into such filing. 

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 of January, 2013, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing: 

APPENDIX A to POST-TRIAL BRIEF 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, 

Room E12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

{FED EX} 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

{FED EX} 

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 

{FED EX} 

Qruft<m' I /JZd1uu 

CAITLIN M. MILLER 

Legal Assistant 
. I 

·. ···.. .... . . • i{ .·. . .·· 

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

444 S\)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 OF AMERICA 

· 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'!d ing 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,qu i.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 nearing in 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!d only 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 the court wjthJepetitive and C\lmbersome litigation. At least that \\las the 

plan. . . . 

Unfort1lnately, the FAA has utterly rejected this Court's prior decjslons, 

Notably it did nat appeal either decision, but preferred to reprocess its arguments 

and take the proverbial "second bite at the apple" in thehope this Court will 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, arguing that the incre<~sed penalty isju~tifiedbecause Sky~est did not ·•·. • . 

learn its lesson-but only days separate the flights fr01n th~ first cpnsolidated cases .. 

to the instaJJt casesno\Vpending, ~nq again, e~ezy flight predate~ the first h~adng, · ... ·. 

As always, Complainant demands that this Court give ''due d!lf!lren~e" t; its proposed . 

penalty, but Complainant gives absolutely!\Qn!lto ~e Court'spr~~iousi~itial 

Decisions. . . . . . . ' . . . . 

The Court would not be burdened now if Complainant hadproposed a penalty . . 

in line, or even in the same galaxy, i!S die prior Initial Decisions b~t the Complainant . . ' . . ' . . . . . . . 

remains unregenerate. SttYWest comes again to ask relief from the draconian 

penalties meted out on 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(l live 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 over an, ~ightand, ()l)e·Ji111f{llJ%Jm~Jnth peno~Jn 2P~t. · 

From the 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~$.httg~d~misfuke$, 

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

~ Compoundingiitherent hum ;tit efrors in colil)~ng is the ramp environment 

i t~el f-i,e., multiple actiVitie~ involving multiple .ain;r!lll th!lt !lre. arriving, departing ;~n(l being serviced, we<1ther and envir9omental conditions,. exposure tothe 

elements, differln~ conditions of light and d,arkness and noise, which witnesses · 

described as hostile or chaotic (for example,pleijse see testimony ofSkyWest 

Manager of Ground Ope)'ationsTr<~ining. Jay Cbristensen,Tr. 428:22·429:20, among 

several of the SkyWest witnesses tq testified. t.o same), Complainant did not contest 

or rebut this extensive testimony, In fi!q,SkyWest's expert, CarlSalamone (Wh9 

holds a degree in ~viation Human Fae1:9rs ['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.rt9r t94ePIIrt\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~loadeci items 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 

zero weight, 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 pf one ofSk}rWest's regional jets and given a · 

zero weightwoul.!f be 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 of 60 

pounds per itl!!lll anf:i . . 

·live animals: 30-60 pounds per anim11l. (HPw~ver, as SI<)IWest'sJeremy 

Barclay testified, if the live animal is carried on board the passengercompartmen~ It 

is accorded zero weight and if the 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~aysheavier on paper than it Is in· .. 

reaHty, and as th~ FM adroit!:, none of the 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 Request for JIJdi~i!ll NQtice dat~dApril ~!I; 2014;whic~ ir~<;lQded the Ini\:ial· 

Decisions mem l.a.), . . ... · . . 

4,_t9.S(g}- Nbpersbnmay ope~~te as a dir~ct~i~c~tr\er~rah ¢ornmer~ial·· operator without, or in ':'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 allthority1if issued tO· .• 

that person. or that person'srepreseiltative; · · ·· · · · 

st19.s(l)-No person ma;op~t~teah aircr'lftiJndertltis part, part qt of this 

chapter, or part 135. ofthi$.diapter in violation ofan air carriiWqperatiflg certiflcatll, 

operating certificate, or appropri<tte ()peration~ spt:!clfications jssuedunder this part. . ' - ' . . 

•· 6 121.693 -The load manifest must cqntain the follqwing Information. 

concerning the loading of the ah"planeat takeofftime: ··.. . .... ··. ·. .. . . . (aJ The weight qf th~ '!ircraft,Juel and oil, c(lrgo an\l baggage, passengers and 

crewmembers; · ·· 

... 

(c)The tot<~.l weight computed under approved prqce~ures; and . 

(d) Evidence that the aircraft is loaded ilq:qrding to an apprqved schedule 

that insures that the center of gravity 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 8 
FAA 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 $33,06;per Oight, wh!ch~b~ ;J~~e i;Ja~!cti6$~sd.~e~tli;h{~6w; <;(l~~~~i!lanbeE!ks. 

penalties of$40,0,0 0.00 per f[ight,f~t a·tot~l ~e~al~ sl$~~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 . 

a penalty 169 ti~es ~~at!!r p¢r.flig}Jt th~~ thi*·G<lt;rt 4~4~t~ddnMaY:2, 2013, b11t .·. 

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

As in the prior cases, safety of flight was neitheraffected nor cornpromised•-any ' . ·- : _. ·:_· .. - .- ,- ' ,- ._ - . . ', 

weight c!iscrepancies caused by the lniidvertent O)iScpuntin~ of bags were nominal ~nd had 

no effect on the weight and balance, ot performance 11nc! h~ridling of the aircraft. There is 

absolutely nothing thatdistihgllisheHhe instant cases from the prior on~s. These cases do 

not arise from a culture of noncompliance. Rather, th¢y are the product ofinescapable 

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 mi uhnal•. 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\A has . 

acknoWledge" that there is ilo al!tOrnljt!C q~nger a used bfs~alf ~lstrepand~sbetweert 

. the load manifest ;md a~tual aircraftwelghtUnder these averag¢ weight programs, it is 

9The Court, in its Order dated May 5, Z014 has given AC1ZO-Z7E judicial 

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 · 

. copy and fligntcrew ~opyl iHPPPP$ed to reflect tlt!" baggage!lndcarg01oaded onto the . 

aircraft. there are provisions fotlast ~inute c~an~~s aftert~e C[.R has be~n preparedand 

' . . . : _. .- . . ' ' _: .· 

· .1P SkyWest!sDirector ofSafetyPoUcy andSe~urity, Jeremy Sarclay, t~~tified 

that th~weight reflected in a load m;;mifest(~ven if corre~;tly prepar~dl retleds th~ 

average Weights and may not carrespopd tp tile actu~l weight of the aircraft. Tr. . · 381:22-382:111 As such, Complainant's $~tern~nt; "A$ a r~g\llatory minirnPm, the 

load manifest must reflect thealrcraft's actual loading ... ," (Complainant's Post-Trial 

Brief at 6) is incorrect. 

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,lnspector Adam Perki?s t7stl~ed th<!t t;Jtere was <1 "formattp help ·· the ram per 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 it woqld have been benetl~iaifor the FMto haveobt<!ined the 

station copies of the C(..R's, with the tally sheets, to see 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 of the CLR, and in one of those 

cases, it showed. that there 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 13 
final manifest-"soyou could have several printed ~opies that have gone to the. 

· trash .•. that are quite irrehwant," (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.9f tlie 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 a CR)9QO,a 76-passenger t:Wfn· 

engine reglon.iiljethaving a m<~Xhnum grCiss take(]ffweij~llfof84,SQO pounds: 

· . ..:aambardlar CL-600-2Cl0, also kn.own as a CRJ 700, a 70-~assenger tWin·· 

engine regional jethaving a maximum gross takeoff weight ~f75,QOO pounds; 

·Bombardier CL-600·2819, also known as a c::;R) 200, a 50-passenger t:Win· • . . - . . . 

engine regionaljet having a maxhnum gross takeoffweight of S3,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!st rrif)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.t tbi!Y wen:!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 testified as to his methodology: . . . ;;·-.- . . . 

.• .1 took <~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 the weight 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 of the <~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 of gr!lvityleft them~nufact\lrer's ~ugges~ecj llmii:S? · · 

A I did not.. 

Q How alliJ\1~ asperceiv~db;th~ FM inspect?rt ·. 

A I did 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.· 

that theY 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!, or mill'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 SaitLake Citr, l1tab(~LC). FM .·· 

inspectors at SLC observed 43 Standard Checked Bags, three Heavy Checke(i Bags, . . . ' - . - . - . - . 

·and one live anhnalbein~ offloaded. TheCLR1isted 46 Standard Checked 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 aircraft was 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 18 
its maximum takeoff weight(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 ~ight 444Sto SLC. FM inspectors <!tSLC observed 43 

standard checked 0ags ;tnd three heavy checked bags being offioaded. However, the. 

CLR listed 46standard bags and no heavy bagsP However, the total bag 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 of the 

F M inspectors seemed til recall what they were or whether they were checked as. 

baggage or 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 Delta Air 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 exactly the sa~~ wlth absoiJtely nocll~n~~ i~ aircraftp~rfor~;ince (tr . 

. 2S0:4·25i:S; Ex~ihit R·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, carrecUy listing 250 poupds of ba.JiastandlQ.(J pounds qfCOMAT 

(Exhibit R~ 2l ). This CLR was corre~t and the weights 011 the load 111anifest . ' . ..--_. . -. :. - ·.-· ,· ... 

corresponded to the CL~ Sowhere)s the violation? 

lB According to Exhibit R·9, the aircraft was loaded and the CLR was prepared 

by Regional Elite Airline Services, a Delta Air 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\)ndsof freight, ~~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$5.2Gfi0wever •. 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 weight differential 

19 According to Exhibit R·9, the aircraftwas Io<.~decl af!dt!leCLI\ was prepared . 

by Regional Elite Airlin¢S Services, a IJelta Air Lines subsidiary •. 

zo According to Exhibit R·9, aircraft loading <~nd the CI.Rwas prepared by 

Delta Air Lines; In fact, FAA Inspector Steven Allen conceded that before 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~. 21TheF.J. clid pot deter~ine 

whe~her the observed heavy bag had been lnduded in the standard bag piece count, ·. 

or not counted at aU. As Mr. Salamone testified, if the total piece count was correct, 

. the CLRwelght differential would have been 30pounds.22 Whether~r n(Jt th~ h~avy •. 

. • "._.,,, b>Exhlblt ·~; "'"~·· , ..... ~· cc< preporntioo ~ oan • 

was handled by United Airlines. · · · · · 

22 FAA Inspector MichelleWallentlne was positioned at COS on three different 

dates (April7, May 5 and july14, 2011) to count baggage as part of the FAA's special 

emphasis inspection of SkyWest She observed and participated inthe baggage 

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 22 
2, 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; ~fther way, there W0\1[~ h~ve beennci ~ffe~tori~trcra~ we:~hfand . ' -· . . . -·: ·:_: .- '- . - ··;>.. ' . ·:. . .. '• .... ,' ·,·-- . 

l:lalance, center of gravity or perfomiancea$ 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 t11 COS1 SDiely fDr the purpos~ of .. ·· 

counting 11ffloaded bag$ from SkyWest aircraft ~bserv~d 33 standard theckec:l b~gs 

and 2 heavy checked bags coming off the aimaftl~ The CLR for Fligllt 67S61isted 30 ·• 

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

23 Of the 14 flights alleged, this flight and Flight4559 (DEN-RKS; Case FAA, 

2013-061f2012NM060014) were the onlyflight.s in which SkyWest pers11nnel 

loaded the aircraft and prepared the CLR's •. AU other 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 COS on 

three occasions solely for the purpose of counting bags coming off of SkyWest 

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'M Case 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 
. inspectQrs observed 3S standar!l~~ecke<l bags being ofB~ade!l N744SK. HoW~ver, .•.•. · .· . 

theCLRfor Flight ll6Q2S listed 23 standard checked bags. Vvith th~ ~d~itionall2 ··•· ... 

standard bags, the CLR weight differentiatwould have been • 360 ):JOuricls. Th~re . . . . . . . . : . ' ' . . 

would have been no effecton aircraft weight and balan~e, center of gravity 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 

thirty SkyWest flights and with the exception of the three flights, there were no 

discrepancies (Tr.126:6-21). · 

zs All aircraft loading and CLR preparation at IAH was handled by Continental 

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/at SLC, S!tYW~st operateci ~~Msl<. a CRl700, as Fligl)t 

4 781, to Reno-Tah6e Jnternatlona!Airport; ~evad; t~O}• At R~O, FAA inspect~rs 

observed 190 pouncis of CO MAT, consisting oftwo itelnS, a 130~pound cable anci ;t 

60-pouqd box 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 SkyWest operated N742SI<, ~ 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 weight differential would have be~n 210 P!>unds .. There 

would have been no effect ort aircraftweight <!nd balance, center of gravity qr · 

performance as the aircraft was 4,364pounds below its maximum takeoff weight 

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 endangering the 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 withotl t krtoWillg their correct weight and balai}Ci! (Complainant's Pos~·Tri;~l 

Brief at 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 of the sort: · ·· · · · . . . 

. . Q Now, Mr. Barcl;~y, (In~ of the things you testified that 

... [S~Westl is doing in ao effort to get ;~head 9fthisprobl~m is you 

are continuing to c9nduct audits of tbeWeigbt and Balance Program. 

Isn't it true that those audits show that there is still an issue with 

weight and 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,to pertnit small v~riances in 

. baggage co~nts, necessitated bypp~r~tioil~I c~nsideration~ZS Despite SkyWest's 

showing of an equivalent lev~l of safety, Ute fAA declined to gr~nt this> apparently .. · 

A There are errors that do occur, that's correct. 

Mr. Barclay explained that although SkyWest has addressed the 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 a k!!y ~~~~fn\he pr()per . c~mpletion and counting of a 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()nment thapllese ~Dllll.d age11ts · are wprklng In; That there is a ris~ that tile)! could .misCOil?t a bag or 

not puttbe rightnulllb~r on~. cargo load rep()rt. that;. it) Jurn. would · lead, to a load manifest that was in error.a~ 

·~ Tr. 304:5-a. 

Jo Tr. 304:15-22. 

FAA Case Nos.: 2011NM06Q038/ FDMS FAA-2012'0874; 2011NM060047 J PDMS 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 l4 flightS, the *ircrafttak~~tf~eig!lts(even \'.'ltb the FAA's corrected 

bag loads)r~rnained sl!bstarttlally bel~w t~e maxi mull! iros~ tal<~off w~ights, ~~ even 

ifSkyWest followed Complainant's suggesl;icm and ad.ded some~ing to the bas!c: 

operatirtgweight oteach ofthe air~raft, ~is ~oJidh~v~ac~ieved rio thing as IJaggag~ '. - . - '. ·. ___ .- . . . : -

count violations, in Colllplainant's eyes, itre inellcl!sable. 

VI,. SltVWEST'S CORRECTIVE ACTIONS:· 

.

31 As Exhibit R-4 reflects, that carrier ha.s a 20-bag/600-pound. "cushion": As 

Mr. Brown testified, the relief that SkyWest was seeking was but a fraction of that 

(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 and WBtB · 

Man11al tospecificallyaddress said problems and ensure future •· 

compliance:. 

iv. Updated ahd.revised tlleaircraftloadingprocedures set forth in its Station 

Operations Manual SP 5500 to specifkally addr!!Ss said problems and 

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 physical baggage 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 liPan Whi¢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 that additlonalpenalt!e$ •are red~ndant and \'/til nofr~s~ft in<tnY decreas~ In 

S<!fety,34. SkyWest's corrective <~ctionstaken since 2009 (\.vherr the 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 Affirmative Defense .. Of c:ourse this is .. subject to consideration of the interplay of hurl).an factors; Which as 

s1,1bst<tntial evide11ce 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;h incll\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!ring Witli other regjonal p~rrlers ill; partner Sl:al)d;trgjzatiCin· . . groups, We l!~ve condUcted. nljmerousJoad. audi~; We've· 

enhanced the proces~ that we previously used to kifid ofknow · where we are With outlo.ad counts: · 

I'm sure thel'e's a lot<!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 not only 

Included representatives of United and Delta in its trainin& buthas ateempt~d to · standardize procedures for other regional carriers serving United 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, !lnd evl!n at !Jmes 

present their findings and surveillance;. . 

Q And, didtheypartjc:ipate ahd present? •.. · 

. A Thl!ygld; 

~.~.· complainalll;'$c!luns~!hM sugg¢sted that 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)cyWest has 

not tak!!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 counsel wouldbe eithedea.sibleor effective, In fact, 

Complainant's counsel's suggestion th~t departures should l:!edelayedretlects a 

substantial lack of awareness or today's ai~Hne operating environment As SkyWest's 

Mag~iAiken testified, whl)nshe started With SkyWest apprOJP)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 of ground operations, including aircraft loadingandweightaml balance, are 

handled by SkyWesrs major c:odeshare partners who have contracted with Sky West 

to provide regional air service on their behalf at their 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~erviJGr toi 

~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 at hand; But for themostpart, we had monthlytelefons,Ifmetnocy 

serves me corrfilctly, 'Ne had mo11thlytel~cons \<\lith them •. explainingwhat our . · 

corrective actions were in order,.mad~ at~elllPtS ~o bever~ transparent, and 

dgring those conversations we didn't receive any negative fe¢dl:!ac~;,.,l~ 

. Complainant'sb~iefisthe firstnoticeSkYW~sthasr~c~iyed~b~~~~six·year · . . ' .· .. : . . ' ' ' : 

effort to redu~e bag count errors is insufficl¢nt. The criticism would carry Ill ore 

weight if it 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 if there 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~raros or 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)!!Ihspectot Andrew Ayers: 

Q Xnd sometiMe$ coY!! tine c~~ec;!y c~ ~; ~ cha)teri~~. ·.• 

A. It cart •.. 

Q Whether it is marbles, poker chips, money; bags •. Iti~> noppa) human 

behavior to misco~t or forget where you were. · 

A Sure. 

Q f{ave you .:ver:roisc:o~ted something? 

A [ have.(Tr.21 l;lh20) .. 

43 "Perhaps it proves (bepohitthat SJtYWest ha5 been lllakingthat the nwnbers get 

confusing.'' Complainant's coiu!sel at hearing (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 suJll ll)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~ .. we go a,bpv~ .~n~ ~~yond.in a 

Jot pf thE: training, ci)rnpared to \Vhat ilie;y hag re~~ived at other · carriers.4S. · · · · · · · · · 

. The goal of this trai11ingi$; ·. 

T Q teach OUi' people h6'N toJolid ~he alr<=raft. al'\d to ensutewe run a 

safe operatlol), to tea~h them how to be ~e best agents. · · 

<;o;ll 

To minimize tne h\lmanfactors, certainly• Due to tlt~nutllber of 

people handling our aircraft:, we do, with our ()Wn people, the best 

that we can do in our training to minimize 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 of lack ohrainlng, bu~ 1$ ratherthe.prodllcf.bf~u~~II t~bt~rs~l1d .·. 

the ramp environment ('fr. 451:9-lS). As SkyWest expertCariSahul1one 

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 it may have temperature · .. swings ... noise and vibration ... light, darkne$s iSS\! I!$, as well as a 

flurry of activity maklngfocus difficult .... 

... humans, .. havl! a difficult timeinherenl:l:Ywith counting, and . when you throw in SOmE! difficult environmental fllttors,it makeS . that task even mare difficult; And lt.ls really the effects of th~ 

environment on human 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 ~Iter ana ![~it 1Iuman~~rf9rih~n~e,49 ~~malti~lt~6onim the •. . . 

process of loading and counti~; bai~a~~~~aircraf~ ~~k~~it ~;~~tic;Ily 

impossible to en~ure iho% aC~\Ir;IC;.~J 

47 Testimony of SkyWesl's e1Cpefi1.CIIf! Slllamont; (Tr. ~80:11-281 :1 S), 

4B FAA Order9 5 50.8, fl \lf!i~n Factors PolicY 

49 Asldt; from Messrs. Sahi!Jione's, )3r0wn'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 other airlir\es1 it iilcprp~rates those practices V\lher~ appU~ble .l 

(and wllen allowed by the FAA), 

Complainant.seeks·a total penalty of $560,0pO, .• or ~40,Q00per ·flig~~·rorsimpte · 

human cpunUng <!nd arithmetic errors--m<!tters in which the Administrative Li!w 

judge in the prior cases 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 

Page43 
Program to 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 and balani:e or on aircraft performance. Respondent showed · 

tha.t in no instance was safety of flight at even the slightest risk. (Initial 

Decisions at 7). · 

53 Again, these "prior cases" arose contemporaneously with 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; better coordination 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 stated that itwas insufficient or ineffective, · 

SkyWest had periOdic teleconferences with its CMO to ensure SkyWest's compliance 

efforts were satisfactory, anda3ain, theFM never offered even a hint that SkyWest's 

actions were in anyway inadequate or ''ineffectual". · 

FAA Case NQs.: 2011NM060038 I FDMS FAA·Z012·0874; 20liNM060047 j 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 percentafthe time. AIJd toJhe exteiJtthatthese m;atters arose !Is a 

· . r¢suJt of sirn !lie htiman err9r, ~o • dvn. pepalt)', la~g~ ~.t ~!It~ I!, ~~ ;qi~; to prevent 

. . . . 

Cornplain<!nt <~d!fitlon<!IIY attempts to justify 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 that year 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 of itself 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 of August, 2014. 

••m""''" L. Dworkin 

Co-Counsel f(J]" SkyWestAirlines 

57 Complainant's Post-Trial Brief at 20. However, SkyWest's Annual Report is 

not in evidence, nor has Complainant requested judicial notice of same. Moreover, 

the Annual Report is for 2013, but these cases arose in 2011. In 2011, according to 

SkyWest's Annual Report for that year, 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 of August, 2014, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing: 

POST-TRIAL BRIEF 

was served as follows: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New jersey Avenue, 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 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000 

{FED EX} 

jeffrey M. Harper 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057 

Fax: (425) 227-1007 

Email: I effrey.harper@faa.gov 

(FED EX, 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