Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2004-19919 - Boston-Maine Airways - Ft. Lauderdale-St. Kitts and Nevis
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service
OST-2003-14985 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Foreign Large Aircraft Operations
|
Boston-Maine Airways Corp. OST-2004-19919 - Exemption - St. Kitts and Nevis Scheduled Service December 15, 2004 Application for Grant of an Exemption BMAC plans to commence scheduled passenger service between Ft. Lauderdale (FLL), on the one hand, and St. Kitts, on the other hand, on or about January 20, 2005. This new business opportunity has been developed by BMAC during the pendency of its Application in Docket OST-03-14985 in cooperation with representatives of the tourism industry in St. Kills. BMAC's initial service will be provided two days a week on Wednesdays and Sundays at an initial frequency of one roundtrip nonstop flight each day between Ft. Lauderdale and St. Kitts. BMAC's St. Kitts service will be operated utilizing B-727-200 aircraft configured to carry 141 passengers in a two class passenger configuration (12 First Class/129 Coach). The aircraft to be utilized are or will be part of BMAC's fleet of B-727-200 aircraft. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Nathaniel Breed, 202-973-7919, npbreed@zsrlaw.com
December 29, 2004 Answer of Air Line Pilots Association to Application for Grant of Exemption Air Line Pilots Association opposes the application of Boston-Maine Airways, Corp. for an exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation between points in the United States and points in St. Kitts and Nevis. ALPA has today filed a motion in Docket 7668 to revoke Boston-Maine's existing certificate authority for lack of fitness. For all the reasons set out in that motion, which ALPA incorporates herein, the Department should deny Boston-Maine's request for exemption authority. By: Russell Bailey
January 5, 2005 BMAC emphatically denies that it exercises any control over its affiliate, Pan Am, or any other company, either directly or through any common ownership. Most significantly, ALPA itself does not allege that BMAC's owners and/or senior officers have ever exercised their control over BMAC to cause BMAC to violate any federal aviation or labor laws. On the contrary, BMAC has conducted its business and operations in scrupulous compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. BMAC requests the Department to expedite the issuance of an Order or Notice of Action Taken granting it an exemption authorizing BMAC to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between the U.S. and St. Kitts and Nevis, for a period of one year, utilizing B‑727‑200 aircraft, as requested in BMAC's December 15, 2004 application in this proceeding. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Nathaniel Breed, 202-973-7919, npbreed@zsrlaw.com
OST-2000-7668 - Amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Large Aircraft Operations August 2, 2005 Re: Inspector General Initiation of Investigation By this letter I am requesting that the Office of the Inspector General initiate an investigation into the circumstances involving certain information filed by Boston-Maine Airways, Corp. in proceedings before the Department. I ask that your investigation consider whether Mr. Nadolny's actions were limited to only those instances that were previously disclosed and whether other individuals employed by Boston-Maine were involved in, or knew of, Mr. Nadolny's actions. My office intends to defer action on all open dockets regarding Boston-Maine's authority until such time as I receive your investigative report and my staff has fully reviewed its conclusions. By: Karan Bhatia
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations August 24, 2005 Amended Pleadings - A Racketeering and Corrupt Organization Claim Brought Under Title 18 of the United States Code - Charging: Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, Extortion | Word This case is about when an insurance company and its rogue client go bad. Rather than simply let the administrative process run its due course, the conspirators choose organized crime like schemes as a means to deny a claim. I’ve named it, “Reverse Insurance Fraud”. And it happens to Lawful Claimants every day. This is a RICO action and is brought against PAA/Kemper Insurance Company et al because, after my notification of injury, the Defendants decided to enter into a tort scheme to defeat the lawful purpose of Workman’s Compensation law using a fraud scheme with specific intent, and contemplated harm. I will prove, PAA, rather than allow administrative means to play out, decided first, to retaliate by my early, unfair removal from the training program and termination. Thereafter, PAA decided to add conspirator Defendants who together engaged in fraud, wire fraud mail fraud, extortion and other organized crime and organized crime-like activities to be their primary means of denying me a fair hearing under Workmens Compensation law. By: Dirck Hecking
OST-2000-7668 - Amended Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Large Aircraft Operations August 30, 2005 Comments of Dirck Hecking - Emergency Motion to Revoke Any Operating Certificate in Which Dave Fink and his Management Team Participated | Word Well Attorney Breed with all due respect to you sir, you are not correct. Why? My allegations are clear, concise, and sufficiently pled. The information you are receiving down there in Washington and representing in this and other dockets as true, comes from the same liars who already admitted lying to the office of the Secretary of Transportation. Remember, Mr. Nadolny servant of Mr. Fink, created an artifice and deliberately, with malice and forethought, sent it through the United States mail to the Secretary, in furtherance of a scheme to defraud a public official (a RICO element). This is an illegal act, abhorrent to the public good and I am not going to let your lying clients get away with it! Have I made myself clear? The suggestion, that I am making a worker’s compensation claim for remedy, to the DOT is incorrect. My RICO claim is now more seriously grounded in law than ever, thank you, and is active in the Southern District of Indiana. My purpose here is to see to it that because of the added bad acts of the RICO defendants, Dave Fink and his minions are removed from the industry. I will proactively participate in the pursuit of truth in that regard. I can be counted on, to fold my cards and eat crow if I am wrong. By: Dirck Hecking
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations October 24, 2005 Memorandum in Support of Captain Hecking's Motion to Remove Dave Fink, et al | Word My earlier filings in support of my EMERGENCY MOTION(s), I have consistently made the case, that Dave Fink and Company are guilty of RICO violations. I have summoned them to atone in a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. I enter this venue for the purpose of advising the Department. I have no remedy in this venue only cost. Pan American/Fink disrespect the privilege by unlawfully, not disclosing to the Department: (a) the existence of my lawsuit; (b) the significant contingent, trebled financial liability; (c) and mandatory seizure remedy, which my RICO claim poses in DOT filings. On May 20, 2004, or earlier, it appears David Fink knowingly kept secret from the Department of Transportation; the fact that he and the alter ego Pan American Airways, were defendants in a lawsuit involving fraud. Knowing better, Mr. Fink then maintained that secret until I blew the whistle here. This egregious behavior against public policy, must be recognized throughout all of the Department’s jurisdictions which he participates; not the least of which is Guilford Transportation Systems, Boston-Maine Airways and others. As such, each and every subsequent filing, before the Department, has been tainted by Mr. Fink’s fraud. Moreover, for the purpose of RICO, each act of using the tool of wire or mail to create an artifice to defraud the Department of Transportation becomes yet more counts for Mr. Fink to explain before my “Hoosier” jury. Mr. Fink is unfit and incapable of administering discipline to himself in a manner which this industry requires. I plea you grant my EMERGENCY Motion(s) forth with. By: Captain Hecking
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations October 29, 2005 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remove Dave Fink, et al | Word In simple terms: when ALPA informed of a performance bond problem – the Company incompletely ‘fessed-up and paid up. When the DOT informed of a financial problem – the Company incompletely ‘fessed-up and fixed-up. Dave Fink – with one straw-man burned – moves in another in and maliciously, supports every remaining FRAUD. This goes to demonstrate the empty words of Mr. Fink before Department are, of themselves, nothing more than a another layer of FRAUD aimed, once again, at public officials who can not be starved off his case, but who may be politically taken off his case. Mr. Fink and Company is unfit and incapable of administering discipline to himself in a manner which this industry requires. I plea you grant my EMERGENCY motion(s) forth with. By: Captain Dirck Hecking
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations December 5, 2005 Ex-Parte Correspondence to Dave Fink Thank you for your letter of October 11, addressed to Secretary Mineta, regarding Boston-Maine Airways Corp.’s request for expanded economic authority to operate additional large aircraft and the company’s views concerning the U.S. Department of Transportation’s review process in this case. The Secretary has asked that I respond to your letter directly. The Department is required by its governing statute, 49 U.S.C. 41110(e), to ensure that all certificated air carriers continue to be fit, willing, and able to provide the air transportation authorized by their certificates. In carrying out our responsibilities, the Department not only evaluates an air carrier’s compliance record, but also examines the managerial competence of an applicant’s key personnel, reviews the applicant’s operating and financial plans, and establishes that an applicant is owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. I am sure you understand that the Department must carry out its responsibilities under the statute before it makes its final decision on BMAC’s continuing fitness, as well as its request for expanded operating authority. As you know, the Department has requested that the Office of the Inspector General investigate the circumstances surrounding certain information filed by BMAC in proceedings before the Department. We recognize that you believe that the Inspector General may already have reached certain conclusions that would permit us to act favorably on our review of BMAC’s continuing fitness, as well as its request for expanded operating authority. This is not the case. First, our understanding is that the Inspector General’s investigation is still ongoing. Thus, the Inspector General has not provided the Department with his findings or conclusions in this matter. Moreover, you should note that our request to the Inspector General is focused on learning the facts and circumstances surrounding specific prior events. As described above, our review of BMAC’s continuing fitness is much broader. While the facts we have available to us at this time do not yet permit us to determine that BMAC is fit to institute the expanded operations requested, I assure you that the Department is working as expeditiously as possible and is continuing its review of BMAC’s continuing fitness, as well as its request for expanded operating authority, while the Inspector General’s investigation remains ongoing. Toward this end, attached is a request directing the company to provide additional information necessary for our review. By: Michael Reynolds
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations December 18, 2005 Correspondence of Captain Robert Sklenka I am writing to you because of an article that was published in the Portsmouth Herald dated 12/14/2005. This particular article is attached to this E-mail for your review. Let me first explain that I am a former Pan Am Airline Captain that was fired on October 31, 2004. The President of the now defunct Pan American Airways Mr. David Fink, took great joy in this exercise only because we were a unionized pilot group. I just had to comment on this piece that recently came out because I know that Mr. David Fink and the owner of Guilford Transportation Mr. Tim Mellon are true sidesteppers of the law. They want to increase the size of their airline at the Pease Tradeport. What a joke. They couldn't even keep track of the five airplanes we were flying. ALPA has a safety committee. We at Pan Am had one, but guess what any suggestions or help we tried to give the airline management was brushed off just like the true cheaters and liars they were. Mr. David Fink and Tim Mellon had no idea how to run an airline it was a disaster in the making. They wanted no input from the Pilot group, and did not care one iota. All they cared about was extrapolating government financing for their convenience and not the flying public. Check out their financial record at every airport we serviced. They owed the Sanford, FI. Airport hundreds of thousands with no intent to pay. Airplanes were impounded for no payment of landing fees, disrupting the flying public schedules with no remorse at all. The former general counsel for the now defunct Pan Am and the now Boston and Maine outfit Mr. John Nadolny was only the legal mouth for Mr. David Fink and nothing else. Should this tell you something about where Mr. David Fink's motives lie? ALPA has said something that was just unprecedented referring to the Pan Am Management, nothing like this has ever been seen in their history of representation. Truly a milestone. I implore you, please do not grant them anything. By: Robert Sklenka
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations February 28, 2006 Ex-Parte Letter to Jeb Bradley Thank you for your letter of October 26, 2005, regarding the application of Boston-Maine Airways Corporation for authority to operate additional large aircraft and asking that the U.S. Department of Transportation complete its investigation of the air carrier in a timely manner. The Department has requested that the Office of the Inspector General investigate the circumstances surrounding certain information filed by BMAC in proceedings before the Department. The IG’s investigation is still ongoing and, therefore, it has not yet provided the Department with its findings or conclusions in this matter. Moreover, you should note that the Department’s request to the IG is focused on learning the facts and circumstances surrounding specific prior events. While the facts available at this time do not yet permit the Department to reach conclusions on these matters involving BMAC, I can assure you that the Department is working on these issues as expeditiously as possible. Although the IG’s investigation remains ongoing, the Department is pursuing its review of BMAC’s continuing fitness, as well as BMAC’s request for expanded operating authority. By: Norman Mineta
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations August 1, 2006 Re: Ex-Parte Letter to Senator John Sununu With respect to the Department's review of BMAC's continuing fitness and pending applications for additional authority, I assure you that the Department has been actively and expeditiously working on matters involving BMAC. However, the need for the Department's Inspector General to review aspects of that carrier's compliance disposition has necessarily affected the proceeding's decisional timetable. Additionally, we had to obtain from BMAC the requisite information to enable the Department to resolve the remaining issues relating to the carrier's fitness. In this regard, the Department requested information on March 1 from BMAC about its ticket refund practices* which pertains directly to the air carrier's compliance disposition. The BMAC responded to our inquiry on March 6 and supplemented that response on March 28. Also, on April 26 BMAC provided the Department with additional fitness information with respect to its financial condition. Further, by letter dated June 23, the Department requested additional information regarding BMAC's ability to finance its proposed operations. We are hopeful that the information the company provides to the Department in response to our latest information request will allow us to conclude our fitness review of BMAC. By: Maria Cino
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations August 7, 2006 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remove Dave Fink - "Company Fraud Continues Unchecked" | Word Once again I feel compelled to write regarding the continuing deceit and free will decisions of Timothy Melon and Dave Fink to make false statements and evasive incomplete statements before the Department of Transportation and others. One of the tactics the Defendants make use of, is to preload its responses in a manner calculated to provide a smoke screen for what it aggressively did not report on. Timothy Melon and Dave Fink have put the Department in the position most easily expressed as “Whack-A-Mole” when it comes to false statements and failure to disclose. Most recently the Defendants recanted another episode of failure to disclose. The passenger refund scam. The Defendants reported to the department that they negotiated a settlement, with an eye to obtaining a “Pardon” for having made previous false statements to the DOT. The state of mind which precipitated the Crime should not be summarily dismissed by the Department. Rather, it should be used to conclude that the Defendants are unfit! Such is the case here in their Indiana Racketeering Case. The Defendants know that they have committed a crime [Corey Belobrow admission before the New Hampshire Department of Labor]; yet Mr. Fink fails to fix it. For more than 1,400 days Mssrs. Fink and Melon have renewed their support of fraud against me and failed to atone for their willful bad behavior. I feel the Department should weigh heavily the character of the men to whom it grants authority. Dave Fink continues to endorse the fraud of John Nadolny against me day by day, long after the dismissal of John Nadolny. Timothy Melon endorses Dave Fink’s fraud by not firing him. They both teach us their willingness to game the system. These bad actors are incapable of managing themselves in a fit manner, let alone managing the Departments most precious gift. By: Dirck Hecking
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations August 22, 2006 Re: Submit Audited Financial Statements and Additional Verification We have reviewed the supplemental information provided by BMAC, and although BMAC provided the Department with certain requested information, our review has revealed the need for further clarification and supplementary information before the Department can make a determination on BMAC 's request for expanded authority. Based on our review of the record, including the material most recently submitted by BMAC, it is not clear that BMAC has the financial ability to expand its operations, as requested. In this regard, we direct that BMAC provide the Department with current audited financial statements, along with any detailed explanatory footnotes. We note that while BMAC did submit an unaudited current balance sheet at March 31, 2006, we are unable to determine the veracity of the company's current financial condition, since an independent third party did not verify this balance sheet. In addition, this current balance sheet was not accompanied by any footnotes explaining, for example, the creation of a long‑term liability account labeled "Advances from associated companies" and the identity of these associated companies, and the deletion of a current liability account labeled "Due to affiliates" identified in its audited December 31, 2005, balance sheet, and the identity of these affiliates. By: DOT, Michael Reynolds
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations January 22, 207 Memorandum of Captain Hecking | Word I submit Attorney Culliford has admitted that Pan American top management was (and is now) aware of my NOTICE of FRAUD certified letters. Mr. Culliford introduced himself as Vice President and Chief Council for Pan American. He is about the highest official in the company which is good enough notification for me. HE DID NOTHING just lime Mr. Fink and Mr. Nadolny; where an honest executive would get to the bottom of the claim and fix it. This goes to prove my contention, nothing was done because, management at the highest level of Pan American and Kemper have failed to comply with the requirements set forth by an administrative agency RSA 281 A:56(b) as a part of its fraud scheme. Moreover, Mr. Fink is as much a participant in this docket as I am. And for him to state under oath he is not aware of fraudulent Memo of Denial is nothing less than an obstruction of justice! I feel compelled to point out this set of bad behavior(s) goes to renew the proof Mr. Fink and now Mr. Culliford, currently uses false and misleading statements, just as Mr. Nadolny did, whenever an administrative process gets in the way. By: Dirck Hecking, 317-293-6709, cap10dj@sbcglobal.net
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations January 24, 2007 Additional Information Request This letter is in reference to the information you submitted on behalf of Boston-Maine Airways Corp. in response to the Department’s June 23, and August 22, 2006, requests for information. In addition to responding to the Department’s questions, you also request to add two large aircraft to BMAC’s fleet. We have reviewed your request and find that additional and/or clarifying information is necessary. Specifically, please provide BMAC’s balance sheet at December 31, 2006, and statements for BMAC’s bank accounts for the period December 1-31, 2006. This information should be filed in the public docket as soon as possible but within 30 days of the date of this letter. In addition, BMAC should keep the Department informed of any changes in areas impacting its fitness (ownership, operations, finances, management, compliance posture) while its request is pending. By: Air Carrier Fitness Division, Vanessa Balgobin
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service Operations April 30, 2007 Motion of Capt. Hecking for Leave to File Comments | Word I submit the Defendants’ continue not to be compliant and fix the damage created by their false and misleading statements to administrators (New Hampshire Department of Labor in violation of RSA281-A56 and others – including the USDOT). Nothing was done because, management at the highest level of Pan American has proceeded again in bad faith, by failing to comply with the requirements set forth by an administrative agency. The DOT and the public at large, deserve clear and concise statements by the applicants, addressing the series of questions posed in this docket. The defendants systemically can’t help but revert, to the historical industrial pattern of false and misleading statements, just as Mr. Nadolny did, whenever an administrative process gets in the way. And now, once again, Mr. Fink glassed-over the incompetent false testimony. The Defendant Applicant offers only excuses, takes no responsibility, makes demands and reinvent themselves over and over each time their backs are against the wall... And sadly, Mr. Mellon (95% Shareholder) backs all of this up! By: Dirck Hecking Order 2008-2-3 Issued and Served February 1, 2008 By this order, we propose to revoke the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to Boston-Maine Airways Corp., and dismiss its applications for foreign scheduled certificate and exemption authority for its failure to continue to remain fit, willing, and able to provide air transportation as a U.S. certificated air carrier. Our review of the record in this case indicates that BMAC does not possess (1) the financial wherewithal to continue or expand its operations without posing an undue risk to consumers and their funds, (2) the managerial competence necessary to oversee its current and proposed operations, and (3) a proper regard for the laws and regulations governing its services to ensure that its aircraft and personnel conform to applicable safety standards and to ensure that acceptable consumer relations practices will be followed. By: Michael Reynolds
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service February 8, 2008 Motion for Postponement of Procedural Dates BMAC submits that its voluntary suspension of all flight operations on February 29 should eliminate any concern the Department might have about a potential risk of harm to the public if the Show Cause Order procedural dates were postponed for 30 days, as requested in this Motion, and if BMAC intended to continue to conduct revenue flight operations during that additional 30-day period. (BMAC obviously disagrees that its continuation of revenue operations after March 1st, if that were BMAC's intention, would expose the public to any risk of harm whatsoever. If the Department is willing to grant the requested postponement of procedural dates as described in this Motion, BMAC would not object to the Department making BMAC's voluntary suspension of flight operations on February 29, 2008 a condition to the Department's grant of the requested postponement. In the event that BMAC is able to find a new purchaser of BMAC in the near future, and reaches a final signed Stock Purchase Agreement with that purchaser, BMAC submits that its withdrawal as owner and operator of the corporation which holds the DOT certificate authority (and related FAA Part 121 Certificate and Operations Specifications) which are at issue in this proceeding, and are the focus of the Show Cause Order, would automatically and immediately moot the fitness issues which are the subject of the Show Cause Order, thus eliminating any need or justification for the revocation of those authorizations, which would then be held by a new owner. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Nathaniel Breed, 202-973-7919, npbreed@zsrlaw.com
Order 2008-2-24 Issued and Served February 19, 2008 Order Denying Extension of Procedural Dates By Order 2008-2-3, issued February 1, 2008, we directed all interested persons to show cause why we should not make final our tentative findings and conclusions stated in it and revoke the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to Boston-Maine Airways Corp. for its failure to continue to remain fit, willing, and able to provide air transportation as a U.S. certificated air carrier. Interested persons have 30 days, or until March 3, 2008, to file objections to the order. Answers to objections must be filed no later than 7 days thereafter, that is, by March 12, 2008. By motion filed February 8, 2008, BMAC requested a 30-day extension of time, or until April 2, 2008, in which to file objections and a commensurate extension of time, or until April 11, 2008, in which to file answers to objections. In support of its request, BMAC states that the requested extension would give the air carrier additional time to decide among the following three courses of action in response to the Department’s order: (1) file objections to the order, (2) attempt to sell the company’s stock to new owners, or (3) shut down BMAC entirely and liquidate its assets. The air carrier further states that it would cease all flight operations by February 29, 2008, if granted the requested extension. The Department has carefully reviewed all of the facts involving this matter, including BMAC’s reasons and justifications for requesting an extension, and we conclude that BMAC has not shown good cause for extending the procedural dates in this case. The Department believes that 30 days is more than sufficient time for BMAC to determine an appropriate course of action. In addition, the action proposed in Order 2008-2-3, revocation of BMAC’s economic authority, if made final would not preclude the sale of the company or its assets. Indeed, under the circumstances here, any new owner of the company would be required to undergo its own fitness determination before it could commence air transportation as a U.S. certificated air carrier. Therefore, the Department finds that BMAC has failed to demonstrate that the relief it requests is in the public interest or is required in the interest of due process. Thus, we deny BMAC’s request. The order also proposed to dismiss BMAC’s applications for foreign scheduled certificate and exemption authority on the same grounds. By: Michael Reynolds
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service March 3, 2008 Objections and Comments of Boston-Maine in Response to Show Cause Order 2008-2-3 Apart from the evidence provided by BMAC's operating history, the most recent evidence of the seriousness which Messrs. Mellon and Fink, and their subordinate officers (with one tragic glaring exception), bring to their attitude and diligence devoted to compliance with the requirements of the law is to be found in BMAC's diligent search through its corporate financial and regulatory filing records to discover, and report fully to the Department, every inaccuracy or inconsistency which could be found in every legal or regulatory filing in which Nadolny was involved going back six years to BMAC's initial DOT application in July 2000. In addition to its diligent and forthright provision of detailed reports to the Department, BMAC exerted every effort to cooperate fully and immediately with the post-June 1, 2005 investigations by the DOT/IG and by the DOJ/ADA, granting all investigators unrestricted access to BMAC's files and making its employees and counsel available to be interviewed under oath in connection with the government's investigations. BMAC's owners and senior officers are justly proud of BMAC's safety and compliance disposition record, and of their constant efforts to instill that attitude in all of BMAC's officers and employees, together with other corrective measures instituted since June 2005, including a required double-check review of all financial information submitted to any federal, state and local government agency in the future. It is important to BMAC to retain its small-aircraft certificate authority, both on the basis of the fitness evidence adduced in this proceeding, and for the lawful business purposes discussed above. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Nathaniel Breed, 202-973-7919, npbreed@zsrlaw.com
OST-2000-7668 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Service March 10, 2008 Answer of the Air Line Pilots Association to Objections and Comments of Boston-Maine In ALPA's view, BMACs senior owners and officers have demonstrated a lack of compliance disposition at companies other than BMAC that they own and manage as well sufficient to warrant certificate revocation. Indeed, ALPA's December 29, 2004 motion to revoke BMACs certificate is based solely on a number of decisions of courts, arbitrators and administrative bodies that found that such companies had violated a range of laws and contractual commitments. The Department is clearly correct in proposing to revoke all BMACs authority. The repeated submission over a two and one-half year period of patently false documents in this proceeding -- a sustained course of malfeasance which may be without parallel in the Department's history -- as well as the numerous other demonstrations of a lack of compliance disposition contained in ALPA's petition to revoke bear directly on the fitness of BMACs owners and senior managers to operate any airline. Counsel: ALPA, Russell Bailey, 202-797-4086, russell.bailey@alpa.org
Order 2008-4-42 Issued and Served April 29, 2008 In its objection, BMAC failed to provide any evidence supporting its financial ability to continue or expand its operations. BMAC argued that the Department’s tentative finding in Order 2008-2-3 with respect to financial fitness applied solely to its ability to conduct operations using large aircraft. We disagree. In Order 2008-2-3, the Department specifically stated that based on “BMAC’s poor financial history, its present financial condition, and the concerns raised by the FAA,” the air carrier lacked “the financial wherewithal to continue to operate.” This tentative finding applied to all of BMAC’s operations and was clearly supported by the financial information provided by the air carrier. Because BMAC has failed to demonstrate its financial fitness to operate, the Department maintains that the air carrier is not financially fit to continue to conduct any air transportation regardless of aircraft size. The Department concludes that BMAC is not fit to conduct operations as a U.S. certificated air carrier and denies BMAC’s request to maintain its certificate authority to operate small aircraft to facilitate the sale of the company to Maine Aviation. Thus, the Department revokes the interstate scheduled certificate authority issued to BMAC and dismisses its applications for foreign scheduled and exemption authority. By: Michael Reynolds |
||