DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL Airport POS 10-23-2019.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL Airport POS 10-23-2019.Pdf NEW ISSUES — BOOK-ENTRY-ONLY RATINGS: Moody’s: A1 S&P: A+ PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED OCTOBER 23, 2019 Preliminary In the opinion of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Bond Counsel, assuming compliance with certain tax covenants, interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under existing statutes, regulations, rulings and court decisions, except for interest on any Series 2019B Junior Bond for any period during which such Series 2019B Junior Bond is owned by a person who is a substantial user of the AMT Property (as defined herein) or any person considered to be related to such n in which such offer person (within the meaning of Section 147(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended). Interest on the Series 2019A Junior Bonds is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals, but interest on the Series 2019B Junior Bonds will be treated as an item of tax preference for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals. Bond Counsel is further of the opinion that assuming interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds is so excludable for federal income tax purposes, the interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds is exempt from income taxation under the laws of the State of Arizona. See “TAX EXEMPTION” herein. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion as to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Taxable Bonds from gross income for federal and State of Arizona income tax purposes. See “CERTAIN UNITED STATES FEDERAL TAX CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE TAXABLE BONDS” herein. CITY OF PHOENIX CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION $337,000,000* $400,295,000* $29,975,000* Junior Lien Airport Junior Lien Airport Junior Lien Airport Revenue Bonds, Revenue Bonds, Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A (Non-AMT) Series 2019B (AMT) Taxable Series 2019C Dated: Date of Delivery Due: July 1, as shown on inside front cover The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Junior Lien Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2019A (the “Series 2019A Junior Bonds”), the Junior Lien Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2019B (the “Series 2019B Junior Bonds” and together with the Series 2019A Junior Bonds, the “Tax-Exempt Bonds”) and Junior Lien Airport Revenue Refunding Bonds, Taxable Series 2019C (the “Taxable Bonds” and together with the Tax-Exempt Bonds, the “2019 Junior Bonds”) will be paid by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee,” also referred to herein as the “Registrar,” and the “Paying Agent”). The 2019 Junior Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds in amounts of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof of principal due on specified maturity dates. The 2019 Junior Bonds, when issued, will be registered in the name of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or its nominee and will be available to purchasers initially only through the book-entry-only system maintained by DTC. So long as the book-entry- only system is maintained, no physical delivery of the 2019 Junior Bonds will be made to the ultimate purchasers thereof and all payments of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the 2019 Junior Bonds will be made to such purchasers through DTC. Interest on the 2019 Junior Bonds is payable semiannually on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing July 1, 2020, by the Trustee. The 2019 Junior Bonds are being issued pursuant to a Bond Indenture, dated as of December 1, 2019, between the City of Phoenix Civic Improvement Corporation (the “Corporation”) and the Trustee. The 2019 Junior Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as described herein. The 2019 Junior Bonds are special revenue obligations of the Corporation and are payable solely from payments required to be paid by the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the “City”), to the Corporation pursuant to the Junior Lien City Purchase Agreement dated as of December 1, 2019 (the “City Purchase Agreement”) between the City and the Corporation. The obligations of the City to make payments under the City Purchase Agreement are absolute and unconditional, but do not constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit or the ad valorem taxing power of the City. Except to the extent the City appropriates other lawfully available funds for such payments, the City’s payments under the City Purchase Agreement are payable solely from Designated Revenues (as defined herein) to be derived from operation of the City’s Airport (as defined herein). The pledge of Designated Revenues to amounts due under the City Purchase Agreement is subordinate to amounts owed with respect to outstanding Senior Lien Obligations (as defined herein) and Senior Lien Obligations which may be issued in the future and on a parity with outstanding Junior Lien Obligations (as defined herein) and Junior Lien Obligations which may be issued in the future. Principal of and interest on the Series 2019A Junior Bonds is additionally payable from and secured by an irrevocable commitment of the net proceeds of a passenger facility charge approved by the Federal Aviation Administration and received in each Fiscal Year (as defined herein) in an amount equal to 93% of the Series 2019A Junior Bonds Debt Service (as defined herein) in each Fiscal Year due on or before July 1, 2026. See “SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT” herein. This cover page contains only a brief description of the 2019 Junior Bonds and the security therefor, and is designed for quick reference only. This cover page is not a summary of all material information with respect to the 2019 Junior Bonds or of investment risks involved with the purchase of the 2019 Junior Bonds, and investors are advised to read this entire Official Statement, giving particular attention to the matters discussed under “CERTAIN BONDHOLDERS’ RISKS,” in order to obtain information essential to making an informed investment decision. The 2019 Junior Bonds are offered when, as and if issued and received by the Underwriters, and subject to the legal opinion of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Bond Counsel, as to validity, and tax exemption with respect to the Tax-Exempt Bonds. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the Underwriters by Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, counsel to the Underwriters. It is expected that the 2019 Junior Bonds will be available for delivery in book-entry-only form through the facilities of DTC on or about December , 2019. Citigroup Mesirow Financial, Inc. Siebert Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C. Cabrera Capital Markets, LLC RBC Capital Markets Official Statement constitute anor offer sale to would sell be or unlawful the prior solicitation to of registration an or offer qualification to under buy, the nor securities shall laws there of be any any such sale jurisdiction. of these securities in any jurisdictio This Preliminary Official Statement and the information contained herein are subject* to completion or amendment. Under Subject no circumstances shall this to change. MATURITY SCHEDULES CITY OF PHOENIX CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION $337,000,000* Junior Lien Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2019A (Non-AMT) Maturity Principal Interest Price or Maturity Principal Interest Price or July 1 Amount Rate Yield July 1 Amount Rate Yield 2041 $29,785,000 2046 $40,005,000 2042 31,275,000 2047 42,005,000 2043 32,835,000 2048 44,105,000 2044 34,480,000 2049 46,310,000 2045 36,200,000 $ % Term Bonds due July 1, , Price % $400,295,000* Junior Lien Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2019B (AMT) Maturity Principal Interest Price or Maturity Principal Interest Price or July 1 Amount Rate Yield July 1 Amount Rate Yield 2020 $ 640,000 2035 $13,050,000 2021 1,185,000 2036 13,700,000 2022 1,245,000 2037 14,385,000 2023 7,265,000 2038 15,105,000 2024 7,630,000 2039 15,860,000 2025 8,010,000 2040 16,650,000 2026 8,410,000 2041 17,485,000 2027 8,830,000 2042 18,365,000 2028 9,275,000 2043 19,280,000 2029 9,740,000 2044 20,240,000 2030 10,225,000 2045 21,255,000 2031 10,735,000 2046 22,320,000 2032 11,275,000 2047 23,435,000 2033 11,835,000 2048 24,605,000 2034 12,425,000 2049 25,835,000 $ % Term Bonds due July 1, , Price % $29,975,000* Junior Lien Airport Revenue Refunding Bonds, Taxable Series 2019C Maturity Principal Interest Price or Maturity Principal Interest Price or July 1 Amount Rate Yield July 1 Amount Rate Yield 2023 $9,725,000 2025 $10,265,000 2024 9,985,000 * Subject to change. CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA CITY OF PHOENIX CIVIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION Michael R. Davis President and Director Bruce Covill James H. Lundy Vice President and Director Secretary-Treasurer and Director Barbara Barone Rosellen Papp Marian Yim Director Director Director CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Kate Gallego, Mayor Jim Waring, Vice Mayor Thelda Williams, Member District 2 District 1 Debra Stark, Member Laura Pastor, Member District 3 District 4 Betty Guardado, Member Sal DiCiccio, Member District 5 District 6 Michael Nowakowski, Member Carlos Garcia, Member District 7 District 8 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS Ed Zuercher City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr. Assistant City Manager Deanna Jonovich Assistant City Manager James E. Bennett Denise M. Olson Director of Aviation Services Chief Financial Officer Cris Meyer Denise Archibald City Attorney City Clerk SPECIAL SERVICES GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP U.S. BANK NATIONAL FRASCA & ASSOCIATES, LLC Phoenix, Arizona ASSOCIATION New York, New York Bond Counsel Phoenix, Arizona Financial Advisor Trustee, Bond Registrar, Paying Agent and Escrow Agent LEIGHFISHER INC. SAMUEL KLEIN AND COMPANY Cincinnati, Ohio Newark, New Jersey Airport Consultant Escrow Verification Agent This Official Statement does not constitute an offering of any security other than the original offering of the 2019 Junior Bonds of the Corporation identified on the cover page hereof.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report to the Legislature: Indoor Air Pollution in California
    California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board Report to the California Legislature INDOOR AIR POLLUTION IN CALIFORNIA A report submitted by: California Air Resources Board July, 2005 Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 39930 (Assembly Bill 1173, Keeley, 2002) Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Indoor Air Pollution in California July, 2005 ii Indoor Air Pollution in California July, 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared with the able and dedicated support from Jacqueline Cummins, Marisa Bolander, Jeania Delaney, Elizabeth Byers, and Heather Choi. We appreciate the valuable input received from the following groups: • Many government agency representatives who provided information and thoughtful comments on draft reports, especially Jed Waldman, Sandy McNeel, Janet Macher, Feng Tsai, and Elizabeth Katz, Department of Health Services; Richard Lam and Bob Blaisdell, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment; Deborah Gold and Bob Nakamura, Cal/OSHA; Bill Pennington and Bruce Maeda, California Energy Commission; Dana Papke and Kathy Frevert, California Integrated Waste Management Board; Randy Segawa, and Madeline Brattesani, Department of Pesticide Regulation; and many others. • Bill Fisk, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, for assistance in assessing the costs of indoor pollution. • Susan Lum, ARB, project website management, and Chris Jakober, for general technical assistance. • Stakeholders from the public and private sectors, who attended the public workshops and shared their experiences and suggestions
    [Show full text]
  • TWA's Caribbean Flights Caribbean Cure for The
    VOLUME 48 NUMBER 9 MAY 6, 1985 Caribbean . TWA's Caribbean Flights Cure for The Doldrums TWA will fly to the Caribbean this fall, President Ed Meyer announced. The air­ line willserve nine Caribbean destinations from New York starting November 15; at the same time, it will inaugurate non-stop service between St. Louis and SanJuan. Islands to be served are St. Thomas, the Bahamas, St. Maarten, St. Croix, Antigua, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Puerto Rico. For more than a decade TWA has con­ sistently been the leading airline across . the North Atlantic in terms of passengers carried. With the addition of the Caribbean routes, TWA willadd an important North­ South dimension to its internationalserv­ ices, Mr. Meyer said. "We expect that strong winter loads to Caribbean vacation destinations will help TWA counterbalance relatively light transatlantic traffic at that time of year, . and vice versa," he explained. "Travelers willbenefit from TWA's premiere experi­ ence in international operations and its reputation for excellent service," he added. Mr. Meyer emphasized TWA's leader­ ship as the largest tour operator across the Atlantic, and pointed to the airline's feeder network at both Kennedy and St. Louis: "Passengers from the west and midwest caneasily connect into these ma- (topage4) Freeport � 1st Quarter: Nassau SAN JUAN A Bit Better St. Thomas With the publication of TWA's first-quar­ St. Croix ter financial results,· the perennial ques­ tion recurs: "With load factors like that, how could we lose so much money?" Martinique As always, the answer isn't simple. First the numbers, then the words.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview and Trends
    9310-01 Chapter 1 10/12/99 14:48 Page 15 1 M Overview and Trends The Transportation Research Board (TRB) study committee that pro- duced Winds of Change held its final meeting in the spring of 1991. The committee had reviewed the general experience of the U.S. airline in- dustry during the more than a dozen years since legislation ended gov- ernment economic regulation of entry, pricing, and ticket distribution in the domestic market.1 The committee examined issues ranging from passenger fares and service in small communities to aviation safety and the federal government’s performance in accommodating the escalating demands on air traffic control. At the time, it was still being debated whether airline deregulation was favorable to consumers. Once viewed as contrary to the public interest,2 the vigorous airline competition 1 The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was preceded by market-oriented administra- tive reforms adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) beginning in 1975. 2 Congress adopted the public utility form of regulation for the airline industry when it created CAB, partly out of concern that the small scale of the industry and number of willing entrants would lead to excessive competition and capacity, ultimately having neg- ative effects on service and perhaps leading to monopolies and having adverse effects on consumers in the end (Levine 1965; Meyer et al. 1959). 15 9310-01 Chapter 1 10/12/99 14:48 Page 16 16 ENTRY AND COMPETITION IN THE U.S. AIRLINE INDUSTRY spurred by deregulation now is commonly credited with generating large and lasting public benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards
    UCLA UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy Title Fairness in the Air: California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4kn150bn Journal UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 24(1) Author Manaster, Kenneth A. Publication Date 2005 DOI 10.5070/L5241019526 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Fairness in the Air: California's Air Pollution Hearing Boards Kenneth A. Manaster* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................ 2 II. HEARING BOARD BASICS ..................... 7 A . The M embers .................................. 7 B. "Getting Through" to the Members ........... 11 III. VARIANCES ...................................... 16 A. Variance Applications .......................... 16 B. The Questions to be Answered ................ 20 C . O rders ......................................... 34 1. Explaining the Findings .................... 35 2. D uration ................................... 39 3. Conditions ................................. 41 D. Interim Variances .............................. 47 E. Emergency Variances .......................... 52 F. Variance Variations ............................ 55 1. Product Variances ......................... 55 2. Links to Federal Law ...................... 58 G. General Observations .......................... 67 IV. ABATEMENT ORDERS ......................... 67 * Professor of Law, Santa Clara University; Visiting Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Counsel, Pillsbury
    [Show full text]
  • Severin Borenstein* December 31, 2010 Abstract: US Airlines Have
    Draft Comments Welcome Why Can’t U.S. Airlines Make Money? Severin Borenstein* December 31, 2010 Abstract: U.S. airlines have lost about $70 billion (net present value) in domestic markets since deregulation, most of it in the last decade. More than 30 years after deregulation, the dismal financial record is a puzzle that challenges the economics of deregulation. I examine some of the most common explanations among industry participants, analysts, and researchers — including high taxes and fuel costs, weak demand, and competition from lower-cost airlines. Descriptive statistics suggest that high taxes have been at most a minor factor and fuel costs shocks played a role only in the last few years. Major drivers seem to be the severe demand downturn after 9/11 — demand remains much weaker today than in 2000 — and the large cost differential between legacy airlines and the low-cost carriers, which has persisted even as their price differentials have greatly declined. *E.T. Grether Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/borenste); and Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org). In 2010, Borenstein was a member of the USDOT’s Future of Aviation Advisory Committee. Email: [email protected]. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Alfred E. Kahn who passed away on December 27, 2010. I was lucky enough to work for Fred at the Civil Aeronautics Board in 1978 and to speak with him occasionally since then about the airline industry and government regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Shares TWA Andtwu in .Agreement Game Fare
    VOLUME 47 NUMBER 5 FE�RUARY 27, 1984 Going Places: 'And the Nominees are ...' TWA and TWU GoodFood - In .Agreement It's enough to make your mouth water: a Local 540 of the Transport Workers Union 10-day gastronomic air tour across the (TWU) , representing TWA flight dispatch United States and Europe for winners of . employees, has reached agreement with The Sunday Times of London competition the company on pay, benefit and work rule promoting Egon Ronay's 1984 TWA modifications to the existing contract in Guide to 500 good restaurants . support of TWA's need for co�t relief. , "Good food is good food anywhere in Following opening of the contract for the world," Ronay maintains, "and while that purpose late in 1983 , the new agree­ it is impossible to evaluate a dish in abso­ ment includes: - lute terms, there is no reason why one • Term effective immediately through shouldn't express the same delight about Sept. 30, 1985. the clean flavor of a sea bass with fennel in • A 13% wage concession across the Venice , the light creaminess of a chowder term to be achieved through both reduction in Boston, the delicious blend of shellfish and deferral. and chicken in paella in Barcelona... " • Work rule changes to improve pro­ In setting out to choose 500 good restau­ ductivity. rants in 53 cities in 18 countries for this • Establishment of reduced "B" scale year's guidebook, Ronay assembled an in­ wage and benefit schedules for future new ternational panel "to reach a convincing hires. consensus.': They .were: Rafael Anson, • Profit sharing and participation in the secretary of the Academy of Gastronomy," Class 4 Special Pass privilege.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Cost Carriers: How Are They Changing the Market Dynamics of the U.S
    Low Cost Carriers: How Are They Changing the Market Dynamics of the U.S. Airline Industry? by Erfan Chowdhury An Honours essay submitted to Carleton University in fulfillment of the requirements for the course ECON 4908, as credit toward the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics. Department of Economics Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario April 26, 2007 Abstract : The year 1978 was a landmark year for the airline industry. It was the year the airline deregulation was introduced in the United States. Following the deregulation, many airlines set up operation across the country and started to challenge the dominance of traditional full service carriers (FSC) which translated to better service and lower fares for the consumers. However, the initial success of deregulation was short lived and by the late 1980’s most of the newly formed airlines either went out of business or was purchased by their FSC rivals. In spite of this, by the mid 1990’s, a new breed of airlines called low cost carriers (LCC) started to challenge the dominance of full service carriers in the short haul market. The LCCs did not provide any frills such as meals or in-flight-entertainment, but offered ultra low fares on short haul point to point routes. Today, LCCs have a strong presence in every market segment across the U.S with one third share of the domestic air travel market.. This paper will study how the LCC’s are winning the battle against the full service carriers and how the strong presence of LCCs has impacted the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tesina De Valuación: Jetblue
    Maestría en Finanzas Tesina Final Tesina de valuación: JetBlue Alumno: Matías Lara Mateos DNI: 34.373.065 Profesor Tutor: Alejandro E. Loizaga Tesina de Valuación: JetBlue LARA MATEOS, Matías Buenos Aires, noviembre 2015 Índice I. Introducción ................................................................................................................................ 3 II. Industria ...................................................................................................................................... 4 II.1. Indicadores y conceptos ........................................................................................................... 5 II.2. ¿Por qué se necesitan estos indicadores? ............................................................................... 6 II.3. Datos y perspectivas ................................................................................................................ 7 III. Low Cost Carries (LCC) ........................................................................................................... 11 III.1. ¿A qué se llama aerolínea de bajo costo o LCC? ................................................................... 11 III.2. Características ....................................................................................................................... 11 III.3. Breve historia de las LCC ....................................................................................................... 13 III.4. Modelo de negocio. Comparación con Legacy o Full Service Airlines..................................
    [Show full text]
  • JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Orange County, California CHRONOLOGY: 1923-PRESENT
    JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT Orange County, California CHRONOLOGY: 1923-PRESENT 2021 APRIL COVID-19 One Year Later: JWA passenger numbers have increased to 48% of pre- pandemic levels, topping 103,000 for the week of March 21, 2021. There were 10,251 passengers this same week in 2020. In addition to CARES grant funding awarded in 2020, the Airport is eligible to claim up to $11M in Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funds, of which $9.9M is for Airport operating expenses and $1.1M for concession relief. JWA is also eligible to receive funding from the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The Airport continues to implement Healthy Travels measures throughout the Terminal. MARCH Southwest Airlines resumes flights to Cabo San Lucas and Puerto Vallarta. (3.11). FEBRUARY Allegiant initiated commercial service at JWA to the following new markets: Boise, ID; Grand Junction, CO; Medford, OR; Missoula, MT; Provo, UT; Reno/Tahoe, NV and Spokane, WA. (2.12). JANUARY COVID-19 Rapid Testing is offered by Hoag pre-security at JWA (1.18). 2020 NOVEMBER Spirit Airlines initiated commercial service at JWA. (11.17). Hoag Pop-up Health Fair opened at Thomas F. Riley Terminal, near Gate 10. (11.9). Hoag announced plans to open Fly Well Clinic in spring 2021. OCTOBER U.S. President Donald Trump arrived at JWA via Air Force One. (10.18) John Wayne Airport (JWA) ranked #2 among large airports in North America by J.D. Power's 2020 North America Airport Satisfaction Study, continuing its record of top rankings. (10.1) AUGUST The Board of Supervisors awarded ACI Jet and Clay Lacy Aviation the two full-service Fixed Base Operator (FBO) leases and Jay’s Aircraft Maintenance a limited-service FBO lease.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eagles Aerie Publication of the U•S Airways Soaring Eagles September 2018
    The Eagles Aerie Publication of the U•S Airways Soaring Eagles September 2018 ½ Eagle’s Aerie Summer September 2018 Page 1 Summer is starting to wind down in Terrell, NC. That means that the Soaring Eagles Convention is not far ahead. I am looking forward to seeing many of you in Tampa. Don’t forget to send a note along with your dues (or send updates anytime) telling us what you have been up to. This is always one of the highlights for me as I read the Aerie. I can only believe it is one of the highlight for others as well. I have just a little reminder, or perhaps it is a request. When you send me your dues or other checks, please don’t make them out to me personally. All checks should just be made to “Soaring Eagles”. Most of the deposits I make are “mobile” deposits done from my smart phone. The bank usually does not accept mobile deposits made to me personally even after I endorse them to Soaring Eagles. This is not a big deal but just a little reminder. And remember what I told you in the last Aerie! Rumor has it that Captain and Mayor Al Mondell plans to attend, play golf with Mr. Schofield and has told Butch to bring lots of money. Watching that event unfold will be worth the price of the convention tickets even if you don’t play golf! See you in Tampa, Paul Sturpe, Treasurer By the time you read this if you haven’t made your hotel reservations you missed the opportunity to get last year’s rate.
    [Show full text]
  • UFTAA Congress Kuala Lumpur 2013
    UFTAA Congress Kuala Lumpur 2013 Duncan Bureau Senior Vice President Global Sales & Distribution The Airline industry is tough "If I was at Kitty Hawk in 1903 when Orville Wright took off, and would have been farsighted enough, and public-spirited enough -- I owed it to future capitalists -- to shoot them down…” Warren Buffet US Airline Graveyard – A Only AAXICO Airlines (1946 - 1965, to Saturn Airways) Air General Access Air (1998 - 2001) Air Great Lakes ADI Domestic Airlines Air Hawaii (1960s) Aeroamerica (1974 – 1982) Air Hawaii (ceased Operations in 1986) Aero Coach (1983 – 1991) Air Hyannix Aero International Airlines Air Idaho Aeromech Airlines (1951 - 1983, to Wright Airlines) Air Illinois AeroSun International Air Iowa AFS Airlines Airlift International (1946 - 81) Air America (operated by the CIA in SouthEast Asia) Air Kentucky Air America (1980s) Air LA Air Astro Air-Lift Commuter Air Atlanta (1981 - 88) Air Lincoln Air Atlantic Airlines Air Link Airlines Air Bama Air Link Airways Air Berlin, Inc. (1978 – 1990) Air Metro Airborne Express (1946 - 2003, to DHL) Air Miami Air California, later AirCal (1967 - 87, to American) Air Michigan Air Carolina Air Mid-America Air Central (Michigan) Air Midwest Air Central (Oklahoma) Air Missouri Air Chaparral (1980 - 82) Air Molakai (1980) Air Chico Air Molakai (1990) Air Colorado Air Molakai-Tropic Airlines Air Cortez Air Nebraska Air Florida (1972 - 84) Air Nevada Air Gemini Air New England (1975 - 81) US Airline Graveyard – Still A Air New Orleans (1981 – 1988) AirVantage Airways Air
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph Olson Puts Ontario International Airport Under the Microscope To
    FEATURE ONT and by the following year the site was a early operations were limited both in title would not be officially transferred Ontario’s Terminal fully equipped Army Air Corps training frequency and destinations. until 1985. A joint powers agreement 2 is home to six UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and operations base. Commercial airline facilities were included plans to develop the airport as airlines including I810102AOW2019 The P-38 Lightning, built by Lockheed mainly former military buildings with the the need arose. It was decided that Los China Airlines, which in Burbank, California, was the first terminal, originally built to house a chapel, Angeles would lead and Ontario follow, launched nonstop military aircraft to be seen with cinema and canteen for servicemen and with a commitment to a regional airport flights to Taipei in regularity at the now Ontario Army workers during World War Two. plan for the facility. late March 2018. Airfield (OAAF) where pilots were trained Although passenger numbers were All images author in air-to-air gunnery. Rookie pilots limited, the airport was still a beehive of More Routes Ontario’s fired at long sleeves pulled by modified activity. Three major aircraft producers Jet service debuted at Ontario in 1968 Lockheed Vega Ventura bombers. The – Lockheed, Douglas and Northrop – had when Pacific Southwest Airlines began airfield was also home to an operational huge facilities on site and the state’s Air Boeing 737 flights to San Francisco. This North American P-51 Mustang unit. National Guard (ANG) was also present. was followed a year later by Air California Operations and training ceased at the Runway extensions in 1952, 1956 and 737 flights to San Jose, California; end of the war and the army declared again in 1962 were funded by the ANG Continental Airlines 720Bs to Denver, the airfield as surplus on November 15, to accommodate its faster and higher Colorado and Chicago; and Western Secret Is Out 1945 when it went into inactive status for performance aircraft.
    [Show full text]