OST Docket Filings for June 5, 1997
Home
| OST Filings by Docket | OST
Filings by Carrier | OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day
Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day
OST Docket Filings for June 5, 1997
Aeroemprasarial | AirTran (3) | American and TACA (2) | Arriva | Atlas | JAL | Los Angeles Intl Rates | Mexicana
Notices of Action Taken
Notices and Orders
None
Aerocer, S.A. de C.V. (Notice of Action Taken)
OST-96-1231 | Posted June 5, 1997
Mexico – United States passenger charters using small equipment
By: Paul Gretch / Counsel: Lee Bauer, 202-822-9070
OST-97-2559 | May 30, 1997
Letter from Allen Brown, Licensing to
counsel
AirTran Airways, Inc. (Exemption, High Density Rule, New York LaGuardia)
OST-97-2557 | June 5, 1997
Delta's concern is that the grant of LaGuardia exemptions will open the floodgates for requests for new slots at LaGuardia. In response to Frontier's request for LaGuardia slots, ValuJet and AirTran promptly filed applications seeking free slots from the Department. AirTran's application seeks the creation of 12 daily LaGuardia slots. Combined, AirTran, ValuJet and Frontier have requested a total of 30 additional daily peak hour slots at LaGuardia.
Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060
AirTran's arguments for an exemption are similar to arguments made by other airlines in previous applications for exemptions from the High Density Rule, one of which was made only weeks ago. If AirTran's application is granted, than there will likely be a flood of new applications advancing similar arguments as to why the rule should be waived for them as well. Granting AirTran's application could set a precedent in that any service between LaGuardia and an unserved or underserved location would meet several of the public interest criteria set forth in federal law. The effect of granting multiple exceptions would be inconsistent with the limits imposed by the rule in the first place.
Counsel: Queens, David Nocenti, 718-286-2888
Comments of the Chamber of
Commerce of Toledo
The New York metropolitan area remains one of the top five destinations from Northwest Ohio--even though direct service does not exist. I am confident that this service will not only increase passenger traffic at Express but greatly assist the City of Toledo with the ongoing resurgence in economic development. Many of our top employers in Toledo and the surrounding communities have ties with New York and the Northeast.
By: City of Toledo
American Airlines, Inc. and The TACA Group Reciprocal Code Share Services Proceeding
OST-96-1700 | June 5, 1997
In recent months, American/SABRE have switched their dirty tricks to the United States. More recently, AMADEUS/System One have learned that American/SABRE appear to be attempting to induce travel agents, particularly in the Miami area, not to use AMADEUS/System One to book flights to/from Central America by advising those agents that doing so could result in reservations being cancelled. As a result of these unfounded scare tactics, AMADEUS/System One have lost bookings from agents fearful of stranding passengers.
Any action the Department takes on the code-share agreement should be conditioned on the cessation of unfair and deceptive actions by American/SABRE to exclude competition in the Central American CRS market. American should not be rewarded with valuable economic rights unless it and SABRE are prepared to play by the rules.
Motion for Confidential Treatment
Counsel: Steptoe Johnson, David Coburn, 202-429-8063
Arriva Air International, Inc.
OST-96-1334 & 97-2184 | June 5, 1997
Re: Applications of Arriva, Letter to
John Coleman
The single-aircraft domestic and nearby foreign market cargo charter service proposal set forth in Arriva Air's initial domestic and foreign certificate applications continues to be Arriva's exclusive initial service plan. Arriva fully concedes that a one-aircraft plan is not Arriva's concept of an optimum service plan, but was developed on the basis of Arriva's relatively limited initial working capital funding in the amount of $1.5 million. Because of the inherent risks of a one-aircraft operation, in terms of operational reliability and limited potential profitability, Arriva Air has always intended to add additional aircraft and to pursue more diverse cargo charter market opportunities, as soon as it was financially able to expand its fleet and the geographic scope of its operations, subject to any necessary prior approval by the DOT and FAA.
Attachment A – Statement of Steven Higgins | Attachment B – Statement of Douglas Brown | Attachment C – Statement of James Freeman | C-1 | Attachment D – Board of Directors Resolution | Attachment E – Title 18 Certification
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Nathaniel Breed
Atlas Air, Inc. (Exemption Renewal, US-Hong Kong)
OST-97-2591 (50403) | June 5, 1997
Application for Renewal of Exemption
Authority
Although Atlas currently is not operating scheduled U.S.-Hong Kong service, it has utilized the rights in the past and desires to retain the authority in the event market conditions warrant service in the future. When the demand justifies additional scheduled service, Atlas would provide such service with B-747 freighter aircraft.
Answers are due by June 20, 1997
Counsel: Verner Liipfert, William Evans, 202-371-6030
Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. (Exemption Renewal, Zihuatanejo/Huatulco – Los Angeles)
OST-96-1495 & 96-1464 | June 5, 1997
Application for Renewal of Exemptions
Mexicana currently does not provide nonstop service in the Huatulco-Los Angeles and Zihuatanejo-Los Angeles markets. Mexicana requests renewal of this authority, however, so that nonstop service may be resumed without delay when warranted by commercial conditions.
Counsel: Squire Sanders, Robert Papkin, 202-626-6601
Japan Airlines Company, Ltd. (Notice of Action Taken)
OST-95-662 | Posted June 5, 1997
Sua sponte exemption modifying action of March 13, 1997, confirmed by Order 97-4-28, to permit JAL to operate up to seven weekly combination frequencies between Sendau and Honolulu through September 5, 1997
By: Paul Gretch / Counsel: Jeffrey Shane, 202-663-6909
Japan Airlines Company, Ltd. (Exemption Renewal, Implementation of 1996 MOU, Cargo)
OST-96-1307 | June 5, 1997
Supplement No. 1 to Answer of Federal
Express and Motion for Leave to File
On June 2, 1997, the Japanese Ministry of Transport issued a widely-disseminated public announcement that "Japan has granted Federal Express new routes into Tokyo and Naha, Okinawa, from a number of U.S. gateways" (Aviation Daily, June 3, 1997, p. 382). That announcement failed to mention, however, that the Japanese MOT explicitly denied the application of Federal Express to carry certain beyond-Japan 5th freedom traffic on its newly-approved services, and that the same decision also rejected, again, longstanding requests by Federal Express to carry beyond-Japan 5th freedom traffic on a number of other proposed beyond-Japan flights which had been duly filed by Federal Express pursuant to bilaterally-established schedule-filing procedures.
Counsel: Federal Express and Shaw Pittman, 202-663-8078
OST-97-2329 (50176) | 95-474 | June 5, 1997
Motion for Leave to File an Unauthorized
Document
In a belated attempt to resurrect a dead argument, apparently so that it might be raised in a later petition to the Court of Appeals, the City has included in its Reply Brief on Remand a new issue that was not raised in its opening brief: whether its fee methodology is entitled to "deference and a presumption of lawfulness." See City Reply Br. at 11-12. As explained below, that argument is beyond the scope of this remand proceeding because although the City argued to the Secretary in LAXI that it was entitled to special deference, the Secretary rejected the argument both in that decision and in the Policy, and the City did not appeal that determination. In addition, even if the City's "special deference" argument were still available to it, the City chose not to include the contention in its opening brief and cannot raise it for the first time in a reply. And even if the Secretary were to allow the City to re-raise this rejected argument in its reply brief, the Secretary should reject it for all the same reasons set forth in the Policy and in the prior rulings in this case. Finally, and in any event, if the Secretary entertains this new argument, he should make clear that the City's land rental charges would be unreasonable even if they were entitled to the presumption the City seeks.
Counsel: Hogan Hartson, Allen Snyder, 202-637-5741
United Air Lines, Inc. (Notice of Action Taken, Renew and Amend, Corrected Copy)
OST-97-2126 | Posted June 5, 1997 (from Office of Intl Aviaiton)
Integrate existing authority on Routes 57 and 603 and to integrate services on segments 1, 2, and 5 of Route 603 in order to combine its scheduled foreign air transportation authorized on these routes and segments. United also requests amendment of this authority to permit United to integrate its existing certificate authority on Routes S7, ITS, 130, 246, S52, 566, 588, 603, 624, 632, 664, 669, 67S, 703, 718, and 720.
Corrects Notice of Action Taken dated May 6, 1997, to reflect United’s application for and the Department’s approval of authority to integrate services on all of the named routes.
By: Paul Gretch / Counsel: Joel Burton, 202-637-9130
Home
| OST Filings by Docket | OST
Filings by Carrier | OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day
Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day
