Application for Exemption
Slots at Chicago O'Hare International AirportHome | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | 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 February 16, 1999 |
Last Updated 02/18/99 11:24 AM
Applications and Renewals:
Canadian Airlines - O'Hare Slots
Answers and Replies:
Community Air - Request for Add'l Info | Expaned Air Services at Alaska Intl Airports
USTAR v American/Continental/Delta/United
Notices of Action Taken:
None
Notices and Orders:
IATA | Sun Jet International - Final Order | Travel Group et. al.
Canadian Airlines International Ltd.
| OST-99-5115 | February 16, 1999 | Application for Exemption
Slots at Chicago O'Hare International Airport |
High Density Rule - Chicago O'Hare |
| Service List |
On September 29, 1998, Canadian Airlines applied for six (6) exemption slots for service between Chicago, on the one hand, and Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, on the other hand, under both the foreign transportation and new entrant exemptions of 49 U.S.C. § 41714. That application is currently pending and has not been ruled upon by the Department. However, Canadian Airlines' counsel has been advised by the Department that the Application only will be considered under the new entrant exemption because the U. S./Canada Bilateral Agreement states that Canadian airlines should seek slots through the "prevailing" system for slot allocations applicable to U.S. domestic operations. Canadian Airlines objects to the Department's oral decision not to consider its Application under the foreign air transportation exemption. Canadian seeks the exemption in order to provide transportation between Chicago and points in Canada. This transportation qualifies as "foreign" under the statute's definition and, in addition, Canadian is a carrier qualified to seek an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 41714(b) inasmuch as the exemption applies to both U.S. citizen and non-U.S. citizen air carriers. The U.S./Canada Bilateral Agreement does not in any way preclude issuance of an exemption to Canadian under 49 U.S.C. § 41714(b). The Bilateral Agreement merely seeks to include Canadian carriers in the FAA 's domestic slot allocation process; it does not limit a Canadian carrier's ability to seek additional, exceptional service outside of that process. The DOT's exemption process falls outside of the FAA's "prevailing" system for slot allocation.
Counsel: Condon Forsyth, Thomas Whalen, 202-289-0500
| OST-99-5008 | February 8, 1999 Docketed February 12, 1999 |
 Re: Request for Additional Information |
Certificate of Public Convenience - Scheduled Air Transportation |
By: Galvin Coimbre, Air Carrier Fitness
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports
| OST-99-5035 | February 16, 1999 | Reply of the State of Alaska |
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports |  HTML |
In conclusion, the State of Alaska believes the regulatory actions proposed in the Order to Show Cause are fully consistent with past actions of the Department and with the trade and transportation liberalization policies of the United States. The State agrees that these two regulatory actions should help address the special needs of Alaska for expanded air service opportunities and looks forward to continued discussions with the Department to address remaining additional concerns. In furtherance of the goals set out in Docket OST-96-1600, the proposed actions make for good public policy that is beneficial to Alaska's airport system. Alaska's economy, and the U.S. economy. Alaska believes that a proactive approach to encourage and stimulate international flights to Alaska airports advances the Department s policy to eliminate restrictions and promote competition in international air transportation. The State strongly encourages the Department to adopt the regulatory actions proposed in the Order to Show Cause dated January 22, 1999, Docket OST-99-5035 according to the above recommendations.
Counsel: Alaska, John Steiner, 907-269-5100
| OST-99-5035 | February 16, 1999 | Reply Comments of Continental Airlines and Continental
Micronesia |
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports | HTML |
Continental and Continental Micronesia also support the Department's proposal to award foreign airlines rights to serve additional U.S. cities on flights which also serve Alaska and Hawaii so long as the foreign country is willing to grant reciprocal rights to U.S. airlines and the foreign government is honoring its bilateral commitments to the U.S. and its airlines. Allowing foreign airlines -particularly those whose home countries restrict severely the operating rights of U.S. airlines through restrictive bilateral agreements - to offer service at an unlimited number of U.S. points on flights operated via Alaska and Hawaii could discourage more open aviation regimes. Nonetheless, Alaska's unique combination of dependence on air transportation, limited passenger traffic potential and loss of service due to technological and diplomatic advances justify an exception for Alaska. Given Alaska's unique circumstances, Continental and Continental Micronesia support the Department's award of exemption authority to all foreign air carriers to allow them to serve points in Alaska, to coterminalize Alaska service with service at other airports already authorized to them and to authorize service at additional U.S. points via Alaska so long as foreign governments are prepared to give reciprocal rights to U.S. airlines.
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615
| OST-99-5035 | February 16, 1999 | Reply of Hawaiian Airlines to the State of
Hawaii |
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports | HTML |
As the Department is aware, the State of Hawaii and the State of Alaska have similar transportation needs and comparable economic dependence on foreign commerce. Hawaii's biggest single industry is its hospitality industry which has in recent years been substantially hurt by the downturn in the Asian economies. Any steps that would facilitate the growth in the traffic to Hawaii from foreign countries would be beneficial to both the State of Hawaii and to Hawaiian Airlines, not only as an interisland carrier, but as a potential competitor in those newly opened reciprocal markets that would be authorized under Order 99-1-11 (should it apply to Hawaii). New tourism from points in the South Pacific, Mexico and South America provide significant economic opportunities for both Hawaii and Hawaiian.
Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill, 202-776-2000
| OST-99-5035 | February 16, 1999 | Response of Polar Air Cargo |
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports | HTML |
Polar fully appreciates the desire of the State of Alaska to increase activity at its international airports. Although many of the passenger services that historically stopped at Anchorage and Fairbanks to refuel now bypass Alaska, as the State of Alaska explains, this is not the case with respect to cargo services. For most all-cargo operations between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim, a technical refueling stop in Alaska is a practical necessity. If the Department were to grant foreign all-cargo carriers access to interior U.S. points in exchange for a stop in Alaska, virtually nothing would be gained for Alaska from foreign all-cargo carriers, which already must stop in Alaska, but essentially unlimited access to the U.S. would be given away with nothing gained in return that would allow for the growth of U.S. all-cargo carriers' services over Alaska.
Counsel: Polar, Kevin Mongomery, 202-785-1995
| OST-99-5035 | February 16, 1999 | Response of United Air Lines |
Expanded Air Services at Alaska International Airports | HTML |
United joins the State of Alaska in supporting the development of additional air service to Alaska. including the Department's plan to waive any designation or frequency limitations in future bilateral negotiations for operations via Alaska, provided such a waiver would not impair the Department's ability to achieve a more liberal result. However, as explained in United's Answer, the Department must undertake a careful, case-by-case analysis when reviewing foreign carriers' extrabilateral applications to serve other U.S. points via Alaska. The State of Alaska's suggestion that these applications should be granted so long as the carrier's homeland is not in "material breach or bad-faith noncompliance" with its U.S. bilateral is far too narrow a standard to adequately protect the public interest and the U.S. Government's bilateral negotiating position. Only a case-by-case analysis, taking into account the nature of the restrictions imposed on U.S. carriers by the applicant's homeland and the public interest factors involved, would protect U.S. interests.
Counsel: United and Kirkland Ellis, Jeffrey Manley, 202-879-5161
| Order 99-2-13 OST-98-3957 |
Issued February 12, 1999 Served February 16, 1999 Was Not Posted February 12, 1999 at 5:00 P.M. - Docket Section Explains that Order was Released at 5:10 pm on Friday |
Final Order |
Reissuance/Certificate - Interstate Charter Air Transportation |
| Attachment: Certificate of Public Convenience | |||
| Service List |
Finds that Sun Jet International is fit, willing, and able to resume interstate passenger charter air transportation.
By: Charles Hunnicutt
| OST-95-272 49233 |
February 16, 1999 | Joint Motion Scot Spencer and Travel Group for
an Extension of Procedural Dates |
Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices |
| February 16, 1999 | Order Extending Procedural Dates |
The mail between Scot Spencer and his counsel takes several days resulting in about a two-week turnaround. In addition, Scot Spencer has limited telephone privileges. He cannot receive incoming calls and his outgoing calls are limited to 15-minute time periods whenever they can be scheduled. However, officials at the Lewisburg facility have given the Enforcement Office permission to use the facility's facsimile machines for written communications to Scot Spencer. Accordingly, if the parties are able to reach a settlement, counsel expect it to occur within the next month.
| OST-98-4786 OST-98-4776 OST-98-4785 OST-98-4836 |
February 16, 1999 | Consolidated Reply and
Rebuttal of USTAR |
Complaint - Unfair Methods of Competition in the Sale of Air Transportation |
By: USTAR, Bruce Bishons
International Air Transport Association
| Order 99-2-14 OST-98-4408 R-1 through R-29 |
Issued February 16, 1999 Served February 19, 1999 |
Order |
TC31 Fares |
| Attachment A: | |||
| Attachment B: |
Structural changes include the early establishment of special seasonal periods for the 2000 Summer Olympics and Paralympics to be held in Sydney; the despecification of fares for Guayaquil currently commentated with Quito, and specification of add-ons between Goiania and Rio de Janeiro; and an increase in children's fares from North America (except to French Polynesia) to 75% of the applicable adult fare.
| Order 99-2-15 OST-98-4781 R-1 through R-18 |
Issued February 16, 1999 Served February 19, 1999 |
Order |
TC123 Fares |
The agreement proposes a new fare structure for travel between the Western Hemisphere (including the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and Asia (except the South West Pacific) via North Atlantic routings through February 2000. Insofar as U.S. points are concerned, structural changes include deletion of specified round trip normal fares from Asia with fares for round trip travel to be twice the one way levels; introduction of different levels for midweek/weekend special (discount) fare travel from Pakistan; and cancellation of one way APEX fares from Pakistan.
| Order 99-2-16 OST-98-4428 R-12 |
Issued February 16, 1999 Served February 19, 1999 |
Order |
Currency Matters |
Clearing House circulates "IATA Rates of Exchange" (IROE's) in February, May, August and November of each year to be used for such conversions during the following quarter. In addition, IATA monitors these IROE's and if a variation of six percent or more between an effective IROE and the market rate of exchange for that IROE occurs, IATA issues an updated IROE. In both cases, the IROE's become effective for ticket sales on the first day of the second month following the month that they are issued. However, under the terms of the proposal, these IROE's will now become effective for sales on the first day of the next month following the month that they are issued.3/ IATA states that recent currency ¿revaluations in Asia and in the Pacific have severely affected carrier revenues, and that earlier effectiveness dates for IROE revisions are needed to facilitate a quicker response to currency fluctuations.
By: Charles Hunnicutt
Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | 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