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

Last Updated 02/22/99 11:38 AM

Applications and Renewals: 

American - Acapulco/Leon Renewal | AVCOM | Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission - O'Hare Slots | IATA

Answers and Replies: 

Love Field - Add'l Reply of Legend | TWA and Royal Jordanian - Answer of Continental

Notices of Action Taken:

Delta and China Southern

Notices and Orders:

Intra-Alaska Bush Service Mail Rates | Order Dismissing Applications

American Airlines, Inc.

OST-97-2303	February 19, 1999	Application for Renewal of Exemptions	Chicago-Acapulco DFW-Leon
		Service List

American instituted nonstop service between Chicago and Acapulco and between Dallas/Ft. Worth and Leon in 1994. American's Chicago-Acapulco service is operated seasonally, while Dallas/Ft. Worth-Leon service is operated on a year-round basis. American's flights provide significant benefits to passengers and shippers between Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth, on the one hand, and the Mexico points, on the other, as well as in scores of beyond markets receiving convenient on-line connections through American's Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth hubs.

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com

Index

Aviacion Comercial de America, S.A. de C.V.

OST-97-2073	February 19, 1999	Application for Renewal of Exemption	U.S.-Mexico Charter Air Transportation
		Service List

Engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons and their accompanying baggage with small aircraft between the United States and Mexico, and, subject to prior Department approval, between other countries and the United States. AVCOM also requests stopover privileges and renewal of its relief from the requirement to obtain advance approval for each Mexico-U.S. flight. The Department granted the above authority to AVCOM by Notice of Action Taken dated March 11, 1998, confirmed by Order 98-4-13.

Counsel:  Fulbright & Jaworski, L.L.P., Carl Vogt, 202.662.4500

Index

Delta Air Lines, Inc. and China Southern Airlines Company Limited

OST-99-5031

Filed January 21, 1999

Notice of Action Taken

US-China Codesharing

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Guangzhou, China, on the one hand, and Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Detroit, Fairbanks, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Miami, Minneapolis/St. Paul, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C., on the other hand. China Southern intends to operate this service under a code-share/blocked space agreement with Delta Air Lines on flights operated by Delta. Chin;' Southern has requested the authority for a period of two years.  Display China Southern's "CZ" designator code on flights operated by Delta between Los Angeles and all the U.S. cities mentioned above except Anchorage and Fairbanks.

By:  Paul Gretch

Index

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission

OST-99-5130	February 19, 1999	Application for Chicago O'Hare Exemption Slots	High Density Rule - Chicago O'Hare
		Service List

In the event that the Department determines to grant O'Hare exemption slots to a community, rather than to an air carrier, Greenville-Spartanburg wishes to be considered for such an award. We hereby seek to secure three Chicago O'Hare exemption slots, which will be held in the name of the community for the benefit of the public, and used for nonstop regional jet service between Greenville/Spartanburg and Chicago O'Hare.  In brief, Chicago is the third largest O&D market for Greenville/Spartanburg, and securing nonstop jet service to O'Hare is absolutely critical to the economy of upstate South Carolina. Currently, companies in the greater Greenville/Spartanburg area that do business in Chicago and the upper Midwest must either send their employees backtracking to Charlotte, or make them endure ever-increasing connecting delays at Atlanta. And for the "privilege'' of using such inconvenient connecting service, our passengers pay some of the highest fares in the country.

By:  GSP Airport Commission, J Garrett Jackson, 864-877-7426

Index

Intra-Alaska Bush Service Mail Rates

Order 99-2-19 OST-95-405 44445	Issued February 19, 1999 Served February 24, 1999	Order to Show Cause Establishing Final Bush Service Mail Rates	Intra-Alaska Bush Service Mail Rates
		Appendix A:  Intra-Alaska Bush Service Mail Rates
		Appendix B:  Cost Adjustment Factors
		Appendix C:  Summary of Carriers' Fuel Portion of Linehaul Expenses
		Appendix D:  Total Departure Related Expense
		Appendix E:  General and Administrative Expense
		Appendix F:  Regression Results of Nonfuel Linehaul Unit Costs

The proposed final rates, contained in Appendix A, reflect the application of cost adjustment factors, developed in Appendix B. to the basic mail rate structure established by the Department in Order 90-10-34. We have used the carriers' reported operating expenses for the YE 9/30/98, and have increased their unit costs to the mid-point of the new rate period, based on the long-term (nine-year) average annual changes in unit costs. We have also added Grant and Warbelow's operations to the cost pool. This is appropriate because both are large carriers in terms of overall bush operations and they generated 4.6% and 4. 1% respectively of total bush mail revenue in Alaska. 2 Adding their data to the cost pool makes the update more representative of the system without unnecessarily burdening it with carriers relatively insignificant in terms of the volume of mail they transport or in their overall size. As the Department deems appropriate, additional carriers may be added to or deleted from the pool of update-carriers in the future, so that a representative sample of the bush carriers in Alaska is maintained. At this time, we lack only one period from having sufficient data for a full ten-year moving average. We have not included Alaska Central Express, one of the biggest operators of bush equipment in Alaska, because their costs are atypical, i.e., their terminal costs are very low per ton enplaned because the bulk of their operations consist of operating high frequency service with bush aircraft over mainline routes.

By:  Charles Hunnicutt

Index

Love Field Service Interpretation Proceeding

OST-98-4363	February 19, 1999	Additional Reply of Legend Airlines to City of Fort Worth's Petition and Petition of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport	Love Field
		Attachments:  Newspaper Articles

The campaign to stop increased competition in the Dallas-Fort Worth area has been raging for 30 years. The issues have not changed. The Love Field Interpretation Proceeding spanned tour months and allowed all parties ample time to submit any and all documents supporting their respective positions. The arguments raised by DFW are repetitive of the complaints, whining, and accusations they have raised in the press, state court, and before the Department's multiple proceedings. They are engaging in a coordinated effort to keep Department officials engaged in needless activity to protect American's stranglehold over the Dallas-Fort Worth market. The public interest, the Deregulation Act' and the future of competition must be put ahead of those who at every turn feign destruction of their empire.

Counsel:  Ungaretti Harris, Edward Faberman, 202-778-4460

Index

Trans World Airlines, Inc. / Trans World Airlines, Inc. and Royal Jordanian Airlines

OST-97-2374 OST-98-3382 OST-99-5066 Undocketed	February 19, 1999	Answer of Continental Airlines	New York-Amman-Beyond / Route Integration / Reciprocal Codesharing Services	HTML
		Attachment A:  Letter from Jordanian Civil Aviation Authority, 11/11/98

On October 16, 1998, Continental submitted to Jordan s Civil Aviation Authority an application for code-sharing with Air France between the United States and Amman via Paris. Although the bilateral agreement between the United States and Jordan explicitly permits such third-country code-sharing, the Government of Jordan denied the application because the bilateral agreement between Jordan and France does not address third-country code-sharing. (See Attachment A) When Russia refused to approve United's third-country code-share services because they were not permitted under an agreement between Germany and Russia. the Department found that Russia had violated IATFCPA.  The retention of limited-entry code-share authority between the U.S. and India by TWA and Royal Jordanian is particularly egregious. Code-share opportunities in limited-entry markets should be withdrawn from foreign airlines whose home countries are denying U.S. carriers their bilateral rights. TWA is currently the fourth and final carrier that can be authorized to code-share under the U.S.-India agreement.

Counsel:  Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615

Index

Order Dismissing Applications / Air Martinique / Faucett / Trans European Airways / Transwede / Air UK / TAROM

Order 99-2-18 OST-95-385 OST-95-395 OST-95-441 OST-95-605 OST-96-1344 OST-96-1345 OST-97-2250 OST-97-2628 OST-98-4856

Issued February 18, 1999 Served February 23, 1999

Order Dismissing Applications Captured PDF

Permits, exemptions or other authorities under Title 49 of the United States Code

By:  Paul Gretch

Index

International Air Transport Association

Counsel:  IATA, David O'Connor, 202-624-2977

Index

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