Application for Renewal of
CodeShare Statement of Authorization© Copyright 2000 Airline Information Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
OST Docket Filings for February 8, 2000 |
Last Updated 02/09/00 11:40 AM
Applications and Renewals:
Aeromexico - U.S.- Mexico Renewal w/Swissair | Aeromexico/Air France - U.S.- Mexico | IATA
Answers and Replies:
American - Answer of United | American/Cathay - Answer of Continental/Northwest/United | British Midland - Request for Renewal
Hana, Hawaii - Comments of Hawaii | IATA - Technical Correction | Intra-Alaska Mail Rates - Withdrawal of Equalization Notices
Kamuela, Hawaii - Comments of Hawaii | Trans States - OST/DOT Letter in Response | United and Air New Zealand - Answer of Air Pacific
Notices of Action Taken:
None
Notices and Orders:
Cardinal - Notice to Show Cause | Great Lakes - Service Obligation | Pacific Wings - Suspension of Service | Page, Arizona - Selecting Carrier
Southern Air - Order Confirming Oral Actions | Standard Foreign Fare Level | U.S.- Brazil - Scope of Proceeding
Aerovias de Mexcio, S.A. de C.V.
| OST-00-6883 | February 8, 2000 | Application for Renewal of
CodeShare Statement of Authorization |
U.S.- Mexico; Code-Share with Swissair |
| Service List |
Under the arrangement, Aeromexico is carrying Swissair's code on nonstop service between Mexico City and Atlanta which connects to Swissair's service between Atlanta and Switzerland, and the parties wish to continue the service beyond the current expiration date of February 16, 2000. U.S.-Mexico traffic will not be carried under the Swissair code on the Aeromexico code share flights. Aeromexico's code will not be placed on Swissair's Atlanta-Switzerland flights. In the event Aeromexico is deemed to be commingling traffic moving in foreign air transportation with traffic not moving in foreign air transportation, it respectfully requests that it be granted permission to do so under 14 C.F.R. Part 216.
Counsel: Verner Liipfert, William Evans, 202.371.6030
Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. and Societe Air France
| OST-00-6880 | February 8, 2000 |  Application
for Code-Share Statement of Authorization
|
U.S.- Mexico |
Under the arrangement, Aeromexico will carry Air France's code on its nonstop services
between Miami and Cancun and between Atlanta and Monterrey, which will connect to Air France's service between Atlanta/Miami and France. Only traffic between Mexico and France will be transported under the Air France code on the Aeromexico code share flights.1/ Air France will not sell travel between Mexico and the U.S. for movement on the code share flights. Aeromexico's code will not be placed on any of Air France's U.S.-France flights.Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202.944.3305 and Verner Liipfert, William Evans, 202.371.6030
| OST-98-3401 | February 8, 2000 | Answer of United Air Lines |
U.S.- South Africa |
| Service List |
By its application, American seeks to renew the exemption authority it previously used to serve South Africa by means of a code-share arrangement with South African Airways, and amend the authority to enable American to code share with British Airways between London and South Africa. United has opposed any code sharing by American and British Airways involving services to, from or via London Heathrow or London Gatwick until such time as sufficient access to those airports is granted to U.S. carriers. United also has specifically opposed American's application for a U.S./South Africa code-share designation to support the British Airways code share for this reason. United's position is fully set forth in its Answer, dated December 14, 1999, in Docket OST-99-6595 and its Answer, dated December 1, 1999, in Docket OST-99-6507, which pleadings United adopts here by reference. For the reasons set forth above, the Department should defer action on American's application to renew and amend its South Africa exemption authority until access to London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports has been secured for U.S. carriers to provide them a fair opportunity to compete with the American/British Airways combination.
Counsel: Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5161, jeffery_manley@kirkland.com
American Airlines, Inc. and Cathay Pacific Airways, Limited
| OST-00-6824 | February 8, 2000 | Answer of Continental Airlines
|
U.S.- Hong Kong |
Although American currently provides no U.S.-Hong Kong service, the Department must evaluate American’s Cathay Pacific proposal in the context of American’s attempt to control airline routes around the world with dominant foreign partners and weigh the adverse impact of American’s expanding dominance against the alleged benefits of the American/Cathay Pacific codeshare proposal. In doing so, the Department must consider reasonable accommodations by Hong Kong required for U.S. airlines seeking the ability to compete with the American/Cathay Pacific service. For the foregoing reasons, Continental does not oppose the American/Cathay Pacific application to codeshare between the U.S. and Hong Kong so long as the Hong Kong government shows flexibility in approving requests by U.S. airlines for comparable authority under a new bilateral agreement or extrabilaterally.
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500
| OST-00-6824 | February 8, 2000 | Answer of Northwest Airlines
|
U.S.- Hong Kong |
| Service List |
Northwest Airlines Inc., requests that the Department dismiss the joint application of American Airlines, Inc. and Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. for code-sharing and related authority or, at a minimum, take no action on the joint application until the United States has obtained a new, substantially liberalized bilateral agreement providing new service opportunities for all U.S. carriers, as further described above.
Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193
| OST-00-6824 | February 8, 2000 | Answer of United Air Lines
|
U.S.- Hong Kong |
| Exhibit A: Letter to General Manager- United Air Lines | |||
| Exhibit B: Letter to Michael Kantor | |||
| Service List |
Hong Kong has the ability to become a premiere international aviation hub, given its strategic location and its new international airport at Chek Lap Kok, but only if it is willing to embrace the meaningful open skies liberalization needed to support alliance operations. As things now stand, Hong Kong continues to deny both airlines and consumers the many benefits generated by airline alliances, including traffic stimulation, access to expanded route networks, increased competition, coordinated schedules and seamless service. Until such time as the government of Hong Kong enters into a liberal open skies aviation agreement with the United States, providing, among other things, unlimited fifth-freedom rights and unrestricted third-country code-share opportunities, the Department should dismiss without prejudice or defer action on the American/Cathay Pacific application.
Counsel: Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5161, jeffery_manley@kirkland.com
| OST-00-6842 | February 8, 2000 | Re:
Confirm Request for Renewal of Statement of Authorization |
U.S.- U.K.- Code Sharing |
This is to confirm the request of British Midland Airways Ltd. for renewal of the above-captioned statements of authorization permitting British Midland to codeshare with United Air Lines, Inc. on certain city-pair routes. British Midland's renewal request was contained in the Joint Application of United and British Midland dated January 31. 2000, filed in Docket OST-00-6842. In the Joint Application, British Midland invoked the provisions of 14 C.F.R. 377 to maintain these statements of authorization in effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 558(c) pending final action by the Department.
Set forth below are the specific city-pair markets for which each statement of authorization was issued and for which renewal is requested.
Statement of Authorization No. 98-120 (Valid through March 13, 2000)
- London (LHR)-Manchester (MAN)
Statement of Authorization No. 96-246 (Valid through April 14, 2000)
- London (LHR)-Amsterdam (AMS)
- Belfast (BFS)
- Brussels (BRU)
- Edinburgh (EDI)
- Frankfurt (FRA)
- Glasgow (GLA)
- Leeds/Bradford (LBA)
- Nice (NCE)
- Teeside (MME)
- Brussels (BRU)-Birmingham (BNIX)
East Midlands (EMA)
Counsel: Squire Sanders Dempsey, Charles Donley, 202.626.6651
| OST-99-5798 | February 7, 2000 | U.S. DOT/OST - Notice of Order to Show Cause |
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity |
The Department of Transportation is directing all interested persons to show cause why it should not issue an order (1) finding Cardinal Airlines, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and (2) awarding it a certificate to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail.
By: Janet Davis
Establishment of The Standard Foreign Fare Level
| Order 00-2-13 Docket 37554 |
Issued February 8, 2000 | Order |
Standard Foreign Fare Level |
| Appendix A: International Normal Fare Adjustment Factor by Entity to March 1, 2000 over October 1, 1979 |
By: Bradley Mims
| Order 00-2-10 OST-99-6260 |
Issued February 7, 2000 Served February 10, 2000 |
Order Extending Service Obligation |
Ninety Day Notice to Terminate Essential Air Service at Mattoon, Illinois |
Order 2000-2-10 requires Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., d/b/a United Express, to maintain essential air service at Mattoon, Illinois, as set forth in Appendix D of Order 99-11-11, for an additional 30-day period through March 22, 2000, or until a carrier capable of providing reliable replacement service actually begins service, whichever comes firs
By: Bradley Mims
| OST-99-6502 | February 8, 2000 | Comments of the State of Hawaii
|
90 -Day Notice to Suspend Service at Hana, Hawaii |
| Service List |
While Hawaii is cognizant of the substantial pressures placed on the Department in recent years to reduce the overall cost of the EAS subsidy program, Hawaii respectfully submits that the cost-reduction objective must be subordinate to the overriding objective of insuring the maintenance of reasonably convenient access by isolated small communities to the nation’s air transportation system at affordable prices. That basic and crucial objective of insuring the maintenance of essential air service to isolated small communities generating traffic levels which may be too limited to sustain minimum necessary levels of air transportation without subsidy support has been the primary rationale for the Department’s Essential Air Service Program throughout its 22-year existence.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Nathaniel Breed, 202.663.8078
Intra-Alaska Class Service Mail Rates
| OST-95-405 OST-95-429 |
February 7, 2000 | Withdrawal of Mail Rate
Equalization Notices |
Intra-Alaska Class Service Mail Rates (Fuel Costs) |
Counsel: Sanders Dempsey, Marshall Sinick, 202.626.6600
| OST-97-2833 | February 8, 2000 | Comments of the State of Hawaii
|
EAS Proposal at Kamuela, Hawaii |
| Service List |
Against that background of unequivocal Congressional intent, public interest policy and Departmental precedent, the clearly applicable decisional criteria pertinent to this case are, in proper order: (1) quality of service, (2) the views of the community, and (3) subsidy levels. There is no question that Honolulu is Kamuela’s primary market, and is clearly its only hub connection to the nation’s air transportation system. There is no question that relegating Kamuela passengers and shippers to connecting service to and from Honolulu via two daily small-aircraft flights between Kamuela and Kahului would impose a substantial inconvenience, added cost and significant time delay on transportation between Kamuela and Honolulu and beyond. Equally clear is the fact that such inadequate air transportation between Kamuela and Honolulu would have a substantial adverse impact on the economy of Kamuela which, like all of Hawaii, is heavily dependent upon air transportation.
Hawaii submits that one daily roundtrip flight between Kamuela and Honolulu with 8-seat Cessna aircraft is hardly excessive or extravagant service, but it clearly satisfies the most basic definition of "essential" air service. The most compelling decisional and public policy objective in this case requires the maintenance of that minimum level of clearly essential air service. Hawaii understands that the Department is under budgetary pressure to reduce the federal EAS subsidy bill by scrutinizing the operating costs of the EAS carriers and minimizing the levels of essential air service for which compensation will be paid. In this case, however, the substantial importance to the citizens of Kamuela of maintaining direct service to Honolulu clearly outweighs the relatively trivial potential subsidy saving of $71,000 a year which would be achieved by terminating that critically-necessary Kamuela-Honolulu service.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Nathaniel Breed, 202.663.8078
| Order 00-2-11 OST-00-6773 |
Issued February 7, 2000 Served February 10, 2000 |
Order Permitting Suspension of Service |
30-Days Notice to Terminate Essential Air Service at Kalaupapa, Molokai, Hawaii |
Order 2000-2-11 is granting Pacific Wings, d/b/a Air Nevada, Inc., permission to terminate its air service at Kalaupapa at the end of its 30-days notic
By: Bradley Mims
Page, Arizona (EAS)
| Order 00-2-9 OST-97-2694 |
Issued February 7, 2000 Served February 7, 2000 |
Order Tentatively Selecting Carrier and Setting Subsidy Rate |
EAS - Moab and Ely, Utah |
| Appendix A: Historical O& D Passengers | |||
| Appendix B: EAS | |||
| Appendix C: Calculation of Compensation Requirement | |||
| Appendix D: Map | |||
| Service List |
Order 2000-2-9 tentatively reselects Sunrise Airlines, Inc., to provide essential air service at Page, Arizona, for a two-year period, at an annual subsidy of $686,014, for the period beginning April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2000. Interested persons having objections to the selection of Sunrise Airlines are directed to file such objections or competing service proposals no later than 20 days from the date of service of this Order
By: Bradley Mims
Southern Air, Inc. and Southern Air Transport, Inc.
| Order 200-2-8 OST-99-5670 OST-99-6591 30883, 30789, 49043 |
Issued November 10, 1999 Served February 4, 2000 |
Order
Confirming Oral Actions, Reissuing Effective Certificates and Canceling
Certificates |
Fitness Determination and Dormancy |
| Attachments: Interstate and Foreign Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity | |||
| Service List |
By: Randall Bennett
| OST-97-2368 | February 7, 2000 | U. S. DOT/OST
- Letter in Response |
Chattanooga- O'Hare |
By: Bradley Mims
United Air Lines, Inc. and Air New Zealand Limited
| OST-99-6680 | February 8, 2000 | Motion for Leave to File and Answer of Air Pacific
Limited |
Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements |
| Service List |
Air Pacific conditionally opposes approval of UA and ANZ's application. The expansion of the United/Air New Zealand relationship and the grant of antitrust immunity to the relationship will strengthen UA/ANZ alliance's market power in the South Pacific. ANZ has established a dominant position in the Pacific Islands. The protection of antitrust immunity and the enhanced alliance will provide UA/ANZ with the resources to keep other carriers from competing effectively with it on its dominant routes in the Pacific Islands unless they too obtain antitrust immunity should they wish to compete to those Pacific Islands. In their joint application, UA/A-NZ seem to be trying to portray the Air Pacific, Qantas, American, British Airways relationship as similar to the relationship proposed by UA/ANZ in their application, which it is not. First of all, Air Pacific and its codeshare partners do not have antitrust immunity. Also, contrary to UA/ANZ's claim, Air Pacific is not managed by Qantas. Air Pacific makes its own marketing and operations decisions. Finally, Air Pacific is not a member of the oneworld alliance. Its dealings with Qantas, American and British Airways are on a purely commercial basis. UA/ANZ also seems to suggest that it is Air Pacific that is the dominant carrier in the Pacific Islands, which it is not. Air Pacific pales in size compared to ANZ. ANZ operates 470 scheduled flights a day versus Air Pacific's sixteen (16). ANZ's network gives UA a sizeable advantage over American Airlines, which codeshares with Air Pacific only on flights between Nadi and Honolulu/Los Angeles. That codeshare does not enjoy antitrust immunity.
Counsel: Condon Forsyth, Thomas Whalen, 202-289-0500
1999 U. S.-Brazil Combination Service/Continental Airlines
| Order 00-2-12 OST-99-6284 |
Issued February 7, 2000 Served February 8, 2000 |
Order Defining Scope of Proceeding
|
U.S.- Brazil |
It is clear from Continental's response to Order 99-12-27 that it is not prepared to use the frequencies before the April 3 dormancy date applicable to the frequencies. We, therefore, have determined that those frequencies should be included for allocation in the 1999 Brazil Case. As a corollary, we have determined not to award immediately the three Houston frequencies to Delta for its proposed Atlanta-Rio de Janeiro service. Both Delta and Continental have proposed to use the three subject frequencies beginning in June 2000. As these proposals are mutually exclusive, we are required to afford them comparative consideration. Moreover, contrary to Delta's allegations, at least one other eligible airline has expressed interest in using the frequencies on a long-term basis. Having concluded that the three frequencies require consideration in a proceeding, we have also determined that the proper proceeding is the 1999 Brazil Case and not a separate proceeding. We have instituted the 1999 Brazil Case for consideration of the long-term needs-of the U.S.-Brazil market. The inclusion of the Houston frequencies in that proceeding is fully consistent with purpose of that case and comparable to other similar proceedings handled by the Department.8 A separate proceeding would be duplicative, unnecessarily burdensome on the parties and the Department, and not an economical use of the Department's resources. The Department's efforts in this regard are better used in considering all of the frequencies in one proceeding.
By: Bradley Mims
International Air Transport Association
| OST-99-6477 | February 8, 2000 | Application
for Approval of Agreements - Technical Correction |
PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0042 Corrects PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0035 |
| Memorandum: PTC23 AFR-TC3 Fares 0042 | |||
| Service List |
By: David O'Connor
| OST-99-6879 | February 8, 2000 | Application
for Approval of Agreements |
PTC23 EUR-SASC 0059 |
| Memorandum: PTC23 EUR-SASC 0059 | |||
| Service List |
By: David O'Connor
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
© Copyright 2000 Airline Information Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
