OST Filings for February 25, 2000

By Order 99-3-21, the Department reissued Air Aruba's exemption authority to operate scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail from points behind Aruba, via Aruba and intermediate points, to a point or points in the United States and beyond; charter foreign air transportation pursuant to the Air Transport Agreement between the U. S. and Aruba; and other charters subject to Part 212 of the Department's regulations. The exemption authority, which was reissued as a result of a change in ownership of Air Aruba, remains in effect until February 27, 2000.

Counsel: Air Aruba and Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, brabinovitz@wilmer.com

Index

Air France and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

OST-00-6880

February 25, 2000

Re: Withdraw of Continental's Opposition

Air France and Aeromexico Codeshare

Continental withdraws its opposition to the application of Air France and Aeromexico for statements of authorization allowing Aeromexico to carry the code of Air France on Aeromexico fights between Miami, Florida and Cancun, Mexico and between Atlanta, Georgia and Monterrey, Mexico. Since Continental has been informed that Continental/CSA codesharing between New York/Newark and Mexico City will be approved by Mexican aviation authorities, the basis for Continental's opposition to the Air France/Aeromexico application no longer exists.

Counsel: Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500

Index

Antonov Design Bureau

OST-00-6983

February 25, 2000

Application for an Emergency Exemption

Newport News, Virginia - San Diego, California

The USS Kinkaid is currently in dry-dock in San Diego and is in critical need of a new sonar dome. The only custom-designed sonar domes in the world that are suitable for installation on this type of ship are stored at the U.S. Navy's Cheatham Annex Fleet and Industrial Supply Center in Virginia. The U.S. Navy has determined that a new sonar dome must be delivered to San Diego on February 29, 2000, in order to avoid severe disruption costs (estimated to approach $35,000 per dry-dock day) and to enable the USS Kinkaid to be brought back to service in time to meet its operational commitments. Given the enormous size of such a piece, and the amount of time it would take to move such cargo by surface transportation, shipment of the sonar dome by truck, rail or sea is impracticable. Thus, the U.S. Navy has determined that the sonar dome must be transported from Newport News to San Diego by air.

Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Sheryl Israel

Index

Canadian Airlines International Ltd. and Air Canada

OST-00-6908

Posted February 25, 2000

Department Action on Application

Canada-US Codeshare

By: DOT

Index

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc

Order 00-2-28
OST-00-6953

Issued February 25, 2000
Served February 29, 2000

Order Allowing Suspension of Service and Approving Transfer of Essential Air Service Responsibilities

EAS - Staunton, Virginia

We will allow Chautauqua to suspend its service at Staunton on the day that ACA institutes its new service at the community, if it chooses. At that time, we will begin to rely on ACA's service to meet Staunton's essential air service requirements. As planned, ACA's new service easily meets those requirements: the new carrier will offer the community 114 seats each weekday and 209 seats each weekend to Washington. Moreover, ACA's code-share relationship with United Airlines will provide travelers with on-line connecting service through Dulles to destinations throughout United's system.

By: Bradley Mims

Index

Commander Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.

OST-97-2245	February 25, 2000	Application for Renewal of Exemption	Mexico-US Charters
		Exhibit A & B: Changes in Operations
		Service List

The ownership of Commander Mexicana changed recently with the shift of shareholder interests within the IUSA family of companies. Commander Mexicana remains, however, a privately held company that is 100% owned and controlled by Mexican citizens. The current ownership of Commander Mexicana is shown in Exhibit B. In addition, since Commander Mexicana is principally owned by IUSA Pasteje, S.A. de C.V., Exhibit B also sets forth the ownership information for this company.

Counsel: Roller Bauer, Lee Bauer, 202-331-3300

Index

United Air Lines, Inc. and British Midland Airways Ltd.

OST-00-6842
OST-00-6954

February 25, 2000

Consolidated Answer of Continental Airlines

HTML

US-UK Codesharing

Continental does not oppose the British Midland request for Manchester-Chicago/Washington authority or the British Midland and United requests for authority to codeshare on United flights at Chicago and Washington connecting with the proposed British Midland Manchester-U.S. flights and on other British Midland flights which do not serve Heathrow. Continental does object, however, to the British Midland/United request to offer additional codesharing service at London Heathrow so long as no additional U.S. carriers are authorized to operate U.S.-Heathrow Rights. Since British Midland is the second-largest operator at Heathrow and United is the second-largest U.S. operator at Heathrow, granting such authority would entrench their positions prior to entry by new U.S. airlines and benefit a U.K. carrier whose government is refusing to permit additional U.S. carrier flights at Heathrow.

Many of the public benefits alleged by British Midland and United can be achieved by permitting British Midland to operate Manchester-Chicago/ Washington flights and to codeshare on United flights at Chicago and Washington. Thus, Continental has no objection to British Midland's requests for authority to operate such flights, to offer service at points beyond its U.S. gateways on United flights and to place United's code on British Midland flights which do not serve London Heathrow. Similarly, Continental has no objection to United's request for a statement of authorization to place the British Midland code on United flights within the United States which connect with the proposed British Midland flights between Chicago/Washington and Manchester.

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

Index

U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

Order 00-2-29
OST-99-6323

Issued and Served February 25, 2000

Order on Reconsideration

HTML

US-China Air Services (2001)

By this order, we grant the petition for reconsideration of Order 2000-1-21 filed by American Airlines, and, on reconsideration, we will defer a decision on American's request with respect to the scope of authority to be awarded in this proceeding until we issue our tentative decision, and we will deny American's request with respect to requiring applicants to file additional historical cargo data.

As the parties have correctly noted, the Department's standard practice in carrier selection cases is to require the selected carrier to serve the city-pair market(s) that it proposed to serve. This is because that specific service pattern is often critical to the Department's decision to select one carrier over another for the available route rights. Nevertheless, we recognize that in a given situation there may be circumstances where the standard condition may not be appropriate. Given the particular facts and circumstances of the U.S.-China market, we believe that such a decision is better made in this case after the record has been fully developed and, specifically, after we are in a position to make a tentative decision as to which carrier, if any, to authorize for new service to China and how to allocate the available frequencies. By deferring a decision on the issue raised by American until we issue our tentative carrier selection decision, we will afford all parties and the Department the opportunity, based on a complete evidentiary record, to determine whether the Department's standard condition should be applied in this case. Parties that have not commented on the issue, but wish to do so, and parties that have commented and wish to supplement their comments will be free to do so at the various evidentiary stages of the case.

We have decided to deny American's petition to the extent that it requests that all applicants be required to provide additional evidence on their historical cargo traffic, with the data broken down into express cargo traffic and total cargo traffic.

We conclude that the evidence request attached to Order 2000-1-21 will result in sufficient historical cargo data to provide an adequate record for decision in this proceeding, including a decision on the precise issues raised by American. We have already released to the parties to this case the historical traffic data (cargo and passenger) collected by the Department for U.S. and foreign carriers serving the U.S.-China market. Furthermore, the evidence request attached to Order 2000-1-21 requires applicants to provide specific details on their traffic forecasts. As such, the applicants can be expected to provide considerable additional information regarding the cargo needs of the market in their direct and rebuttal exhibits, thereby further enhancing the record in this proceeding. Our evidentiary approach is consistent with that we have followed in other selection cases where we found the record adequate for decision. Against this background, we are not persuaded that the additional information requested by American, or as revised by Federal Express, would be of sufficient use in this case to justify the additional burden on the applicants required to produce it.

We also will not require applicants to provide historical data on code-share traffic. The evidence request already requires carriers to provide a full description of the code-share services provided in the U.S.-China market. In addition, as discussed above, applicants are required to provide specific details to support their forecasts of any code-share traffic and we are confident that the information supplied together with that already available will provide an adequate record on this matter.

By: Bradley Mims

Index