Issued March 10, 2000
Notice of Action Taken© 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 March 10, 2000 |
Last Updated 03/13/00 01:33 PM
Applications and Renewals:
IATA | TWA - St. Louis- Tokyo | TransPacific - Certificate of Public Convenience
Answers and Replies:
Alaska Mail Rates - Petition of Northern Air | American/Swissair - Clarification | IATA - Opposition of Pricewaterhouse | Penair - Notice to Terminate
Royal - Family Assistance | TAMPA - Reply | U.S.- China - Answer of Delta/Northwest/UPS to FedEx | Virgin Atlantic - Reply of US Airways
Notices of Action Taken:
Air Pacific | Nordstress (2)- Department Action | Polar (2)
Notices and Orders:
Rules of Practice - Notice Regarding Compliance
| OST-97-2828 | Filed December 13, 1999 Issued March 10, 2000 |
Notice of Action Taken |
Nadi-Los Angeles/Honolulu via Auckland |
By: Paul Gretch
Airline Partner Associates, Inc. d/b/a TransPacific Airlines
| OST-00-7069 | March 10, 2000 | Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity
|
Interstate Scheduled Air Transportation |
| Exhibit List | |||
| Exhibit 1: Certificate | |||
| Exhibit 2: Affidavit | |||
| Exhibit 3: Key Personnel | |||
| Exhibit 4: Persons Holding Substantial Interest in Applicant | |||
| Exhibit 5: Applicants Subsidiaries | |||
| Exhibit 6: Financial Statements | |||
| Exhibit 7: Judgments more than $5,000 | |||
| Exhibit 8: Fleet of Aircraft | |||
| Exhibit 9: Pending Investigations, Actions, and Formal Complaints | |||
| Exhibit 10: Brief Narrative of Applicant | |||
| Exhibit 11: Federal, State and Foreign Transportation Authority | |||
| Exhibit 12: Description of Service | |||
| Exhibit 13: Agreement | |||
| Exhibit 14: Insurance | |||
| Exhibit 15: Aviation Disaster Family Plan | |||
| Service List |
Applicant plans to operate daily, nonstop widebody service using DC-1030 aircraft configured for two-class service between Portland, Oregon, and Honolulu, Hawaii, and between San Diego, California, and Honolulu, Hawaii. At present, San Diego has no nonstop service to Honolulu, and Portland receives nonstop service to Honolulu by Hawaiian Airlines. These are two markets that Applicant's research and its consultant's feasibility study identified as being able to sustain profitable operations by a new entrant carrier.
Applicant plans to begin operations with two (2) leased McDonnell Douglas DC10 Series 30 wide-body aircraft, to be configured for 34 first class and 257 coach class seats. Two (2) such aircraft will provide the proposed two (2) daily roundtrip flights, one (1) in each city-pair market served. Applicant has been in verbal and written communication with a major aircraft lessor, and Applicant's personnel have completed an on-site inspection of one of the DC-10-30 aircraft for lease.
Counsel: TransPacific, Brian Weathers, 503.528.9650
| OST-00-7069 | March 10, 2000 | Motion
to Withhold Information from Public Disclosure |
Form 41; Schedule B-7 |
Counsel: TransPacific, Brian Weathers, 503.528.9650
American Airlines, Inc. and Swissair, Swiss Air Transport Company Ltd.
| OST-99-5944 | March 10, 2000 | Re: Additional Code-Share Services Clarification |
Blanket Statements of Authorization to Engage in
Reciprocal Code-Sharing Services |
I am writing concerning Swissair's Notice of Additional Codesharing with American which was submitted herein on March 1, 2000. In particular, I wish to clarify that, with respect to the Geneva-Paris (CDG) city-pair, the parties do not contemplate codesharing on US-France traffic via Geneva. Rather, American will operate its own aircraft between the US and Paris as it is authorized to do under its DOT authority and connect there to a Swissair aircraft between Paris and Geneva which will carry the I1AAII code in addition to the "SRI' code. In other words, third country codesharing between the US and France is not involved.
While, looking at this from the US side of the Atlantic, we can understand that the notice -- by saying Geneva-Paris instead of Paris-Geneva -- could be perceived as indicating that the codeshare would serve Paris via Geneva; but that is not the case.
Counsel: Steptoe Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223
| OST-98-3304 | March 10, 2000 | Family Assistance Plan of Royal Airlines |
Foreign Air Carrier Plans to Address Needs of Families of Victims of Aircraft Accidents |
By: Royal Airlines, David Curry, 416.432.1082
Intra- Alaska Class Service Mail-Rates( Mainline Rates)/Northern Air Cargo, Inc.
| OST-95-429 Docket 38961 |
March 10, 2000 | Petition
of Northern Air Cargo for Adjustment in Update Methodology to
Weight Costs of Carrier and Aircraft by Amount of Mail Transported |
Fuel Costs; Intra-Alaska Class Service Mail Rates |
| Appendix A: Adjustment actors for Linehaul Costs | |||
| Appendix B: Percentage of mail Carried with Costs to Aircraft Types | |||
| Appendix C: Total Costs per ATM to Percentage of Mail Carried | |||
| Appendix D: Total Costs per ATM to Percentage of Mail Carried including Lynden, Air Cargo Express | |||
| Appendix E: Terminal Handing | |||
| Service List |
Counsel: Hewes Gelband, Theodore Seamon, 202.337.6200
Nordstress Australia PTY. Ltd.
| OST-99-5745 Undocketed |
Date of Action March 10, 2000 Authority Expires March 10, 2000 |
Department
Action on Application |
Wet Lease for Guyana Airways - New York- Georgetown |
Extend statement of authorization under Part 212 to the extent necessary to permit it to wet lease aircraft on a long-term basis to Guyana Airways 2000 on its proposed services between Georgetown, Guyana, and New York, New York, through June 29, 2000
By: Gordon Bingham
| OST-99-6036 Undocketed |
Date of Action March 10, 2000 Authority Expires March 11, 2000 |
Department
Action on Application |
Wet Lease for Guyana Airways - Miami- Georgetown |
Extend statement of authorization under Part 212 to the extent necessary to permit it to wet lease aircraft on a long-term basis to Guyana Airways 2000 on its proposed services between Georgetown, Guyana, and Miami, Florida, for one year.
By: Gordon Bingham
Peninsula Airways, Inc. d/b/a Penair
| OST-00-7068 | March 10, 2000 |  90-Day Notice of Pennair, of Intent to Terminate EAS
|
EAS at Akutan- Dutch Harbor, Alaska |
| Service List |
PenAir has determined that it cannot continue to operate this service economically without a subsidy, particularly in light of the extremely high costs associated with operating and maintaining the Grumman Goose aircraft. Since Akutan does not have a land runway, it must be served by an aircraft capable of landing on the water. The twin-engine Goose is a "flying boat," which is uniquely able to provide safe operations to connect Akutan to Dutch Harbor and other communities in Alaska. Unfortunately, PenAir cannot continue to sustain the losses associated with operating this service to Akutan absent a subsidy, and therefore, has reached the difficult but necessary decision to terminate service to the Akutan.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Sheryl Israel, 202.663.8060
| OST-97-2939 | Filed February 28, 2000 Issued March 10, 2000 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Africa |
By: Paul Gretch
| OST-98-3652 | Filed February 28, 2000 Issued March 10, 2000 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Saudi Arabia |
By: Paul Gretch
Rules of Practice in Proceedings
| OST-99-2090 | March 10, 2000 | U. S. DOT/OST
- Notice Regarding Compliance with Verification Requirements of 14 CFR 302.4 |
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
Notice advising Department staff to accept pleadings in all other types of proceedings that comply with current Sections 302.4(b) until further notice; while in the meantime, the Department will study the points raised by outside counsel on the need for feasibility of complying with the new verification requirements. The Department will reexamine the issue of what verification is required in documents and pleadings that are filed. Options to be considered include issuing a supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this issue in the future
By: Bradley Mims
| OST-98-3419 | March 10, 2000 | Application for of Trans World Airlines for Waiver |
St. Louis- Tokyo |
| Service List |
By Order 98-5-17, the Department awarded TWA seven weekly frequencies to serve the St. Louis - Tokyo market. TWA had initially planned to start service on the route by June 1, 1999. Although TWA had requested slots for service to commence on June 1, 2000, it has been unable to acquire slots at Narita Airport for the proposed services.
Counsel: Glenn Wicks, 703.841.4665
Transportes Aereos Mercantiles Panamericanos, S.A. (TAMPA)
| OST-00-6955 | March 10, 2000 | Consolidated
Reply of TAMPA
|
Columbia- Miami- Panama; All Cargo |
| Service List |
Answers were filed by Fine Air Services, Inc. and Polar Air Cargo.
Fine contends that "overall substantial comity and reciprocity" is lacking in the U.S.-Colombia market and, therefore, the Department should defer action on TAMPA’s application until the conclusion of the U.S.-Colombia bilateral talks scheduled for March 13-14, 2000. Polar does not object to TAMPA’s application provided the Department also grant its pending application for Miami-Bogota all-cargo authority and that "assurance of routing flexibility" is provided by the Colombian government.Counsel: Winthrop Stimson, John Gillick, 202.775.9800, gillickj@winstim.com
U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
| OST-99-6323 | March 10, 2000 |
Answer of Delta Air Lines to Motion of
FedEx
|
U.S.- China Air Services 2001 |
| Service List |
Delta Air Lines, Inc. supports Federal Express's request. Due process requires the Department to grant additional time to evaluate the substantial revisions submitted by UPS and Northwest. UPS's changes, in particular, go well beyond the bounds of standard Department practice with respect to the submission of errata. UPS's changes involve fundamental revisions to correct significant mistakes that were rampant throughout UPS's voluminous direct exhibit presentation. In addition, Delta did not receive timely service of UPS's direct exhibits on the due date established by the Department in the Instituting Order. Delta's counsel did not receive its copy of UPS's exhibits until the close of business on the day after direct exhibits were due. The copy of UPS's exhibits that were sent by UPS to Delta personnel in Atlanta were also not timely received and eventually were resent via Federal Express two days late. Delta also supports Federal Express's request to require UPS and Northwest to submit "redlined" versions of the revised exhibits in order to afford the Department's staff and other parties the ability to comprehend the full scope of the massive changes made, particularly by UPS, to its exhibits.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060
| OST-99-6323 | March 10, 2000 | Answer of Northwest to Motion of
FedEx |
U.S.- China Air Services 2001 |
| Service List |
Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby Answers the Motion filed yesterday by Federal Express Corporation, wherein Federal Express requests a 13-day delay in the due dates for rebuttal exhibits and briefs in this proceeding, citing the filing by UPS and Northwest of revised exhibits. Northwest did file a handful of revised direct exhibit pages on March 7. Most of these revisions correct errors of a typographical character or involve stylistic edits (such as the addition of subheadings for the ease of readers), and none impact the substance of Northwest's direct case. There is nothing unusual about the filing of revised exhibits, indeed it occurs in almost every route proceeding of this nature. Northwest filed its revised exhibits 7 days after the direct exhibit due date, and served all parties by hand or overnight delivery, leaving a full three weeks for rebuttal. Northwest does not believe any delay in the remaining due dates in this proceeding is warranted under the circumstances.
Nevertheless, in an effort to facilitate prompt resolution of Federal Express' procedural objection, Northwest does not oppose a short extension of due dates. The 13-day extension sought by Federal Express, however, is excessive. Northwest believes a 7-day extension should
be more than sufficient to dispose of Federal Express' Motion. This would cause rebuttals to be due on Tuesday, April 4, and Briefs on Tuesday, May 2.
As for Federal Express' demand for "redlined" versions of revised exhibit pages, to Northwest's best recollection the Department has never required such redlining in a route proceeding. To do so here would be unwarranted and unduly burdensome. Northwest believes its revised exhibits are self-explanatory.
Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193
| OST-99-6323 | March 10, 2000 | Answer
of UPS to Motion to Compel and to Extend Time |
U.S.-China Air Services 2001 |
| Exhibits (Revised): UPS-1146, 1150, 1203 to 1215, 1250, 1251, 1260, 1301 | |||
| Testimony: UPS-T-3 | |||
| Service List |
The vast majority of the changes made by UPS are merely corrections to Exhibit numbers in source references and corrections to typographical errors.
UPS chose not to stipulate to Federal Express' requested extension because Federal Express is obviously intent on delaying this proceeding as much as possible. For example, Federal Express urged that the Department conduct an oral evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge, even though the Department had not held an oral evidentiary hearing procedure in years. Given the large number of parties to this proceeding, an oral evidentiary hearing, with all of its attendant procedural steps (e.g. briefs to the Administrative Law Judge, Recommended Decision, cross-examination etc.), would add many months to the procedural schedule. The Department rightly rejected this request.
Federal Express then requested a delay for the submission of further evidence by certain applicants.
Again the Department rejected the request. It is therefore not surprising to see Federal Express again suggesting a delay here.
UPS filed its corrections to its Exhibits six business days after the filing of the Exhibits - the day after Northwest filed its corrections - which is a normal time period for such filings. Nevertheless, although UPS does not think it necessary, UPS would not object to a oneweek extension in the submission date for Rebuttal Exhibits (if only to permit the Department to focus on reviewing the merits of the case as opposed to ensuring that every footnote is now correctly annotated).
With regard to Federal Express' Motion to Compel the filing of red-lined replacement pages, although UPS believes its previous filing was adequate and Federal Express has nowhere explained why it is entitled to red-lined versions, UPS is supplying red-lined versions of its substituted pages herewith to eliminate further debate.
Counsel: UPS and Kelly Drye, David Vaughan, 202-955-9600
Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited
| OST-00-6952 | March 10, 2000 | Reply of US Airways
|
London's Heathrow Airport-Chicago's O'Hare International Airport |
| Service List |
Throughout the history of the Bermuda II relationship, the United States has consistently made gestures of goodwill seeking to liberalize the U.S.-London aviation market - only to witness the British exploit such goodwill. If enacted into law, the pending legislation would expressly provide for the Secretary to limit access to O'Hare Airport for foreign air carriers whose home country does not provide reciprocal airport access for U.S. carriers. Since the U.K. Government does not provide reciprocal access in law or in fact to London, the Department cannot make the finding of reciprocity.
Counsel: O'Melveny Myers, Joel Burton, 202.383.5300
International Air Transport Association
| OST-99-6694 | March 9, 2000 |
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP - Letter in
Opposition |
Pricing Agreement |
I am writing to express my opposition to the Corporate Identification Number which is being
proposed by IATA. PricewaterhouseCoopers is served by many carriers worldwide. The Corporate Number would make PricewaterhouseCoopers’ data visible to any carrier and any GDS business partner which acquires data from any one of the Global Distribution Systems. I have three objections.First, the Corporate Number is a gross violation of my company’s privacy. In giving data to
one airline, my company has been forced to give data to any airline that buys these data. Second, my company has no control of how an airline uses this data. Airlines commonly combine data from one system to "enrich" data in another. While IATA claims that the data may be used only for appropriate purposes, there is no method to police how this data is used. Third, airlines already have access to the same data today. Airlines collect data directly from their customers or from their customers’ travel agents. Before providing data today, I require confidentiality, restrict use of the data to my preferred carrier, and require limits on its proper use. The Corporate Number denies my company these fundamental protections. This is a privacy issue. I urge the Department of Transportation to deny the proposed Corporate Number.By: PricewaterhouseCoopers, James Lennon
| OST-00-7067 | March 10, 2000 |
Application
for Approval of Agreements |
PTC2 ME-AFR 0047 |
| Memorandum: PTC2 ME-AFR 0047 | |||
| Memorandum: Part 2 | |||
| 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.
