OST Filings for February 27, 2001

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between points in the United States, via points in Fiji and New Zealand, and Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Cairns, and Perth, Australia, and beyond to Adelaide, Australia and to points in New Zealand, and to integrate this authority with its existing U.S.-Australia/New Zealand/Fiji certificates and exemptions. American intends to operate this service under a code-share arrangement with Qantas Airways.

By: Paul Gretch

OST-95-660

Filed January 27, 2000
Issued February 27, 2001

Notice of Action Taken

Los Angeles- Auckland/ Melbourne

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Los Angeles, California, and Melbourne, Australia, via Auckland, New Zealand. American intends to operate this service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Qantas Airways Limited under which American will place its designator code on flights operated by Qantas.

By: Paul Gretch

Index

China Southern Airlines Company, Limited

OST-96-2008	February 27, 2001	Supplement to Application	Foreign Air Carrier Permit
		Service List

In order to accommodate the service that it presently provides pursuant to both exemptions, China Southern therefore revises the original description of authority sought to include authority to operate from Shenzhen and Guangzhou and to Los Angeles, Anchorage and Chicago, as follows: authority to conduct foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Guangzhou, China and Los Angeles; and of property and mail between Shenzhen, China and Anchorage and Chicago.

Counsel: White Case, Anne Smith, 202.626.3651

Index

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

OST-00-8226

November 1, 2000
Issued February 27, 2001

Notice of Action Taken

U.S.- Cyprus Codeshare with Czech Airways

By: Paul Gretch

Index

Delta Air Lines and Czech Airlines

OST-00-8207

Filed October 27, 2001
Date of Action February 27, 2001

Department Action on Application

U.S.- Czech Republic Codeshare

By: Teresa Bingham

Index

In the Matter of American Airlines, Inc., US Airways, Inc. and United Air Lines, Inc.-- Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. $ 41712 and In the Matter of American Airlines, Inc. and Trans World Airlines, Inc.--Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. $ 41712

OST-01-8948 OST-01-8949	February 27, 2001	Grant of Extension of Answer Date	Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712
		Service List

Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com

Index

Intra-Alaska Class Service Mail Rates

OST-95-405 OST-95-429	February 27, 2001	Request for Comments of the U.S.P.S. Regarding Revised Reporting and Other Mail Rate Adjustments Intra-Alaska Bush and Mainline Mail Rates	80-11-12 Intra- Alaska Class Service Mail Rates (Vol. 1-4)
		Attachments: Capacity Analysis
		Service List

Although each topic is considered independently below, the Postal Service recognizes a few prevailing ideas that recur throughout this response. First, a full conversion to the new reporting system is essential to improving data quality and, therefore, the accuracy of updates. The Postal Service urges the Department to expedite the adoption of a new update system. Likewise, a resolution to the RTM vs. ATM debate should be a priority as a preliminary step in the progression necessary to address many of the issues discussed below. Reluctance to resolve these issues expeditiously has continued to harm the Postal Service, as can be seen with the latest bush Show Cause Order in which rates increased significantly as a result of this delay. In order to remedy this situation, the Postal Service strongly encourages the Department to organize a series of meetings that would allow all parties the opportunity to discuss these topics and seek consensus on potential solutions to the issues. The Postal Service believes that meetings will enable all parties to more readily seek and arrive at solutions to many of the issues discussed in the document as well as additional issues which each party considers to be of importance. Although the Postal Service hopes these meetings lead to resolution of these issues and obviate the need for a full-blown bush rate case investigation, the Postal Service reserves the right to initiate such an investigation at any time.

By: United States Postal Service, Michael Mumbach

OST-95-405

February 27, 2001

Comments of Arctic Transportation Services

80-11-12 Intra- Alaska Class Service Mail Rates (Vol. 1-4)

For several years now ATS has been fretting over how a changing industry was relating to the industry that was in place in 1986 when the current base rate and update methodology were established. Our concerns have not been that the base rates or the methodologies were necessarily incorrect or flawed but rather that some of the data that was going into the calculations were data that were flawed or foreign to bush mail hauling. This has been evidenced by ATS' comments to many of the past rate show cause orders. We would continue to assert that a prime example of this is an increase in the number of 19 seat type aircraft flying in mainline type service being included in the bush rate calculations. This type of flying is totally foreign to bush mail hauling, with its increase in dominance in the pool, it artificially reduces the terminal rate paid for bush mail because of the high departure rates in this type of service. We understand that these are bush aircraft, but the service is unarguably foreign to bush mail hauling. We believe that bush mail rates should be set based on bush mail hauling and thus not strictly on the size of aircraft. This argument may support the question of weighting the pool based on the amount of bush mail carried by each carrier.

There has been much discussion and argument on 'how do we fix the system'. Obviously this discussion assumes that something is broken. The Post Office has suggested that the rates are 'deleterious'. Carriers claim that there are too many carriers allowed to compete thus diluting shares and efficiencies causing financial hardship. Some say that because of all the competition the system encourages a fleet of 'little mosquitos' flying the skies. The passenger carriers say that they are the 'darlings' of the industry and that they should be given preference to the mail. The cargo carriers claim that their service is of equal importance to the system and that actually there is much more logic to the cargo carriers getting preference to the mail because that is their specialty. There is probably a degree of truth in all these statements, but none of them jump out as an overriding argument. We are not convinced that the answer lies in a discussion of rates, efficiencies, finances and who gets a bigger piece of the pie.

If our industry weren't such a safety sensitive industry, it would be logical to sit back and let the parties slug it out and assume that the system will some day find its equilibrium. It is our opinion that the issues involved are too critical to the issue of safety that there lies a better discussion and answers to the questions. Further, that the overriding cause to each and every issue, including the Post Office's claim that rates are too high, is the increasing number of carriers participating in the system.

By: Arctic Transportation Services, John Eckels

Index

Kuwait Airways Corporation

OST-99-5589

Filed February 5, 2001
Issued February 26, 2001

Notice of Action Taken

Kuwait - Los Angeles/St. Louis/San Francisco/Washington, D.C. via New York and Kuwait - St. Louis via Chicago (Codesharing w/TWA)

Exemption to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation between (1) Kuwait and Los Angeles/St. Louis/San Francisco/Washington, D.C. via New York; and (2) Kuwait and St. Louis via Chicago, pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Trans World Airlines, Inc.

By: Paul Gretch

Index

Piper Aztec, Inc. dba Aztec Airways

OST-95-236

February 27, 2001

Warsaw Agreement

Counterpart to Warsaw Agreement (Vols. 1 thru 11)

By: Piper Aztec, Stuart Hanley

Index

Servicios Aereos del Centro, S.A. de C.V.

OST-96-1673	February 27, 2001	Application for Renewal of Exemption	U.S.- Mexico
		Exhibit A: Changes in Operations
		Exhibit B: Fleet of Aircraft
		Service List

Counsel: Roller & Bauer, Lee Bauer, 202-331-3300, airlaw@rollerbauer.com

Index

United Air Lines, Inc. and Air Canada

OST-01-8873 OST-01-8875	February 27, 2001	Joint Reply of United Air Lines and Air Canada	U.S.- Canada- Australia; Blind Sector Code-Share LAX- SYD
		Service List

In light of the Department's action, American has informed United that, to the extent that American's February 15, 2001 answer may have been deemed to express qualified opposition to the United/Air Canada applications, that opposition has been withdrawn.

United and Air Canada urge the Department to promptly approve their applications, which, as United and Air Canada have explained, are fully consistent with the 1995 U.S.-Canada Open Skies Agreement and Departmental precedent, including the Department's February 15, 2001 approval of Qantas/American's Canada-U.S.-Australia code share services. Indeed, the Department's approval of Qantas's application creates an even greater need for United and Air Canada to be authorized to promptly commence their proposed code-share services, so as to offer a competitive alternative to Qantas/American.

Counsel: PA Consulting, Anita Mosner, 703.312.1446 and Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com

Index

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Slot Exemptions) / Delta Air Lines

OST-00-7181	February 27, 2001	Re: Letter of Salt Lake City Corporation City Counsel in Support of Delta Air Lines	Washington D.C. (DCA)- Salt Lake City (SLC)
		Service List

Counsel: Shaw Pitman, Nathaniel Breed, 202.663.8078, nathaniel.breed@shawpittman.com

Index