Proposal of Peninsula Airways© Copyright 2001 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 23, 2001 |
Last Updated 03/26/01 12:02 PM
Applications and Renewals:
Continental/COPA - Mexico City-Panama City | JMC - U.S.- U.K. Renewal | Nova - Sweden/Norway/Denmark- U.S. Renewal
Volga - San Bernardino- Denver- Cape Canaveral
Answers and Replies:
Adak, Alaska - Proposal of Peninsula | American/TWA - Additional Information
Complaint of AirTran Airways (4)- Answers of American/TWA/United/US Airways
DHL - Comments of APC | Mexicana (2)- Answers of Continental/COPA and Delta
Notices of Action Taken:
Aeromundo Ejectivo | ATA | Northwest - U.S.- Spain | Polyot
Notices and Orders:
Great Lakes - Service Obligation | Express Airlines (2) - Service Obligation/Selecting Carrier | IATA
Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska
| OST-00-8556 | March 23, 2001 | Proposal of Peninsula Airways |
Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska |
| Attachment: Service to be Provided | |||
| Service List |
PenAir would provide all service with Fairchild SA-227 (Metro III) turboprop aircraft configured with 17 passenger seats, or, depending on market needs, in a combi configuration, seating 10 passengers with additional mail and cargo capacity. While PenAir would ideally like to provide Adak with its firstchose service proposal, the resulting subsidy needs for single-plane Anchorage service via Cold Bay are quite high, and PenAir is continuing to evaluate alternative lower-cost options, including combining service to Adak with PenAir's Atka flights via Dutch Harbor.
As noted by the Department in its Order requesting proposals, the demise of Reeve Aleutian Airways, Inc., which ceased all airline operations on December 5, 2000, has created a short-term service emergency in the Aleutians. PenAir has been working aggressively to fill the service void left by Reeve, and PenAir fully and reasonably expects to be able to provide Adak and other Aleutian communities the type of premier, quality service for which PenAir is known throughout its historic route structure. Following the abrupt service termination by Reeve, PenAir stepped in to provide immediate service to Adak on a temporary emergency basis. PenAir recognizes that small aircraft such as the Cessna Conquest or Piper Navajo do not provide sufficient lift for a permanent solution to Adak's service needs. However, in light of the emergency need for service, PenAir believed it was preferable to provide Adak with some service rather than none.
Coincident with Reeve's demise, in the first two months of 2001, the Instrument Landing System at Adak was out of service due to a dispute between the military and the FAA regarding responsibility for the operation and maintenance of that system. Without a suitable instrument approach and weather reporting capability, neither of which was consistently available, no Part 121 operator would have been capable of providing adequate service to Adak. That situation has now been resolved. Furthermore, in order to satisfy the continuous contact dispatch requirements of Part 121, PenAir has invested approximately $25,000 in ground based repeater stations to enable PenAir pilots to keep in contact with dispatch while flying to Adak and other communities in the Aleutians.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202.663.8060
Aeromundo Ejecutivo, S.A. de C.V.
| OST-96-2010 | Filed March 7, 2001 Issued March 22, 2001 |
Notice
of Action Taken |
U.S. - Mexico |
By: Paul Gretch
American Airlines, Inc. and TWA Airlines LLC, and Trans World Airlines, Inc.
| OST-01-9027 | March 21, 2001 | Re:
Additional Information |
Transfer of Certificate and Related Exemptions |
| Attachment: AMR 10-K December 31, 2000 | |||
| Attachment: American 10-K December 31, 2000 | |||
| Service List |
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com
| OST-01-9074 | Filed March 6, 2001 Issued March 23, 2001 |
Notice
of Action Taken |
Chicago Midway- Cancun/ Puerto Vallarta, Mexico |
By: Paul Gretch
Compania Mexicana de Abiacion S.A. de C.V.
| OST-01-9177 | March 23, 2001 | 
Answer of
Continental Airlines and COPA
|
Mexico- Guatemala/Panama City Codeshare with United Air Lines |
| Service List |
Mexicana's application seeks a statement of authorization enabling Mexicana to display the UA* designator code of United on Mexicana's scheduled service between Mexico City, Mexico, on the one hand, and Guatemala City, Guatemala, and Panama City, Panama, on the other hand. As Mexicana notes in its application, the U.S. -Mexico beyond-gateway codesharing proposed by Mexicana and United is not expressly authorized by the U.S.-Mexico bilateral aviation agreement. Mexicana bases its application for Mexico City-Panama City/Guatemala codeshare authority with United on "the liberal policy of the Mexican Government toward the operation of third country codeshare services" and Mexico's "willingness to approve such services to, from or via Mexico." Continental and COPA are today requesting authority to codeshare on COPA's daily Mexico City-Panama City B-737 service. Based on Mexicana's representations, the Continental/COPA proposal to offer codeshare service between Mexico City and Panama City should be approved readily by Mexico, and Continental and COPA's continuing non-objection to the Mexicana application is contingent upon securing all the authority Continental and COPA require in Mexico to conduct their proposed Mexico City-Panama City codeshare operations.
Counsel: Crowell Morning, Bruce Keiner, 202.624.2500, rbkeiner@cromor.com, and Robins Kaplan, Charles Hunnicutt, 202.736.2680, cahunnicutt@rkmc.com
| OST-01-9177 | March 23, 2001 | Answer of Delta Air Lines |
Mexico- Guatemala/Panama City Codeshare with United Air Lines |
| Service List |
Delta Air Lines, Inc. does not object to the grant of extrabilateral third-country codeshare authority to Mexicana and United, provided that the Department obtains adequate assurances from the Government of Mexico that similar third-country services by other U.S. carriers and their chosen codeshare partners would be approved. Delta has a strong interest in providing third-country services to points in Latin America via Mexico, and Delta intends to seek such authority if the Government of Mexico is prepared to grant it.
Delta hopes that Mexicana is correct that approval of such arrangements would be "consistent with the liberal policy of the Mexican government towards the operation of third-country codeshare services"; however, prior to approving the Mexicana/United arrangement, the Department should verify that the Government of Mexico does not intend to apply designation limitations to third-country beyond routes, as it does in the case of U.S.-Mexico transborder routes. In the event that designations are limited, Delta and other carriers should have fair notice of such limitations so that they may submit competitive service applications with their chosen codeshare partners.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202.663.8060
Continental Airlines, Inc. / Compania Panamena de Aviacion, S.A.
| OST-01-9253 | March 23, 2001 | Application
for an Exemption and Statement of Authorization |
Mexico City-Panama City and Authority to Integrate US-Mexico
City
|
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615 / COPA and Robins Kaplan, Charles Hunnicutt, 202-736-2680
| Order 01-3-23 OST-00-8320 OST-00-8322 OST-00-8323 |
Issued March 22, 2001 Served March 27, 2001 |
Order
Extending Service Obligation |
90-Day Notice to Terminate EAS at Norfolk, NB; Alliance & Chadron, NB; Ottumwa, IA; Rhinelander, WI |
By: Randall Bennett
Express Airlines I, Inc. d/b/a Northwest Airlink
| Order 01-03-21 OST-00-7855 OST-00-7857 |
Issued March 21, 2001 Served March 26, 2001 |
Order
Selecting Carrier and Setting Final Rate |
90-Day Notice to Terminate EAS at Owensboro, KY / Muscle Shoals, AL / Jackson, TN |
By: Susan McDermott
| Order 01-03-22 OST-00-7855 OST-00-7856 OST-00-7857 |
Issued March 22, 2001 Served March 27, 2001 |
Order Extending Service Obligation |
90-Day Notice to Terminate EAS at Owensboro, KY / Muscle Shoals, AL / Jackson, TN |
Order 2001-3-22 is extending Northwest Airlink's service obligation at Owensboro, Kentucky, Muscle Shoals, Alabama and Jackson, Tennessee, for an additional 30 days, through April 23, 2001.
By: Randall Bennett
AirTran Airways, Inc. v American Airlines, Inc. and Trans World Airlines - Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. $ 41712
| OST-01-8949 | March 23, 2001 |
Answer of American Airlines
|
Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 |
TWA uses l4 of its DCA slots to provide nonstop service to its St. Louis hub. Continuation of that service is absolutely critical to the viability of the St. Louis hub, as well as to employment opportunities for TWA personnel at DCA, STL, and throughout TWA's system. TWA uses its two beyond-perimeter slots to operate nonstop service to Los Angeles. The balance of TWA's DCA slots are currently leased on a short-term basis to other carriers. With the combined operations of American and TWA at DCA, American anticipates using those slots to expand its services to meet growing passenger demand.
Clearly, the Department should reject AirTran's attempt to strip away these vital assets, as doing so would undermine the very premise of the American/TWA agreement, which is to maintain TWA's existing services for the benefit of the public, affected communities throughout the United States including the St. Louis hub, and TWA's employees.
In any event, the Department cannot properly use its jurisdiction under 49 USC 4l7l2 to overturn the FAA's buy-sell rule, as doing so would violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USC 553, as well as be contrary to the fundamental legal presumption against retroactive changes in rules. Indeed, AirTran and its trade association, the Air Carrier Association of America, have repeatedly tried -- and failed -- to persuade the FAA to amend or suspend the buy-sell rule. On December 4, 2000, AirTran filed a rulemaking petition (FAA-2000-8455) to suspend the transfer of DCA and LGA slots, on which the FAA has taken no action. The ACAA has filed successive petitions to amend the buy-sell rule, which the FAA has either denied (FAA 30203 and FAA-00-8235, denied by letter of James W. Whitlow, FAA Deputy Chief Counsel, December 11, 2000), or on which the FAA has taken no action (FAA-200l-9l56, filed March l3, 200l). AirTran's challenge to the buy-sell rule belongs at the FAA, and not in a complaint docket at DOT.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com
| OST-01-8949 | March 23, 2001 | Answer of Trans World Airlines |
Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 |
| Service List |
AirTran's complaint should be immediately dismissed on the grounds that it does not adequately allege the Department's jurisdiction over the transfer of slots from TWA to American. Specifically, AirTran's complaint urges the Department to take remedial action to remove TWA's slots from the asset transfer now approved by the bankruptcy court without citing a single piece of Department precedent to support such an action. Indeed, the only precedent AirTran cites is the Department's long-standing regulations that expressly support the sale of the slots in question. In fact, AirTran cites the Federal Aviation Administration's own "buy sell rules" as set forth in 14 C.F.R. Part 93.221. These rules have been in existence for many years and have always permitted the transfer and sale of slots. See, for example, 50 Fed. Reg. 52195 December 20, 1985 (setting forth the "buy sell" provisions of the FAA's slot rules). The petition now- submitted by AirTran follows its recent failure, through the Air Carrier Association of America to solicit the FAA to change the "buy sell" rules through repeated petitions for rule making. In those petitions, AirTran, through its association, has requested that the FAA consider changing these rules - to no avail. As such, AirTran has attempted to use DOT's discretionary enforcement powers to change the long-standing rule on which TWA and American relied in proceeding with the above referenced asset-based transaction.
Counsel: TWA, Glenn Wicks, 202.457.7790
AirTran Airways, Inc. v American Airlines, Inc. United Air Lines, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. - Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. $ 41712
| OST-01-8948 | March 23, 2001 |
Answer of American Airlines
|
Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 |
| Service List |
The transactions about which AirTran has complained fairly remedy each of the potential competitive concerns set forth by opponents of the initially proposed merger of United and US Airways. Moreover, these transactions will increase the scope, efficiency, and desirability of American's network in the Northeast. American will consequently become a far more effective competitor against established rivals in a region in which American presently accounts for a small share of passengers on key business routes.
Under the proposed transaction with American, the initial arrangements involving DC Air will be replaced by a DC Air/American joint venture. There is virtually no competitive overlap between American and DC Air. American's operations at DCA are primarily to its hubs at Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Miami, while DC Air will serve a number of cities, including small communities, up and down the East Coast. The two route systems will be highly complementary, both for pas-sengers traveling to and from the Washington area, and for passengers traveling along the East Coast who will be able to connect at DCA. The relationship with American will enable DC Air to compete even more aggressively against the merged United/US Airways entity, as well as against other major East Coast carriers such as Delta and Continental, and low-fare competitors such as Southwest, Jet Blue, and AirTran.
An airline that operates as part of a large network usually is better able to attract and retain the patronage of passengers. An extensive network offers customers efficient on-line service to a large number of destinations, and in-creases the value of its frequent flyer program. The proposed marketing arrangement with American will provide DC Air's passengers with access to a large domestic and international route system. DC Air, through its relationship with American, will also be associated with shuttle services in the DCA-LGA and DCA-BOS markets. The shuttle is crucial to creating and maintaining a strong Washington area presence. The shuttle is also important in generating flow passengers for DC Air's North/South connecting services at its DCA hub.
The proposed DC Air/American operations will achieve the size and scope necessary to establish dynamic and independent competition to the merged United/US Airways entity. DC Air will hold 222 slots at DCA, two-thirds of the 332 slots (jet and commuter) currently held by US Airways. As a result, DC Air will account for about 29% of DCA slots, compared to US Airways' current 43%. DC Air will have the resources to mount an effective competitive challenge to United, Delta, and other leading carriers at DCA and other Washington area airports.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com
| OST-01-8948 | March 23, 2001 | Answer of United Air Lines |
Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 |
| Service List |
Noticeably absent from AirTran's Complaint, however, is any evidence whatsoever to substantiate its claims of unlawful conduct. Rather, AirTran relies on misinformation, innuendo and conspiracy theories in an effort to leverage itself into these transactions, all the time being fully aware that there is no basis in fact or law for its Complaint. AirTran's real motivation is abundantly clear -- having failed in each of its previous attempts to acquire slots at DCA for free, AirTran seeks another front in its campaign to persuade Congress to intervene in the slot marketplace on its behalf.
AirTran offers absolutely no evidence to support its irresponsible, perhaps even actionable, claim that United and American are unlawfully conspiring to monopolize a self-defined Washington-area business travel market because no such evidence exists, even assuming there is a relevant market of Washington area business travelers as AirTran claims. AirTran has simply resorted to wholly unsupported allegations to try to leverage these transactions to obtain entry to DCA at below-market cost. When the pejorative name calling is removed, no substance remains.
The transactions AirTran seeks to portray as a conspiracy are, in fact, legal and valid, arms-length business transactions that are currently undergoing thorough HSR review by DOJ, in full compliance with all applicable legal requirements. Notwithstanding AirTran's predilection to assume the role of judge, jury and executioner, the DOJ -- not AirTran or the Department -- is tasked with assessing the potential competitive impact of the United/US Airways and American transactions, and with securing such remedial changes as may be necessary to ensure consistency with the antitrust laws in order to clear the transactions.
Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202.663.6960, brabinovitz@wilmer.com
| OST-01-8948 | March 23, 2001 | Answer of US Airways |
Unfair Methods of Competition in Violation of 49 U.S.C. Section 41712 |
| Service List |
US Airways categorically denies AirTran's baseless allegations and further rejects the purported conclusions and erroneous assumptions underlying its Complaint. When stripped of all the hyperbole and rhetoric, AirTran's Complaint boils down to the argument that like JetBlue Airways, which was able to build its operations around a bulk of slots it received from the Government, AirTran is entitled to similar treatment because it is a new entrant, low-fare carrier. AirTran is asking the Government to interfere with the contractual arrangements designed to provide DC Air, a viable new entrant carrier, with the number of slots necessary to commence operations at Reagan National and successfully replace US Airways' existing services there. While AirTran's arguments certainly advance the airline's own self-interests, the consequences would be devastating for the traveling public. By its own admission, AirTran recognizes the need to provide slots to new entrant carriers, which is exactly what the proposed transactions would do in the creation of DC Air. However, by seeking a redistribution of slots so that AirTran can add frequencies to its existing network, AirTran's proposal would result in an abrupt loss of service for many smaller communities throughout the eastern United States that DC Air has publicly and consistently committed to serving. This would not be in the public interest.
Counsel: O'Melveny Myers, Joel Stephen Burton, 202.383.5300
| OST-00-6980 | March 23, 2001 | Application for Renewal of Exemption |
U.S.- U.K. Charters |
| Service List |
By Notice of Action Taken, dated April 25, 2000, the Department issued an exemption to JMC to "conduct charter foreign air transportation between the United Kingdom and the United States, and other charters pursuant to the U.S.-U.K. Air Services Agreement and 14 CFR 212 of the Department's regulations." The exemption authority granted to JMC will expire on April 25, 2001. By this Application, JMC seeks renewal of the exemption for a period of one year.
Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Lonnie Pera, 202.298.8660
| OST-00-7858 | Filed August 25, 2000 Issued March 22, 2001 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Spain Codeshare w/ Alitalia & KLM |
Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in Spain. Northwest also requests exemption authority to integrate these services with Northwest's other certificate and exemption authority, consistent with international agreements. Northwest intends to serve the U.S.- Spain market via points in Italy pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane, and via Amsterdam pursuant to a code-share arrangement with KIM Royal Dutch Airlines.
By: Paul Gretch
| OST-98-3509 | March 23, 2001 | Application for Renewal of Exemption |
Sweden, Denmark, and Norway - U.S. |
| Service List |
Novair's existing exemption to serve the United States expires on March 3 1, 2001. Nova Airlines requests renewal of its exemption authority to conduct charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in Sweden, Denmark, or Norway, on the one hand, and any point or points in the United States, on the other hand, either directly or via intermediate points in other countries, with or without stopovers. Nova Airlines seeks renewal of its current exemption authority until March 31, 2003).
Nova Airlines currently holds an exemption to conduct charter air transportation of persons, property and mail between Scandinavia and the United States. See Notice of Action Taken, Docket OST-98-3509, dated March 25, 1999.
Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Malcom Benge for Nova Airlines, 202.298.8660
| OST-98-4583 | Filed March 7, 2000 Issued March 22, 2001 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Russian Federation |
Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and other charters subject to Part 212 of our rules.
By: Paul Gretch
| OST-01-8732 | March 23, 2001 | Motion for Leave to File and Comments of Association
for Postal Commerce |
Registration of DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. as a Foreign Air Freight Forwarder Pursuant to 14 CFR 297 |
| Attachment: Listing of PostCom Members | |||
| Service List |
Postcom does not have a direct interest in this proceeding. Postcom's members do have a vigorous and important interest in principles that are implicated by this proceeding. Postcom generally supports the virtues of competitive market, or competitive market-like, activities. Where it is legally permissible, that is, consistent with the Private Express Statues, Postcom has advocated for delivery services alternative to those offered by the Postal Service and by foreign postal administrations. Competition in the provision of delivery functions is good for mailers and shippers and the regulatory positions taken by Postcom has consistently reflected a dedication to this theme.
Counsel: Venable Baetjer, Ian Volner, 202.962.4800, idvolner@venable.com
Volga-Dnepr J.S. Cargo Airlines
| OST-01-9249 | March 23, 2001 | Application for an Emergency Exemption |
San Bernardino- Denver- Cape Canaveral |
| Attachment: Request for Charter | |||
| Service List |
The outsized cargo payload transported by Volga-Dnepr from San Bernardino to Denver will consist of Lockheed Martin Astronautics Atlas V Simulator and associated equipment with the total weight of approximately 75,000 pounds.
Counsel: Glenn Wicks, 202.457.7790
International Air Transport Association
| OST-01-9213 | Filed March 20, 2001 | Approved March 23, 2001 | Approval of Agreements |
| OST-01-9226 | Filed March 22, 2001 | Approved March 23, 2001 |
By: Paul Gretch
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 2001 Airline Information Research, Inc. All rights reserved.