Served February 25, 2002
Notice of Action Taken© Copyright 2002 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 25, 2002 |
Last Updated 03/25/02 03:32 PM
Applications and Renewals:
Lan Peru - Lima- Miami via Punta Cana
Answers and Replies:
Airline Delays and Cancellations (8)- Position Paper of America West/Comments | American/Japan (2)- Notices
American Eagle - Response of Baton Rouge | Caplan v Northwest - Complaint
Cook/Duggan v Northwest (2)- Petition/Opposition | CRS - Comments
Market Based (4)- Comments | Reporting for Disability-Related Complaints - Regulatory Evaluation
U.S.- Brazil Combination Frequencies - Reply of Delta
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case (3)- Notice of Communication/Letter of Opposition/Comments
Notices of Action Taken:
Air Alps/Northwest | Crossair | Japan Asia - Guam/Saipan | Transcarga - Venezuela-US Cargo Charters
Notices and Orders:
None
Air Alps Aviation GmbH and Northwest Airlines, Inc.
| OST-02-11441 | Filed January 30, 2002 Served February 25, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
Statements of Authorization Amsterdam- Austria; Exemption U.S.- Austria |
Air Alps Aviation GmbH--Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 and statement of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to permit Air Alps Aviation to display the airline designator code of Northwest Airlines ("NW') on flights operated by Air Alps between Amsterdam, Netherlands, and points in Austria.
Northwest Airlines, Inc.--Exemption from 49 U.S,C. § 41101 to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail from points behind the United States via the United States and intermediate points to a point or points in Austria and beyond.
By: Paul Gretch
American Airlines, Inc. and Japan Airlines Co., Ltd.
| OST-99-4994 Undocketed |
February 25, 2002 | Notice
of American Airlines |
U.S.- Japan Codeshare |
| Service List |
Notice of American Airlines, under condition (2) of Notice of Action Taken, February 18, 1999, hereby gives notice that American will display the "JL*" designator code of Japan Airlines Co., Ltd. on flights operated by American between New York (JFK) and Tokyo (effective April 19, 2002), and by American Eagle between Chicago and Knoxville (effective April 17, 2002).
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
| OST-99-4994 Undocketed |
February 25, 2002 | Notice
of Japan Airlines |
U.S.- Japan Codeshare |
| Service List |
Notice of Japan Airlines, as required by condition (3) to the Notice of Action Taken dated February 18, 1999 in this docket. Japan Airlines, hereby gives notice that (a) effective April 17, 2002, it will display the "AA" designator code of American Airlines, on JAL flights between Tokyo and Seol, and (b) effective February 24, 2002, it has ceased displaying the "AA" designator code on flights operated by JAL between Osaka, on the one hand, and Bangkok, Fukuoka, Naha, Busan (formerly, Pusan), Sapporo, Seoul and Tokyo (Haneda), on the other.
Counsel: Steptoe Johnson, William Karas, 202.429.6223, wkaras@steptoe.com
| OST-02-11462 | February 25, 2002 | Motion
for Leave to File and Response of Greater Baton Rouge Airport
District |
Chicago O'Hare- Baton Rouge |
| Service List |
American Eagle introduces nothing new for the Department to consider in its reply. It restates the basic premise that 1) AMR Corporation (parent company of American and American Eagle) has had "unprecedented losses"; and 2) American Eagle, between January 1 and November 30, 2001, has lost $1.1 million in the Baton Rouge - Chicago O'Hare market. Reply at 2. Additionally, American Eagle notes that the Department has been very clear in its rulings regarding service termination, and if based solely on the financial data that American Eagle has provided, American Eagle has met its burden. See, Orders 2002-2-10 (Spirit/Melbourne), 2001-10-6 (United/TriCities), and 2001-10-7 (United/Mobile).
However, under 49 U.S.C. § 41717(g)(2), a carrier must show substantial losses on operations in the market in question for "the calendar quarters immediately preceding submission of the notice." (Emphasis added). American Eagle filed its notice on February 1, 2002. The last calendar quarter was the fourth quarter 2001. American Eagle only included financial route performance data through November 30, 2001. Based on the Airport's analysis of the post-September 11 th recovery of the air travel market in Baton Rouge (as discussed in the Airport's Answer in Opposition), the Airport and American Eagle clearly have differing opinions on the viability and sustainability of American Eagle service in the BTR-ORD market. Because American Eagle is compelled to provide fourth quarter results under 49 U.S.C. § 41719, the Airport requests that the Department, or American Eagle on its own accord, release route financial performance for the full month of December 2001 so that the record is complete under the statute. In addition, the Airport requests that the data for the month of December be released to the Airport and the Department independently, and not added back into the already reported route financial performance figures for October and November.
In addition, the Airport requests that the Department require American Eagle to disclose the route financial performance data for January 2002. The Airport believes that the bleak financial picture that American Eagle portrays is inconsistent with recent market conditions in Baton Rouge and that the data for December 2001 and January 2002 will, in part, bolster the Airport's assertions. While the request for January 2002 data is outside the scope of the statutory language in 49 U.S.C. § 41717(g)(2), the events of September 11th have clearly compressed the time frames in which the Department, American Eagle, and the Airport have to act. Having the most recent quantitative information is important for a full and complete record.
American Eagle has been attempting to reduce regional available seat miles (ASMs) due to labor union contracts dictating the acceptable level of regional to mainline capacity. The Airport has learned that a significant factor, perhaps the most important one, in American Eagle's decision regarding service termination in the BTR-ORD market is due to its attempts to satisfy this ongoing labor issue.
Counsel: PA Consulting, Christopher Weaver, 757.258.8703
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | America
West: Position Paper on Causal Delay |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
The expectation that the new rulemaking will alleviate the past frustration and anger expressed by airline passengers is unfounded. The passenger issues that precluded this rulemaking were related to delay and cancel information provided on the actual day of departure. The passengers were aware of the air carriers overall performance from the Air Travel Consumer Report statistics, but their concern was only for the flight on which they had a seat. Thus, this rulemaking may provide information for aggregate delays and cancellations, it will not provide the information required and desired by the traveling public. The recommendation is better communication to the customer of delay and cancel information on the day of departure, which the airlines have already committed to through initiatives in response to the Airline Consumer Bill of Rights. As evidenced by the most recent November and December ATCR complaint data, industry complaints are at their lowest levels in 3 years. Clearly the perception of public intolerance has changed, particularly in light of the events of September 11.
By: America West, Jeffrey McClelland
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments
of American Trans Air |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
We firmly support the right of the public to be informed about causes of cancellations and delays. However, we do not believe the Department has clarified how it intends to use this new data. The intentions must be clarified and included in the proposal before it becomes a rule. Before causal reports will have any substantive relevance, there needs to be a common framework within the industry for how delays are coded. Currently, there are no standards for how airlines internally code their delays. Therefore, any causal data reports would likely be somewhat subjective, which would defeat the proposal's goal of providing the public with meaningful information. An industry study, jointly sponsored by the Department and the Air Transport Association, with a larger number of participating airlines, should explore a common coding system and develop a consensus on how it will be used. Only then can mandating compliance with the rule achieve the desired objective.
By: American Trans Air, Ellis Fawcett, 317.247.4000
| OST-00-8164 | February 23, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Comments
of Paul Asmus |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
By: Paul Asmus
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments
of AAA Public Affairs |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
Requiring air carriers to provide more detailed information on the nature of delays and cancellations will enable all the stakeholders, government, air carriers, airports, and consumers, to better understand the factors affecting air travel. The additional data collected as a result of the proposed performance reporting requirements will contribute to a better understanding of the system's strengths and weaknesses, and allow the industry to target isolated deficiencies and take appropriate action, when necessary, to resolve any ongoing performance problems. We support the agency's intention to extend the requirements to all air carriers in a future rulemaking.
By: AAA Public Affairs, Kathleen Marvaso
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments of
Air Transport Association of America |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
The implementation period for this rule must be extended sufficiently to allow for broad airline testing and government-industry discussion to resolve consistency issues. Although the pilot program was successful in establishing a framework for collecting the data, more testing is necessary. The highest degree of integrity and confidence is needed to guarantee accurate and useful reporting to the public. ATA is concerned that without more extensive testing, neither the air carriers nor the DOT can be confident that the results are reliable, consistent, and comprehensive. There was broad agreement on this subject at the August 10, 2001 meeting with DOT and airline representatives.
By: Air Transport Association of America, John Ryan
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments of
Airports Council International - North America |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
ACI-NA and its member airports strongly endorse DOT's continuing efforts to assess the causes of flight cancellations and delays by creating a uniform system for coding and analyzing the reasons flights are delayed or cancelled. ACI-NA believes that such a system will improve industry and passenger knowledge about the causes of flight delays, provide the public with more reliable information upon which they may base personal and business travel decisions, and improve the public's perception of the aviation industry.
By: Airports Council International - North America, David Plavin
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments of Melissa Davis |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
By: Melissa Davis
| OST-00-8164 | February 25, 2002 | Comments of
Southwest Airlines |
Categories of Airline Delays and Cancellations |
On December 27, 2001 the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the referenced docket proposing to require certain air carriers to report information regarding the causes of flight delays and cancellations. The NPRM invited comments on the NPRM by February 25, 2002. Southwest was one of four air carriers that participated on the DOT's Air Carrier On-Time Reporting Advisory Committee in 2000, and in a pilot program on this subject administered by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in 2001. Southwest has views on the issues raised by the NPRM, and will include them in comments to be filed on the NPRM in the next 10 days. Given that flight delays have dropped precipitously since September 11, and there is no apparent need to impose new delay reporting requirements in the near term, we presume that Southwest's comments will receive full consideration by the Department.
Counsel: Southwest, Robert Kneisley
Computer Reservation System Regulations
| OST-97-2881 | February 6, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Comments of All About Travel Agency |
Computer Reservation System (CRS) |
The purpose of this letter is to notify you of a very serious problem that exists in the travel agent industry, and threatens to destroy not only my travel agency, but the entire travel agent industry if not corrected. The specific problem I am referring to is the problem of Airfare Price Discrimination whereby the airlines are no longer providing travel agents with access to their lowest fares on most routes, and are in fact withholding their lowest fares from the very airline ticketing systems that the airlines built for travel agent use, namely CRS or Computer Reservation Systems.
By: All About Travel Agency, Randy Webster
| OST-02-11534 | Filed February 8, 2002 Issued February 22, 2002 |
Notice
of Action Taken |
Switzerland-US Scheduled Passenger |
Exemption to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail (1) between Zurich, Switzerland, and Boston, MA/Newark, NY/Washington, DC/New York, NY/Los Angeles, CA/Miami, FL/Chicago, IL; and (2) Geneva, Switzerland, and New York, NY; and to conduct charters pursuant to 14 CFR 212 of the Department's regulations.
By: Paul Gretch
| OST-02-11695 | February 25, 2002 | Application for Exemption |
Lima, Peru- Miami, Florida via Punta Cana, Dominican Republic |
| Service List |
Lan Peru has been authorized by the Peruvian Government to operate up to two weekly roundtrip frequencies on the Lima-Punta Cana-Miami route and expects that its designation for this route will be delivered shortly to the Department of State. Lan Peru intends to conduct these operations initially with B767-300 aircraft wet leased from Lan Chile.
Lan Peru holds authority to operate scheduled services between Lima, Peru and the coterminal points Miami, Florida, Los Angeles California, and New York. New York using its own aircraft and crew. See Notices of Action Taken dated September 7, 2000, September 11, 2000, and May 23, 2001 in Docket OST-99-6192. Lan Peru is also authorized to operate scheduled services between Lima, Peru and the coterminal points New York, New York and Los Angeles, California pursuant to a code-share agreement with Lan Chile, and between Lima, Peru and Miami, Florida pursuant to a code-share with TACA Peru. See Notice of Action Taken dated September 11, 2000, in Docket OST-2000-7265 and Department Action on Application dated June 8, 2001, in Docket OST-2001-9847, respectively.
Counsel: Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202.626.6651, msinick@ssd.com
Linda G. Cook and Emma P. Duggan vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
| OST-01-10598 | February 22, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Motion
for Leave to File Otherwise Unauthorized Documents and Motion to Late
File Petition to Intervene and Petition to Intervene of Louise Caplan |
Discrimination Against any Otherwise Qualified Individual |
By: Louise Caplan
| OST-01-10598 | February 22, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Opposition
of Louise Caplan to Proposed Consent Order |
Discrimination Against any Otherwise Qualified Individual |
By: Louise Caplan
Louise M. Caplan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
| OST-02-11674 | February 22, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Formal
Complaint of Louise M. Caplan v. Northwest Airlines |
Violation of 14 CFR Part 382 |
By: Louise Caplan
| OST-99-5111 | Filed February 5, 2002 Issued February 25, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
Nagoya - Guam and Saipan |
Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transport&on &persons, property and mail between Nagoya, Japan, and Guam and Saipan.
By: Paul Gretch
Market Based Actions to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay
| OST-01-9849 | February 25, 2002 | Comments
of Priscilla Dibble |
Public Comment to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay |
By: Priscilla Dibble
| OST-01-9849 | October 23, 2001 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Comments
of George Schweitzer |
Public Comment to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay |
By: George Schweitzer
| OST-01-9849 | February 4, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Comments of NRCC New Rochelle Citizens Committee |
Public Comment to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay |
By: Scott Magram
| OST-01-9849 | February 25, 2002 | Comments of
Harry Jackson |
Public Comment to Relieve Airport Congestion and Delay |
By: Harry Jackson
Reporting Requirement for Disability-Related Complaints
| OST-02-11473 | February 25, 2002 | Regulatory
Evaluation |
Reporting Requirement for Disability-Related Complaints |
The Office of the Secretary is proposing to collect an annual report on the disability-related incidents communicated by passengers to U.S. certificated and foreign air carriers involving flights to, from or between U.S. points. Also, foreign air carriers would be required to retain for three years copies of the complaints and the records of the action taken on the complaints. The proposed reporting regulations would not apply to air taxis, commuter air carriers, small certificated air carriers and foreign air carriers that operate strictly small aircraft (60 seats or less). The proposed reporting requirements apply to the entire operations of carriers utilizing a mixed fleet (both large and small aircraft) in passenger service.
By: Blane Workie
Transcarga Intl. Airways, C.A.
| OST-01-11231 | Filed December 21, 2001 Issued February 22, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
Venezuela- U.S. Charter Cargo |
Exemption to conduct charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Venezuela and the United States, and other charters pursuant to 14 CFR 212 of the Department’s regulations, using wet-leased aircraft.
By: Paul Gretch
U.S.- Brazil Combination Frequencies
| OST-02-11627 | February 25, 2002 |  Reply
of Delta Air Lines |
U.S.-Brazil Combination Frequencies (Atlanta-Rio de Janeiro) |
Although the commenting carriers also argue that their dormancy waiver requests for U.S.-Brazil frequencies be granted, there is no linkage or conflict between Delta's temporary request and the pending dormancy applications. The Department should consider the merits of American's and Continental's dormancy waiver requests in the separate dockets established for that purpose. The grant of temporary authority to Delta in no way impacts or affects the Department's ability to grant, or not grant, Brazil dormancy waivers to Continental or American.
Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060
| OST-01-11029 | February 25, 2002 | Notice
of Communication in Case |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance |
By: Read Van de Water
| OST-01-11029 | January 24, 2002 Docketed February 25, 2002 |
Re:
Acord Corporation in Opposition to Alliance |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance |
By: Acord Corporation, Linda Cutrupi
| OST-01-11029 | February 25, 2002 | Comment
of Sonia Kidian |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance |
By: Sonia Kidian
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 2002 Airline Information Research, Inc. All rights reserved.