Action Dated February 28, 2002
Department
Action on Application© 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 March 1, 2002 |
Last Updated 03/03/02 09:02 AM
Applications and Renewals:
Brendan Airways (USA 3000) (2)- Philadelphia/Newark- Punta Cana; Philadelphia- Cancun
United and Thai Airways - Renewal | UPS/Nippon Cargo - Notice of Additional Codeshare Services
Answers and Replies:
American - Termination of Exemption | CRS (3)- Comments | Hazardous Materials - Comments of ATA
U.S.- U.K. Alliance (4)- Replies of Continental/Delta/FedEx/Houston/United, bmi et al/US Airways/Virgin Atlantic
Notices of Action Taken:
Alaska Airlines - Codeshare w/Lan Chile
Notices and Orders:
| OST-02-11537 | Field February 8, 2002 Action Dated February 28, 2002 |
Department
Action on Application |
L.A.- Vancouver, British Columbia and Calgary, Alberta Canada Codeshare with LanChile |
By: Terri Bingham
| OST-96-1204 | March 1, 2002 | Re:
American Airlines Will Not Seek Renew of Exemption Authority |
Boston- Paris, France |
| Service List |
This letter is to advise that American Airlines will not seek renewal of the captioned exemption authority, most recently granted for a two-year term by Notice of Action Taken, May 11, 2000 (OST-1996-1204). American now holds certificate authority in this market as a result of the American/TWA route transfer, Order 2001-4-7, April 6, 2001, effective April 9, 2001 (Route 147, segment 2, authorizing American Airlines and/or TWA Airlines LLC to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Boston and Paris, France). American will rely on its certificate for Route 147 to support its on-going operations between Boston and Paris.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
Brendan Airways, LLC d/b/a USA 3000
| OST-02-11725 | March 1, 2002 | Application for Exemption |
Philadelphia- Cancun, Mexico |
| Attachment: Proposed Service | |||
| Service List |
By this application, USA 3000 seeks an exemption from 49 U.S.C. §41101 to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the one hand, and Cancun, Mexico, on the other hand. USA 3000 intends to operate these services with new, state-of-the-art, Airbus A-320 aircraft.
|
Origin |
Departs |
Destination |
Arrives |
|
Philadelphia |
06:30 |
Cancun |
09:00 |
|
Cancun |
10:30 |
Philadelphia |
15:00 |
Counsel: Brendan Airways, Pierre Murphy, 202.822.8050, pmurphy@lopmurphy.com
| OST-02-11726 | March 1, 2002 | Application for Exemption |
Philadelphia/Newark- Punta Cana, Dominican Republic |
| Attachment: Proposed Service | |||
| Service List |
By this application, USA 3000 seeks an exemption from 49 U.S.C. §41101 to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Philadelphia, PA and Newark, NJ, and Punta Cana, D.R. USA 3000 intends to operate these Dominican Republic services with new, state-of-the-art, Airbus A-320 aircraft. Although in 1999 the United States has signed an "Open Skies" Air Transportation Agreement with the Dominican Republic, USA 3000 understands that the Dominican Republic has yet to sign this agreed Air Transportation Agreement. USA 3000 further understands that, for the time being therefore, the aviation relationship between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic is governed by the July 26, 1986 Agreement which is in force provisionally, replacing the prior July 19, 1949 bilateral agreement.
Service every day except SUN/TUE/THU
|
Origin |
Departs |
Destination |
Arrives |
|
Newark |
08:00 |
Punta Cana |
12:05 |
|
Punta Cana |
15:25 |
Newark |
18:20 |
Service every day except SUN/TUE/THU
|
Philadelphia |
08:00 |
Punta Cana |
12:00 |
|
Punta Cana |
13:00 |
Philadelphia |
16:50 |
Counsel: Brendan Airways, Pierre Murphy, 202.822.8050, pmurphy@lopmurphy.com
Computer Reservation System Regulations
| OST-97-2881 | March 1, 2002 | Comments
of Steven Balian |
Computer Reservation System (CRS) |
By: Steven Balian
| OST-97-2881 | March 1, 2002 | Comments
# 1 of Javier Pinel |
Computer Reservation System (CRS) |
By: Javier Pinel
| OST-97-2881 | March 1, 2002 | Comments
# 2 of Javier Pinel |
Computer Reservation System (CRS) |
By: Javier Pinel
Hazardous Materials: Knowledge Required for Civil Penalty Enforcement Proceeding
| OST-01-10380 | February 28, 2002 | Comments of
The Air Transport Association |
Hazardous Materials: Knowledge Required for Civil Penalty Enforcement Proceeding |
We do not believe this subject can be addressed
and laid to rest in a single public session. We recommend,
therefore, that consideration be given now to a subsequent session or sessions,
of perhaps a narrower group of representatives, to further
develop this concept and to prepare one or more draft documents
for public comment. We also believe a separate public meeting and comment period
should be scheduled to address a separate but related issue -- the potential
liability of those who report regulatory discrepancies. The FAA and other safety
agencies have worked with success with discrepancy reporting systems in which,
under specific guidelines, the reporting party is granted immunity from further
prosecution even if a violation is described in the report. Today these
reporting immunities do not extend by their terms to dangerous goods regulatory
situations, but we believe they should.
Yes,, it is true that some employees or companies that might otherwise be liable for the violation might escape prosecution. We believe, however, that the increased volume of reporting, and the safety benefits to the agency and to the public of receiving that information, far outweigh the relatively small amounts of civil penalty payments that might be garnered through an enforcement proceeding. Today carriers who report discrepancies often find themselves the subject of investigation and prosecution, even if the primary violation was the responsibility of a shipper or other person. This agency practice serves to discourage submission of information, when in reality the agency programs need more of this type of information, not less. Therefore, in addition to continuing to consider the constructive knowledge issue in the current proceeding, we ask that the Department open a related public inquiry into the benefits o f extending limited immunity to those who report dangerous goods regulatory discrepancies and violations.
By: Lawrence Bierlien
Thai Airways International and United Air Lines, Inc.
| OST-99-6700 | March 1, 2002 | Application
of Thai Airways for Exemption Renewal |
Exemption and Statement of Authorization to Codeshare - Los Angeles-Washington Dulles / Tokyo Narita-San Francisco / Tokyo Narita-Chicago O'Hare |
By Notice of Action Taken dated March 3, 2000, the Department granted (1) an exemption for Thai to serve Tokyo, Japan as an intermediate point on Thai's authorized services between Thailand and San Francisco and between Thailand and Chicago, with local traffic rights between Japan and San Francisco and Chicago; and (2) a statement of authorization to permit United Air Lines, Inc. to display Thai's designator code on United's flights between (a) Los Angeles and Washington, DC; (b) Tokyo and San Francisco; and (c) Tokyo and Chicago. By this application, Thai seeks to renew its exemption to code share on United's flights between Tokyo and San Francisco and Chicago.
Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Cathleen Peterson, 202.663.6162, cpeterson@wilmer.com
United Parcel Service Co. and Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd.
| OST-99-5744 | March 1, 2002 | Notice
of Additional Codeshare Services |
Louisville- Tokyo; Chicago- Tokyo, San Francisco- Tokyo and Los Angeles- Tokyo |
| Service List |
United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") and Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd. ("NCA"), hereby notify the Department that, commencing not less than 30 days from the date hereof: (A) the NCA designator code will be displayed on flights operated by UPS in the following city-pair: Louisville- Tokyo and (B) the UPS designator code will be displayed on flights operated by NCA in the following city-pairs: Chicago- Tokyo, San Francisco- Tokyo and Los Angeles- Tokyo.
Counsel: UPS, Kelly Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, and Nippon Cargo, Zuckert Scoutt, Charles Simpson, 202.298.8660
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
of Continental Airlines |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
Like playground opportunists who say, "Let's change the game and the rules, so we can win now that the bullies are gone," United, bmi, Austrian, Lauda, Lufthansa and SAS ask the Department to abandon its fundamental principles to approve a proposal incorporating new bmi London Heathrow-U.S. flights which was not even before the Department or the Department of Justice when they reviewed the United/bmi/Star Alliance applications. But this is not a playground, and the Department could not lawfully grant the relief now sought by United, bmi and their Star Alliance partners based on the record in this proceeding, which is predicated on a very different proposal from the applicants in a very different context.
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202.624.2500, rbkeiner@crowell.com
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | 
Reply
of the Delta Air Lines
|
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
The
Department should also not approve any further codesharing activities between
United/bmi or American/British Airways involving services to, from or via
London. Given the continued restrictions on access to London Heathrow for Delta
and other U.S. carriers, the Department cannot make the requisite public
interest findings to support the authorization of codeshare services between
major Heathrow operators.
Finally, Delta disagrees with the positions of Federal Express and Virgin Atlantic concerning the proposed divestiture remedies. However, in light of the withdrawal of the AA/BA immunity application, and the absence of legal or public interest bases to proceed with further consideration of either the U.K. alliances, it is unnecessary for Delta to submit a detailed rebuttal on the remedies issues. Suffice it to say that Delta believes the Department's general approach to require the alliances to divest London Heathrow slots and facilities for service by Delta at New York, Boston and its hubs, was soundly supported on the basis of the record, public policy and law. In conclusion, Delta urges the Department promptly to dismiss all pending applications in this proceeding.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060, robert.cohn@shawpittman.com
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
of the Federal Express Corporation |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
| Service List |
Federal Express Corporation urges the Department to pursue its open skies initiative vigorously, and in all markets. U.S. policy firmly commits the United States to eliminating all competitive barriers erected by foreign governments. In erecting and preserving those barriers, those governments are, in the Department's words, enhancing "their airlines' positions both by restricting the development of new, competitive services and by trying to overcome, through government fiat, their carriers' cost disadvantages that make it difficult for them to compete against U.S. airlines."' Neither the recent opinion of the European Court of Justice's Advocate General, nor the termination of the proposed American Airlines/British Airways alliance presents a sufficient reason for the Department to abandon well-established U.S. international air transportation policy.
Counsel: FedEx, Nancy Sparks, 202.756.2461, nssparks@fedex.com
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
| Service List |
Counsel: Leftwich Douglas, Rebbecca Taylor, 202.434.9100, rltaylor@ldpllc.com
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
of US Airways |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
| Service List |
US Airways remains fully supportive of the U.S. government's attempts to liberalize the restrictive and anachronistic U.S.-U.K. aviation agreement. To that end, US Airways urges the Department to continue pursuing diplomatic initiatives to obtain competitive access at Heathrow airport for non-incumbent U.S. carriers. Under the current circumstances, however, it is readily apparent that such access remains foreclosed. Given the lack of any meaningful possibility at the present time to liberalize the U.S.-U.K. aviation relationship and create a competitive market structure in which non-incumbent U.S. carriers have opportunities at Heathrow, the Department should dismiss the pending United/bmi application for antitrust immunity.
Counsel: O'Melveny Myers, Joel Stephan Burton, 202.383.5300
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
Comments of United Air Lines, bmi, Austrian, Lauda, Lufthansa and SAS |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
| Service List |
The likely eclipse of open skies, however, does not render void the Department's positive tentative findings with regard to the Joint Applicants' applications, particularly its finding that those applications pose no risk to competition under current market conditions. Even if open skies may have slipped from its grasp, the Department should not respond by forfeiting the good that approval of the Joint Applicants' applications would generate. Rather, given the Department's finding that their alliance will not reduce competition and the alliance's manifold benefits to consumers, the public interest would best be served by approving the Joint Applicants' applications. In addition to the "good" of benefiting the public, such approval will further the more "perfect" objective of open skies by increasing competition on Heathrow-U.S. routes, thereby intensifying the pressure for liberalization at a time when all other available outcomes are likely to reduce or eliminate such pressure. In sum, the Department should promptly finalize its approval of and grant of antitrust immunity to the Joint Applicants' alliance, approve United/bmi's application for additional code-share authority, and allow bmi to operate a limited number of Heathrow-U.S. flights.
Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com and Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202.944.3305, mgoldman@sgbdc.com
| OST-01-11029 | March 1, 2002 | Reply
Comments of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited |
U.S.- U.K. Alliance Case |
| Service List |
The Open Skies table is gone. As AA and BA have acknowledged in their Motion to Dismiss their application, Europe is moving to a multilateral EU-centered process that renders moot the various stratagems spun out by UA/bmi (and FedEx) for jump-starting Open Skies bilateral talks. The time has arrived for the DOT to terminate this proceeding. Nothing in the Comments submitted by UA/bmi or FedEx undermines the central fact that now dominates these proceedings: a bilateral U.S.-U.K. Open Skies is beyond reach. Since Open Skies are the sine qua non for antitrust immunity, these applications should be dismissed.
Counsel: Garfinkle Wang, Elliott Seiden, 703.522.0900, eseiden@gandwplc.com
International Air Transport Association
| OST-02-11582 | Filed February 12, 2002 | Approved March 1, 2002 | Approval of Agreements |
| Filed February 25, 2002 | Approved March 1, 2002 | ||
| Filed February 26, 2002 | Approved March 1, 2002 | ||
| Filed February 26, 2002 | Approved March 1, 2002 | ||
| Filed February 26, 2002 | Approved March 1, 2002 |
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 2002 Airline Information Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
