Counterpart
to Agreement filed by Air Canada Regional© 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 29, 2002 |
Last Updated 04/01/02 08:58 AM
Applications and Renewals:
ASTA/Hillside Travel v. The Airlines Respondents and Orbitz - Complaint
Answers and Replies:
American/Turkish - Joint Reply | Atlas - U.S.- Brazil Polling Letter | Cherokee Air - Letter Regarding Safety/Tariff Violations
Continental/Air Excel - U.S.- Netherlands Polling Letter | CRS - Comments of Sabre
Sun Country (3)- Request for Additional Information/ALPA Withdrawal of Opposition/Additional Information
Trans States Airlines - Comments of Decatur Park District | Warsaw Agreement
Notices of Action Taken:
Aero Ejecutiva - U.S.- Mexico Renewal | Atlas - U.S.- Brazil Frequencies | Challenge Air Luftverkehrs - U.S.- Germany Charters
Lynx Services - U.S.- Mexico Renewal | Northwest/Air China - U.S.- China Codeshare
Notices and Orders:
EAS at Beckley and Bluefield/Princeton, WV and Augusta/Waterville, ME and CommutAir - Setting Final Rate
Great Lakes - Order Setting Subsidy Rate | Travelocity.com - Consent Order
Form 41's:
Air Canada Regional Inc. (d/b/a Air Canada Jazz, AirBC, Air Alliance, Air Nova, Air Ontario and Canadian Regional).
| OST-95-236 | March 29, 2002 | Counterpart
to Agreement filed by Air Canada Regional |
Warsaw Agreement |
By: Air Canada Regional Lynn Loewen
Aero Ejecutiva Nieto, S.A. de C.V.
| OST-96-1566 | Filed March 12, 2002 Issued March 29, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Mexico |
Exemption to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Fart 212, using small equipment.
By: Paul Gretch
American Airlines, Inc. and Turkish Airlines and Turkish Airlines (Turk Hava Yollari, A.O.)
| OST-00-7151 OST-00-7154 |
March 29, 2002 | Joint Reply of American Airlines and Turkish Airlines |
U.S.- Turkey Reciprocal Codesharing; U.S.- Turkey Codesharing |
| Service List |
This
is, almost verbatim, the same baseless argument that United made in these
dockets a year ago, when American and THY applied for new codeshare-related
authority in order to exercise rights
available under the U.S.-Turkey open skies agreement. See Consolidated Answer of
United Air Lines, March 6, 2001. At that time United argued that the Department
should not take action on those applications until after taking final action on
the then-pending carrier selection proceeding in Docket OST-2001-8772.
Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Charles Simpson, 202.973.7926, cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com and American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com
| OST-02-12004 | March 29, 2002 | Complaint
of the American Society of Travel Agents and Hillside
Travel
|
Unfair Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition |
| Exhibit A: Email About Differences in Cost Between Orbitz and Travel Agents | |||
| Service List |
ASTA and Hillside Travel respectfully request the Secretary of Transportation to conduct such further investigation as is necessary and to find that the withholding from CRS of Internet Fares and Extreme Internet Fares by the Airline Respondents and the Cartel Respondent, in conjunction with the application of zero commission policies for travel agents, is an unfair practice and an unfair method of competition in air transportation or the sale of air transportation, within the meaning of 49 USC 41712, and pursuant to such statute order them to cease and desist immediately from continuing such practices.
Counsel: ASTA, Paul Ruden 703.739.6854, paulr@astahq.com
| OST-02-11985 | March 28, 2002 | Re:
Polling Letter |
U.S.- Brazil All-Cargo Frequencies |
| Service List |
Counsel: Atlas, Russell Pommer, 202.354.3843, rpommer@atlasair.com
| OST-02-11985 | Filed March 27, 2002 Issued March 29, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Brazil All-Cargo Frequencies |
Emergency waiver of dormancy condition: By Order 2001-4-32, the Department awarded Atlas Air, Inc. authority to conduct foreign scheduled all-cargo services between the United States and Brazil and allocated the carrier 10 weekly frequencies to conduct such service. That award was subject to the condition that any unused frequencies would become dormant and would revert automatically to the Department if unused for a period of 90 days. Order 2001-11-15 granted U.S. carriers a blanket waiver of the dormancy condition through March 31, 2002. Atlas now seeks a further waiver of the dormancy condition applicable to its allocation of frequencies to Brazil through April 30, 2002. Atlas states that it had expected to resume its services to ten flights per week by April 1. However, it states that it has recently become aware that the projected April 1 date for additional Brazil services was overly ambitious and that it must finalize customer arrangements and complete revision of its system wide schedules before it will be in a position to put all ten Brazil frequencies to use. Atlas further states that it expects to be in a position to be operating all, or substantially all, of its Brazil frequencies by the end of April.
By: Paul Gretch
Challenge Air Luftverkehrs GmbH
| Filed December 21, 2001 Issued March 29, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Germany |
Exemption to permit the applicant to conduct, for a period of two years, using small equipment 1) charter operations, carrying persons, property and mail, between any point or points in Germany and any point or points in the United States; and between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in a third country or countries, provided that, except with respect to cargo charters, such service constitutes part of a continuous operation, with or without change of aircraft, that includes service to Germany for the purpose of carrying local traffic between Germany and the United States; and 2) other charter operations pursuant to 14 CFR Part 212.
By: Paul Gretch
| OST-01-9566 Docket 49103 |
March 29, 2002 | Re:
Letter Regarding Cherokee Air's
Safety and Tariff Violations |
Marsch Harbour Abaco, Bahamas- U.S. |
Kindly add the following language to the Cherokee Docket relative to the Cherokee FACP, as required by the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"):
"As required by 14 CFR 211.21(a) for renewal of the Cherokee FACP, this letter will serve to affirm, as required by 14 CFR 211.20(s) that Cherokee Air has not, during the preceding five years, been involved in any safety or tariff violations, nor fatal accidents."
Counsel: Aviation Professionals, Richard Asper, 954.763.4848, ricka@aviation-professionals.com
Computer Reservation System (CRS) Regulations
| OST-97-2881 OST-02-11577 |
March 29, 2002 | Comments of Sabre |
Computer Reservation System (CRS) Regulations |
| Exhibit: Travel Services Industry Panel, 2/26/02, CIBC 11th Annual Gaming, Lodging and Leisure Conference | |||
| Exhibit: Speech by Jeffrey Katz, Area Club of Washington Luncheon, 5/12/01 | |||
| Exhibit: Official Journal of The EC: Case Comp/38.006 - Online Travel Portal Opodo, 11/11/01 | |||
| Additional Exhibits Consist of Printouts of Orbitz and Travelocity Web Page Flight/Fare Searches - Over 400 Pages Long. Will be Added This Week |
Most importantly and most urgently, DOT simply must
confront in a substantive way, without awaiting the outcome of the more
protracted rulemaking, the critical issue raised by a host of commenters,
including Members of Congress, the Attorneys-Generals for twenty-three states,
low-fare airlines, including Southwest, the National Business Travel Association
(NBTA), a multitude of travel agents, and dozens of consumer groups. The issue
that stands head and shoulders above the rest is the Department's response to
the now well-advanced campaign by Orbitz, a joint venture owned and controlled
by the five largest carriers in the United States, to seize control of, and
dominate, the on-line distribution of airline tickets'. Of all the CRS issues
before the Department, the need to impose regulatory safeguards on this airline
consortium is the one matter that should be carved out of the overall proceeding
and acted on without further delay.
The current threat to competition posed by Orbitz was well put by NBTA in its filing in this docket on February 24, 2002, where that association, which represents corporate travel managers for the Fortune 1000 companies, said: Currently, many of the web fares found on the airlines' sites and on websites like Orbitz are not found in the CRS, the traditional method of reservation acceptable for corporations and travel agents. Over the near and long term, as the independent, neutral distribution channels, such as the CRSs and online and off-line agencies are weakened, the largest carriers will gain ever more control over the window through which travelers are allowed to see their options.
As shown below, the Department should act now to ban the use by Orbitz of contract provisions that require carriers to provide "most-favored nations" treatment to Orbitz with respect to fares and other. The Department should also void the provisions of the Orbitz Agreement that give carriers financial incentives to confer fares and other content on Orbitz on an exclusive basis. In the lengthier rulemaking proceeding, the Department should revise the regulations so that the same duties that have long applied to parent carriers of traditional CRSs not to unjustly discriminate against competing systems in terms of participation and content also apply to parent carriers of multi-airline owned web sites selling air travel on more than one carrier directly to the public, like Orbitz.
Counsel: Sabre and Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9800
Continental Airlines, Inc. and Air Excel Netherlands B.V.
| OST-02-11945 | March 28, 2002 | Re:
Polling Letter |
U.S.- Netherlands Codeshare |
| Service List |
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Lorraine Halloway, 202.624.2500
Essential Air Service at Beckley and Bluefield/Princeton, West Virginia; Essential Air Service at Augusta/Waterville, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, Maine, and Rutland, Vermont; and CommutAir
| Order 02-3-27 OST-97-2761 OST-97-2784 OST-00-8012 |
Issued March 28, 2002 Served March 29, 2002 |
Order
Setting Final Rates |
EAS at Beckley and Bluefield /Princeton, West Virginia; EAS at Augusta/Waterville, Bar Harbor, Rockland, Maine; Keene, New Hampshire and Oneida County Airport and 90 Day Notice to Terminate EAS at Northern Maine Regional Airport |
| Attachments: Map, Historical O&D |
Order 2002-3-27 sets short-term subsidy rates, retroactive to October 1, 2001, for Colgan Air's essential air service (EAS) at Augusta/Waterville, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, Maine, and Rutland, Vermont, through December 31, 2002; at Presque Isle, Maine, through May 31, 2003; and at Beckley and Princeton/Bluefield, West Virginia, trhough July 31, 2002.
Colgan was selected to provide subsidized service to Beckley and Princeton/Bluefield by Order 2000-8-16, with the rate due to expire on July 31, 2002; to Presque Isle/Houlton, Maine, by Order 2001-2-9, expiring May 31, 2003; and at Augusta/Waterville, Bar Harbor, and Rockland, Maine, and Rutland Vermont, by Order 2001-1-22, expiring December 31, 2002. Colgan and the staff have agreed to new subsidy rates for its three subsidized routes. On each route, we have recognized decreased revenue based on the carrier's actual experience since October 1, 2001, and a projected gradual recovery of traffic going forward.
By: Read Van de Water
| OST-97-2494 | March 28, 2002 Docketed March 29, 2002 |
Motion
for Confidential Treatment |
Form 41; Schedule B-7 |
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Nathaniel Breed, 202.663.8078
| Order 02-3-32 OST-01-10128 |
Issued March 29, 2002 Served April 3, 2002 |
Order
Setting Subsidy Rates |
90-Day Notice to Terminate Service at Pierre, SD |
Our last review of Pierre's essential air service determination was conducted in 1988 (Order 88-1-42, January 20, 1988) and specified service to both Denver and Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Department's policy over the past decade has been to terminate subsidy for service to second hubs as the program's resources have been stretched thinner and thinner. And we continue to believe that to be a sound policy. Many of the dual-hub designations were established two decades ago, well before the carriers developed sophisticated hub-and-spoke systems. These well-developed hubs provide access to the national air transportation system. However, Pierre is unique in a couple of respects. First, of course, it is the state capital of South Dakota. As such, the loss of Great Lakes' service between Pierre and Denver would add a considerable amount of travel time for state government employees relying on Great Lakes' nonstop service as a means to and from work at the state capital. Second, the distances are very long. For example, the nonstop air miles to Denver and Minneapolis are 385 and 350, respectively, while one provides eastbound connections and the other westbound. If Denver-bound passengers had to travel via Minneapolis, they would first travel 350 miles to Minneapolis, then 680 miles from Minneapolis to Denver, for a total in excess of 1000 miles for what is a 385-mile nonstop flight. Put another way, westbound passengers would have to travel about 700 extra miles - roughly 350 east to Minneapolis and 350 back west just to get back where they started.
By: Read Van de Water
Lynx Servicios Aereos, S.A. de C.V.
| OST-98-3416 | Filed March 12, 2002 Issued March 29, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
U.S.- Mexico |
Exemption to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.
By: Paul Gretch
Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Air China International Corp.
| OST-02-11808 | Filed March 22, 2002 Issued March 29, 2002 |
Notice of Action Taken |
2002 China Code-Share Points Case |
Exemption for Northwest for two years to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Harbin, Changchun, Zhengzhou, Nanchang, and Lanzhou, People’s Republic of China, on the one hand, and any points in the United States, on the other. These services would be operated under a code-share arrangement with Air China International Corp. on flights operated by Air China. Northwest also requests authority to integrate this authority with its existing code-share authority between the United States and China.
By: Paul Gretch
Sun Country Airlines, Inc. and MN Airlines, LLC
| OST-02-11860 OST-02-11861 |
March 22, 2002 Docketed March 29, 2002 |
Re:
Request for Additional Information |
Transfer of Air Carrier Certificate Authority |
By: Janet Davis
| OST-02-11860 | March 29, 2002 | Request
of Air Line Pilots Association to Withdraw Answer in Opposition |
Transfer of Air Carrier Certificate Authority |
ALPA's opposition to the Joint Application was based on the fact that, at the time it was filed, MNA had not agreed to be bound by the collective bargaining agreement between ALPA and Sun Country. On March 28, 2002, subsequent to the filing of ALPA's opposition, an agreement was reached between MNA, Sun Country, and ALPA in which MNA agreed to accept and be bound by the terms and conditions of ALPA's agreement with Sun Country, subject to certain conditions and modifications that all parties have agreed to. A premise of the agreement between ALPA and MNA is that should DOT grant MNA's and Sun Country's request for an exemption, the U.S. Bank National Association will promptly execute and deliver to MNA a bill of sale transferring to MNA all of Sun Country's interests in certain assets in which the Bank holds a security interest. Should the execution and delivery of that bill of sale not occur promptly after the issuance of the requested exemption, ALPA has reserved its right to request revocation of the exemption.
Counsel: ALPA, Russell Bailey, 202.797.4087
| OST-02-11860 OST-02-11861 |
March 29, 2002 | Re:
Additional Fitness Information |
Transfer of Air Carrier Certificate Authority |
| Exhibit 1: Investors | |||
| Exhibit 2: Bank Statement | |||
| Exhibit 3: Account Statement Inquiry | |||
| Exhibit 4: Contribution Agreement | |||
| Exhibit 5: Notification of Disposition | |||
| Exhibit 6: Debtor in Possession Credit Agreement | |||
| Replacement Exhibit B: Agreement for Sale of Collateral | |||
| First Amendment to Agreement for Sale of Collateral | |||
| Service List |
Counsel: Ungaretti Harris, Edward Faberman, 202.639.7500, epfaberman@uhlaw.com
| OST-02-11859 | March 29, 2002 | Comments of Decatur Park District in Support of
Subsidy Proposal |
Intent to Terminate Service at Decatur, Illinois |
| Service List |
It has become clear, however, that Trans States no longer believes that its inability to provide the required three daily round trips is a short-term consequence of September 11. In recent months, Decatur has repeatedly asked Trans States to add a third daily St. Louis round trip to its schedule in order to meet the minimum EAS level at Decatur, 80 seats daily. Now, nearly seven months after the September 11 attacks, Trans States continues to operate below the minimum EAS level of service. Trans States' filing in this case indicates the carrier's recognition that it cannot in the near future provide the required three daily round trips without subsidy.
Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias, 202.298.8660
| Order 02-3-28 | Issued March 29, 2002 Served March 29, 2002 |
Consent
Order |
Violations of 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 14 CFR 399.84 |
On Travelocity.com
s website, the principal compliance issue occurred on a flexible-date search
feature, known as the "Best Fare Finder," in which the inquirer did
not specify travel dates but merely requested the lowest fares in a city-pair
market. The flexible search path produced a fare display in which a fuel
surcharge was mentioned at the bottom of the display together with other
applicable charges. The footnote stated that a fuel surcharge might apply, but
the consumer could not determine whether it in fact did apply to a particular
purchase until he or she went to the booking page.
A third discrepancy in Travelocity.com displays occurred in its treatment of a service fee which it imposed on tickets sold on Northwest Airlines. As a result of the airlines decision to cease paying commissions on sales made by internet vendors, Travelocity.com instituted its own service fee applicable to Northwest tickets only and chose to disclose the fee, in part, by a notation placed beside Northwest flight entries stating the consumer should add $10 to the indicated fare. After being advised by the Enforcement Office of its belief that this display did not comply with the full fare advertising rule, Travelocity quickly amended its displays to include the fee in a total fare on the first screen displaying a Northwest fare. Neither the findings of this order nor the civil penalties it assesses reflect the brief period during which the adjunct fee was not included in Northwest fares.
Travelocity.com, for its part, in order to avoid litigation and without admitting or denying the alleged violations, agrees to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from future violatonk of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 399.84 on its Internet site and to an assessment of $50,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties. Of this total penalty amount, $25,000 shall be paid within 30 days of the service date of this order. The remaining $25,000 shall be suspended for one year following issuance of this order, and then forgiven
By: Rosalind Knapp
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.
