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

Last Updated 01/15/03 09:23 AM

Applications and Renewals: 

Alaska Airlines - Codeshare with Lan Chile

Mas de Carga -  Mexico-US Exemption and Renewal

Answers and Replies: 

Boston-Maine - Objections of ALPA

CRS - Answers to Sabre's Petition

DCA Within-Perimeter Slot Proceeding - Supplement of US Airways / Reply of Great Plains

EAS at Lancaster, PA - Objections of Lancaster Airport to Colgan's Termination of Service

US-Mexico All-Cargo - Letter of Atlas

Warsaw - Counterpart Filed by Aerovias Caribe

Notices of Action Taken:

Azteca - Mexico-US (New Authority)

Kuwait Air - Kuwait-New York

Nuevo Leon - Mexican Taxi Renewal 

Notices and Orders:

IATA

Aeroservicios de Nuevo Leon, S.A. de C.V.

By: Paul Gretch

Index

Aerotransportes Mas de Carga, S.A. de C.V.

Application of Aerotransportes Mas de Carga, S.A. de C.V. pursuant to 49 USC Section 40109, requesting an exemption authorizing it to perform scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between Cancun, Mexico, and Miami, Florida; Mexico City, including Toluca, Mexico, and Los Angeles, California; Guadalajara, Mexico, and Miami, Florida; Mexico City, including Toluca, Mexico, and New York, New York; Merida, Mexico, and Miami, Florida; and Merida, Mexico, and New York, New York as authorized under Docket OST-96-1249.

Counsel: Celestino Pena, 305 856-5655

Index

Alaska Airlines, Inc.

Hereby requests a statement of authorization permitting it to engage in codeshare operations with Lan Chile, S.A. between Miami, Florida, and Seattle, Washington, pursuant to the attached amendment to the September 1999 Alaska-Lan Chile codeshare agreement.   Under the codeshare agreement between Alaska and Lan Chile, Lan Chile will place its two-letter designator code on scheduled flights operated currently by Alaska between, Miami and Seattle beginning as soon as practicable.  Alaska's Miami-Seattle flights will connect with Lan Chile's flights arriving in Miami, providing Lan Chile's passengers with convenient connections to Canada and the Pacific Northwest.

Alaska and Lan Chile already hold authority from the Department to operate codeshare service between Los Angeles, on one hand, and Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, B.C. and Calgary, Alberta on the other hand. The codeshare services contemplated by this application will be operated in addition to existing Alaska-Lan Chile codeshare services.

Counsel:  Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202 626-6651

Index

Boston-Maine Airways Corp.

Respectfully objects to Order 2002-12-20, served December 30, 2002, which proposes to grant Boston­Maine Airways Corp. amended certificate authority to perform interstate air transportation using large aircraft, namely, a Boeing 727. The ground for ALPA's objection', as more fully described below, is that the Department's determination that BMAC has sufficient working capital to cover "the operating costs that would be incurred in three months of 'normal' [large aircraft] operations" took into account only the projected operating costs of BMAC's proposed new B727 service, and failed to consider the ongoing operating costs of the carrier's existing small-aircraft services. Those small­aircraft operations have consistently suffered substantial operating losses, which we believe must be taken into account in determining what the carrier's true "operating costs" will be during "three months of 'normal' operations." If the operating costs are calculated in this manner, BMAC's current working capital reserve is grossly insufficient to meet the Department's minimum requirements.

Counsel: ALPA, Jerry D'Anker, 202 797-4087

Index

Computer Reservations Systems (CRS) Regulations Statements of General Policy

The Department has previously stated that it has undertaken an informal study of airline distribution practices in connection with its assessment of the CRS business. In order that the public may more fully understand the foundation on which the Department has developed its proposals, Amadeus urges the Department to place into the record any non-confidential materials that it has received or developed during the course of that review. Further, the Department should also place into the record copies of the source materials cited in the body of the NPRM, i.e., the various articles, studies and other materials on which the NPRM relies. This will facilitate the ability of the parties to assess those materials in preparing their comments.

Amadeus supports, to the extent stated above, the limited fact hearing proposed by Sabre and urges the Department to make the materials on which it relied in fashioning the NPRM available in the public record.

Counsel:  Steptoe Johnson, David Coburn, 202 429-8063

A fact hearing proposed by Sabre will not only waste scarce resources at a time when airlines and other interested parties can scarcely afford it, overwhelming legal authority­ cited by Sabre itself- establishes the Department need not conduct such a hearing to preserve the validity either of the NPRM or ensure the validity of any final rule it promulgates. If Sabre disagrees with the preliminary factual or policy conclusions set forth in the NPRM should submit information and comments to the Department in an effort to convince it to promulgate a final rule adopting Sabre's positions.

Counsel:  America West and Baker Hostetler, Joanne Young, 202 861-1532

Much of Sabre's petition is devoted to arguing that CRSs lack market power and that CRS distribution is an improper market definition for purposes of the antitrust laws. In response to Sabre's procedural motion, American does not intend to set forth all of the evidence that clearly substantiates the Department's contrary conclusions in the NPRM. The pertinent point for purposes of Sabre's request for a hearing is that the Department's lengthy and thorough NPRM has put all parties on notice of the relevant issues and the Department's preliminary conclusions.

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com 

Counsel:  ASTA, Paul Ruden, 703-739-6854, paulr@astahq.com 

Continental urges the Department to reject the eleventh-hour attempt by Sabre, the world's largest computer reservations system, to prolong the status quo by requesting a "fact-finding hearing" on questions the Department has already analyzed fully, and can continue to analyze, without oral testimony. Commencing an oral hearing here would be contrary to the Department's practice in previous CRS rulemakings and would delay this proceeding interminably. The public interest demands rejection of Sabre's petition and expedited completion of the almost six-year old CRS rulemaking.

Counsel:  Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500, rbkeiner@crowell.com 

Northwest opposes Sabre’s obvious ploy to delay this proceeding and maintain the status quo by requesting an oral hearing. Neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Department’s rules require an oral hearing in rulemaking proceedings. Commencing a hearing here would not only be inconsistent with the Department’s practice in previous Computer Reservations System rulemakings, but also would frustrate the public interest in concluding this proceeding expeditiously. The Department should deny Sabre’s request and bring the CRS rulemaking to a close as soon as possible.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193, megan.rosia@nwa.com 

Sabre has petitioned for a "fact hearing" in the captioned rulemaking proceeding. Sabre argues that unless its petition is granted, "five years of preparation will have been wasted" - although Sabre, itself, did not perceive a need for a hearing until Christmas Eve of the fifth year. Sabre argues that it is "not seeking a full-scale evidentiary hearing" and that the hearing "need not delay these proceedings" - although Sabre wants the ability to cross examine not only representatives of every person submitting comments in the captioned dockets but also at least one "senior Department official" and other "persons identified by the Department as knowledgeable about the facts in the NPRM." Orbitz, L.L.C. opposes the petition, for reasons perhaps as obvious as they are well grounded. There are no material facts that cannot be addressed on the basis of the record in this matter, particularly as Sabre and others will further supplement that record. Cross examination, and the intricate procedures that inevitably would attach, would add nothing but delay. Moreover, grant of the petition would create an unfortunate precedent, legally and logically inconsistent with several decades of judicial and departmental decisions.

Counsel:  Zuckert Scoutt, Frank Costello, 202 298-8660, fjcostello@zsrlaw.com

Although the Sabre and ACAA filings address different issues, both seek to disrupt the progress of this proceeding at a time when, following the submission of written comments, the Department shortly will be in a position to move forward with preparing a final rule for publication. Sabre's petition is a relatively crude delaying tactic dressed up as an elaborate, but often irrelevant, discourse on administrative law. It has been filed by a CRS vendor which, faced with the potential elimination of rules that have insulated it from competition, is intent on clinging to the status quo for as long as possible. ACAA, meanwhile, with myopic focus, continues to demand immediate Departmental action on one particular CRS-related issue, even though ACAA has provided no basis for the Department to grant its request, and the Department has made clear that "it would be more efficient for us to consider all issues in this proceeding rather than decide issues piecemeal." NPRM, at 69369. The Department should deny Sabre's petition for a hearing, reject ACAA's request for immediate action on the MIDT data issue, and instead adhere to its established procedural schedule and complete this proceeding as soon as possible. United continues to believe that the final outcome of this proceeding should be the elimination of the CRS rules altogether. In the meantime, the Department should allow the current rules to sunset as scheduled on March 31, 2003, particularly if a final rule cannot be issued within a short and clearly-defined timeframe.

Counsel:  United and Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmer.com 

Index

Essential Air Service at Lancaster, Pennsylvania / Colgan Air, Inc. d/b/a US Air Express

The carrier or carriers serving Lancaster Airport is entitled to EAS subsidy. Lancaster incorporates herein the arguments raised in its objections filed at Docket OST-2002-11450-2 and OST-2002-11450-4 as well as the arguments set forth in its Petition for Review and Brief before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Lancaster Airport Authority v. Department of Transportation, No. 02-2805.

Counsel:  Russell Kraft & Gruber, Christina Hausner, 717-293-9293, clh@rkglaw.com 

Index

International Air Transport Association

By: John Kiser

By: John Kiser

Index

Kuwait Airways Corporation

Exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to operate a fifth roundtrip flight, on a nonstop basis, between Kuwait and New York.

Kuwait Airways holds a foreign air carrier permit, issued by Order 2002-9-27, which includes authority to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Kuwait, via the intermediate points London and Frankfurt, and New York, subject to the condition that it operate not more than four roundtrip flights per week, provided that it operate not more than one roundtrip flight per week via Frankfurt.

By: Paul Gretch

Index

Lineas Aereas Azteca, S.A. de C.V.

Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to conduct scheduled, combination services between: 1) Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas; 2) Mexico City, Mexico, and Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 3) Chihuahua, Mexico, and Albuquerque, New Mexico.

By: Paul Gretch

Index

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport - Establishment of Slot Proceeding

Respectfully requests leave to file the attached reply in order to clarify the record. The information in the reply responds to factual assertions made by Midwest Express Airlines, Inc. in its Consolidated Comments filed on January 6, 2003. Leave to file will help clarify the record, will not result in delay or prejudice any party, and is in the public interest.

Counsel:  Lachter Clements, Stephen Lachter, 202 862-4321

Hereby seeks leave to file this unauthorized document to correct significant factually inaccurate statements made in the reply comments of certain carrier-applicants and place in the record new service plans by Great Plains. For these reasons, US Airways respectfully submits that good cause exists for granting leave to submit the instant pleading.

Counsel:  O'Melveny Myers, Joel Burton, 202 383-5300

Index

2002 U.S.-Mexico All-Cargo Exemption Service Case

Letter of Atlas Air, Inc. submitting a correspondence from Los Angeles World Airports to Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, dated December 30, 2002, in strong support of the application of Atlas Air, Inc. for the scheduled all-cargo route authority that it seeks in the 2002 U.S.-Mexico All-Cargo Exemption Service Case.

Counsel: Atlas, Russell Pommer, 202 354-3843

Index

Warsaw Agreement

Counsel: Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202 626-6600

Index

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