OST-97-2965 / OST-98-3626 / Undocketed / OST-98-3640 / American / Iberia / Air Nostrum / Aviaco / Reply of United Air Lines / June 9, 1998
Applications of
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ("American") /
Docket OST-97-2965IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS DE ESPANA, S.A.
("Iberia")Docket OST-98-3626 and Undocketed
for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 and statements of authorization under Parts 207 and 212 (reciprocal codeshare Services)
Joint Application of
AIR NOSTRUM, LINEAS AEREAS DEL MEDITERRANEO, S.A. ("Air Nostrum")
AVIACION Y COMERCIO, S.A. ("Aviaco") / Docket OST-98-3640
for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §40109
REPLY OF UNITED AIR LINES, INC., AND
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
United Air Lines, Inc. ("United") submits the following reply to the
Joint Answer of American, Iberia, Air Nostrum and Aviaco, dated June 1, 1998, in the above captioned proceedings: 1/1. American and its Spanish partners argue that their code-share authority to serve Italy should be allowed to remain in effect notwithstanding DOT's dismissal of the applications of
1/ Pursuant to Rule 4(f) of the Department's Rules of Practice, United seeks leave to file this Reply in response to new issues raised by American, et al., in their effort to distinguish their
United Reply
Page 2
United and Lufthansa for similar authority. They seek to distinguish the United/Lufthansa code shares to Italy from those they have proposed on two grounds, neither of which offers any justification for different treatment.
2. Firstly, American and its Spanish partners argue that the United/Lufthansa code-share applications involved more U.S.-Italy markets than do theirs and that dismissal was warranted given the "extensive extra-bilateral" nature of the United/Lufthansa proposal. While it is true that United/Lufthansa requested code-share authority to more points in Italy than did American and its partners, that is not relevant to the issue of disparate treatment raised by United in its Petition for Review of Staff Action. Among the Italian code-share markets named in the United/Lufthansa applications was Rome, the same point which American plans to serve in conjunction with its Spanish partners. Both United and Lufthansa had the underlying authority to serve Rome, yet the Department dismissed their applications for code-share service to Rome, as well as to other Italian points not named in the U.S./Italy bilateral for U.S. carrier service. No basis is offered by American and its Spanish
cont'd.
situation with respect to U.S.-Italy code sharing from those of United/Lufthansa and Northwest/KLM.
United Reply
Page 3
partners to justify dismissal of code-share authority to Rome in one case but not the other.
In addition, American and its Spanish partners note an improvement in the U.S./Italy bilateral climate since the United/Lufthansa applications were dismissed in 1994. They then urge (at p. 4) that "the Department should at least give Italy the opportunity to consider this quite limited service [which they propose] on the basis of reciprocity under the present codeshare provision of the U.S.-Italy bilateral . . . ." United and Lufthansa would like to give Italy the same opportunity to approve their code-share service to Rome via Germany. The Department should not allow American and the Spanish carriers to have a head start in seeking the Italian government's approval of their code shares to Rome, or any other point in Italy, via Spain while United and other similarly situated carriers are foreclosed from doing so for want of DOT authority. Any such discriminatory action could unfairly prejudice carriers such as United by precluding them from a fair and equal opportunity to seek codeshare approvals from the government of Italy for their own services. 2/
2/ Germany, unlike Spain, has entered into an open skies agreement with the U.S. The Department's discrimination against
United Reply
Page 4
4. Finally, American and its Spanish partners oppose United's request because United does not have an application "now pending before the Department" for U.S.-Italy code-share authority. (Joint Answer at 2, n.2.) In fact, United has authority to serve Rome via Germany pursuant to its Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for Routes 57 and 603 and its route integration exemption. Lufthansa has a blanket statement of authorization to code share for United in any market where entry is not limited, subject to notice to DOT.
Order 98-4-8. To the extent that existence of a pending application is deemed to be relevant, United hereby gives notice of its intention to seek authority from the government of Italy to code share between points in the U.S. and Rome via points in Germany in the event that American and its Spanish partners are to be permitted to do so via Spain. Should the Department decide not to reverse its approval of the American/Iberia, et al., code shares between the U.S. and Rome via Madrid, United and Lufthansa. should be permitted under their present code-share authority to seekcont'd.
United/Lufthansa is all the more inexplicable in view of the difference in relations between the U.S. and these two countries.
United Reply
Page 5
comparable Italian government approval of their own code-share services to Rome via Germany. /3
Respectfully submitted,
JOEL STEPHEN BURTON
GINSBURG, FELDMAN and BRESS CHARTERED
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 637-9130
Counsel for UNITED AIR LINES, INC.
DATED:: June 9, 1998
3/ To the extent notice is required under
Order 98-4-8 for United and Lufthansa to seek such approvals from Italy for code shares between points in the U.S. and Rome via points in Germany, this filing should be deemed to constitute that notice.