OST Docket Filings for May 27, 1997
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 May 27, 1997
Applications, Comments, and Responses
Air Hong Kong | AirTran | Continental Micronesia | IATA | Los Angeles Intl Airport Rates (3) | Sky Trek | Turkish
Notices of Action Taken
Notices and Orders
None
OST-97-2468 | May 20, 1997
Letter from George Wellington, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division, to Thomas Penland, FAA Office of Flight Standards, requesting a written safety and compliance evaluation on the carrier.
AirTran Airways, Inc. (Exemption, Slot Restrictions at New York LaGuardia)
OST-97-2557 | May 27, 1997
AirTran proposes to expand this unique brand of affordable service between New York LaGuardia (LGA) and Bloomington, IL (BMI); Moline/Quad Cities, IL (MLI); Toledo, OH (TOL); Akron/Canton, OH (CAK); and Knoxville, TN (TYS) by offering convenient nonstop and direct jet service. Currently these cities lack any direct or nonstop service to New York LaGuardia or any other airport in to New York metropolitan area. AirTran will remedy this situation by offering daily, well timed flights at affordable fare levels. The pattern of service proposed is critical in order to maximize station efficiency at LaGuardia since cost of operations exceed those of other airports in the AirTran system.
AirTran has researched the commercial availability of slots at LaGuardia and concludes the costs of slots coupled with the poor service pattern make the purchase or lease of existing slots not economically viable. Therefore, AirTran submits this application for exemption to the High Density Rule.
Exh 1 - Proposed New York LaGuardia Schedule | Exh 2 - Slot Requirements | Exh 3 – Letters from State Farm, Growmark, Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, Mitsubishi, Eureka | Exh 4 – Nonstop Markets to NYC – Top 75 Population Base | Service List
Counsel: AirTran, Lawrence Brinker
Continental Micronesia, Inc. (Renewal of Certificate of Public Convenience, Route 171, for the Philippines)
OST-97-2558 | May 27, 1997
Application for Renewal
of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
The Continental certificate for Route 171 was transferred to Continental Micronesia by Order 92-9-29 and made effective by Order 92-11-46 in Docket 48238. Segment 3 of Route 171 authorizes Continental Micronesia to operate "[b]etween the terminal point Saipan, Commonwealth of the North Mariana Islands, and intermediate points and a terminal point in Japan (other than the Ryukyu Islands)"; Segment 4 of Route 171 was amended by Order 95-1-41 to authorize Continental Micronesia to operate "between Honolulu, Hawaii and the Philippines"; Segment 5 of Route 171 authorizes Continental Micronesia to operate "[b]etween the coterminal points Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; Guam; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Palau); and the Federated States of Micronesia; and a point in the Philippines"; Segment 6 of Route 171 authorizes Continental Micronesia to operate "[b]etween the coterminal points Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and Guam, on the one hand; and Fukuoka, Japan, on the other hand." The authority for all these route segments expires November 24, 1997.
Subpart Q, Answers are due by June 24, 1997
Counsel: Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500
International Air Transport Association
OST-96-1705 | May 27, 1997
USTAR's concern focuses on the perception generated by IATA that the lower of the two pricing methods will be used to ultimately arrive at the appropriate fare. On the surface, IATA's PUC is much to USTAR's liking and completely consistent with both itinerary segmentation and end-on-end combinability. What USTAR finds abhorrent is IATA's plan to subject the segmented and then combined fare components to an array of anachronistic, irrelevant, and completely discriminatory minimum fare checks.
Attachment A | Attachment B | Attachment C | Attachment D | Attachment E
By: Bruce Bishins, President and CEO
Linea Aerea Nacional-Chile, S.A. (Notice of Action Taken)
OST-96-1301 | Posted May 27, 1997
Los Angeles International Airport Rates Proceeding | Second Los Angeles International Airport Rates Proceeding
OST-97-2329 (50176) | OST-95-474 | May 27, 1997
ACI-NA’s
Reply Brief on Remand
In any case, the Airlines mischaracterize the Congressional intent reflected in these statutes. Congress has never manifested any intent to require the use of only one method to establish "reasonable" airport rates and charges. Rather, by allowing airport owners to calculate fees using "either a compensatory or residual fee methodology or any combination thereof" and by forbidding the Secretary from setting "the level of the fee," 49 U.S.C. §§ 47129(a)(2) & (a)(3), Congress has expressed its intent to allow substantial flexibility in airport rate-setting. The "financial windfall" language selectively quoted by the Airlines from the legislative history of the Anti-Head Tax Act was an explanation for why Congress chose to ban head taxes and had nothing to do with explaining what Congress meant by the broad and flexible term "reasonable" which it used to describe the airport user fees that are permitted by the AHTA.
Counsel: Plamer Dodge, Scott Lewis, 617-573-0162
Reply Brief of the Original
Complainant Airlines
As we explained in our opening brief, and as DOT has recognized, Congress did not intend for airports to use their landing fees as a means of accumulating surpluses that are not needed to cover actual capital costs or operating expenses or to meet contingency or reserve requirements. See 61 Fed. Reg. 32010. Further, airports that are allowed to recover all these cost requirements should be deemed fully "self-sustaining" within the meaning of the statute.
Counsel: Hogan Hartson, Allen Snyder, 202-637-5741
Respondent's
Reply Brief on Remand - Cover and Table
of Authorities | Glossary | Brief
In their Opening Brief, the Airlines repeatedly take issue with the D.C. Circuit's decision in this case, attempting to reargue matters that the Court of Appeals has already decided. They argue that the policies embodied in the governing statutes require the use of historical cost valuation—notwithstanding the fact that the LAX I decision expressly held that nothing in existing law requires the use of historical costs. They also continue to advocate an accounting conception of costs, contrary to the direction of the Court of Appeals. In the process, they ignore basic, unassailable principles of economics.
Counsel: Morrison Foerster, Steven Rosenthal
Sky Trek International Airlines, Inc.
OST-96-1102 & 96-1103 | May 27, 1997
Re: Applications of Sky
Trek; Waiver Application
Please find enclosed documentation of the continuing effectiveness of the $1 million line of credit extended to Sky Trek by a member of its Board of Directors. That documentation consists of an agreement extending effectiveness of the line of credit through May 16, 1998; a statement of the line of credit terms (which are unchanged); and correspondence from a major financial institution reconfining the lender's ability to fund the line of credit. FAA Authority: Sky Trek's Part 121 air carrier certificate and operations specifications are expected to be issued by the FAA later this afternoon.
Letter to Bob Iverson from Michael Arnouse Extending $1,000,000 Line of Credit | Letter from CityBank to Sky Trek | Resume of Dr. Charles Leonidas Panayides
Counsel: Boros Garofalo, Aaron Goerlich, 202-822-9070
Turkish Airlines – Turk Hava Yollari A.O.
OST-97-2407 | May 5, 1997
Letter from George Wellington, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division, to Thomas Penland, FAA Office of Flight Standards, requesting written safety and compliance evaluation of the carrier.
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
