Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office
OST Docket Filings for March 19, 2008
Updated:
| Applications and Renewals:
Delta and Air France - Paris, Nice, and/or Lyon-Munster, Germany Codeshare Notice IATA - Mail Vote 564 TC3 Within South West Pacific Northwest - Additional Codesharing with ExpressJet (Houston-Mexico City/Veracruz) United and Air China - San Francisco-Guangzhou-Chengdu, Chongqing and Hangzhou Codeshare Notice UPS - Miami/San Juan-Venezuela Renewal Answers and Replies: EAS at Adak, AK - Aleut Enterprises in Support of Alaska Airlines Reciprocity Confirmation - Canadian Transportation Agency US-Colombia Combination Frequency Proceeding - Objections of American, Spirit and US Airways / Comments of Delta Notices of Action Taken: None Notices and Orders: Jet Aviation Business Jets - Granting Exemption and to Show Cause (Switzerland-US Charters) Tinicum Township Privilege Fee Proceeding - Declaratory Order |
|||
|
2007/2008 US-Colombia Combination Frequency Allocation Proceeding
March 19, 2008 Objections of American Airlnes to Show-Cause Order 2008-3-4 - Bookmarked American continues to dispute the legitimacy of instituting Order 2007-11-23, November 28, 2007, which improperly placed our frequencies in issue for re-allocation, and Order 2007-12-21, December 21, 2007, affirming that decision on reconsideration. On January 22, 2008, American petitioned for judicial review of these orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (No. 08-1025). We are seeking a decision by the Court that the Department’s confiscation of our authority for re-allocation was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law. American challenges the very premise of this proceeding to place our frequencies in issue. We also object to the tentative decision that our continued use of this authority for additional service to Colombia from the Miami hub would provide fewer public benefits than the proposals of Continental Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647
March 19, 2008 Comments of Delta Air Lines on Order to Show Cause - Bookmarked Delta respectfully objects to the Department's decision to award seven valuable U.S.-Colombia frequencies to Continental for its proposed duplicative Houston-Bogota service, particularly when Continental is not fully utilizing the frequencies it already has. Delta understands that the Department rarely fails to finalize a tentative decision to award frequencies in a comparative selection proceeding, but respectfully suggests that reconsideration is warranted here because the second largest incumbent carrier in this restricted entry market should not receive additional frequencies for service in a market it already adequately serves when it is currently failing to fully utilize the valuable Colombia frequencies it already has. Delta's proposal to create a new gateway at Atlanta for service to Cali and Medellin would provide greater public benefits. Counsel: Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999/5659
March 19, 2008 Response and Objection of Spirit Airlines to Order 2008-3-4 - Bookmarked Spirit Airlines, Inc. files this response to Order 2008-3-4 (March 5, 2008) in support of the Department’s award of seven frequencies to it to serve the FLL-BOG market, and to urge the Department to award it an additional seven frequencies for Fort Lauderdale-Medellín service in lieu of making final the tentative award to Continental to operate a daily red-eye service between Houston and Bogotá using a 124 seat B-737. Although allocating limited frequencies is a difficult task, Spirit respectfully submits that on balance, the frequencies tentatively allocated to Continental could provide far greater public interest benefits by being awarded to Spirit for service in the Fort Lauderdale-Medellín market. If more frequencies were available, providing frequencies to Continental for its proposed service would be a reasonable choice. In the current situation, however, adding a second flight in a monopoly market where Continental could easily meet demand by operating a larger aircraft will not provide the same level of public benefits as adding new competitive service by Spirit in the much larger South Florida-Medellín market. Low-fare entry in the FLL-MDE market will save travelers millions of dollars a year in air fares and stimulate considerable new traffic. It will establish a new competitive gateway and an important new level of competition to American and Avianca. On balance, this service would offer substantially more benefits than the proposed Continental service, lead to a better distribution of the limited frequencies, and advance all of the pro-competitive policies enacted by Congress. As the Department correctly recognized in this Order, making seven of those valuable frequencies available for new daily service and enhanced competition by new entrant carriers will provide the public substantially greater benefits than would result from continued warehousing of the frequencies by American to further its dominant position in the U.S. and South Florida market to Bogotá and Medellín. Counsel: Kirstein & Young, Joanne Young, 202-331-3348
March 19, 2008 Objections of US Airways - Bookmarked US Airways is disappointed with the Department's tentative decision and frequency allocation. As the Show Cause Order notes, the U.S.‑Colombia market has been denied the competitive benefits associated with new entry since 2000‑‑nearly eight years without new U.S. carrier service. This lamentable fact, coupled with the market presence of three large incumbent carriers (American, Continental, and Delta), two of the three major world airline alliances (oneworid and Skyteam) and the lack of near‑term opportunities for new entry, certainly justifies and, indeed, compels the allocation of U.S.‑Colombia frequencies to new entrant carriers, including US Airways, to the maximum degree possible. Instead, the Department's tentative decision proposes allocation of only one‑hall the available frequencies to new entrant carriers, leaving the incumbents with control of nearly 85% of all limited‑entry U.S.‑Colombia frequencies. US Airways urges the Department to reconsider its tentative decision and to allocate seven frequencies to US Airways for new Colombia service from a new U.S. gateway‑Charlotte. An award to US Airways will not only inject a new competitor and gateway into the market, it will allow the Star Alliance to compete in the U.S.‑Colombia market for the first time. No other service proposal in this case carries with it these important competitive benefits. Counsel: US Airways and Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202-626-6600, cdonley@ssd.com Delta Air Lines, Inc., Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. and Comair, Inc. and Societe Air France, Brit Air, City Jet and Regional OST-2000-6939 - U.S.-France Blanket Codeshare Authority March 19, 2008 Notice of Additional Codesharing The carriers hereby notify the Department that, commencing no earlier than 30 days from the date of this notice, Delta's "DL*" designator code will be displayed on flights operated by Air France and/or its affiliates between Paris, Nice, and/or Lyon, on the one hand, and Munster, Germany, on the other hand. Counsel: Air France and Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 / Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999 Effectiveness of New Provisions Under 14 CFR 212 February 26, 2008 Re: Reciprocity Confirmation of Canadian Transportation Agency This letter confinns that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by US air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement Between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007 and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to that Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity. By: Catherine MacDonald Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska March 11, 2008 Aleut Enterprises in Support of Alaska Airlines AE's customers, primarily fishing interest, are reliant on efficient and effective transportation. The customers come to Adak for fuel, supplies, services such as crew changes and parts and repair needs. The ability to do these and other operations is directly dependent on reliable air transportation. I believe Alaska Airlines is the most responsive bidder and best able to meet the needs of the growing community of Adak. For these reasons, we respectfully urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines for continued essential air service to Adak. By: Timothy Martineau, 907-562-5444 International Air Transport Association March 19, 2008 Application for Approval of Agreements Mail Vote 564 TC3 Within South West Pacific Passenger Revalidating Resolution (Memo 1167). Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin Order 2008-3-17 Issued and Served March 19, 2008 Order Granting Exemption and to Show Cause We grant the request of Jet Aviation Business Jets AG for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to permit it to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail (1) between any point or points in Switzerland and any point or points in the United States; (2) between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in a third country or countries, provided that such service constitutes part of a continuous operation, with or without a change of aircraft, that includes air service to Switzerland for the purpose of carrying local traffic between Switzerland and the United States; and (3) between third countries and the United States in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212. We grant the request of Jet Aviation Business Jets AG for confidential treatment of its financial submissions. To the extent not acted upon above, we dismiss the applicant’s request for exemption authority in this docket (OST-2007-27264). With respect to the applicant’s request for a foreign air carrier permit in this proceeding, we direct all interested persons to show cause why our tentative decision on that application, set forth above, should not be made final. Any interested person objecting to the issuance of an order making final our tentative findings and conclusions with respect to the applicant’s request for a foreign air carrier permit shall, no later than twenty-one calendar days after the date of service of this order, file with the Department. By: Paul Gretch OST-1999-6319 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - US-Mexico March 19, 2008 Northwest Airlines, Inc. requests that the Department notify Mexico of the addition of ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. as an additional operator for Northwest-marketed services on the Houston-Mexico City and Houston-Veracruz routes, where Northwest already holds underlying economic and codeshare authority. Pursuant to Order 2008-3-12, marketing carriers such as Northwest "may change, add, or subtract a U.S. direct-carrier partner without the need to amend its underlying economic authority to serve the U.S.-Mexico city-pair market." Northwest has conducted an advance poll of the U.S.-Mexico carriers on the attached service list, and determined that there are no objections to this request. Accordingly, we request that the notification be issued immediately. Counsel: Northwest, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184, sascha.vanderbellen@nwa.com Tinicum Township Privilege Fee Proceeding Order 2008-3-18 Issued March 19, 2008 | Served March 24, 2008 Declaratory Order - Bookmarked We have carefully considered the claims by the Township that the Anti-Head Tax Act authorizes it to impose taxes or fees on airlines landing at the Airport’s runways within its jurisdiction. We find that the Township’s privilege fee is prohibited under the provisions of the Anti-Head Tax Act. The AHTA prohibits a state or political subdivision from imposing a charge on an individual traveling in air commerce, on the transportation of such an individual, on the sale of air transportation, or on the gross receipts from that air commerce or transportation. The privilege fee is a prohibited charge since it is based on the maximum landed weight of the aircraft, which in turn relates to the number of seats on the airplane. The privilege fee, accordingly, amounts to a prohibited landing fee because it imposes a charge indirectly on an individual traveling in air commerce, or a charge on the transportation of an individual traveling in air commerce, in connection with the landing of aircraft. We further find that the AHTA prohibits the Township from imposing the landing fee, because only a state or political subdivision that owns or operates an airport may impose on aircraft operators a (reasonable) landing fee for the use of its airport. We also find that the privilege fee is not authorized by subsection (c) of § 40116, pertaining to flight takeoff or landing requirements for state or political subdivision taxation on commercial aircraft. Finally, we find that the privilege fee is not within the permissible category of taxes that may be imposed by a state or political subdivision, including net income taxes, property taxes, franchise taxes, and sales or use taxes on the sale of goods and services. In reaching this conclusion, we do not find that the privilege fee, as imposed on cargo aircraft, is a prohibited charge under the AHTA because it is not imposed on an individual traveling in air commerce or on the transportation of such an individual. 3 Additionally, the privilege fee does not constitute a prohibited charge on the sale of air transportation, under the AHTA, because it is not imposed in connection with the sale of a ticket or waybill. We nevertheless find the privilege fee unlawful as applied to cargo aircraft because the fee constitutes an impermissible landing fee and otherwise is not authorized by the aviation statutes. Consequently, we may not allow the Township to impose what effectively amounts to a landing fee surcharge on users of PHL, because the rights that those users otherwise may invoke under § 47129 to contest the reasonableness of the fee would be foreclosed. By: Michael Reynolds
United Air Lines, Inc. and Air China International Corp. OST-2003-16213 - US-People's Republic of China Codesharing with United March 19, 2008 United hereby notifies the Department that Air China's CM designator code will be placed on flights operated by United between San Francisco, CA and Guangzhou, China and that United's UA* designator code will be placed on flights operated by Air China between Guangzhou, on the one hand, and Chengdu, Chongqing and Guangzhou, China, on the other hand. United and Air China plan to implement these services on or after June 18, 2008. Counsel: United, Julie Oettinger, 202-296-2370 OST-1996-1379 - Exemption - Miami/San Juan-Venezuela March 19, 2008 Application for Renewal of Exemption Authority UPS hereby applies for renewal of its exemption authorizing UPS to engage in the scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between Miami, Florida and Caracas, Venezuela; via the intermediate point, San Juan, Puerto Rico, and between Miami, Florida and the terminal points Valencia and Maracaibo, Venezuela. The authority was most recently renewed by the Department in a Notice of Action Taken, dated June 20, 2006, in the captioned docket, for a period of two years, through June 20, 2008. UPS requests that the renewal be granted for a period of at least two years. UPS is currently operating regularly scheduled all-cargo service in the Miami-Venezuela market. Counsel: Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202-342-8462, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com |
|||