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 May 2, 2008
Help with PDF Files Not Displaying, Crashing etc.
Updated:
| Applications and Renewals:
Air One / Air One and United - Amendment and Exemption - EU-US Reciprocal Codeshare Shanghai Airlines - China-Los Angeles Renewal Shanghai Airlines Cargo - China-US Charter Cargo Renewal Answers and Replies: Baltia - Withdrawal of Exhibits (New York-St. Petersburg) EAS at Beckley, WV - Proposals of Colgan Air and Gulfstream Intl Airlines EAS at Meridian, MS - City of Meridian in Support of Atlantic Southeast Lengthy On-Board Ground Delays Task Force - Meeting Materials Republic and Shuttle America - Joint Reply to American and United (Form 41) SkyTeam Antitrust - Motion of ASTA to File Late / Reply of Joint Applicants to Obections of ASTA Notices of Action Taken: None Notices and Orders: |
|||
|
Air One S.p.A. / United Air Lines, Inc. and Air One, S.p.A. OST-2005-22809 - Exemption - US-Italy Codeshare May 2, 2008 Hereby seeks to amend the exemption authority and Statement of Authorization granted to it in the above-captioned dockets in order to expand its scheduled foreign and domestic air transportation of persons, property and mail pursuant to a codeshare agreement with United Airlines, by allowing the placement of United's designator code on Air One's transatlantic flights and amending Air One's exemption authority to allow Air One to place its AP designator code on United flights between Brussels and Washington D.C.. Air One also hereby provides notice of additional markets that Air One and United intend to serve under previously granted Department authority. Air One hereby seeks to amend its current exemption authority, granted in Docket OST-2005-22809 to allow it to codeshare with United on flights operated by United between Brussels, Belgium and Washington D.C., (and United's connecting U.S. and international flights). Air One further seeks to amend the Statement of Authorization granted in Docket OST-2008-0001 to allow it to display United's UA* designator code on flights operated by Air One between any point in Italy and any point in the United States. Air One and United also intend to serve additional markets under their previously‑granted codeshare authority. Attachment A contains (i) additional city pairs to be served under previously granted authority, and (ii) city pairs to be served under the additional authority requested herein. Should the Department have concerns about granting a statement of authorization that surpasses Air One's current exemption authority to operate Milan-Boston and Milan-Chicago, Air One asks in the alternative to amend the Statement of Authorization granted in Docket OST-2008-0001 to allow it to display United's UA designator code on flights operated by Air One between Milan and Chicago and between Milan and Boston, and to defer the remainder of this request until Air One's Foreign Air Carrier Permit for open E.U. -U.S. foreign air transportation has been granted. On February 25, 2008, Air One filed in Docket OST-2008-0073 an application for exemption authority' to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail, using its own aircraft, (i) between Milan, Italy (Malpensa Airport) and Boston, Massachusetts; and (ii) between Milan, Italy (Malpensa Airport) and Chicago, Illinois. This application was granted by Notice of Action Taken dated March 17, 2008. Counsel: Sher & Blackwell, Mark Atwood
OST-2007-0007 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - New York-St. Petersburg April 30, 2008 Email Message - Withdrawal of Exhibits This morning Baltia received information that Preston Capital Partners is involved in a reorganization. Baltia hereby withdraws Exhibits 4 and 5 from the submission filed with the Department on April 28, 2008. Such, temporarily, will reduce the available capital to 9.1 million. See Baltia’s Response to Request for Information, p. 13. For reasons listed at p. 13, the principals personally continue to strongly support Baltia. Baltia expects to replace the $2 million withdrawn by the end of this week. Although this morning’s event was unforeseen, the impact is not determinative as Baltia has provided “third-party verification that it actually has available to it all of the resources needed to be found financially fit” with $2 million cash, $4.1 million line of credit, and $4 million in exercisable warrants of which Baltia conservatively allocates $3 million to the statutory requirement. The letter from Laura Remo confirms that, assuming one flight per week, Baltia would need $5.22 million to meet the Department’s financial fitness test which is within the verified $9.1 million that Baltia has provided. Counsel: IBLF, Steffanie Lewis, slewis@iblf.com Essential Air Service at Beckley, West Virginia
May 1, 2008 Colgan Air Proposal to Provide Subsidized EAS Colgan Air, Inc. respectfully submits a proposal to continue providing subsidized service between the community of Beckley, West Virginia and Washington Dulles International Airport. This proposal uses Saab 340 aircraft and would require an annual subsidy of $2,092,844. The proposed service options for the West Virginia commimity is as follows: Beckley 12 round-trips per week operated as a combination of one-stop and non-stop service to Washington-Dulles. Colgan reserves the option of converting the service to 12 one-stop round trips per week. By: Colgan George Casey, 703-331-3101
May 1, 2008 Gulfstream International Airlines Proposal to Provide EAS Gulfstream intends to operate these flights under its existing codeshare agreement with Continental Airlines to its hub in Cleveland, Ohio. Gulfstream believes that the strength of the Continental hub at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport will have a positive effect on ridership. Gulfstream proposes to operate these flights using Beech 1900D turboprops that are pressurized and accommodate 19 passengers to the, FAA defined, medium-sized hub at Cleveland, OH. Two service patterns are offered. The first proposed service pattern (Option 1) features 24 weekly non‑stop trips between Beckley and Cleveland, Ohio. The second proposed service pattern (Option 2) features 12 weekly non-stop trips between Beckley and Cleveland, Ohio along with 24 weekly one-stop trips between Beckley and Cleveland operating via Greenbrier/White Sulphur SpringsfLewisburg. West Virginia. In this fashion Beckley will receive three weekday turns, mimicking the type of service pattern the community currently receives. Given the proximity of Beckley and Lewisburg, we find that we can actually operate this Option with less required subsidy than the all non-stop Option 1, as we feel the additional frequency will maintain ridership levels and the flight time involved is significantly less. The establishment of this operation in the northeast is outside of Gulfstream's historic service area. In order to offer the quality of service that these communities deserve, it will be necessary for Gulfstream to establish sufficient operating mass as to make this service practical. Given this fact please consider these two Options wholly contingent upon Gulfstream being awarded the Essential Air Service contracts previously solicited for the communities of DuBois PA Franklin/Oil City PA and Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs/Lewisburg WV. By: Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman Essential Air Service at Meridian, Mississippi April 30, 2008 Re: City of Meridian in Support of Atlantic Southeast Airlines My office has carefully studied the proposals submitted by Mesaba Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Northwest Airlink, and ASA, d/b/a Delta Connection, and we have concluded that the ASA submission is unequivocally the superior proposal. While we appreciate the interest both airlines have shown in serving the Meridian market, we strongly endorse the ASA bid. By: Mayor John Robert Smith, 801-485-1927 National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays April 23, 2008 Re: Meeting Materials - Bookmarked - 13MB
Republic Airline Inc. d/b/a Republic Airlines / Shuttle America Corporation OST-2005-23355 - Republic Airlines - Confidential Treatment Under 14 CFR 302.12 (Form 41, Schedules B-1, B-7, B-12, P.1.2, P-1(a), P-5.1 and P-6) May 2, 2008 In their respective Motions seeking confidential treatment, Republic and Shuttle amply demonstrated how each has met the applicable legal standard for withholding the identified confidential, competitively sensitive financial information from public disclosure under Exemption 4, as well as under the applicable legal standards for grant of confidentiality and well‑established Department precedent. The public release of the information for which Republic and Shuttle seek confidential treatment would likely cause substantial competitive harm. American and United's meritless Joint Answer should be rejected. It focuses solely on the confidentiality issues raised in the context of the ExpressJet and Virgin America dockets, and has no relevancy to the unique circumstances involving Republic and Shuttle in the instant dockets. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999 May 5, 2008 The regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The agenda provides the public with information about the Department of Transportation’s regulatory activity. It is expected that this information will enable the public to be more aware of and allow it to more effectively participate in the Department’s regulatory activity. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda. By: Mary Peters OST-2006-24169 - Exemption - China-Los Angeles May 2, 2008 Application for Renewal of Exemption Shanghai Airlines Co., Ltd. hereby requests renewal of the exemption authority granted to it by the Department of Transportation in the above-captioned docket to engage in: (a) scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in the People's Republic of China and any point or points in the United States, pursuant to its codeshare agreement with United Air Lines, Inc.; (b) scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail from a point or points in the People's Republic of China, via Tokyo or another point in Japan, to any point or points in the United States open to scheduled international service, using aircraft wet leased from an authorized U.S. or foreign air carrier; and (c) charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between the People's Republic of China and the United States, and other charters pursuant to Part 212 of the Department's regulations, using aircraft wet leased from an authorized U.S. or foreign air carrier. This exemption will expire on May 4, 2008. Shanghai Airlines and Uillted hold a blanket statement of authorization of indefmite duration permitting them to engage in codeshare service. Department Action on Application in Docket OST-2006-24167, May 4, 2006. Counsel: Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202-626-6840, cdonley@ssd.com Shanghai Airlines Cargo International Co., Ltd. OST-2007-27598 - Exemption and Statement of Authorization - China-US Charter Cargo May 2, 2008 Application for Renewal of Exemption Shanghai Airlines Cargo IntI. Co., Ltd. hereby requests renewal of the exemption authority granted to it by the Department of Transportation in the above-captioned docket to engage in (i) scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail from a point or points in the People's Republic of China, via any intermediate points to any point or points in the United States open to scheduled international service, and beyond to any points outside the United States; and (ii) charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between any point in the People's Republic of China, on the one hand, and any point or points in the United States, on the other hand, and other charters pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 212. Shanghai Cargo's existing exemptions expire on May 4 and December 7, 2008. Counsel: Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202-626-6840, cdonley@ssd.com SkyTeam Antitrust - Alitalia, Czech, Delta, KLM, Northwest, Air France
May 2, 2008 Reply of Joint Applicants to Objections of ASTA ASTA's request that the Department delay finalizing the Order pending the results of the EU-DOT alliance study and the Department of Justice's review of the proposed Delta‑Northwest merger is a meritless delay tactic. The Department's decision was based on a specific and careful review of the proposed Alliance Agreements and a record containing thousands of pages of the Joint Applicants' confidential business documents relating to this alliance and its impact on transatlantic competition. The U.S.‑EU study is a generalized study of all alliances, and is unnecessary to complete the record in this case. In addition, the Department has a statutory obligation to issue a timely final order. The proposed Delta‑Northwest merger has no bearing on the merits of this transatlantic immunity case and provides no basis for deferral. The U.S. ‑EU open skies agreement is now in effect. Air France‑KLM and their U.S. partners have an immediate need and bilateral expectation to begin to implement the benefits of their immunized alliance. Contrary to ASTA's unfounded claim, finalizing the Order could not in any way "prejudge", "complicate" or "distort" the Justice Department's analysis of the merger. The Department of Justice did not file comments in this proceeding and had previously concluded that the grant of immunity to the Joint Applicants would not significantly reduce transatlantic competition. ASTA's pretexts concerning the proposed merger do not present legitimate reasons to delay the issuance of a Final Order Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com for Delta, Air France, KLM and Northwest / Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech Airlines
May 2, 2008 The basis for this request is that counsel for ASTA attempted to file the Objections on the due date, April 23, 2008, through the filing system at www.regulations.gov and believed that the filing had been accomplished. In fact, because counsel’s computer screen did not display a “Send a Comment or Submission” button in conjunction with the listing of the Show Cause Order, the attempt to file was made twice, the second time after consultation with a DOT staff person who explained that the filing would be accepted as long as it was attached to any document already filed in the docket that showed the “Send a Comment or Submission” button. In each of the two cases the message was received that the upload of the document was successful and counsel believed at that point that two successful filings of the paper had been achieved. In reality, there was another page in the regulations.gov website on which a further submit step was required to actually accomplish the filing. The document was served on parties to the docket by e-mail the next day, arriving faster than it would have if first-class mail service had been used. Counsel learned from another attorney on April 30 that the filing did not appear on www.regulations.gov. Since documents are often “posted” after they are filed, counsel first thought the filing was simply “in process,” but phone inquiries to the Help section at Regulations.gov indicated otherwise. Counsel immediately filed the document with the aid of the Help person and it now appears in Docket OST-2007-28644 as filed on April 30 and posted on May 1. We emphasize three things. First, good faith attempts were made to timely file the document. Second, counsel reasonably believed the filing had been accomplished. And, third, and most important, no prejudice to any party can have arisen from the late filing, because the document was delivered electronically to the parties at 10:10 am the day after the filing attempt. Counsel: ASTA, Paul Ruden |
|||