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 | Answer/Reply Calendar
OST Docket Filings for January 30, 2006
Updated:
| Applications and Renewals:
Aeromexico - Mexico City-Philadelphia MAS de Carga - Mexico-US All-Cargo Renewal Answers and Replies: Ascend Aviation Group / Ascend Aviation Marketing and Sales / KCP Leasing and Services / Scot Spencer / George Warde - Motion to Expedite Proceeding EAS at Moab and Vernal, UT - Proposals of Air Midwest, Great Lakes Aviation, and Salmon Air JetBlue - JFK-Bermuda Polling Results Longtail Aviation - Designation of Agent NPRM on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel - Medical Oxygen and Portable Respiration Assistive Devices - Comments of the Air Carrier Association of America / Air France, Air Pacific / Air Transport Association, Aloha Airlines, Alpha-1 Association and Alpha-1 Foundation, American Thoracic Society, Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, ATA Airlines, Aviation Mobility, British Airways, Cathay Pacific Airways, Delta, First Choice Airways, Government of United Kingdom, IATA, Inogen, JAL, JetBlue, Martinair, MedAire, National Air Carrier Association, Northwest, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Qantas Airways, Regional Airline Association, Saudi Arabian, Southwest, Thomsonfly, US Airways and WestJet NPRM on Price Advertising - Clarification - email from DOT to USTAR / Comments of Colonial Connections / Individual Comments Notices of Action Taken: ASA - US-Jamaica Renewal Delta - Atlanta-Tel Aviv Codeshare with El Al Israel JetBlue - JFK-Bermuda Notices and Orders: EAS at Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, and Lewisburg, WV - Requesting Proposals Yellow Air Taxi - Final Order |
|||
|
Aerotransportes MAS de Carga, S.A. de C.V. OST-1996-1249 - Mexico-US Scheduled All-Cargo January 17, 2006 Application for Renewal of Exemption | Word AEROTRANSPORTES MAS DE CARGA, S.A. de C.V. by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 49 U.S.C. Section 40109 hereby submits its application for renewal of its 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-1996-1249. The last exemption granted under this Docket will expire on January 21, 2006. Counsel: MAS de Carga, Celestino Pena, 305-856-5655, cpena2@bellsouth.net Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. OST-2006-23775 - Exemption - Mexico City-Philadelphia January 27, 2006 By this application, Aeromexico seeks an exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Mexico City, Mexico and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On or about September 1, 2006, Aeromexico proposes to offer four nonstop round trips per week between Mexico City and Philadelphia, utilizing B-737-700 or other appropriate aircraft. The exemption is requested for one year. Counsel: DLA Piper Rudnick, William Evans, 202-861-6459 Ascend Aviation Group, LLC / Ascend Aviation Marketing and Sales, LLC / KCP Leasing and Services, LLC / Scot Spencer / George Warde OST-2004-17486 - Enforcement Proceeding January 29, 2006 The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings hereby moves that the Department expedite its decision on the motions and petitions filed in this case on October 12, 2005, by Ascend Aviation Group, LLC; Ascend Aviation Marketing and Sales, LLC; KCP Leasing and Services, LLC; and Scot Spencer. Under Department rules, the decision of Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin in this case became a final order of the Department 30 days after it was issued, i.e., on September 22, 2005. Under the order, the Respondents were jointly assessed civil penalties of $1,000,000 and Respondent Scot Spencer was permanently banned from marketing or other involvement in air transportation operations. The reason for the instant motion relates to a separate formal enforcement proceeding being conducted before Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yoder. In the matter of Travel Group, Inc., d/b/a Republic Air Travel and Scot Spencer, Docket OST-1995-272. Chief Judge Yoder, by order served on January 19, 2006, has set a schedule for holding a hearing in that case. It is the primary objective of AEP in that case to permanently ban Scot Spencer from involvement in air transportation operations. It would be a tremendous waste of AEP, Office of Hearings and other Department resources (e.g., witness travel expenses, reporting service costs) to continue to litigate the Republic case if Mr. Spencer's ban resulting from the Ascend Case were to be upheld. Accordingly, AEP asks that the Department expedite its ruling on the Respondents' motions and petitions filed on October 12. 2005, in this case. By: Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Samuel Podberesky Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. OST-2006-23689 - Exemption - US-Jamaica Filed January 20, 2006 | Issued January 30, 2006 Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the United States and a point or points in Jamaica, via intermediate points, and beyond. ASA also requests authority to integrate this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. ASA plans to introduce daily nonstop “Delta Connection” service between Atlanta, Georgia, and Kingston, Jamaica, under the DL* code of Delta Air Lines, Inc. The Department is acting on ASA's application prior to the expiration date of the 15-day answer period with the consent of all parties served. By: Paul Gretch OST-2005-23312 - Statement of Authorization - Atlanta-Tel Aviv Codesharing with El Al Israel Airlines Filed December 8, 2005 | Approved January 30, 2006 Department Action on Application Application for Delta Air Lines for a statement of authorization to display the designator code of El Al Israel Airlines (LY*) on Atlanta, Georgia-Tel Aviv flights operated by Delta. By: Gerald Caolo Essential Air Service at Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, and Lewisburg, West Virginia Order 2006-1-23 Issued January 30, 2006 | Served February 2, 2006 By this order, the Department is requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing essential air service at Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs/Lewisburg, West Virginia, for the two-year period beginning June 1, 2006. With respect to Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs/Lewisburg, we expect proposals consisting of service, at a minimum, with two-pilot, twin-engine aircraft with at least 15 passenger seats, and offering a total of 12 round trips a week from the community to a suitable hub or hubs. The community's essential air service determination, as last established by Order 1985-8-77, August 26, 1985, required a minimum of two daily nonstop or one-stop round trips to both Charlotte and Washington/Baltimore, providing a total of at least 67 inbound and outbound seats. During the winter, service could be reduced to six days a week to each hub, providing a total of 45 inbound and outbound seats. However, as we more recently concluded in Order 2003-9-21, September 26, 2003, the minimum-service levels that we have specified at the start of this paragraph are sufficient, as a practical matter, to ensure that the community retains a year-round link to the national air transportation network, in view of the seasonal nature of the community's demand for local air service and its own arrangements with other carriers to provide additional services during the peak season, as noted below. Carriers are welcome to propose more than one service option, if they envision other, potentially more attractive service possibilities with subsidy requirements that remain competitive. By: Todd Homan
Essential Air Service at Moab and Vernal, Utah OST-1997-2827 - Moab, UT
January 26, 2006 Proposals of Mesa Air Group d/b/a Air Midwest All operations proposed would utilize our modem fleet of Raytheon/Beechcraft B-1900D airliners. These aircraft offer a very comfortable 19-seat, pressurized cabin with two turboprop engines. Mesa has a long history of offering Essential Air Service throughout the country, from New Mexico to New York. At this time, we plan on starting this service as Mesa Airlines, with the intention of putting it under our America West Express codeshare if awarded the contract.
In the DOT's request for proposals for Vernal and Moab, the DOT states clearly that "Proposals submitted for service to Vernal must not exceed the $200 per passenger statutory limit. Based on that level of traffic and the current subsidy of $595,436, Vernal's subsidy per passenger is $208.12, and exceeds the $200 per passenger ceiling." Mesa feels that the maximum subsidy cap should actually be higher than $572,200, when you factor in the Quality of Service Index stimulant between a Piper Chieftain and a Beech 1900D. With the increase in service level from a Chieftain to a 1900D, the QSI formula calculates a 23.35% increase in passengers in Vernal, which would mean that the number of passengers should be much closer to 3,529. Mesa conservatively gave a 15% increase in passengers to Vernal, which would net an overall per passenger subsidy of only $171, significantly below the $200 cap, and at a level that should keep the community far enough away from the cap while Mesa continues to work on building the passenger base over the next two years. Even utilizing the current 2,861 passengers that the DOT states as the latest yearly numbers for Vernal, Mesa's per-passenger subsidy level for Vernal is only $197 with our subsidy request of $562,720. By: Air Midwest, Mickey Bowman
January 26, 2006 Proposals of Great Lakes Aviation The Great Lakes proposal contemplates non-stop, conveniently timed connecting services with our Code Share partners United and Frontier at our Denver Hub. Our code share agreements will give Moab and Vernal the greatest competitive opportunity available in the Rocky Mountain Region. In addition, Great Lakes maintains interline ticketing and baggage agreements with the majority of carriers serving their hubs from Denver, which will allow for maximum utilization of our air service for passengers flying in and out of both Vernal and Moab, Utah. The proposal contemplates the use of pressurized 19 seat Beech 1900D's, which the Company has had a long history of operating. To minimize subsidy requirements the proposal assumes the overhead of one fully deployed Beech 1900 and should therefore be considered to be a package bid for both markets. Costing has been broken out in order to provide a subsidy per passenger calculation.
By: Great Lakes, Nick Wangler, 307-432-7050, nwangler@greatlakesav.com
January 27, 2006 Proposals of Mountain Bird d/b/a Salmon Air Salmon Air Option 1: Continuing the current service of 12 non-stop round trips each week between Vernal and Salt Lake City, and 12 non-stop round trips each week between Moab (Canyon Lands) and Salt Lake City with an 8 seat twin-engine, reciprocating-powered, Piper PA31-350 Chieftain aircraft. Total annual subsidy for this option would be $1,339,379.87. Salmon Air Option 2: Providing 12 non-stop round trips each week between Vernal and Salt Lake City, and 12 non-stop round trips each week between Moab (Canyon Lands) and Salt Lake City with a 9 seat, single engine, pressurized/climate controlled cabin, turbine powered Pilatus PC-12. Total annual subsidy for this option would be $1,292,323.97. The attached proposals show a projected subsidy per passenger for Vernal that is under $200.00. We have kept the projection very conservative based on historic data from Salmon Air's 23 months on the route. We expect both routes to continue showing growth as we fine-tune our service and advertising. Salmon Air feels that the Vernal route is viable, and worthy of the EAS subsidy. We will be able to demonstrate this over the next 24 months if given the chance. Salmon Air feels that it takes about 24 months to work the quirks out of any new operation. We are just now seeing the effects of a more streamlined operation as a result of catching up to the learning curve. By: Salmon Air, Thomas Wilkins Friendship Airways Inc. d/b/a Yellow Air Taxi Order 2006-1-22 Issued and Served January 30, 2006 By Order 2006-1-11, issued January 13, 2006, we directed all interested persons to show cause why we should not make final our tentative findings and conclusions that Friendship Airways, Inc. d/b/a Yellow Air Taxi is fit, willing, and able to provide scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier using small aircraft pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Interested persons were given 14 calendar days to file objections to the order. No objections to the show-cause order were received. We issue a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization to Friendship Airways, Inc. d/b/a Yellow Air Taxi, subject to the Terms, Conditions, and Limitations attached. By: Michael Reynolds OST-2006-23759 - Exemption - New York (JFK)-Bermuda
January 30, 2006 This letter will notify you that we have polled all carriers served with JetBlue's referenced application for an exemption and none have interposed an objection to the granting of the authority requested or JetBlue's request to shorten the answer period. We request oral notification of the grant of the exemption. DOT's early action on this exemption will be appreciated. Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill, 2020-776-2725, jhill@dlalaw.com
Filed January 26, 2006 | Issued January 30, 2006 Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between New York, New York and Bermuda, and to integrate this authority with its existing authorities. JetBlue proposes to introduce this service in May 2006. JetBlue's application here for Bermuda exemption authority also references two pending JetBlue applications in other dockets for Bermuda certificate authority. See Dockets OST-2005-22228 and OST-2004-17264. We will handle its Bermuda certificate requests separately. By: Paul Gretch OST-2002-12556 - Designation of Agent January 23, 2006 Counsel: Longtail, Mark Byrne NPRM on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel - Medical Oxygen and Portable Respiration Assistive Devices
January 31, 2006 Comments of the Air Carrier Association of America ACAA supports the Department's objective to maximize travel opportunities for the disabled community and to take steps to make travel easier and safer for all passengers. The ACAA member airlines support these efforts and are prepared to continue to work with all government agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department, along with representatives of the disabled community to further improve travel options. The ACAA has been working with the Department on these issues, attending numerous meetings to discuss areas of concern, and is committed to continuing this effort. It is essential, however, to understand that this rulemaking could have a significant economic and operational impact on the airline industry just as it struggles to return to profitability after years of record-breaking losses. The effects could be even greater on airlines that choose not to provide in-flight medical oxygen due to the high cost associated with the provision of this service. This rulemaking also presents enormous economic and operational issues that could negatively impact the overall objective to enhance travel by members of the disabled community. It is essential that these issues be fully addressed before this rule becomes final and before systems are made available to customers. Since the Department's proposal could significantly increase costs for all carriers, it is essential that the Department issue a "Supplemental Notice" to further review all of these complex issues. We also ask the Department to permit the RTCA and the FAA to develop the standards necessary for the proper testing and approval of these devices for use onboard domestic and foreign commercial aircraft. Passengers should have the ability to use their personal oxygen devices in a safe and comfortable traveling environment. At the same time, all passengers and crew members should be able to travel comfortably and safely. Counsel: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420, epfaberman@acaa1.com
January 30, 2006 Air France believes that the Department’s proposed rule presents serious legal and operational issues, and should it become final, it would severely interfere with and negatively impact the existing and well-organized practices and procedures related to the treatment of its passengers. Moreover, Air France considers that it is unjustified to transfer the responsibility for testing and certifying this type of equipment to air carriers as the manufacturers are certainly better able to perform this important task. Medical oxygen is considered to be hazardous material, and an air carrier does not have the necessary expertise to determine if a ventilator, respirator, continuous positive airway pressure machine or a portable oxygen concentrator could cause interference with the navigation or communication systems of each model of aircraft irrespective of where the aircraft is operated. It is also technically difficult to guarantee the supply of oxygen during the take off and landing phases. Besides, Air France considers that to allow passengers to use their own medical oxygen equipment on board could present serious security risks insofar as the equipment could be altered and toxic gases might be introduced. The air carrier is not in a position to verify that the equipment does not present any security risk. Air France has been committed to the developing a high level of service to assist and accommodate all passengers with disabilities and wishes to continue developing these policies and practices in a clear regulatory environment, free of conflicts with either international or national law. Counsel: Air France, Joan Gabel
January 30, 2006 Air Pacific objects to the proposal that foreign air carriers would be required to individually test the respiratory assistive devices. Air Pacific proposes that the Department take on the task of testing the devices and provide a centralized list of approved and disapproved devices on the Department’s Consumer Protection website as well as on printed materials available through travel agents. Providing in-flight oxygen is a very expensive service that carriers should be able to provide for a fee. Whether the Department requires U.S. carriers to provide oxygen without charge is a U.S. domestic issue, however the Department should not in any way be involved in regulating the services for which foreign carriers are permitted to levy additional charges. Air Pacific believes that a good solution for both carriers and the traveling public would be to require individuals who need oxygen during flight to purchase or rent pre-approved delivery kits from an approved distributor. This will ensure that the medical needs of the passenger are met, while enabling the carrier to provide safe operation of the aircraft at the lowest possible cost to all passengers. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
January 31, 2006 Questions and Comments of the Air Transport Association The Air Transport Association asked a series of questions regarding the regulatory evaluation for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to amend 14 CFR Part 382 to require certain carriers to provide medical oxygen and to permit the use of certain respiratory devices on commercial flights. The questions were posed by two specific individuals, Ms. Vanpelt, employed in the Economics Department of ATA, and Mr. Lundy, employed by a firm hired by ATA to help it understand the regulatory analysis in order for ATA to prepare comments. 1) What year over year growth rate assumptions did you make for different categories for the low-end and high end cost estimates? There are many growth rates that impact the overall cost growth estimates. The most significant are:
2) What discount rates did you use for your cost and benefits estimates? Battelle used a 7 percent discount rate, per OMB guidance Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. By: DOT, Ann Gawalt
January 31, 2006 Comments of the Air Transport Association - Bookmarked The proposed rule seeks to impose on airlines onerous and potentially extensive testing requirements for passenger-owned, portable electronic respiration assistive devices. The proposed rule also seeks to change existing law by requiring passenger-carrying airlines, including those airlines that have lawfully elected not to provide medical oxygen, to provide medical oxygen service to passengers free of charge—even though airlines that provide medical oxygen now on a voluntary basis do not recoup their costs. For the legal, policy, safety, and operational reasons set forth in these comments, the Department’s proposal exceeds its authority and is over-reaching and unjustified. Accordingly, the proposed rule is unlawful under the Air Carrier Access Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. In lieu of this unlawful proposed rule, we make several recommendations that achieve the NPRM’s goals in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner that is consistent with the law. Counsel: Air Transport Association, Sophy Chen
January 30, 2006 The adoption of this proposal in its current form will inflict a significant and unacceptable financial burden on Aloha Airlines. Additionally, the adoption of this proposal will mean an increase in risk to our ETOPS operations in the form of possible expensive diversions or reduction in payload capability. As stated, Aloha Airlines fully supports the statements of the Air Transport Association as our position on this important topic. By: Aloha Airlines, Ray Brice, 808-836-5297
January 30, 2006 Comments of Alpha-1 Association and Alpha-1 Foundation | Word - Corrected Copy These comments are submitted on behalf of the Alpha-1 Foundation and Alpha-1 Association who represent individuals with the genetic lung and liver disease known as Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency. There may be up to 100,000 people with Alpha-1 in the United States making it the most common genetic risk factor for emphysema. Alpha-1 is a condition that is passed on from parents to their children through genes resulting in serious lung and/or liver disease at various ages in life that often requires the use of part or full-time supplemental oxygen. As many as 3% of all people diagnosed with COPD may have Alpha-1. The Regulatory Evaluation for Medical Oxygen Use Onboard Aircraft, Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation dated May 18, 2005 accurately depicts the current regulatory environment that presents barriers to travel by individuals with Alpha-1. We will not restate these challenges as we believe that they are well understood by the agency and addressed in this attempt to close the gap in current regulations. Because supplement oxygen for air travel is vitally important to the patient community we serve, both organizations strongly support the intent of the NPRM to extend the definition of the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 to provide greater accommodation in air travel for persons with respiratory disabilities. While our organizations lack expertise in many of the technical areas where DOT has requested comments, we have provided recommendations with the objective of clarifying the NPRM from the patient perspective and encouraging expedition of final guidance which is meaningful to individuals who require supplemental oxygen and other assistive respiratory devices during air travel. By: Alpha-1 Association, Miriam O'Day
January 30, 2006 Comments of the American Thoracic Society Thoughtful implementation of this proposed rule will make dramatic improvements in the ease and convenience of patients who need medical oxygen and other respiratory assistive devices to use air travel. In general, we strongly support the spirit and intent of the proposed rule. While several implementation issues need to be addressed, we are very encouraged to read the following text in the proposed rule: We strongly agree with the intent of the proposed rule and encourage the Department of Transportation to swiftly develop a final rule that fulfills that intent. By: ATS
January 27, 2006 Comments of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines The AAPA submits that the DOT should carefully reconsider the merits and approach of this rulemaking, failing which we do not believe it should be progressed in its current form. In particular, there is a need for an international approach to ensure regulatory harmonization to avoid conflicting regulations and potential confusion amongst passengers. The approach of this NPRM presents significant operational and legal obstacles for international carriers which are required to comply with a multiplicity of national and international regulations. Notwithstanding the issues raised in this submission, the AAPA and its member airlines are committed to treating all passengers with dignity and respect in a nondiscriminatory manner, and to enabling as many people as possible to have access to air travel, consistent with safety requirements. We will continue to work towards this shared goal through international cooperation with the aim of developing a more harmonized approach to customer service standards in this and other areas. By: AAPA, Andrew Herdman, 60-3-2145-5600
January 30, 2006 ATA Airlines submits that compliance with the Air Carrier Access Act and the provision of services to disabled passengers can reasonably be achieved by permitting the use of passenger-owned portable, electronic respiratory assistive devices. ATA Airlines currently permits the use of such devices provided they have an independent energy source (i.e. are battery operated). ATA Airlines further submits that requiring airlines that do not currently provide medical oxygen onboard their flights (because they are not licensed to transport hazardous material) to provide such service, is an undue burden, overreaching and cost prohibitive. Counsel: ATA, Brian Hunt
January 30, 2006 Comments of Aviation Mobility | Word Although classified as a dangerous good by IATA, ICAO and the FAA, compressed oxygen has been transported and utilized safely with the utmost care and consideration for many years. This classification has resulted in rugged, durable packaging standards designed specifically for its transport. Oversight of testing, inspecting and shipping is rigorous and demanding (for example FAR 121.574 requires equipment to have been under the certificate holder’s approved maintenance program since its purchase). The result for the traveling public is a long history of safe transport and dependable use. Medical Oxygen, USP, has been and continues to be the one method of delivery usable for the wide spectrum of oxygen dependant individuals -- everyone from pediatric passengers utilizing very low liter-flow settings to severe COPD cases requiring very high (6 or 8) LPM. If DOT implements section 382.135, we believe this product and delivery method is most consistent with the intent of creating greater access to air travel for all persons who use medical oxygen. Counsel: McCarthy Sweetney, Lawrence Bierlein, 202-775-5574
January 30, 2006 British Airways respects and shares the Department's goal of making commercial air transportation more accessible for persons with respiratory disabilities. The proposed regulation as drafted, however, is a misguided effort that, if implemented, would created unacceptable safety and security risks. The burden of testing and certification of respiratory assistive devices should be borne by the manufacturers of aircraft and medical devices working with the FAA, not air carriers. If the Department sees fit to require all foreign air carriers operating aircraft to and from the U.S. to provide oxygen to those passengers who need it, those carriers must be allowed to continue to charge a reasonable fee for such service. Finally, the Department must cooperate with the efforts of the European Union to design consistent, comprehensive standard for treatments of disabled passengers and avoid overlapping regulations between jurisdictions. Counsel: British Airways, Paul Jasinski, 347-418-4250, paul.jasinski@britishairways.com
January 30, 2006 Comments of Cathay Pacific Airways Cathay Pacific is committed to making its aircraft and services accessible to the greatest possible number of travelers. It hopes that the Department, before modifying its long-standing position on medical oxygen and adding rules concerning new respiratory devices, will work constructively with foreign governments and airlines to harmonize their interests with those of passengers with disabilities. Counsel: DLA Piper Rudnick, John Mietus, 202-861-6466, john.mietus@dlapiper.com
January 30, 2006 Comments of Delta Air Lines on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Revising 14 CFR Part 382 Delta is and has always been a strong advocate for making air travel more accessible and convenient for passengers with a disability. Accordingly, Delta raises these issues, not to stand in the way of any initiatives designed to improve air travel for passengers with a disability, but because these issues present real concerns to Delta in its drive to remain a viable airline providing the best service possible to its customers. Delta intends to continue its leadership role in improving air travel for those with a disability even though it may be to Delta's disadvantage in the current marketplace. Delta simply asks that the DOT assist Delta in achieving this laudable goal. Counsel: Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
January 30, 2006 Comments of First Choice Airways First Choice Airways objects to the attempt by the US Department of Transportation to impose its requirements for medical oxygen on foreign carriers, even where there is not a direct conflict with foreign law. Such imposition of US rules on foreign carriers when they are operating outside the U.S. and/or carrying primarily non‑U.S. citizens is extra‑territorial and unreasonable. In the case of First Choice Airways, we are regulated by UK and European rules and subject to the safety oversight by the UK or European civil aviation institutions. As a UK charter air carrier, most of our passengers are UK citizens, originating in the UK, and hence imposing the proposed rules on our operations would be unduly burdensome as well as impermissible and contrary to accepted principles of sovereignty. As the European Civil Aviation Conference has pointed out, the proposed rule is especially "inappropriate because of the forthcoming introduction of European law which will address the rights of disabled passengers and because of potential conflicts with national and European practices on safety and security." Counsel: First Choice, Eddie Redfern, eddie. redfern@firstchoice.co.uk
January 23 2006 Comments of Government of the United Kingdom We entirely support the principle of enabling as many people as possible to have access to air travel. However, we believe that, as currently drafted, the US proposals present significant operational, safety, security and financial concerns. Unless or until these are resolved to the satisfaction of and in agreement with all the relevant international bodies, this proposal should not be taken any further. We also believe that for the vast majority of people oxygen supplied by the aircraft mains supply (or on aircraft where no mains oxygen is provided, through carrier owned cylinders) is the most appropriate solution. We would be pleased to enter into discussions with the US authorities to help to find workable solutions which can be applied at international level. By: Karen Buck
January 30, 2006 Comments of The International Air Transport Association - Bookmarked IATA once again urges the Department to reconsider its approach to its entire Part 382 revision process, including this rulemaking. IATA asks the Department to act in accordance with its Congressional mandate, to take into consideration the demands of international law and comity and to retreat from the ill-advised extraterritorial approach that has put it at odds with other sovereigns. IATA also urges the Department to consider carefully the financial burdens it is proposing to impose on an already beleaguered industry. The record on which the Department relies in this NPRM is faulty, and has led to a proposal that does not achieve the reasonable balance required and that indeed would impose an undue financial burden on the industry. For these reasons, IATA submits that rather than the path it has chosen, the Department, the industry and users of medical oxygen would be better served if the Department makes the choices and adopts the approaches suggested herein. Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin, 202-293-9292
January 30, 2006 Inogen believes that oxygen dependent passengers should have equal access to air travel without unreasonable restriction based on their disability. We hold that air carriers should be required to allow passengers requiring supplemental oxygen onboad commercial flight. Given the recent adoption and rapid market acceptance of POCs, it is likely that 3 different types of participation in the provision of oxygen supply to traveling passengers may co-exist: 1) airlines which do not operate an oxygen program but allow the use of POCs onboard their aircraft; 2) airlines who operate an oxygen program and allow POCs onboard their aircraft; and 3) airlines that only operate an oxygen program. All effectively provide the needed access to eliminate the potential for discrimination. Inogen hold that providing passenger access to oxygen addresses any issues related to discrimination. And while airlines should be required to allow passengers access, we do not believe these costs should be borne by the air transportation sector. However, in keeping with equal access provisions we feel that airlines should not be allowed to charge passengers for services associated with oxygen that they do not supply, including excess baggage fees, inspection fees, phone coordination / advance notification fees, etc. By: Inogen, Joe Lewarski
January 30, 2006 Comments of Japan Airlnes International There are four U.S. agencies that would seem to be interested or involved in the general subject of oxygen devices aboard aircraft: FAA, PHMSA and TSA, in addition to DOT. While it is not for us to say how DOT should interact with sister agencies, we have some doubt as to whether the views of the concerned agencies are consistent on the general subject; in fact, they could be moving at cross-purposes. Since JAL believes that disability rules, including oxygenrelated rules, should be subject to uniform international standards under the auspices of ICAO, the U.S. will have to formulate a unified U.S. position to present to that international body. What will be required is a unified U.S. government approach that, first and foremost, takes into account the safety and security of all passengers, but also balances special needs of disabled persons, efficiency of airline operations and the views of foreign airlines' governments. Until a unified U.S. policy is established (whether for ICAO purposes or not), JAL believes that the Oxygen NPRM should be withdrawn. JAL already provides medical oxygen service to disabled passengers on its flights. JAL believes that decisions regarding how that service is provided, and whether and how JAL permits passengers to bring their own respiratory assistive devices onboard its flights, are properly made by JAL, consistent with applicable requirements of the Japanese government. It is the Japanese government, after all, that has primary governmental responsibility over matters --such as the carriage of oxygen and oxygen-related devices -- that could pose safety and security risks to passengers on Japanese-registered aircraft operated by Japanese carriers. As always, JAL will continue to provide a high level of service to all of its passengers, including its disabled passengers. Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223
January 30, 2006 Although JetBlue Airways Corporation is committed to providing equal access to passengers with disabilities and applauds the efforts of the Department of Transportation in this regard, JetBlue incorporates herein the comments of the Air Transport Association, of which JetBlue is a member. JetBlue respectfully submits that the NPRM, as currently written, places an undue burden on carriers, and may produce unintended safety consequences. Although the extensive comments by the AT A more than adequately address JetBlue's concerns, because JetBlue is not a certified hazardous material carrier and does not currently offer oxygen for passenger use (except in the case of an emergency), the undue burden this NPRM places on JetBlue, a low-fare carrier, is even more acute. Counsel: JetBlue, Joanna Geraghty
January 30, 2006 Martinair wishes to emphasize that, as a European Union carrier, it offers services for disabled passengers as required by national and European Union regulations, which meet the ICAO SARPs and are similar, but not identical, to those proposed in this NPRM. Martinair does not support the approach proposed by the DOT that the foreign carrier identifies these differences, as this approach infringes on the national authority of sovereign countries. Rather, Martinair proposes that the DOT, together with the European Union and ICAO, initiates steps to harmonise safety aspects associated with air transport of disabled passengers. By: Martinair
January 30, 2006 Policies regarding respiratory devices and their successful use in a pressurized aircraft cabin must include a careful understanding of the users’ underlying chronic medical conditions and consideration for the potential risks to the passenger and their devices. Failure to consider these issues will lead to an increase in in-flight medical emergencies and even deaths, and ultimately more in-flight medical diversions. These considerations are especially crucial in light of certain aircraft emergencies, such as cabin decompression, where the risk to these passengers would be much greater. Any situation that distracts the crew from safety-related duties increases risk. In the event that a diversion is necessary, all passengers are at additional risk. By: MedAire, Heidi Giles, 480-333-3700, hgiles@medaire.com
January 30, 2006 Comments of the National Air Carrier Association NACA agrees with the Regional Airline Association's opposition to the DOT's proposal to apply the NPRM to all U.S. carriers and foreign airlines that conduct passenger-carrying service, other than those carriers that are operating as on-demand air taxis without regard to aircraft size. We concur with RAA's assessment that instead, DOT should limit coverage of this section to air carriers operating aircraft with 60 or more seats. The 60-seat threshold is a well-established regulatory standard, and DOT, for legitimate reasons, has determined that this is the appropriate aircraft size for imposition of many customer service and financial requirements. In short, the solutions proposed by the Department in this NPRM will come at considerable cost to the air carriers from a logistical and economic perspective. We strongly urge the Department to adopt the above recommendations to permit the RTCA, aircraft manufacturers, portable oxygen device manufacturers, and the FAA to develop the standards necessary for these entities to properly test and approve these devices for use onboard domestic and foreign commercial aircraft. Passengers should have the ability to use their personal oxygen devices in a safe and comfortable traveling environment. NACA endorses the comments and recommendations of the Air Carrier Association of America, the Air Transport Association of America, and the Regional Airline Association where they do not directly conflict with the NACA comments and recommendations herein. By: NACA, Ronald Priddy, 703-358-8060
January 30, 2006 Comments of Northwest Airlines - Bookmarked Northwest commends the Department for its attempt to increase access to air travel for passengers with respiratory ailments, passengers that Northwest has been working with and serving since the 1970s. The Department, however, lacks the authority to implement the proposal because it is both beyond the scope and intent of the ACAA and imposes undue financial and administrative burdens on air carriers. The NPRM’s costs to carriers will severely outweigh the benefits to passengers, and may result in increased costs for the traveling public as a whole. Further, with the NPRM, the Department has passed up the chance to legitimately assist passengers who require medical oxygen. Northwest suggests that the Department strongly consider ATA’s proposal to allow passengers to use their own POCs and set standards for testing and labeling for respiratory device manufacturers. The Department should use this opportunity to have a genuine impact on passengers with respiratory needs. Counsel: Northwest, Stanley Sandiford
January 30, 2006 Comments of The Paralyzed Veterans of America PVA first of all congratulates the Department for taking action on this issue. The cost of using carrier supplied oxygen has been prohibitive for our members and thousands of others with respiratory disabilities, and greatly limited travel opportunities. This proposed regulation is a major step in resolving this problem for oxygen users. These comments will address the issues in the order in which they are raised in the NPRM. PVA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation and urges the Department to expedite issuance of the final regulations and allow the FAA's determinations to take full effect. Counsel: PVA, Robert Herman, 202-416-7699, bobhn@pva.org
January 30, 2006 Qantas is committed to the carriage of passengers with a disability in a safe, nondiscriminatory manner with dignity and full rights as passengers. Qantas considers that Australia's well-established and comprehensive anti-discrimination laws should be recognized by the US DOT as equivalent in their provision of similar levels of protection for people with disabilities (including people who require the assistance of medical oxygen and/or portable respiratory assistive devices as a result of their disability). Nonetheless, even if Australia's legislative regime is not accepted by the US DOT as providing equivalent protection for people with disabilities, Qantas believes that all carriers should be able to charge for services provided, especially where the provision of the service is a significant and direct cost to the airline, such as in the provision of medical oxygen. In addition, whilst Qantas is keen to support any process of ensuring the safe carriage of medical oxygen and respiratory devices, it is not reasonable to place the burden of the testing and evaluation process upon the carrier. Manufacturers of respiratory devices and manufacturers of aircraft are best placed to jointly investigate and determine the safest method of carriage for all types of respiratory devices on all types of passenger aircraft. Assistance from passengers who travel with medical oxygen and/or respiratory assistive devices in the form of advance notice to carriers, as well as the carriage of sufficient battery life by the passengers for their assistive devices, will enable carriers to effectively prepare for a passenger's travel. If an approach of assistance and cooperation is adopted by all relevant parties, the carriage of passengers who require medical oxygen and/or respiratory assistive devices can be accommodated by airlines safely, effectively and cost efficiently. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Thomas Whalen, 202-289-0500
January 30, 2006 Comments of the Regional Airline Association RAA disputes the total annual benefits of the proposed rule (discounted to present value), ranging from $40.2 million to $100.6 million as stated in the Regulatory Analysis and Notices section. After review of the information provided by The Campbell-Hill Aviation Group, Inc. to ATA, it is apparent that DOT's contractor made numerous errors in determining the economic benefits of the proposal, including misrepresenting the baseline passenger data, miscalculating the potential profit benefits to airlines, and not adjusting the study to exclude the portion of medical oxygen users who are not business travelers. As the regulatory evaluation makes such gross errors in calculating benefits, DOT cannot reasonably determine that the benefits justify the costs the proposal would impose. In fact, if DOT were to consider the corrected data, RAA believes the benefits/cost ratio is less than one, meaning DOT cannot proceed with the proposed regulatory change. Accordingly, RAA requests that DOT withdraw the NPRM. By: RAA, Deborah McElroy, 202-637-1170, mcelroy@raa.org
January 30, 2006 Comments of Saudi Arabian Airlines Saudia objects to the proposal that airlines will be required to individually test the respiratory devices inasmuch as testing would be costly to the carriers. Saudia proposes that all testing be undertaken by the manufacturers and certified by the manufacturers as to (1) the type of aircraft on which the individual device can be used; and (2) the particular phases of the flight on which the device can be used. Certification of the devices for use on-board an aircraft provides a marketing advantage for the manufacturers, who could recoup the expense of testing by raising prices for the added “feature” of the device (i.e., the certification for on-board use), as well as expanded sales of the device. Saudia agrees to provide passengers with portable respiratory devices with the information necessary so that they can have a positive travel experience. However, Saudia foresees that problems may arise in connection with maintaining an accurate centralized list of approved and disapproved devices if the carriers are required to maintain the testing status of interline and codeshare carriers. In addition, Saudia predicts that developing and implementing a policy for handling new models of devices will be time consuming and expensive. Saudia currently provides oxygen to passengers free of charge. However, Saudia believes that allowing a passenger to rent pre-approved oxygen delivery kits from approved vendor is an alternative that the Department should consider. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
January 30, 2006 Comments of Southwest Airlines Clearly, the NPRM constitutes an undue burden on the airline industry, which for all the substantive and procedural legal objections asserted in the ATA comments, the Department may not lawfully impose. The NPRM must therefore be withdrawn. Alternatively, however. Southwest would support amendment of the Proposed Rule, as proposed by the AlA, to give air carriers the option either to provide medical oxygen at cost or permit passengers to use personal approved portable electronic respiration devices during flight. This proposed alternative would advance the Department's public policy objective of increasing accessibility of air travel to persons with respiratory disabilities, while avoiding imposition of an unwarranted and illegal economic and operational burden on an industry experiencing widespread bankruptcies and struggling just to break even. Counsel: Southwest, Richard Ketler, 214-792-6142
January 30, 2006 Having had the chance to review and digest the NPRM, Thomsonfly urges the Department to withdraw the proposed law as we believe the proposals are currently threatening flight safety, will raise serious security concerns and will pose significant operational and financial concerns as well as being illegal on the ground of extra-territoriality. Thomsonfly remains committed to ensuring the transport of disabled passengers but believes the proposed rule is unworkable, unsafe, and dangerous and place overly onerous requirements on the aviation industry. Thomsonfly believes it should be withdrawn until the concerns highlighted above have been addressed and rectified in dialogue with the Aviation industry. By: Thomsonfly, Danielle Chapman
January 30, 2006 US Airways contributed to and wholly supports the comments of the Air Transport Association filed today in this docket. In addition, US Airways files these individual comments to further amplify the significant burden on US Airways that would result from the Department’s proposal to require airlines to provide a free-of-charge medical oxygen service. None of the US Airways Group carriers transports hazardous materials. As a result, starting a medical oxygen program would require US Airways to pay for infrastructure development, staff training, and product deployment, as well as the day-to-day costs of providing the service itself. The Department should reconsider its proposed rule on this issue in light of the burden it would impose on carriers like US Airways that do not transport hazardous materials. As noted above, US Airways offers an alternative method of accommodating those passengers that require in-flight oxygen. Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 703-872-5230, howard_kass@usairways.com
January 30, 2006 WestJet is not opposed to the concept that society as a whole should subsidize the costs of providing free medical oxygen to individuals who require that service. WestJet is opposed to singling out air carriers in that regard. To the best of WestJet' s knowledge, the U.S. Government does not require railroads, cruise lines, commercial bus lines nor rental car companies to provide free medical oxygen upon demand. Going beyond transportation, WestJet queries whether other U.S. entities such as department and grocery stores, public and private universities and other schools, movie theaters and public and private offices are required to provide medical oxygen free of charge. For example, do the Department of Transportation and other U.S. Government offices provide free medical oxygen to employees and visitors having business at DOT and other government facilities? If the answer to any of these questions is no, WestJet respectfully submits that the NPRM fails to demonstrate why air transportation is so intrinsically different from every other facet of life so as to require such disparate treatment in this regard. Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Price Advertising
January 27, 2006 Re: Clarification Requested - email from Betsy Wolf to Bruce Bishins of USTAR Yes, the Department did mean to include the phrase "before the consumer makes the purchase" in the amendment proposed in Option II as it appears on page 73966 of the Federal Register, where all of the proposed changes to Part 399 are officially set forth. That phrase does not appear in Option II as discussed in the preamble, nor is it meant to. Thanks to imprecise editing by the FR, some of which was not cleared with us, there is a discrepancy between the option numbering in the preamble and the option numbering on page 73966. Option I in the preamble is the same as Option I on page 73966. Option II in the preamble does not appear at all on page 73966, because the FR does not permit inclusion in this section of proposed rule text that is neither novel nor a modification of existing text. Our Option II, as you know, proposes to modify our enforcement practice while leaving the text unchanged. Additionally, the FR does not allow the listing of two alternate suboptions as one option. It is therefore the first suboption of Option III in the preamble (see page 73964) that appears as Option II on page 73966. The second suboption of Option III in the preamble is page 73966's Option III. The two Option IVs are the same. As for your second question, I hope that the preamble makes clear that the first suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option II on page 73966) would require only disclosure of the total price before the consumer makes the purchase, while the second suboption of Option III (a/k/a Option III on page 73966) would require both this disclosure and disclosure in advertisements of all price elements so that the consumer can calculate the total price. By: DOT, Betsy Wolf
January 29, 2006 Comments of Colonial Connections, Inc. Consumers wish a full price before ordering airline tickets. Anything else is "bait & switch". My tour company has been successful for 16 years by sticking to a full disclosure up front of all costs. By: Colonial Connections, Philip Merrick
January 30, 2006 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||