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 February 13, 2006
Updated:
| Applications and Renewals:
Air Jamaica - US-Jamaica Open Skies Renewal Ameristar Charters - Certificates Renewal United - Route Integration Renewal and Amendment / Chicago-Cozumel Renewal Answers and Replies: EAS at Escanaba, MI - Proposal of Skyway Airlines d/b/a Midwest Connect EAS at Vernal and Moab, UT - DOT Letters to Mark Francis, Bill Johnson, William Kremin, Joette Langianese, David Sakrison and Tom Wardell NPRM on Price Advertising Rule - Comments of Aer Lingus, Air New Zealand, Air Tahiti Nui, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, American Society of Travel Agents, Apple Vacations, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Delta, Interactive Travel Services Associaton, National Association of Attorneys General, Northwest, Qantas Airways, Singapore Airlines, Southwest Airlines, The Practical Nomad, USA 3000 and USTAR SAP - Informative Motion Virgin America - Public Supplement of Continental Airlines to Motion for Additional Information and Documents and Motion for Confidential Treatment Notices of Action Taken: IATA - Approvals of Agreements USA 3000 - Denver-Cozumel; St. Louis-Cozumel Notices and Orders: None |
|||
|
OST-2004-17040 - US-Jamaica Open Skies Agreement February 13, 2006 Application for Renewal of an Exemption Air Jamaica is requesting renewal of its Open Skies exemption so that it will continue to be authorized to engage in the full range of scheduled and charter air services available to designated Jamaican carriers under the Open Skies Agreement. Renewal of such authority will allow Air Jamaica not only to maintain its existing U.S.-Jamaica services, but also to introduce new competitive services that will benefit the traveling and shipping public. Air Jamaica, the flag carrier of Jamaica, currently holds a foreign air carrier permit authorizing it, among other things, to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between points in Jamaica and the following coterminal points: Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland/Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; New York, New York; Orlando, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In addition to its permit, Air Jamaica holds exemptions authorizing it to provide scheduled and charter service under the October 30, 2002 U.S.-Jamaica aviation agreement and to provide service between the United States and certain other points in the Caribbean. Air Jamaica serves some of its exemption markets directly and serves others on a code-share basis with Delta. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, George Carneal, 202-637-6546, gucarneal@hhlaw.com Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. d/b/a Ameristar Charters OST-2003-16773 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Charter Passenger February 10, 2006 Application for Renewal of Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Ameristar hereby applies for renewal of its certificates of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation of persons pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §41102. Ameristar requests that these certificates be renewed and re-issued for an indefinite duration. Since issuance of the effective certificates, Ameristar has operated various sports team charters, corporate charters, and other single-entity charters. Ameristar continues to operate one Boeing 737 aircraft with 56 seats in an executive seating configuration. Ameristar has been marketing its passenger services and forecasts strong growth potential. However, Ameristar is unable to develop its passenger charter business to its full potential and is operating at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace because of the one year limitation in its certificates. Many potential customers seek long-term commitments to meet their transportation needs. Sports teams and other potential customers secure charter contracts well in advance, and require firm commitments to ensure that their transportation needs will be met throughout an entire season. Many of the business opportunities available to Ameristar involve charters to be operated after the expiration date of its passenger authority. In order for Ameristar to meet the needs of these customers and provide firm assurances that it can fulfill their transportation requirements both in the short-term and in the long-term, it is imperative that Ameristar's underlying certificates be issued for an unlimited duration. Absent renewal of its certificates as requested, Ameristar stands to lose critical business opportunities and will be impeded in its efforts to develop and grow a profitable passenger charter operation. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Sheryl Israel, 202-637-8898, sisrael@hhlaw.com Essential Air Service at Escanaba, Michigan February 10, 2006 Proposal of Skyway Airlines d/b/a Midwest Connect I am pleased to submit Skyway Airlines’, d/b/a Midwest Connect, an affiliate of Midwest Airlines, Inc., proposal to continue providing Essential Air Service to the community of Escanaba, Michigan for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008. Under our proposal, Escanaba will continue to be provided service with our 19-seat Beechcraft 1900D aircraft. All flights will flow through our passenger-friendly hub in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. From Milwaukee, these flights can connect to more than 40 cities via Midwest Airlines and Midwest Connect. Enclosed with this letter is an economic analysis of our proposal. The enclosures describe the level of service to be provided, operating statistics and Skyway‑developed revenue assumptions predicated on prevailing average fares and prorate. During 2005, Skyway carried 19,029 passengers into and out of Escanaba. Our business plan anticipates a 3.6% increase to 19,711 passengers in 2006. For expenses, we either used allocated forecasted actual costs (with all allocations shown for clarity) or forecasted actual costs developed in the course of preparation of the financial analysis. The costs and expenses are conservative and indicate an annual subsidy requirement for Skyway's service offering. Although the required subsidy has increased from our current contract, the increases are appropriate in light of our increased costs, including dramatic and sustained increases in the cost of fuel. By: Skyway, Anthony Intravaia
Essential Air Service at Vernal and Moab, Utah OST-1997-2827 - Moab, UT February 10, 2006 DOT Letters to:
This letter is sent to update you on the status of proposals for Essential Air Service at Vernal and Moab. The Department of Transportation issued Order 2005-12-11, soliciting proposals from all interested air carriers to provide EAS, for a new two-year term on December 21, 2005. In response, the Department received proposals from the following carriers: Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., Salmon Air and Air Midwest. A summary of each carrier’s proposal was described in our letter to you dated February 2, 2006. On February 9, 2006, Salmon Air informed the Department that it was withdrawing its proposed service option utilizing 9-passenger, single-engine, pressurize cabin aircraft (Option 2) from consideration. As discussed in our previous letter, the Great Lakes proposal exceeded the statutory limitations imposed on the EAS Program and can not be considered. The remaining four service options currently under review by the Department include: Salmon Air’s Option One and Air Midwest’s three options. We request that you continue to review each service option currently under consideration and submit any comments you may have before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary. We ask that you submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but have extended the comment period to no later than March 5, 2006. By: Dennis DeVany
International Air Transport Association
Filed December 2, 2005 | Approved February 8, 2006 By: John Kiser
Filed January 10, 2006 | Approved February 8, 2006 By: John Kiser
February 13, 2006 Aer Lingus Limited generally supports the current DOT enforcement policy in relation to price advertising, which permits carriers to exclude certain government- imposed or approved taxes and fees from advertised fares provided that the existence and grand total of these taxes is clearly stated in the advertisement. Consequently, Aer Lingus believes that the Department's Option 1, which would retain the status quo, is the correct choice for genuine fare advertising. Clear advertising rules are necessary to ensure consistency and fair competition between airlines and to protect the interests of consumers. For that reason, Aer Lingus strongly opposes total de-regulation under Option 4. We believe that the current approach strikes the correct balance by permitting airlines to highlight taxes and charges that are imposed by third parties and therefore outside airlines' control while ensuring that consumers have access to full information on the total fare payable. Nevertheless, Aer Lingus urges the Department not to treat fare displays on carrier websites as fare advertising and, in order to clarify the scope of the rules, to define the term "advertisement." Counsel: Aer Lingus, Laurence Gourley, laurence.gourley@aerlingus.com
February 13, 2006 Air New Zealand believes that with some improvements, Option I would work best for both consumers and airlines. Consumers are assured of sufficient information to determine the full price of a fare when they need it. Air New Zealand would urge the Department to clarify the exceptions and explanations given in Option I by giving concrete real-life examples. Counsel: Fulbright & Jaworski, Susan Gotbetter, 212-318-3121, sgotbetter@fulbright.com
February 13, 206 Air Tahiti Nui suggests that the Department adopt Option III(b), which would amend the current regulation to allow carriers to separately set out all taxes, fees and surcharges in fare advertisements (whether or not they are government-imposed), and require that all elements not included in the advertised fare be set forth somewhere in the advertisement so that the consumer can determine the total fare for air transportation. Air Tahiti Nui further suggests that this option only be applied to print media and internet advertisements, while providing a tailored regulation for radio, television and billboard advertisements. Counsel: Condon & Forsyth, Evelyn Sahr, 202-289-0500
February 13, 2006 Alaska believes the Department should maintain the status quo in its approach to price advertising regulation and enforcement. More specifically, DOT should leave § 399.84 as written, but continue its current enforcement policy. The Department's price advertising policies should promote fair and unbiased disclosure, not serve to mislead consumers or create a differential "gaming" opportunity for competitors. Though imperfect, current regulatory and enforcement policies have proven to be fairly effective at protecting consumers and discouraging improper competitive practices by the airlines. We do not believe the options for change to the status quo, presented in the NPRM, will as capably balance the singular interest of consumers in clarity of price with the varied and divergent interests of airlines. In short, DOT should not change a system that works. Counsel: Alaska, Megan Lawrence, 202-626-6781, megan.lawrence@alaskaair.com
February 13, 2006 Fare‑setting by the Federal Government ended long ago under the Airline Deregulation Act. The Department's price advertising rule, inherited from the Civil Aeronautics Board, should similarly be terminated in favor of the competitive market. Airlines should be treated the same as other industries with respect to advertising, without a Federal rule that applies only to air transportation. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
February 13, 2006 Comments of the American Society of Travel Agents We are not aware of the basis for the Department’s assertion that consumers are more sophisticated now than they were, say, five years ago, or even 20 years ago for that matter. Many consumers certainly have acquired new facility with electronic communications, but possession of that skill does not imply that they are less gullible or less easily confused. If “consumer sophistication” is to be the lynchpin of a radical new policy, something more than a bald assertion of its existence is required. There is, moreover, no evidence in this record, or elsewhere to our knowledge, to support the idea that application of the One-Price Policy has interfered with rational consumer decision-making or with competition. In short, there is nothing about “current conditions that warrants relaxation or cancellation of a policy that has been repeatedly and aggressively applied for more than two decades. Counsel: ASTA, Paul Ruden, 703-739-6854, pruden@astahq.com
February 13, 2006 After consideration of the options being considered by the Department, Apple Vacations submits that, based upon its experience in the market, of the four options being considered, Option 1 should be adopted by the Department; namely that the Department’s “full-fare” advertising policy should continue unchanged and the current practice of permitting only certain government-imposed taxes, fees and other charges to be “netted-out’’ of a stated price provided these charges are collected on a per-passenger basis and that elsewhere in the advertisement the existence and amount of these charges arc clearly stated so as to enable the consumer to compute the total price to be paid, should continue to be permitted. Apple Vacations further submits that this practice should be codified. Counsel: Pierre Murphy, 202-776-3980, pmurphy@lopmurphy.com
February 13, 2006 Although after considerable deliberation British Airways is unable to wholeheartedly endorse any one of the four alternative options presented in the NPRM, certain modifications are suggested to the existing requirements as well as to the Department's current enforcement policy. The NPRM asserts that the Department will reexamine its fare-advertising rule and enforcement policy, and is considering four alternative options. Given the extraordinary range of possible outcomes proposed by the NPRM, it might be appropriate to treat it as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and to issue a new NPRM following review of the comments submitted in this docket. That new NPRM could more fully discuss the cost-benefit consequences of a single option proposed by the Department. Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970
February 13, 2006 Comments of Cathay Pacific Airways Cathay Pacific agrees that rapid changes in the marketplace justify a more flexible regulatory approach to price advertising. The "constant technological flux" DOT recognizes on page 73,964 has had an extraordinary impact on airline distribution practices in the last ten years. And there is every reason to expect that the pace of technological change will continue, particularly with respect to mobile devices (frequently used by travelers) and the format of electronic marketing and sales. Other aspects of the marketplace can change quickly, too. For example, many carriers have sought to accommodate insurance and fuel price "spikes" in the last live years through surcharges rather than wholesale fare revisions. Finally, the marketing cultures and price regulatory systems of other countries often differ from the U.S.; insurance and fuel surcharges, for example, are recognized and permitted in some other countries. Flexibility in the Department's own policy could allow carriers to better harmonize their pricing policies throughout their network. A system that requires disclosure of the total price at sale and the elements of price in advertising is a positive way to balance these issues, carriers' desires to respond to market forces with maximum flexibility, and consumers' desires to obtain meaningful fare information efficiently. It would allow carriers and the Department to dispense with the often-complex task of identifying charges (particularly those from other countries) that may be stated separately from those that may not be stated separately under current Comments DOT policy. It also may reduce the competitive distortions possible when carriers and distribution channels, such as Internet travel sites, differ on the proper application to Internet advertisements and transactions of today's tightly-prescriptive DOT policies. At the same time, this option will preserve a basic standard for price advertising that the Department can enforce. Cathay Pacific believes such a standard is important to reduce the risk of a chaotic marketplace adjustment when the existing policy is altered. Counsel: DLA Piper Rudnick, John Mietus, 202-861-6466, john.mietus@dlapiper.com
February 13, 2006 Comments of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked The Department's current rule and enforcement policy with respect to airline pricing was developed in an era when access to information concerning air carrier fares was much more limited than it is today. Detailed prescriptive regulation of carrier fare advertising is no longer necessary or appropriate when consumers can quickly and easily obtain direct access to and compare carriers' fares through a wide array of sources, including the Internet. Moreover, the enforcement policy that has evolved over the years now expressly prohibits some kinds of price advertising that are clearly not deceptive and should be permitted. The Department is therefore correct in concluding that this policy is ripe for reexamination. Delta urges the Department to modernize its policy with respect to price advertising, consistent with deregulation statutory policy, by adopting either Option III-A or IV. This will allow the content of fare advertising to be determined by the competitive marketplace, subject to the Department's continuing ability to take enforcement actions in those circumstances where carriers are determined to have engaged in unfair and deceptive advertising practices. Counsel: Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
February 13, 2006 Comments of the Interactive Travel Services Association This proceeding is of concern, primarily, to the online travel distribution company members of ITSA since whatever approach DOT adopts could have a direct bearing on the manner in which fares are displayed and advertised by these entities. Online travel distribution companies provide detailed and comparative airline fare information (and other travel-related information) directly to millions of consumers each year. The sales made through these online companies constitute a major and growing source of airline revenues. Indeed, these companies have served to open up direct access to more airline fare and related travel information than consumers have ever had before. The online travel distribution companies thus provide an engine for airline competition that is available at any hour to millions of persons at home and at work. DOT should not adopt any rules that would stifle the utility of information made available to consumers by online companies or by other means, or stifle innovative ways of displaying fares in a manner that is not deceptive. The only rules that should be adopted by the Department are those that are required to advance the section 41712 goal of ensuring that consumers are not subjected to deceptive or unfair fare advertisements and displays. The key interest at stake here, i.e., the interest of consumers in clearly stated, non-deceptive information about the total price that they will pay for air transportation, should be the guiding principle in this proceeding. Further, enforcement actions by DOT in this area should be based on a "likelihood of deception or the capacity to deceive" standard, as described at page 73965 of the NPRM. Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, David Coburn, 202-429-8063, dcoburn@steptoe.com
February 13, 2006 Comments of the National Association of Attorneys General The Attorneys General support and advocate Option H, the position the Department has taken these last 22 years, which requires that in advertisements of air transportation, the price advertised must be the full price that the consumer will pay. The Department's Statements of General Policy 1 provide that the Department considers any advertisement of passenger air transportation that does not state the entire price the consumer must pay to be an unfair or deceptive practice. The Attorneys General are preempted from enforcing their consumer protection laws against air carriers.2 If we could, we would argue in concert with the Department's long held position, and its rule, that it is deceptive to advertise a price for air transportation which is not the full price a passenger must pay to obtain that advertised transportation. In that neither the states nor the FTC can bring deceptive advertising actions against air carriers, the Department is the only agency that can protect the public from deceptive air fare advertising. Thus, it is important that the Department continue to regard the failure of any advertiser to state the entire price a consumer must pay to obtain the advertised good or service as a violation of its regulations. By: Sarah Reznek
February 13, 2006 Comments of Northwest Airlines Northwest proposes that Option III(1) be adopted and that Option III(2) also be adopted but made voluntary on the part of the air carrier rather than madatory. Since the Price essentially provides the consumer with nearly all the information needed to make a purchase decision, and the consumer also has the ability to compare fares for that flight with other carriers or any of the varieties of travel agents, the carriers should be otherwise permitted to order their ads as they think appropriate to their particular needs, including the right, if it chooses, to make a separate statement of all elements of the price of a ticket. Air carriers or other advertisers should have the option -- whatever their legitimate business considerations -- to decide which alternative they choose. Advertisers should be free to display a stepladder arrangement, starting with the Base Fare (with no elements included therein), provided all other elements, including fuel surcharges and the 7 1/2% excise in the manner that government-imposed taxes and charges are presently shown. Counsel: Northwest, John Williams, 617-727-6825
February 13, 2006 While Qantas supports the continuation of the present policy, Qantas strongly supports its codification. The current policy is not set forth in any one place but rather in a series of orders, notices, and letters that the Department has issued over the years since the Civil Aeronautics Board adopted the current, official, rule in § 399.84 that on its face provides that carriers can only advertise the entire price, including taxes, that a consumer must pay. It is not an ideal approach to government to have one rule "on the books," ostensibly to establish a required standard of conduct, and then to have that rule obviated or modified by the "enforcement policy" of a governmental agency. the weakness of regulating via enforcement policy is that such a policy could, at some future point, be unilaterally suspended, without the notice and comment that are necessary to modify a codified policy. Counsel: Roller & Bauer, Moffett Roller, 202-331-3300, mroller@rollerbauer.com
February 13, 2006 Comments of Singapore Airlines SIA has long taken the position that governments should minimize regulatory burdens on airlines, and that competition should be driven by market forces, not regulatory fiat. SIA just as strongly believes that competition should be fair, and enable consumers to accurately compare the competing services on offer. As a carrier which offers both world-class service and highly competitive fares, SIA believes that the public can make truly informed choices only if they are able to make “apples-to-apples” comparisons of their travel options. Thus, passengers should have a transparent framework which enables them to compare their travel options. By requiring that passengers be quoted an “all in” price (with limited exceptions for PFCs and certain other fees), the DOT rule gives passengers the means of making these comparisons. To that end, SIA supports the retention of DOT’s current substantive rule. Counsel: Garfinkle Wang, Anita Mosner, 703-294-5890
February 13, 2006 Comments of Southwest Airlines In this case, however, Southwest strongly believes that the Department’s full-price advertising policy should remain in place, with only one modification discussed below. The requirement for airlines to state the entire price a passenger must pay is as necessary today as it was when it was first adopted over two decades ago. This sensible rule protects the public from misleading or incomplete fare advertisements, and also enhances price competition among airlines by allowing consumers to make apples-to-apples fare comparisons. Therefore the Department should continue to prohibit airlines (or any other advertisers of air transportation) from removing any charges from the base fare that are entirely under the carriers’ control. Any departure from this rule would invite mischief and deception in the advertising of air transportation that would serve to mislead consumers and undermine airline price competition. The one modification we seek concerns the presentation of the government-imposed taxes and fees that carriers are currently permitted to state separately from the base fare. The current requirement to list each such tax or fee individually is confusing to the traveling public and unduly burdensome to airlines. Southwest urges the Department to allow greater flexibility in this respect, specifically that carriers be permitted to state the total potential tax burden that applies to the advertised air transportation instead of having to list each and fee individually. Counsel: Southwest, Robert Kneisley, 202-263-6284, bob.kneisley@wnco.com
February 13, 2006 Comments of The Practical Nomad As a travel writer, consumer advocate, and travel agent, I hear constantly from travellers who have been misled by airline advertising of “prices” other than total prices. I urge you to adopt Option II in the NRPM, and begin to enforce the existing regulations that prohibit this deceptive practice. By: Edward Hasbrouck, 415-825-0214, edward@hasbrouck.org
February 13, 2006 After consideration of the options being considered by the Department, USA 3000 submits that, based upon its experience in the market, of the four options being considered, Option 1 should be adopted by the Department; namely that the Department’s “full-fare” advertising policy should continue unchanged and the current practice of permitting only certain government-imposed taxes, fees and other charges to be “netted-out’’ of a stated price provided these charges are collected on a per-passenger basis and that elsewhere in the advertisement the existence and amount of these charges are clearly stated so as to enable the consumer to compute the total price to be paid, should continue to be permitted. USA 3000 further submits that this practice should be codified. Counsel: Pierre Murphy, 202-776-3980, pmurphy@lopmurphy.com
February 12, 2006 Comments of the United States Travel Agent Registry The Department rightly points to certain difficulties in advertising the true total amount to be paid which may vary based on certain taxes which are routing sensitive. USTAR is concerned that the Department would allow an advertiser to nonetheless be in compliance if the advertiser set forth a “range of prices” (minimum and maximum) or used qualifying language such as “from” along with the minimum price. USTAR feels that these exceptions will contribute to even more confusion and will dilute the Department’s ultimate objective in providing consumers with reliable and clear pricing. USTAR is also concerned that such exceptions could be exploited by advertisers in that every fare has a myriad of potential routings and it would be nearly impossible to isolate the specific routing for which the minimum fare quote may apply. Furthermore, we do not agree with the Department’s contention that an issue for consideration should focus on the fact that consumers may be deprived of “potentially useful information concerning the composition of air fares” or the “flexibility long enjoyed by sellers” if advertisers were to cease providing a separate breakdown of tax, fee, and charge components. By: USTAR, Bruce Bishins, 416-922-8911, bbishins@ustar.com
February 13, 2006 Servicios Aereos Profesionales, S.A. OST-2005-22601 - Complaint Against Embraer Aircraft, Embraer Finance Ltd., John Doe and Jane Doe - Fraud, Breach of Contract, Misleading, False Representation and Warranties February 13, 2006 The documents submitted herein is an Order to Show Cause from the Supreme Court of the State of New York in a case filed by Embraer, in our case the defendant. The document is self explanatory. Again, Embraer was trying to obtain a summary judgment against SAP. Defendant Embraer using unethical tactics and misrepresentations to the Supreme Court of the State of New York obtained a summary judgment which now will be vacate and other remedies that the Honorable Supreme Court will issue against Embraer. A date for a hearing has been scheduled for February 21, 2006. Counsel: Luis Irizarry
OST-1997-2126 - Route Integration February 13, 2006 Application for Renewal and Amendment of an Exemption United's authority to integrate all of its existing certificate and exemption authority was last renewed by Notice of Action Taken, dated April 16, 2004, in the above-captioned docket. The authority is currently effective through April 16, 2006. United hereby requests renewal of its exemption authority for a minimum period of two years or until it is granted a blanket route integration certificate. United also requests that its route integration exemption be amended to include prospectively granted certificate and exemption route authority in accordance with the tentative decision of the Department in Docket OST-2005-22228 to grant carriers blanket route integration certificates covering all current and prospective route authorities. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Jeffrey Manley, 202-663-6670, jeffrey.manley@wilmerhale.com
OST-2004-17490 - Chicago-Cozumel February 13, 2006 Application for Renewal of an Exemption United hereby requests renewal of its exemption authority for a minimum period of two years or until its current certificate for Route 566 is amended to include the Chicago-Cozumel route segment. Due to the devastation of Cozumel caused by Hurricane Wilma, United is not operating service in this market for the Winter 2005-2006 season, but United intends to resume seasonal nonstop service between Chicago and Cozumel with its own aircraft on or before December 16, 2006. Renewal of this exemption authority is clearly in the public interest, and United requests renewal of its exemption based on the original findings that the proposed services are fully consistent with the bilateral air transportation agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Jeffrey Manley, 202-663-6670, jeffrey.manley@wilmerhale.com OST-2004-19966 - Denver-Cozumel Filed January 20, 2006 | Approved February 13, 2006 Department Action on Application We will require the carrier to institute services in the Denver-Cozumel and St. Louis-Cozumel markets no later than December 15, 2006. By: Esta Rosenberg OST-2005-23307 - Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity - Interstate Scheduled Passenger
February 13, 2006 Public Supplement of Continental Airlines to Motion for Additional Information and Documents The Department should thus secure further information, agreements and documents concerning the prior relationships and ties of Fred Reid and all other such persons with Virgin Related Entities, Fund Investors and ultimate providers of funding for the Fund Investors' investments in Virgin America. As the Department has recognized, contracts with foreign entities may not be used to control a U.S. air carrier and supermajority vote items that give minority foreign owners disproportionate influence with their voting rights are also prohibited. Press reports indicate that Donald Carty was recently brought into Virgin America to address Fund Investors' lack of airline experience and that he has taken a small equity holding in Virgin America. Virgin America has not submitted any information regarding this change in its management structure nor disclosed any documents or other information relating to Mr. Carty, his ties to Virgin Related Entities or his continuing relationship with Porter Airlines, where he serves as chairman, and Hawaiian Airlines, where he is a member of the Board of Directors. Thus, the extent of Mr. Carty's actual involvement in Virgin America is unclear. The Department and interested parties need to know all relevant details of Mr. Carty's involvement to determine whether his involvement is anything more than additional window-dressing. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500, rbkeiner@crowell.com
February 13, 2006 Motion of Continental Airlines for Confidential Treatment Continental moves to withhold from public disclosure the confidential version of its supplement to its motion for additional information and documents from Virgin America submitted to the Department today. Continental’s confidential supplement contains information from documents for which access has been limited by the Department’s confidential treatment rules and Order 2005-12-13. Accordingly, Continental asks for confidential treatment of the confidential version of its supplement submitted today to the Department. Continental’s public version of its supplement contains the bracketed word “CONFIDENTIAL” to show where confidential information has been removed. Continental’s confidential supplement is being served only on counsel for the applicants and other counsel who have submitted valid confidentiality affidavits in this docket. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500, rbkeiner@crowell.com |
|||