OST Docket Filings for March 27, 2007

Aer Lingus Limited has polled the U.S. carrier parties served with the above-referenced application submitted March 23, 2007. With the exception of United Air Lines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc., from whom we have not yet received final responses, we have heard from all such carriers and have not received any objections. We will report United's and American's responses as soon as we receive them.

We note that in paragraph 3 of the application, we inadvertently referred to the previous provisional application date for the Air Transport Agreement between the United States, on the one hand, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other. We intended to refer to the March 30, 2008 provisional application date and regret any inconvenience.

Aer Lingus Limited has heard from United Air Lines, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc., both of which indicated that they have no objection to Aer Lingus' March 23, 2007 exemption application submitted in the above-referenced matter. Aer Lingus now has received responses from all U.S. carrier parties served in this matter and has not received any objections.

Aer Lingus urgently requests the most expedited action on its application for an exemption, and that it be granted immediately.

Exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit the applicant to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Shannon and Dublin, Ireland, on the one hand, and Washington, D.C. (Dulles); Orlando, Florida; and San Francisco, California, on the other hand.

Aer Lingus states that it initially proposes to operate four weekly Ireland‑Washington, D.C. flights commencing on or about September 3, 2007, along with four weekly Ireland‑San Francisco flights and three weekly Ireland‑Orlando flights commencing during the week of October 28, 2007.

I am writing to advise the Department of Transportation that Alaska Airlines has completed its telephone poll of all persons served with the application in the captioned docket. Alaska has been informed that no person intends to comment on Alaska's application. Alaska therefore requests that the Department grant prompt approval to Alaska's pending exemption application.

Challenge Air Luftverkehrs GmbH hereby applies for renewal of an exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to permit Challenge Air to continue to operate the following flights using small aircraft: (1) charter operations, carrying persons, property and mail, between any point or points in Germany and any point or points in the United States; and between any point or points in the United States and any point or points in a third country or countries, provided that, except with respect to cargo charters, such service constitutes part of a continuous operation, with or without a change of aircraft, that includes service to Germany for the purpose of carrying local traffic between Germany and the United States; and (2) other charter operations pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 212.

Challenge Air's exemption authority was initially granted for a period of two years by Notice of Action Taken dated March 29, 2002, and last renewed for an additional two years by Notice of Action Taken dated March 28, 2005 (Docket OST-2001-11057). Challenge Air requests that its exemption be renewed for an additional period of two years, or until the Department's final determination on Challenge Air's Application for a Foreign Air Carrier Permit pending in Docket OST-2001-11058, as supplemented, whichever occurs earlier.

The Association of Air Medical Services writes to you today to regarding the practice of informing passengers on Part 135 flights of the name of the company with operational control of the flight and any subsequent “doing business as” prior to the departure of the flight. While AAMS understands the need for this type of information in establishing the name of the flight’s operator, AAMS would like to recommend that the Department of Transportation exempt air medical services from any requirements of this type. Air medical service aircraft transport critically ill and injured patients; these patients are often the only passengers on air medicals service aircraft, and, due to their medical condition, would not be able to take advantage of this information. AAMS also believes that taking time to provide this information to patients in this condition in emergency medical situations may distract air medical services crews from their primary medical and aviation missions.

AMI Jet Charter endorses the NATA suggestion that the air taxi operator completing the flight (here, AMI Jet Charter) be the party responsible for advising the customer that it has operational control and that this disclosure should be made at any time prior to engine start. AMI Jet Charter believes the notification should be accomplished through an express communication. AMI Jet Charter believes this should be established as the minimum requirement and allow air taxi operators to determine how they can best accomplish this task, including notification by the air taxi's appointed agent.

Almost all the components/information that this potential rulemaking contemplates is available from government databases; you need to know where to look, and look regularly. Without marketing hyperbole, our company will have a system available by the end of April which would meet and exceed the principle requirements of this rulemaking. Prior to each trip, the consumer, broker, or operator can generate a PASS (Pilot & Aircraft Safety Survey) which generates a one page form, identifying the operator, their DBAs, the broker, the itinerary details, along with related safety information.

What the DOT has done to this point; severely curtailing brokers and others from 'holding out', has gone a long way to clarifying the role of the broker and the operator. At the time of signing the contract, there should be guidelines in place as to what will occur next. If it is a broker, the contract should clearly state that they do not operate the aircraft. But for a number of reasons, the exact aircraft or operator may not be known at contract signing (certainly is the case in card programs, fractionals etc.). Even operators with large fleets often procure supplemental lift at the last minute. Before the passenger boards the aircraft (a day, x hours ?), the information should be provided which makes the flight compliant with the rulemaking (this implies that the notification can me made more than once, as modifications are made to the aircraft, operator etc).

There are practical problems without a database as described. The information is tedious to procure, and often not accurate, and outdated. The system as developed here enables a PASS to be printed locally, or emailed immediately; and available to all.

TAG USA endorses the NATA suggestion that the air taxi operator completing the flight be the party responsible for advising the customer of the entity with operational control (itself) at any time prior to engine start. TAG USA believes the notification should be accomplished through an express communication. TAG USA believes this should be established as the minimum requirement and allow air taxi operators to determine how they can best accomplish this task, including notification by the air taxi's appointed agent.

I am writing to express my concern with your Division’s recent decision awarding the Essential Air Service contract for Clovis and Silver City to Great Lakes Airlines. My concern is not with the selection of Great Lakes but with the changes in both communities route restructuring. Great Lakes currently provide service from both communities to Albuquerque which is the desired destination of both communities. Clovis also has limited service to Denver as well.

The recent award notification to both communities would totally eliminate service to Albuquerque from both cities replacing it with Denver from Clovis and Phoenix from Silver City. In discussions with city officials from both communities, the elimination of Albuquerque in the route structure is not acceptable. Clovis definitely wants the Albuquerque destination and having Denver as a second destination, as is currently the case, is an added bonus. However, they do not want to drop Albuquerque in favor of Denver as is currently planned. Silver City also desires to keep Albuquerque in their route structure but had requested DoT consider adding some flights to Phoenix in addition (similar to Denver for Clovis). Apparently this was not clear in the February 14, 2007 letter Jon Paul Saari, Grant County Manager submitted to you prior to the final airline and route structure determination.

I am requesting your staff re-evaluate this route structure change. Would it be possible to revoke this current award and return to the current route structure for both communities? I believe this would be acceptable to both Great Lakes and each community. I would greatly appreciate anything you could do to provide the desired air service to these two New Mexico communities.

This is a letter requesting the Department of Transportation to initiate a formal review of Essential Air Service requirements for Pago Pago, American Samoa. We have not had such a review for over 22 years. The last one was contained in an EAS Order 1984-10-18 in EAS Docket 633 in 1984. We request that at least the last six years of traffic between Pago Pago and Honolulu be reviewed in detail to provide an understanding of our present requirements.

During this time period, and especially in most recent years, it has been impossible for the people in our community to make a reservation to Honolulu from circa the middle of May for travel during the month of June. All three flights scheduled weekly in June by Hawaiian Airlines, the sole carrier operating on this route, are regularly sold out by mid May, and people are told that they will have to wait until the following July to have an opportunity to leave the Territory for the United States.

Hawaiian Airlines, being well aware of this shortfall in available seats, has nevertheless, year after year, refused to provide additional lift. Consequently, there is need for Hawaiian Airlines to be ordered to operate a fourth weekly flight during the month of June, as an EAS requirement.

We would be grateful if a revised EAS Order could be issued in time to correct the annual degradation of service that commences at the end of May through the month of June.

Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-3300, rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

Renewal of exemption from 49 USC 41301 to permit the applicant to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between: 1) Hermosillo, Mexico, and Las Vegas, Nevada; and 2) Tijuana, Mexico, and Oakland, California.

Atlas states it would welcome U.S. and Venezuela intergovernmental negotiations for the purpose of amending the current bilateral agreement with an expansion or rights for both U.S. and Venezuela air carriers. Santa Barbara concurs with the concept that new bilateral talks could be useful. But Santa Barbara does not believe that it would be in the public interest to deny or delay action on Santa Barbara's application pending such talks and it strongly opposes Atlas' gratuitous suggestion that the Department should take such a position. Santa Barbara urges the Department to evaluate the very significant benefits being enjoyed by the U.S. carriers under the present arrangements between the two countries and in recognition thereof, grant the relief requested by Santa Barbara including services via Colombia.

Upon review of Santa Barbara's application, FedEx Express did the right thing. It investigated whether INAC would be amenable to considering extra-bilateral authority for its Venezuela service and received an informal positive response. An application for fifth freedom rights has been filed by FedEx Express with INAC and is now pending. (FedEx Express Answer at p. 3). Santa Barbara has not responded as of this date regarding the FedEx Express proposal or otherwise stated any position on the application other than as herein reflected. Specifically it is Santa Barbara's position that the Department should not delay action or disapprove the Santa Barbara request pending INAC's action on FedEx Express' application. This reflects the fact that there already exists clear evidence of reciprocity and comity supporting an award to Santa Barbara and the fact of the significant dominance enjoyed by the U.S. carriers currently serving the Venezuela markets in terms of numbers of carriers, numbers of flight operated, fifth, sixth and seventh freedom rights exercised, and the total volume of traffic carried. The shipping public and fair competition deserves the encouragement of Venezuela all-cargo operations including fifth freedom operation in the conduct of U.S.-Venezuela all-cargo services as proposed by Santa Barbara.

In consideration of all of the foregoing and such other matters as the Department can take official notice, Santa Barbara Airlines, C.A. respectfully requests that the Department of Transportation, acting pursuant to 49 U.S.C. section 40109, will grant an exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 41301 authorizing Applicant to engage in the scheduled all-cargo foreign air transportation as described, by amendment to its current authority or such other authority as the Department determines to be appropriate, and take such other or further action, consistent with the premises herein, as may be in the public interest.