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
Updated:
Virgin America, Inc. Filings - 2008
Counsel: Pillsbury Wintrhop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000, kquinn@pillsburylaw.com
Virgin America 2005 Filings
Virgin America 2006 Filings
Virgin America 2007 Filings
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality
March 14, 2008
Motion for Confidential Treatment
Virgin America began service in August 2007, and, during the October-December 2007 reporting period, served a total of six point-to-point markets: SFO-LAX, JFK, lAD and LAS; and LAX-JFK and lAD. Public release of the detailed operational, traffic and financial data contained in Virgin America's Fonn 41 submissions would cause Virgin America to suffer substantial competitive hann because the local nature of traffic in its point-to-point markets and the limited number of aircraft types operated will pennit Virgin America's competitors to: (1) obtain commercially sensitive competitive infonnation on Virgin America's service in these markets; and (2) accurately calculate a variety of market-specific information, including cost per available seat mile, yield, revenue per available seat mile and profit margins.
Although the public release of this Form 41 data has the potential to harm Virgin America competitively, the exclusion of the detailed Virgin America-specific data for a limited time period will have no appreciable effect on the Department's overall data collection and industry analysis efforts. First, Virgin America's operations during this initial phase of its service accounts for only 0.4 % of the total U.S. domestic available seat miles otherwise reported by the Department. Second, Virgin America will, in fact, be filing this data with the Department, albeit confidentially, so that the Department can use this data internally when carrying out its aviation policies, including its need to closely monitor the industry. At bottom, the purpose of the Department's Form 41 reporting requirements "is to provide Congress, DOT, and other Federal agencies with uniform and comprehensive aviation data that are accurate, timely, and relevant for use in making aviation policy decisions and administering aviation-related programs,"' not to provide detailed and sensitive information to carriers on their competitors' market-specific costs and profit margins, to wield as a weapon to thwart competition.
Counsel: Virgin America, David Pflieger, 650-762-7115, dave.pflieger@virginamerica.com
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality
March 24, 2008
Answer of American Airlines and Motion for Expedited Final Decision
It would be highly unfair, prejudicial to other reporting carriers and adverse to the public interest to withhold Virgin America's data when the data submitted by all other carriers is released immediately. Timely release of carrier data is the key to its usefulness.
There is nothing unique about Virgin America that could justify the unique treatment it is seeking. Public disclosure of data enumerated in Part 241 is one of the obligations that comes with being a certificated carrier. If Virgin America's request were granted, other carriers would also attempt to opt out of the public data system by applying for confidential treatment of their submissions, and the data that did remain publicly available would be of diminished utility to the numerous stakeholders identified in the NPRM.
The Director should on an expedited bases issue a final order denying Virgin America's motion for confidential treatment, without awaiting staff action and a petition for review.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 24, 2008
As with the ExpressJet request, the relief requested by Virgin America could undermine the inherent usefulness of such data collected by the Department, on which many other entities besides Virgin America's competitors rely. Although Virgin America focuses on the potential for competitors to access and review its Form 41 Schedules data, it ignores that this data is used for several other purposes as well, including airports, consumers, manufacturers, industry associations, consultants, academics, researchers, financial analysts, investors, and the general public.
It must be said that its application appears to be an effort to game the system, and by filing its request and having all of its data withheld while the process moves to its completion, Virgin America is forcing the Department to dedicate its limited resources to an issue it has just resolved. jetBlue believes that the Department should not allow this game to again be played and it should summarily deny Virgin America's request. It is unfair to the traveling public and to all carriers to allow such a process whereby, by the mere filing of its motion, Virgin America makes its Form 41 Schedules data confidential until a decision is made by the Department on its motion.
Counsel: Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill, 202-776-2000
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Traffic and Financial Schedules
March 25, 2008
Answer of Alaska Airlnes and Motion for Expedited Decision
Virgin America’s request is so sweeping that it would have been far simpler for it to list the reports it is willing to make–examining the full list of required reports reveals that Virgin America evidently believes that it should only file monthly reports of its fuel consumption (Schedule P-12(a)) and annual reports of the number of its employees (Schedule P-10). Presumably, Virgin America is willing to make these reports because they provide information of little or no competitive interest to anyone.
And it is on exactly this point that Virgin America’s request in this docket rings especially ironic given that carrier’s many earlier statements about how it views its primary mission as one of introducing a new and enhanced level of competition. See Docket OST-2005-23307: Application of Virgin American Inc. for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity at 5-6 (Dec. 8, 2005), and Objections of Virgin America Inc. to Order 2006-12-23 and Motion for Leave to File Additional Evidentiary Material at 36-44 (Jan. 17, 2007) (arguing that the Department’s 2006 Tentative Decision with respect to Virgin America’s citizenship inhibited competition and the expansion of low-fare, high quality service).
Alaska also asks that the BTS Director, rather than the BTS’ staff, assert jurisdiction over and directly rule on–and deny–Virgin America’s Motion as promptly as possible. Virgin America and others which may later similarly seek to invoke the Department’s confidentiality procedures in order to shield their public reports should not be allowed to count on six or more months of de facto confidentiality while first BTS’ staff and later the BTS Director separately consider the request. Indeed, it is reasonable to infer that the six months of de facto reporting confidentiality ExpressJet enjoyed because of the Department’s two step process is the principal, if not the sole, reason Virgin America filed its extraordinary request–fully recognizing that the Department would ultimately deny that request. Where the governing precedent is so clear as well as so recent, there is every reason for the BTS Director to forthwith assert jurisdiction over this request and promptly issue a decision. To do otherwise would mean that Virgin America’s various reports will unjustifiably be protected from competitive scrutiny for many months to come.
Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 25, 2008
Virgin America’s motion seeks reconsideration of an issue that the Department conclusively resolved less than four months ago when it rejected the far more limited request of ExpressJet for similar favoritism. ExpressJet asked for preferential treatment preventing the public release of its T-100 traffic data for scheduled passenger operations conducted under its own ExpressJet brand name for a one-year period. It claimed that the public release of this data would have an adverse competitive impact upon it, given the “unique operational aspects” of its point-to-point operation, and the fact that this Expressjet-branded service was “only in its infancy.” The supposedly adverse competitive consequences that ExpressJet complained of were that its competitors might make use of this public data – which all carriers are required to report – to compete with Expressjet and more effectively respond to consumer demand. Id. ExpressJet complained in particular that it was already facing stiff competition from American and Alaska Airlines in some of the markets it had chosen to serve.
Virgin American obviously hopes to gain a similar period of de facto confidentiality just by filing this frivolous request. The Department should not allow this cynical tactic to achieve its intended result. It
should grant American’s motion for immediate action by the Director of BTS pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 385.7, or alternatively, the staff should summarily deny the request and specify pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 385.6 that the filing of a petition for review will not preclude the action from becoming effective immediately.
Counsel: Delta, Scott McClain, 404-773-6514, scott.mcclain@delta.com
March 25, 2008
Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby answers in opposition to the motion of Virgin America which seeks sweeping relief from the Form 41 traffic and financial reporting data required of all similarly situated U.S. carriers. Virgin America’s request is a clear violation of the fair and even-handed disclosure principles upon which Part 241 is based. The Department’s regulations expressly recognize “the damaging competitive impact . . . and adverse effect upon the public interest that would result from the unilateral disclosure of [ ] data” Part 241 sec. 19-7(d).
Virgin America’s motion should be summarily denied. Failure to act swiftly and decisively will merely encourage Virgin America and other carriers to “game” the system by filing frivolous confidentiality motions to delay the publication of sensitive Form 41 data which all carriers are required to report. The Department’s final ruling on the ExpressJet reporting matter took over six months from the date ExpressJet’s motion was filed - resulting in a lengthy period of de facto - and unilateral - confidentiality. In these circumstances, the Department should view Virgin America’s 90 page confidentiality submission on this simple and well-settled Form 41 reporting issue with skepticism.
Counsel: Northwest, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184, sascha.vanderbellen@nwa.com
March 25, 2008
As Southwest and other parties have made clear in the recent ExpressJet docket, there is simply no legitimate basis for excusing one airline from the public reporting obligations that all other airlines are required to abide by. In its September 10, 2007 denial of similar single-carrier exemption petitions filed by ExpressJet, the Department agreed. Accordingly, this issue should not again be subject to a time consuming debate. In fact, since a carrier's information remains confidential while the Department makes a determination, any delay is akin to a decision in favor of an unfair, single-carrier exception. Therefore the Department should reiterate its findings on ExpressJet's motions and immediately deny Virgin America's extraordinary request.
Without repeating all of the compelling reasons articulated in Southwest's previous filings, along with those given by other parties for denying ExpressJet's motions, it suffices to say that Virgin America has offered no legitimate factual or legal basis for the exclusive relief it is requesting.
Counsel: Southwest, Bob Kneisley, 202-263-6284, bob.kneisley@wnco.com
March 25, 2008
United urges the Department to deny the Motion of Virgin to withhold most of its Part 241 reports from public disclosure. The Department’s reasoning and findings relating to its recent denial of the similar relief sought by ExpressJet apply with equal or even greater weight to the more expansive relief sought here by Virgin. In addition, United urges the Department to act quickly to deny Virgin’s motion to avoid the result in the ExpressJet case where most of the anticompetitive benefits sought by the carrier were achieved as a result of the delay in the Department’s decision-making process. These issues have now been fully ventilated and resolved in the ExpressJet case, and the Department’s policy and reasoning fully set forth in its decisions. That same policy should now be applied quickly to Virgin by expeditiously denying its Motion.
Counsel: Jeffrey Manley, 301-229-8571, jeffrey.manley@united.com
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
April 3, 2008
Each of the undersigned representatives of carriers that file Form 41 reports with the Department has expressed opposition to the groundless request of Virgin America that it be accorded special treatment with respect to virtually all of the requirements of the regulations at 14 CFR Part 241. We hereby advise the Department that we do not intend to respond to the unauthorized consolidated reply filed yesterday by Virgin America, Virgin America's unauthorized pleading adds nothing new to the record, and, like its original motion, is merely calculated to gain tactical advantage over other Form 41 filers by creating procedural delay.
The record was complete when the authorized answers to Virgin America's motion were filed last week, and the reporting carriers identified below urge that the Department handle this matter on an expedited basis and promptly deny the motion of Virgin America.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson; Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick for Alaska; Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill for JetBlue, Delta, Scott McClain, Northwest, Alexander Van der Bellen; United, Julie Oettinger
April 2, 2008
Motion for Leave to File and Consolidated Reply of Virgin America
Virgin America’s request is quite similar to those filed by Republic and Shuttle America–for which the Department has granted confidential treatment during the last 2.5 years. (See Motion of Shuttle America to Withhold Certain Information from Public Disclosure, Docket OST-2005-23354 (Dec.12, 2005); Motion of Republic Airlines Inc. d/b/a Republic Airlines to Withhold Certain Information from Public Disclosure, Docket OST-2005-23355 (Dec. 12, 2005).) For example, and as Shuttle America submitted with its confidentiality request, the airline only operates flights on a code-share basis (and does not operate flights under the Shuttle America brand). Unlike ExpressJet, release of all Shuttle America’s Form 41 Schedules would allow competitors to determine with relative precision Shuttle America’s code-share profit margins, information not otherwise publicly available.
Similarly, like Virgin America, Republic only operated under a single brand when it filed its confidentiality request (as US Airways Express), and argued that release of the information would allow competitors the ability to determine precise cost structure and profit margins. Additionally, and also like Virgin America, Republic was a relatively new airline at the time it filed its confidentiality request and had recently received confidential treatment for much of the same information during its certification proceeding.
Unlike Shuttle America and Republic however, which both operate extensive regional feeder flights from code-share partners’ hubs, Virgin America’s traffic is overwhelmingly local, given its point-to-point network. Therefore, segment-specific calculations reflecting allocated unit revenue in a particular O&D market is far more achievable with Virgin America’s data.
The competitive harm issues Virgin America has raised go well beyond those presented in the ExpressJet proceeding, and must be carefully vetted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Department. While American urges the Department to forego initial staff action,17 such a rush to judgment based solely on the ExpressJet decision would not be appropriate under the circumstances. Virgin America respectfully submits that it meets the applicable standard for withholding certain Form 41 Schedules, and that the Department ought to take whatever time is necessary to consider carefully the significant legal, policy, and competitive consequences of its action.
Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000, kquinn@pillsburylaw.com
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
April 4, 2008
Comments of Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines agrees with the joint letter filed by six carriers yesterday requesting that the Department promptly deny Virgin America's April 2, 2008 motion for leave to file an unauthorized consolidated reply in this proceeding.
Virgin America's latest motion adds nothing new to the record, and if granted will only delay Department action on the carrier's underlying request for confidentiality of its Form 41 reports - which, as Southwest's and other answers have shown, is totally without merit. Further pleadings are unnecessary and will only reward Virgin with confidentiality de facto to which it is not entitled de jure. Accordingly, Southwest will not file an answer to Virgin America's motion for leave to file, and urges the Department to deny its request for confidentiality as promptly as possible.
Counsel: Southwest, Robert Kneisley, 202-263-6284, bob.kneisley@wnco.com
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
April 8, 2008
Re: Confidential Treatment for Form 41, Schedules P-1(a) and P-12(a) - February 2008
On behalf of Virgin America enclosed are confidential Form 41, Schedules P-1(a) and P-12(a), for the month ending February 2008. The confidential Schedules are being provided in a sealed envelope labeled "Confidential Treatment Requested Under 14 C.F.R. § 302.12."
Virgin America incorporates by reference its Motion for Confidential Treatment in Docket OST-2008-0107, filed on March 14, 2008, setting forth the basis for the confidential treatment of the enclosed Schedules. These Schedules provide updated reports with information covered by Virgin America's pending motion.Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000, kquinn@pillsburylaw.com
Issued and Served April 23, 2008
This consent order concerns Virgin America, Inc.’s advertisement and sale of proposed new air service prior to the carrier obtaining effective economic authority from the U.S. Department of Transportation in violation of 14 CFR 201.5, which also violated 49 U.S.C. § 41712, the statutory prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition. The order assesses a compromise civil penalty of $25,000 and directs the carrier to cease and desist from further violations.
On July 19, 2007, Virgin America ran a number of online and print advertisements that failed to state, as it was directed to do, that the carrier’s services were subject to the receipt of government operating authority. Virgin America, by failing to comply with the conditions of the waiver it was granted, violated section 201.5 and, in addition, engaged in an unfair and deceptive trade practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.
In mitigation, Virgin America states that prior to selling a ticket to any potential customer online or via the phone, each person received a written or oral notification that operation of the flight for which a ticket was being purchased was contingent on Virgin America receiving its government operating authority. Moreover, the carrier maintains that all other conditions of the waiver were observed.
Virgin America further states that in response to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceeding’s concerns, the advertisements were immediately suspended and revised, the Enforcement Office was provided with a comprehensive report of the steps taken, and Virgin America expended approximately $80,000 in remedial efforts to address all concerns raised by the Enforcement Office. Virgin America further states that it has not received any consumer complaints about the advertisements at issue in this case.
We view seriously a carrier’s failure to comply with section 201.5, particularly where, as here, a carrier was placed on direct notice of, and agreed to comply with, that provision. We have carefully considered all the facts in this case, including those presented by Virgin America and continue to believe that enforcement action is warranted. In order to avoid litigation, Virgin America has agreed to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from further violations of 14 CFR 201.5 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and to the assessment of a civil penalty of $25,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise assessable under 49 U.S.C. § 46301.
By: Rosalind Knapp
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
May 21, 2008
Re: Response of Virgin America to Joint Carriers Letter from May 14th
As Virgin America previously noted, the usefulness of Virgin America’s data to its competitors is simply not relevant to the proper analysis by the Department of the airline’s request under the standards of FOIA’s Exemption 4, as the proper analysis should be limited to whether disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to Virgin America’s competitive position. The fact that these other airlines want to use Virgin America’s data for marketplace analysis and a competitive response is not a legitimate reason for disclosure. Indeed, their pitched and now collective effort only underscores Virgin America’s arguments about the true goals of these other airlines and the likelihood of substantial harm if this information is made available to them.
In short, Virgin America believes this latest argument from some of the same airlines that sought to thwart its initial certification remains without merit. Virgin America has properly demonstrated that disclosure of its Form 41 data would cause it substantial competitive harm. Thus, it has met the Department's standards for withholding such data from disclosure to its competitors, and it therefore satisfies the tests enunciated by Federal courts in their review of FOIA Exemption 4 requests. We trust that this latest collective effort from Virgin America's competitors will not influence the Department as it continues to carefully evaluate the particular circumstances and individual merits of what is clearly a legitimate request.
Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
June 2, 2008
Re: Letter Expressing Concern Over Release of Form 41 Schedule Data
In our recent filing with the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, we noted that the stated purpose of the Department's data reporting requirements "is to provide Congress, DOT, and other Federal agencies with uniform and comprehensive aviation data that are accurate, timely, and relevant for use in making aviation policy decisions and administering aviation-related programs.'" It is not intended to supply competitors with powerful information that would allow them to target and harm new entrants.
That notwithstanding, our competitors have renewed their objection to Virgin America's modest request for confidential treatment of this data, and they now seek expedited review of the sensitive information. While we note that the Department has afforded two years for a similar request from ExpressJet, we believe it is more important to emphasize that none of our competitors have refuted our basic premise that disclosure of this sensitive commercial and financial information is highly likely to cause substantial competitive harm--the legal standard for protecting sensitive business information submitted to government agencies.
By: Virgin America, David Cush
OST-2008-0107 - Virgin America - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
June 17, 2008
Re: April T-100 Information - Confidentiality Request
On behalf of Virgin America Airlines Inc., enclosed is a confidential disc containing Virgin America's Fonn 41, April T-100 infonnation for April 2008. Virgin America hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Motion for Confidential Treatment filed in Docket OST-2008-0107, which sets forth in detail the legal basis for confidential treatment of these reports. This submission includes a monthly report with updated information, similar to the data addressed in the pending motion.
Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, John Gillick, 202-973-7939
OST-2008-0107 - Form 41 Confidentiality (Financial and Traffic)
June 26, 2008
Re: DOT (RITA/BTS) Denying Confidential Treatment
This letter is in response to the motion of Virgin America to withhold from public disclosure certain Form 41 financial, traffic, and Origin and Destination Survey (O&D) data submitted to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) until such time as Virgin America becomes a Group III air carrier under the Department's regulations.
Virgin America has failed to demonstrate how the release of the Form 41 financial, traffic, and O&D reports is likely to cause substantial competitive harm. Virgin America seeks reconsideration of an issue that the Department conclusively resolved in the ExpressJet case where the grounds offered by ExpressJet in Docket DOT-OST-2007-28396 were virtually identical to those currently offered by Virgin America. ExpressJet asked for confidential treatment of its T-100 traffic data pertaining to its recently initiated branded service. The branded service consisted of point-to-point operations in relatively small city-pair markets utilizing small regional jet aircraft. ExpressJet asserted that the combination of these factors made public release of the detailed operational and traffic data particularly harmful to the competitive position of ExpressJet's new branded service. Virgin America has offered no legitimate factual or legal basis for the exclusive broader relief it is seeking.
By: M. Clay Moritz