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

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Exemption, O’Hare Slots)

OST-95-277 | May 29, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Third Supplemental Response of Western Pacific

HTML

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Western Pacific) hereby moves for leave to file this supplemental response providing updated information with respect to the levels of service, traffic and fares in the Colorado Springs-O'Hare International (O'Hare), Colorado Springs-Midway (Midway) and related markets. For the reasons set forth herein as well as those set forth in its Petition for Reconsideration and previously-submitted Supplemental Responses, Western Pacific urges that the Department, upon reconsideration, grant the requested exemption so as to permit Western Pacific to provide much-needed competition in the Colorado Springs-O'Hare market.

Table II - Comparison of Average O&D Fares | Table III - Impact of New Entry in the Colorado Springs - O'Hare/Midway and Denver - O'Hare Markets | Table IV - Analysis of Local and connecting Traffic in the Colorado Springs - O'Hare and Midway Markets

Counsel: Winthrop Stimson, John Gillick, 202-775-9800

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Exemption, Chicago O’Hare Slots)

OST-95-277 | June 9, 1997

Answer of United Air Lines to Motion for Leave to File and Third Supplemental Response of Western Pacific

HTML

Other than its transparent attempt to join with Frontier and ValuJet in seeking to obtain valuable slots without the requisite investment, WestPac has provided no basis for a grant of the exceptional relief it is seeking in this proceeding. WestPac's 18-month old Midway Airport service has shown dramatic gains. This success proves that no "exceptional circumstances" exist sufficient to justify subsidizing WestPac's entry into O'Hare. If WestPac wants to compete at O'Hare, it should, like all other competitors, bid for slots in the after-market.

Counsel: United and Ginsburg Feldman, Joel Burton, 202-637-9130

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Exemption, Chicago O’Hare Slots)

OST-95-277 | June 13, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Reply of Western Pacific Airlines

HTML

United's Answer in this proceeding reminds one of the arguments made in the mid-1970s in Civil Aeronautics Board pleadings and Congressional testimony by entrenched incumbents opposed to deregulation, when these carriers expressed grave concerns about the effects of new competition on the "investment" these carriers had made in their existing route systems and advocated maintenance of a system of "regulated" competition. Indeed, the only phrase missing from United's pleading herein is that grant of Western Pacific's exemption application would "destroy the nation's air transportation system as we know it today." The great irony of the position advocated by United today is that it was United which advocated in the 1970s that the government should disregard these "protectionist" arguments and proceed with deregulation. United has, however, now come full circle, urging that the Department recognize United's "investment" in its slots and connecting traffic at O'Hare and relegate Western Pacific, in the name of "regulated" competition, to providing service in only the Colorado Springs-Midway market.

Counsel: Winthrop Stimson, John Gillick, 202-775-9800

Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia Slots / Frontier Airlines, ValuJet, AirTran, Western Pacific (Exemptions from High Density Rule)

OST-97-2230, 97-2442, 97-2557, 95-277 | July 9, 1997

Motion for Leave to File an Answer and Answer of Air Carrier Association of America

HTML

It is time for the Department of Transportation to reject the duplicitous arguments of the large carriers and create "open skies" in this country. The inability of affordable fare carriers to obtain slots prevented meaningful competition at LaGuardia and O'Hare for the summer of 1997. Now is the time for the Department to take the steps necessary to provide access for new entrants at the high density airports. Providing the slots requested will have minimal impact economic impact -- but not acting will have a negative impact on the costs for millions of travelers and the future economic growth of communities throughout this country.

By: Edward Faberman, Executive Director, 202-778-4462

Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia Slots / Frontier Airlines, Inc. / ValuJet Airlines, Inc. / AirTran Airways, Inc. / Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.

OST-97-2230 | OST-97-2442 | OST-97-2557 | OST-95-277 | July 15, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Reply of US Airways to the Answer of the Air Carrier Association of America

HTML

US Airways strongly objects to both ACAA's highly intemperate attacks on US Airways and its confused attempt to link the fundamentally different issues of Heathrow access with its members' applications for waivers of DOT's domestic slot rules. If DOT accepts for consideration ACAA's unauthorized filing, US Airways requests that DOT also accept this Reply and, on the basis of the points set forth above, reject the spurious argument of ACAA.

Attachment – Letter from President of the Borough of Queens to Rodney Slater – June 10, 1997

Counsel: US Airways and Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660

Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia Slots / Fontier Airlines, Inc. / ValuJet / AirTran / Western Pacific (Exemptions, High Density Rule)

OST-97-2230 | OST-97-2442 | OST-97-2557 | OST-95-277 | July 18, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Reply of Trans World Airlines

HTML

The Department would be hard pressed to justify transfer of any slots to any of the applicants in these dockets. Valujet and Frontier propose only duplicative service to hubs of major airlines. Each hub already has ample competitive service to the New York area. Western Pacific already provides competitive service between Chicago and Colorado Springs, and its pleading claims to have done well on the route. It demonstrates that low fare carriers can compete quite effectively by using other airports to serve major destinations. Airtran proposes distinctly inferior use of valuable frequencies. For example, if TWA were to lose a LaGuardia slot to Airtran for service to Toledo, TWA would be unable to provide a full pattern of service to its major St. Louis hub. This would deprive passengers at numerous points behind St. Louis of the competitive alternative offered by TWA. In a perfect world, it would be nice to allow everyone to serve LaGuardia from everywhere. However, the present slot allocation system under which major hub carriers have put slots to their highest use -- full daily patterns to competitive hubs -- has created the most efficient and competitive air transportation system in the world. The Department will not be able to justify reducing hub competition in order to accommodate the desires of cities with limited traffic volume for nonstop service to LaGuardia.

Counsel: TWA and Richard Fahy, 202-457-4764

Chicago O’Hare and New York LaGuardia Slots | Frontier Airlines, Inc., ValuJet Airlines, Inc., AirTran Airways, Inc., Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Exemptions, High Density Rule)

OST-97-2230 | OST-97-2442 | OST-97-2557 | OST-95-277 | July 23, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Reply of Delta Air Lines

HTML

ACAA's attempt to establish alleged inconsistencies in the positions of Delta and other carriers by taking selective quotes out of context is misguided and irrelevant. ACAA fails to comprehend the fundamental factual, policy and legal differences between the captioned applications and the issues presented in the AA-BA alliance, which render any comparisons meaningless. ACAA's filing is largely an attack on the validity of the highdensity and buy-sell rules, and ignores the fact that 49 U.S.C. § 41714(c) allows the grant of an exemption for qualified new entrants only if the applicants demonstrate "exceptional circumstances." As previously noted by Delta and other participants in the captioned dockets, the high density rule has been examined on numerous occasions by the Department and in each instance it was determined that the rule should not be disturbed. While the Department has the authority to decide the mechanism by which slots are allocated, a major revision of the high density rule and slot allocation procedures would require formal rulemaking procedures and is clearly beyond the scope of the instant applications.

Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (Exemption, Chicago O'Hare Slots)

OST-95-277 | July 30, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Consolidated Reply of the City of Chicago to the Third Supplmental Response of Western Pacific Airlines

HTML

WestPac has presented the Department with evidence demonstrating significant fare impacts of competitive service in both the Colorado Springs-Midway and Colorado Springs-O'Hare markets. As noted by WestPac, total traffic and capacity in the Colorado Springs-Chicago market has tripled in just two years. WestPac suggests that if awarded the slots it requests at O'Hare, similar benefits will be realized in the Colorado Springs-O'Hare market, which could also redound to the benefit of established carriers both in stimulating demand in the O'Hare-Colorado market and in creating a pool of additional passengers for carriage from O'Hare on East-bound traffic -- passengers who might otherwise travel through different, competing hubs.

Counsel: Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202-775-9800

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. / Reno Air, Inc. (High Density Rule, Chicago O’Hare)

OST-95-277 | OST-97-2771 | August 22, 1997

Motion for Leave to File and Consolidated Response of United Air Lines

HTML

Capacity at O'Hare under the High Density Rule is finite. The market-based mechanism in effect to allocate most of the slots at O'Hare ensures the highest and best economic use of this resource. The exemption process represents an administrative distortion of the market that must be carefully controlled and monitored in the context of what, under the High Density Rule, is ultimately a zero-sum game. If the government, rather than the marketplace, determines that these special pleaders should receive the slots necessary to commence service at O'Hare, other deserving users ultimately will be denied access to O'Hare because of absolute constraints occasioned by the HDR. Granting the requests at issue here essentially demands a sacrifice of those slots which could eventually be put to a better and more economically rational use. Neither Reno Air nor WestPac has demonstrated the existence of circumstances "extraordinary" enough to justify grant of the exceptional relief each seeks. These applications must, therefore, be denied.

Counsel: United and Ginsburg Feldman, Joel Burton, 202-637-9130

Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. and Reno Air, Inc. (Exemption Chicago O’Hare Slots)

OST-95-277 | OST-97-2771 | September 2, 1997

Answer of Western Pacific Airlines

Since United has already filed an answer in accordance with the Department's regulations and has not given any, much less a persuasive, reason why it should be permitted to file a second answer to Western Pacific's supplemental response, Western Pacific urges that the Department not permit United to file yet another answer to a pleading to which United has already responded.

Counsel: Winthrop Stimson, John Gillick, 202 775 9800

Frontier Airlines / ValuJet Airlines, Inc. / Air Tran Airways, Inc. / Western Pacific, Inc. / Reno Air, Inc. / Spirit Air Lines, Inc.

OST-97-2230 | OST-97-2442 | OST-97-2557 | OST-95-277 | OST-97-2771 | OST-97-2780 | September 4, 1997

Motion for Leave to File an Answer and Reply of Air Carrier Association of America to the Reply of United Airlines, US Airways, and TWA

HTML

The Air Carrier Association of America ("ACAA") hereby moves for leave to file this Reply' to respond to the various replies filed by United, US Airways, Delta and TWA regarding the Applications of Frontier Airlines, ValuJet Airlines, Inc., Air Tran Airways, Inc., Western Pacific, Inc., and Reno Air ("affordable fare carriers") to gain access to LaGuardia Airport in New York City ("LaGuardia") and O'Hare International Airport ("O'Hare").

Service List | Exhibit 1

Counsel : Edward Faberman, 202 778 4462

Establishment of Slot Exemptions Proceedings 

By:  Bradley Mims

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