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:
OST-2004-19214 - Delta, KLM, Northwest, Air France, Alitalia and Czech - Antitrust Immunity
Undocketed - Continental, Delta and Northwest
OST-2001-10429 - Delta Air Lines, Inc., Societe Air France, Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A., and Czech Airlines
OST-2002-11842 - Delta, Korean, Air France, Alitalia and Czech
OST-2004-19215 - Statements of Authorization - US-Netherlands/France/Italy/Czech
Orders
2004-11-15 - Requesting Additional Information
2005-4-21 - Seeking Clarification of the Record
2005-6-1 - Establishing Procedural Schedule
2005-6-8 - Supplement to the Record
2005-12-12 - Show Cause
2006-2-1 - Final
|
Delta Air Lines, Inc. / KLM Royal Dutch Airlines / Northwest Airlines, Inc. / Societe Air France / Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A. / Czech Airlines OST-2004-19214 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements September 24, 2004 Joint Application for Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements The SkyTeam Applicant Carriers seek antitrust immunity to create a global marketing alliance. The Air France/KLM merger is a landmark step in the evolutionary process of global aviation. Air France and KLM have taken advantage of the creation of a single European air transportation market, and have entered into a merger that is producing important consumer benefits for international travelers and shippers and is enhancing international competition. This request for antitrust immunity is both compelled by and a direct outgrowth of that combination. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
September 27, 2004 Motion of Delta Air Lines for Confidential Treatment Delta is submitting highly sensitive internal corporate documents and information that should be accorded limited access. Such access should be granted only to counsel and outside experts who file affidavits stating that the affiant will (1) use the information only for the purpose of participating in this proceeding, and (2) not disclose such information to anyone other than counsel or outside experts who have filed a valid affidavit. Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663-8060
September 27, 2004 Motion of Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A. for Confidential Treatment Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. §302.12, Alitalia hereby requests that the Department withhold from public disclosure and limit access to the confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information that Alitalia is filing concurrently under seal in the above-captioned proceeding. Alitalia is submitting this confidential document to facilitate the Department's processing of the Joint Application for alliance approval and antitrust immunity filed by Alitalia and Societe Air France, Czech Air, Delta Air Lines Inc., Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., and Northwest Airlines, Inc. The document is entitled "Alliances: a strategic option or a prerequisite for development", dated November 5, 2003, and authored by Mr. Giorgio Callegari, Vice President Alliances and Business Development of Alitalia. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias
September 27, 2004 Motion of Delta Air Lines for Confidential Treatment Delta Air Lines, Inc., pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department’s Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. 302.12, hereby requests that the Department withhold from public disclosure the confidential , proprietary and commercially sensitive information Delta is filing concurrently under seal in the above captioned proceeding. Delta is submitting these confidential documents to facilitate the Department’s processing of the Joint Application for alliance approval and antitrust immunity filed by Delta and its Alliance partners. Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663-8060
September 27, 2004 Motion of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines for Confidential Treatment KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department’s Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. 302.12, hereby requests that the Department withhold from public disclosure the confidential, proprietary and commercially sensitive information KLM is filing concurrently under seal in the above-captioned proceeding. KLM is submitting these confidential documents to facilitate the Department’s processing of the Joint Application for alliance approval and antitrust immunity filed by KLM and its Alliance partners. Counsel: KLM, Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867
September 27, 2004 Motion of Northwest Airlines for Confidential Treatment Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department’s Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. 302.12, Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby requests that the Department withhold from public disclosure and limit access to the confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information that Northwest is filing concurrently under seal in the above-captioned proceeding. Northwest is submitting these confidential documents to facilitate the Department’s processing of the Joint Application for alliance approval and antitrust immunity filed by Northwest and Societe Air France, Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A., Czech Air, Delta Air Lines, Inc., and KoninkIijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. Northwest requests confidential treatment for all documents listed in the attached index. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193, megan.rosia@nwa.com
September 27, 2004 Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby submits the attached correct version of page 9 to the Northwest-Czech Airlines Cooperation Agreement, dated July 2, 2004, filed as an attachment in the above-docketed proceeding. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193, megan.rosia@nwa.com
OST-2004-19214 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements September 30, 2004 Motion to Consolidate of American Airlines and to Suspend Answer Date The Joint Applicants are seeking antitrust immunity in the first docket, and blanket codesharing authorizations in the second docket. Because these two applications are so closely interrelated,' the Department should consider them in a common proceeding. Such a procedure will not only be consistent with administrative convenience, but will also allow interested parties, in responding to the codeshare application, to review and take into account the relevant confidential documents accompanying the antitrust immunity application. American's motion to consolidate is well supported by Department precedent. For example, when American and Lan Chile separately filed for antitrust immunity and for codeshare authorizations, the Department consolidated those separate requests into one proceeding. As explained in Order 98-2-21, February 20, 1998, the Department did so "in the interest of administrative efficiency," as well as allowing access to confidential documents to "permit interested parties and the Department to consider the possible interrelationships among various existing and proposed alliances as they relate to the issues in the proceeding" (p. 2). American also moves that the Department suspend the answer date in the codeshare docket, OST-2004-19215, which under 14 CFR 212.10(e) (1) would otherwise be October 5, 2004 (seven business days). The Department should not require answers to the codeshare application in advance of an opportunity to review the Joint Applicants' confidential documents. Counsel: American, Carl, Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
OST-2004-19214 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements October 1, 2004 Joint Applicants' Answer to Motion of American Airlines The Joint Applicants' do not oppose the motion of American Airlines, Inc. to consolidate the joint application for approval and antitrust immunity in Docket OST-2004-19214 and the joint application for blanket codeshare authority in Docket OST-2004-19215 and to suspension of the answer date until interested persons are given access to confidential documents. In short, the Joint Applicants do not oppose a consolidated answer date for the two applications. The Joint Applicants urge the Department promptly to issue a notice providing interested persons access to the confidential documents filed by them in the Docket on September 27 and 28, subject to the Department's standard confidentiality protective procedures. In addition, the Joint Applicants urge the Department promptly to issue a Notice determining the Joint Application to be substantially complete and establishing a procedural schedule for answers (21 days from the date of the notice) and reply (7 days after the date answers are due). Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
OST-2004-19214 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements Served October 18, 2004 Notice Providing Access to Documents Order Consolidating Proceedings | Word By this order, we consolidate into Docket OST-2004-19214 the joint application for blanket codesharing (Docket OST-2004-19215) filed by the Joint Applicants. We also suspend the answer date in Docket OST-2004-19215, pending our determination that the record is complete. By this notice, we grant immediate interim access to all documents filed in Docket OST-2004-19214 covered by the Rule 12 Motion to counsel and outside experts for interested parties who file appropriate affidavits with the Department in advance. When we have determined that the record of this case is complete, we will announce an appropriate procedural schedule. We shall serve this notice on all persons on the service list for this docket. By: Karan Bhatia
October 21, 2004 Motion of American Airlines to Require Additional Documents and Data Given the unique nature of the joint application in this docket, the Department should require far and data than the applicants have volunteered. applicants have made a complete submission and parties have been provided a sufficient period review, the Department should withhold setting schedule. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
October 26, 2004 Joint Applicants' Answer in Opposition to Motion of American Airlines The Joint Applicants' object to the Motion of American Airlines, Inc. to Require Submission of Additional Documents and Data. American's motion lacks merit and is merely a delay tactic designed to forestall the issuance of a Procedural Order, and to impose additional and unwarranted burdens on the Joint Applicants. It is not in the public interest to delay this proceeding, so as to prevent the Joint Applicants from offering the traveling public the procompetitive benefits and efficiencies of the proposed Alliance. The Department should reject American's attempt to establish a burdensome new evidentiary standard for antitrust immunity proceedings involving Open Skies countries. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
October 27, 2004 Since this is the first time that two U.S. carriers have requested antitrust immunity for their worldwide international services, the Department should not be content with the "standard" ‑ and minimal ‑ showing that Delta and Northwest have volunteered. The fact that the U.S. has open skies agreements with "the Netherlands, France, Italy, and Czech Republic" simply has no bearing on the unprecedented immunity request that Delta and Northwest have presented. Such worldwide cooperation could include immunized joint services to a number of non-open skies countries such as Japan and China, where Northwest is currently a dominant force. The Joint Applicants' assertion that their request merely involves "European open skies carriers" is obviously not valid. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
November 5, 2004 Joint Applicants' Response to Motion of American Airlines for Leave to File Additional Reply Only American has suggested that further information is necessary. But, the 1996 AA/BA evidence request urged by American has no relevance whatsoever to this 2004 open skies proceeding. The AA/BA evidence request was fashioned by the Department to investigate the unique competitive concerns presented by a proposed alliance between the two largest competitors with extensive nonstop overlaps in the vital - but closed -- U.S.-Heathrow marketplace. Those concerns obviously do not exist with respect to the homeland countries at issue in this proceeding. Nor does this request for international immunity in any way impact domestic competition. The Joint Applicants have not requested immunity for domestic operations, and the Department does not have the authority to grant it. American's request for information relating to domestic operations is wholly extraneous. Finally, contrary to American's assertion, the information and supporting documentation provided by the Joint Applicants was far from "minimal." The Joint Applicants provided a thoroughly detailed application, along with thousands of pages of documents and supporting data. The Joint Applicants are confident that the Department staff will find that the Joint Applicants' submission contains all the necessary and relevant information to process the Joint Application. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
Order 04-11-15 Issued and Served November 18, 2004 Order Requesting Additional Information By this Order, the Department requests additional information, as described in the Attachment to this Order, from Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A., Czech Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Inc., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Société Air France. The Department believes the additional information is necessary to analyze the application and to make its decision in this case. American makes a compelling case that this application potentially presents novel issues (including the presence of two major competing U.S. carriers in a single immunized alliance and the competitive impact of the effective combination of two global alliance networks). Against that backdrop, the Department has determined that the submission of additional information as set out in the Attachment to this Order is necessary for the Department to develop a complete factual record to adjudicate the application. It will also afford interested parties, such as American, a meaningful opportunity to consider and comment on the application. Requesting such additional evidence in an antitrust immunity proceeding is neither unprecedented nor at odds with Departmental precedent that has always made clear that the type and quantum of information necessary to fairly and effectively adjudicate an application may vary based on the specific facts and issues presented by different applications. See also 14 C.F.R. § 303.04(g) (authorizing the Assistant Secretary to order any applicant to submit additional information). By: Karan Bhatia
November 19, 2004 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Our confidential motion makes reference to confidential material submitted in this docket by Delta Air Lines, Inc. This material is protected from public disclosure by the Department's Notice of October 18, 2004. Consistent with that order, American will provide our confidential motion only to holders of valid confidentiality affidavits filed in this docket. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
November 19, 2004 Redacted Motion of American Airlines to add Continental as a Responding Party American requests that the Department add Continental as a party required to comply with Order 2004‑11‑15, and that the Department require Joint Applicants to reexamine the completeness of their initial production of data and documents. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
December 1, 2004 Joint Applicants' Answer in Opposition to Motion of American Airlines The Joint Applicants hereby oppose the Motion of American Airlines requesting the Department to include Continental Airlines as a responding party in the production of data and documents required by Order 2004‑11‑15. Continental is not a party to the Alliance Agreements and is not an applicant for antitrust immunity in this proceeding. There is no basis for American's unprecedented request to treat Continental as if it were an applicant for antitrust immunity. As explained in the Joint Application, the request for antitrust immunity is necessary to bridge the existing Northwest/KLM and SkyTeam antitrust immunized alliances that are impacted by the Air France‑KLM transaction. Those issues do not affect Continental, which is not an applicant for immunity in this proceeding. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
December 1, 2004 Re: Answer of Continental Airlines American has asked the Department to require Continental to participate as a responding party to the Department's Order 2004-11-15 despite the fact that Continental is not an applicant in this proceeding, has not agreed to participate in an antitrust-immunized alliance with the applicants in this proceeding and may or may not enter such an agreement in the future. Although American says it is asking the Department to impose burdensome document production requirements on Continental because Continental is "intertwined" with the applicants through codesharing with them, American is really seeking to further its fishing expedition and its efforts to delay action in this proceeding. American has opposed requests for similar information from American successfully in the past, requiring Continental to participate in this proceeding beyond responding to American's motion would be unprecedented, and the Department should deny American's motion asking the Department to burden Continental with discovery requirements in this proceeding, where Continental is neither an applicant nor a party. Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, Jr., 202-624-2615
December 30, 2004 Ex-Parte Letter to Senators Thad Cochran and Trent Lott By: Jeffrey Shane
December 30, 2004 Ex-Parte Letter to Senator Norm Coleman By: Jeffrey Shane
December 30, 2004 By: Jeffrey Shane
December 30, 2004 Ex-Parte Letter to Senator Byron Dorgan By: Jeffrey Shane
February 8, 2005 Joint Applicants' Supplemental Information Response In response to the Department's Order Requesting Additional Information (Order 2004-11-15), the Joint Applicants hereby provide the requested documents, data, and responses to the Department's clarification questions. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
February 8, 2005 Air France Supplemental Information Response and Motion for Confidential Treatment of Documents The documents in question contain highly sensitive commercial information related to international planning and strategic decision-making by Air France. The information contained in the documents has not been released to the public. As noted above, if the documents listed in the attached Index were released, competitors would gain valuable insights into the internal strategies, objectives and business plans of Air France, including the strategies, objectives and plans related to the Alliance Agreements. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305
February 9, 2005 Re: Alitalia Supplemental Document Production Enclosed are five copies of Alitalia' s supplemental document production in response to the Department's order 2004-11-15 in the above‑referenced proceeding. These are confidential documents and data that are being submitted in sealed envelopes marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under Part 302.12" in accordance with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. Alitalia hereby incorporates by reference its Rule 12 Motion, filed on September 27, 2004. Counsel: Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
February 8, 2005 Re: Delta's Supplemental Document Production Please find enclosed Delta's supplemental document production in response to Order 2004‑11‑15. A production index is attached. These are confidential corporate documents that are being submitted in sealed containers marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12" in accordance with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. Delta hereby incorporates by reference its Rule 12 Motion, filed on September 22, 2004, with regard to Delta's confidential submissions in this proceeding. Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663-8342
February 8, 2005 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Supplemental Information Response and Motion for Confidential Treatment Order 2004-11-15 specifies Documents to Be Provided (DOT ## 1-7). Certain of the documents specified in those requests (e.g., DOT #1 and DOT #2) have already been submitted to the Department by KLM or the other Joint Applicants, and KLM incorporates those submissions by reference. With respect to certain requests (e.g., DOT # 5), KLM has coordinated with Northwest, and Northwest is producing documents, such as alliance status reports, that are common to both carriers. Insofar as KIM has located additional responsive documents, they are being produced. KLM requests confidential treatment of these documents for the same reasons set forth in the Motion for Confidential Treatment that it filed in connection with submission of the Joint Application. Counsel: KLM, Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867
February 8, 2005 Re: Northwest's Supplemental Document Production Please find enclosed five copies of Northwest's supplemental production in response to the Department's November 18, 2004 order requesting additional information in the above‑captioned matter. A document index for the production is enclosed in box one. Also enclosed are five copies of two CDs of data responsive to the Department's November 18, 2004 order. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest
February 17, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Our confidential motion makes reference to confidential material submitted in this docket by the Joint Applicants. This material is protected from public disclosure by the Department's Notice of October 18, 2004. Consistent with that notice, American will provide our confidential motion only to holders of valid confidentiality affidavits filed in this docket. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
February 17, 2005 Motion of American Airlines to Require Submission of Additional Documents and Data Neither Delta nor Northwest appears to have produced a single document that shows how it intends to segregate its domestic operations - which the Joint Applicants cannot deny are integrated into international itineraries - from its international operation. It is implausible that Delta and Northwest could make blanket assertions about their ability to compartmentalize domestic and international operations without having given some thought to the issue. Any such thought the Joint Applicants did give to the issue, however, does not appear to have been recorded in a single document, memo or e-mail. Accordingly, the Joint Applicants should be ordered to provide a comprehensive written response to the question presented. The Joint Applicants should be required to explain how Delta and Northwest intend to fully coordinate the flow of international passengers through domestic hubs, without impacting competition on behind-U.S. gateway segments. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
February 17, 2005 Re: Letter from Czech Airlines Enclosed is a copy of the signed certification by an appropriate official of CSA Czech Airlines, certifying to the accuracy of CSA's contributions to the responses that were provided by the Joint Applicants to the Department's questions in the subject case and that were filed by the Joint Applicants with the Department on February 8, 2005. Counsel: Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508
February 25, 2005 Joint Applicants' Answer to Second Evidence Request Motion of American Airlines American quotes extensively from its own prior motion, and belabors at length various unsupported inferences which American urges might be drawn from documents contained in the Joint Applicants' first document production. Although couched as an evidentiary "motion," in reality American's submission is a 20-page brief that prematurely and improperly argues American's position on the merits. The time has now come for the Department to proceed with its evaluation of this case. The proper way to do so is though the immediate issuance of a Procedural Order, not through a protracted series of "evidentiary" motions. The Department should reject American's delay tactics and the premature substantive argument offered in this latest "motion," and instead promptly issue a Procedural Order finding the Joint Application complete, and setting dates for the filing of answers to the Joint Application. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
February 28, 2005 Re: Translated Letter from Air France Societe Air France is submitting in the enclosed sealed envelope five copies of an English translation of a document originally filed by Air France in the above-reference Docket on February 8, 2005 in response to the Department’s Order Requesting Additional Information (Order 2004-11-15). Air France filed the original French version of this document (AF-03852-53) under cover of a Rule 12 Motion for Confidential Treatment (14 C.F.R. 302.12). Air France hereby incorporates by reference its February 8th Rule 12 Motion, and requests that the enclosed translation be accorded confidential treatment. The enclosed document provides an English translation of the only part of the full document filed on February 8th that is responsive to Order 2004-11-15. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305
March 1, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Leave to File and Reply to Supplemental Response American does not dispute the Joint Applicants' claim that they have "complied with the Department's Item 7 document request" If the Joint Applicants' response is that they do not have a single document showing how they intend to segregate their domestic competition from international cooperation, the Department should take them at their word. However, assuming that no such documents exist, the Department should require the Joint Applicants to respond to the question underlying Document Request 7 by setting forth their plan to ensure compliance with the antitrust laws in a form consistent with that set out in American's Motion. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 1, 2005 Answer of Continental Airlines So long as Continental has not agreed to participate in an antitrust-immunized alliance with the applicants in this proceeding, Continental should not be forced to respond as if it were an applicant. Continental is indeed a member of the SkyTeam alliance and codeshares with Aeromexico, Air France, Delta, KLM, Korean and Northwest, just as American codeshares with British Airways and other partners with which it has no antitrust-immunized alliance. Although American cites descriptions of alliance arrangements in Continental's Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003, those alliance arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the Department and do not insulate Continental or other participants from the antitrust laws. American charges that since "Continental is bound to a global alliance with Northwest for at least the next two decades" and "is contractually prohibited from joining any other alliance" that Continental should be forced to participate in this proceeding as if it were an applicant or that the "Department should analyze the proposed immunized alliance as though it includes Continental." Despite the contractual provisions, analyses by the applicants and difficulties of an unaligned carrier in competing with an antitrust-immunized alliance cited by American, the Department should not take the unprecedented step of requiring Continental to participate in this proceeding so long as Continental is not a party to any agreement requiring antitrust immunity and is not an applicant in this proceeding. Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, Jr., 202-624-2615
March 3, 2005 Joint Applicants' Answer to Motion of American Airlines to File a Supplemental Response American's Motion to file yet another unauthorized "reply" on evidentiary issues should be denied. American has already filed no less than four evidentiary motions in this proceeding. Its latest unauthorized reply adds nothing new, and is merely calculated to further delay consideration of the merits of the Joint Application. The Department should deny American's motion, and proceed immediately with the issuance of a Procedural Order. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Hogan & Hartson, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
March 16, 2005 [Public] Motion of American Airlines to Require Submission of Additional Documents Counsel: American, Jeffrey Ogar,817-967-3812, jeffrey.ogar@aa.com
March 16, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 25, 2005 American's fifth Motion to Require the Submission of Additional Documents should be denied. The Joint Applicants have already fully complied not only with the Department's standard information request required for antitrust immunity ATI applicants, but also with the Department's detailed Request for Additional Information. (Order 2004‑11‑15). The record is now complete and it is time for the Department to issue a scheduling order and proceed with an evaluation of the merits of the Joint Application. American has filed a total of five evidentiary motions. The latest filing is like the others ‑‑ nothing more than a further effort to delay consideration of the Joint Application. Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment The Joint Applicants hereby move for confidential treatment of the redacted portions of their Answer, filed today in response to the Motion of American Airlines Require Submission of Additional Documents. The confidential material at issue includes reference to documents that are already covered by pending Motions for Confidential Treatment filed by the respective Joint Applicants in the captioned docket. The Joint Applicants hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the augments set forth in their prior Motions for Confidential Treatment. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
Order 2005-4-21 Issued and Served April 22, 2005 Order Seeking Clarification of the Record - Bookmarked By this Order, the Department finds that the record will be substantially complete when Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A., Czech Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Inc., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Société Air France satisfactorily provide additional information necessary to clarify the record, as specified below. Specifically, we require the Joint Applicants to (1) supply translations of foreign language documents that the Joint Applicants have deemed relevant, (2) supply a privilege log, as required by Department regulations, and further explanations for the redaction or withholding of documents, and (3) provide satisfactory narrative responses to the two questions posed in Attachment B to this Order, which will afford the Department a basis upon which to adjudicate issues of "domestic spillover" effects that may be raised in this proceeding by interested parties. Subject to a review of the information requested herein, the Department will promptly establish a procedural schedule. By: Karan Bhatia
May 9, 2005 Re: Response of Air France to Order Seeking Clarification Submitting in the enclosed sealed envelope five copies of the following documents in response to the Department's Order Seeking Clarification of the Record (Order 2005-4-21): (1) English translations of documents originally filed in French in the above-referenced Docket (Ordering Paragraph 5); (2) a privilege log in compliance with 14 C.F.R. § 303.04(h) (Ordering Paragraph 6); and (3) a brief and particularized explanation for each redaction to documents filed in the above-referenced Docket (Ordering Paragraph 7). Air France hereby incorporates by reference its February 8th Rule 12 Motion for Confidential Treatment (14 C.F.R. §302.12), and requests that the enclosed documents be accorded confidential treatment. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Miachael Goldman, 202-944-3305, mgoldman@sgbdc.com
May 9, 2005 Response of Air France to Order 2005-4-21 Carification Questions The Order directs the Joint Applicants to respond, inter alia, to additional Clarification Questions 26 and 27. Those questions inquire about how a carrier can partition "domestic" and "international" components and what data and information would not be shared in order to ensure compliance with antitrust requirements. Air France assumes from the context of the questions that the term "domestic" refers to U.S. domestic operations and that the term "antitrust requirements" refers to U.S. antitrust requirements. As the Department knows, Air France is not a U.S. citizen; it does not and cannot engage in U.S. domestic operations. Furthermore, since Air France has no such domestic operations, it does not generate and has no need or use in the usual course of business for competitively-sensitive information pertaining to U.S. domestic air transportation. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Miachael Goldman, 202-944-3305, mgoldman@sgbdc.com
May 9, 2005 Response of Delta Air Lines to Order 2005-4-21 Hereby submits this response to the Department's Order 2005-4-21 which seeks additional clarification of the record. Delta's instant response, together with its prior answers and documentary submissions, provides all the Department with all necessary and relevant information pertaining to Delta. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
May 9, 2005 Re: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines' Supplemental Information Response The Order directed KLM to submit English translations for all existing KLM documents in the record that are not currently available in English. KLM is doing KLM had already translated certain documents, or portions thereof, from Dutch to so today. To facilitate easy cross-reference, the documents that are being submitted in English contain the same KLM document numbers that appear on the documents that were previously submitted in Dutch. KLM requests confidential treatment of these documents for the same reasons set forth in the Motion for Confidential Treatment that it filed in connection with submission of the Joint Application. Counsel: KLM, Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867
May 9, 2005 Re: Northwest Airlines' Supplemental Response Please find enclosed five copies of Northwest's supplemental response made pursuant to the Department's April 21, 2005 order in the above‑captioned matter. Attachment E to Northwest's supplement response consists of confidential corporate documents and data that are being submitted in sealed containers marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12" in accordance with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. Northwest hereby incorporates by reference its Rule 12 Motion, filed on September 27, 2004, with regard to Northwest's confidential submissions in this proceeding. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3950, megan.rosia@nwa.com
May 11, 2005 Re: Letter from Czech Airlines - No Documents to Provide The purpose of this letter is simply to confirm to the Department that, in compliance with the Department's Order 2005-4-21, seeking additional clarification of the record in the referenced case, Czech Airlines has examined its records and has concluded that it has no documents or comments that are responsive to the Order or to Interrogatories 26 and 27. Nor does CSA partition its record keeping or management systems into domestic and international components. Counsel: Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508
May 12, 2005 Motion of American Airlnes to Require Joint Applicants to Submit Withheld Documents The Joint Applicants will undoubtedly respond to this motion in the same way they have responded to our previous motions - accusing American of seeking to delay the Department's consideration of the proposed immunized alliance. However, any delay is the result of the Joint Applicants' continued refusal to provide the Department with a complete record upon which an informed and reasoned decision can be made. The documents sought by this motion have already been collected and reviewed by the Joint Applicants and thus the burden of producing them will be minimal. If the proposed immunized alliance is not anticompetitive, and the Joint Applicants are concerned with the speed of these proceedings, then they should immediately produce all relevant documents and allow the Department to issue a procedural order based on a complete record. Had they done so in September instead of forcing the Department to issue repeated orders - there would be no delay about which they could complain. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
May 12, 2005 Re: Correspondence from Alitalia Submitting Internal Documents Enclosed are five copies of an English language translation of an Alitalia internal document previously submitted by Alitalia in this docket. This submission is pursuant to DOT Order 2005-4-21, April 22, 2005, requiring Alitalia to file such translation. This document, like the original version, is being submitted in a sealed envelope market "Confidential Treatment Requested under Part 302.12". Alitalia hereby incorporates by reference its Rule 12 Motion filed on September 27, 2004, with respect to this document. Alitalia has no other submissions in response to the above‑referenced Order. Alitalia did not withhold documents on the basis of a privilege or make redactions regarding documents that it submitted. Also, Alitalia understands that the Department's request for clarifications regarding potential "domestic spillover" effects is directed to and is being addressed by the U.S. carriers, Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, in their separate submissions. Counsel: Alitalia, Richard Mathias, 202-973-7917, rdmathias@zsrlaw.com
May 16, 2005 In a transparent effort to delay this proceeding further, American Airlines, Inc. has filed yet another unauthorized and spurious motion. Indeed, in the eight months since the Joint Application was filed, not a single interested party other than American has filed a pleading in the docket complaining about the adequacy of the record. Northwest and the Joint Applicants have gone to extensive lengths to respond to American's demands. The Department's Order 2005-4-21 was clear that a procedural order would issue upon submission of specified additional information. That information has been submitted. American's motion thus should be summarily denied, and a procedural schedule should be established. American will take as much leash as it is extended. The record is complete. We urge the Department to reject American's stall tactics and move to the merits of the Joint Application. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3950, megan.rosia@nwa.com
May 16, 2005 Hereby answers the Motion of American Airlines, inc. filed in the above-referenced Docket on May 12, 2005. In its Motion, American requests, inter alia, that Air France either confirm that certain documents listed on its May 9 privilege log (documents listed on the Air France privilege log that lack an asterisk indicating that they were either prepared by or sent to an attorney) are communications to or from attorneys and are covered by the attorney-client privilege, or produce copies of the documents with the specific legal advice redacted there from. In fact, Air France has already produced the documents in question with only the privileged material redacted and therefore respectfully requests that the Department deny American's Motion as it pertains to Air France. Counsel: Air France and Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305
May 18, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Leave to File and Reply to Answer of Northwest Airlines Northwest's arguments against this motion are virtually identical to the arguments it made against American's first motion. However, the Department disagreed with Northwest's arguments, and ordered the Joint Applicants to produce additional information ‑ including numerous documents showing that the proposed alliance is anticompetitive and bad for consumers. Had the Department simply relied on the Joint Applicants to produce all documents relevant to the remarkably broad immunity they are seeking, the Department would have been denied the opportunity to review hundreds of highly relevant documents previously withheld. Northwest's answer is most telling in its failure to address the substance of American's motion by providing any additional information that might dispel concerns that the documents it has withheld lack any "substantive" content. With the descriptions Northwest has given of these documents, and the lack of any further explanation, the Department should have the opportunity to determine their responsiveness and substance. Again, if Northwest has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear from producing the documents that it collected, reviewed, and Bates numbered before electing to withhold them from the Department. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
Order 2005-6-1 Issued and Served June 1, 2005 Order Establishing Procedural Schedule - Bookmarked We have now finished our initial review of this record. With the recent addition of translations, narrative responses and logs providing explanations for all withheld documents, we find that the Joint Application is now substantially complete. We establish the following procedural schedule: answers to the application must be filed no later than 21 calendar days from the issue date of this Notice, and replies must be filed no later than 7 business days after the last day for filing an answer. If any federal agency decides to file a pleading as a party, it may file no later than 14 days after the end of the reply period; in that circumstance, interested parties would have 7 business days from the date of that agency’s filing to reply to that agency’s answer. Our last procedural order (Order 2005-4-21) reserved the right to conduct a future in camera review of certain documents. Although we have found the record to be substantially complete and fit for comment, the Department intends to ensure that interested parties will have the opportunity to review the most complete record possible. Based on Northwest’s descriptions of certain documents withheld as non-responsive, we believe it is necessary to exercise our right of in camera review. We are ordering Northwest to produce the documents described above within three (3) business days By: Karan Bhatia
June 3, 2005 Northwest Submitting Additional Information NWA 05883-05887 was prepared in anticipation of the U.S. regulatory review of the KLM/Air France merger and provided, inter alia, legal advice on how best to structure KLM ' s case to obtain approval of that merger. The content of that advice is therefore plainly protected by the work product doctrine. The common interest doctrine extends that protection to the communication of NW 05883-05887 from Northwest to KLM because both airlines shared a common interest in having the KLM/Air France merger approved and the document was intended to further that interest. See United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D at 495. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia
Order 2005-6-8 Issued and Served June 10, 2005 Order to Supplement the Record We have decided to require Northwest to submit additional documents. During our in camera review, each document submitted by Northwest was carefully inspected to ascertain its responsiveness to the instructions and information requests contained in Order 2004-11-15. We find that various documents discussed topics covered by one or more of the enumerated information requests in Order 2004-11-15 and thus should be submitted for the record. We hereby order Northwest to produce the documents described in the Attachment to this Order within two (2) business days. The documents should be filed in the consolidated docket, Docket OST-2004-19214, in accordance with Department rules. To the extent that Northwest deems it necessary, it may seek confidential treatment of the information as set forth in the Department's regulations. By: Karan Bhatia
June 13, 2005 Re: Northwest Airlines' Submission of Confidential Documents Pursuant to the Department's June 10, 2005 order, enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter are five copies of the documents identified in the attachment to the order. The enclosed documents are confidential corporate documents and are being submitted in sealed containers marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12" in accordance with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. Northwest hereby incorporates by reference its Rule 12 Motion, filed on September 27, 2004, with regard to Northwest's confidential submissions in this proceeding. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3950, megan.rosia@nwa.com
June 22, 2005 Re: Federal Express Letter in Support With major operations in Memphis and remote locations worldwide, we use the SkyTeam Alliance partners for much of our travel needs. If Northwest/KLM and the SkyTearn partners are allowed to operate a coordinated international service with global antitrust immunity and code‑sharing, our options for convenient, cost‑effective air transportation will expand further. FedEx Corporation also supports grant of the applications in the hope that a stronger SkyTeam Alliance will become a building block in U.S. efforts to deregulate U.S.-E.U. international air services. As a company whose business relies on broad access to international air markets and on access to international travel, FedEx strongly supports the U.S. government's Open Skies policy. That policy has enabled us to give our customers access to the global marketplace through our door-to-door, time-definite services and the unsurpassed FedEx global network. By: Federal Express, Gina Adams
June 24, 2005 [Public] Answer of American Airlines - Bookmarked
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
June 24, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Under 14 CFR 302.12 Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
June 23, 2005 Re: Business Travel Coalition Letter in Support The SkyTeam proposal would eliminate unnecessary and costly restrictions and addresses current competitive imbalances which limit service options. For example, the SkyTeam proposal will establish additional pathways to international destinations for travelers by directly linking hubs in the US and Europe. As a result, optional travel routings will Increase, reducing travel times and costs. By: BTC, Kevin Mitchell
June 24, 2005 Answer of The Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Parties Approval of the alliance will promote the development of additional "pipeline" services, such as year-round Cincinnati-Amsterdam service. Delta's ability to access beyond-Amsterdam traffic is important to make such service a reality, since without antitrust immunity, Delta cannot coordinate effectively with KLM. On the other hand, with immunity, Delta will be able to increase traffic flow on the CVG-AMS route by offering passengers the ability to connect on KLM to points beyond Amsterdam in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Passengers using the CVG gateway will benefit from new beyondAmsterdam points, and will also have additional flexibility of routings to reach points in Europe already served by Delta via Paris. Due to the popularity of Delta's CVG-Paris flight, seats may not always be available for passengers at the times they desire, and the ability to offer alternative routings through Amsterdam is an important expanded alliance benefit. By: Robert Holscher
June 24, 2005 Answer of The Georgia and Atlanta Parties Approval of the alliance will promote the development of additional "pipeline" services between Atlanta and key SkyTeam partner hubs in Europe, such as Amsterdam. The Georgia and Atlanta Parties are delighted that KLM recently reinstated Atlanta‑Amsterdam service in anticipation of an expanded Skyleam ATI alliance. KLM previously operated Atlanta‑Amsterdam service but canceled the flight in 2001 due to weak results. Approval of the proposed alliance is vital to ensure the success and continuance of KLM's Atlanta‑Amsterdam flight ‑‑ by providing the right economic incentives for Delta and KLM to cooperate. By: Hans Gant
June 24, 2005 The Memphis Parties reemphasize that KLM will remain with Air France because of their recent merger. It is only Northwest’s future role that is truly at issue in this case. Were antitrust immunity withheld from Northwest, limiting its ability to fully participate in the SkyTeam alliance, there would be serious questions as to the carrier’s long term condition, and its ability to maintain the Memphis hub. As noted above, Memphis today receives 287 flights per day, 225 from Northwest and its partners. Without the Northwest hub, the likely level of service would be reduced to roughly 40% of the current frequency level or only 115 flights per day, based on the parallel experiences of Nashville and Raleigh-Durham when they were dehubbed by American. Such a diminution in service would clearly eliminate the foundations for the Amsterdam nonstop service and preclude any new Europe service for the foreseeable future. Such an outcome would have a devastating effect on the economic and social fabric of the community, and also lead to the loss of a significant number of jobs. Such an outcome at Memphis – and similar outcomes in other cities – would be directly contrary to the public interest. By: InterVISTAS, Jon Ash, 202-457-0212, jon_ash@intervistas.us
June 24, 2005 Answer of The Minneapolis-St. Paul Parties In the absence of antitrust immunity, the continued existence of the MSP-Amsterdam route might itself be jeopardized by the recent KLM-Air France merger. Because of the inclusion of KLM’s network in the SkyTeam immunized alliance, Northwest is at risk of exclusion unless DOT takes appropriate action to fill the current immunity gap. A failure to obtain the desired antitrust immunity would be a grave setback, not only because it could jeopardize existing MSP-Amsterdam flights, but also because it would, in effect, bar the Twin Cities and much of the northern tier from obtaining the widely recognized benefits of international alliances. By: InterVISTAS, Jon Ash, 202-457-0212, jon_ash@intervistas.us
June 24, 2005 US Airways notes that the proposal in the Joint Application would link two immunized alliances, involving two major U.S. carriers under a single grant of antitrust immunity. The Department has previously recognized that this presents novel issues. See DOT Order 2005-6-1, at 2 (citing DOT Order 2004-11-15). US Airways reserves the right to comment on this Joint Application during the course of the proceeding, but files this brief comment simply to underscore that the Department's decision, and its treatment of the relevant issues, will create a significant precedent. US Airways (and presumably other carriers) will carefully consider this precedent in the event it chooses to file (or participate in filing) its own antitrust immunity application in the future. Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 703-872-5230
June 24, 2005 Answer of The Wayne County Airport Commission Given the difficult outlook for the U.S. air carrier industry in general, and the challenges facing Northwest in particular, these plans may not come to fruition if Northwest is not able to integrate its existing alliance with KLM into the larger SkyTeam organization. The Authority urges the Department to recognize that the approval of the Joint Application is essential to the preservation of a major asset of Northwest - namely, its ability to serve the Trans Atlantic market. Absent the alliance, it is possible that Northwest would withdraw most or all of its Detroit service to Amsterdam, and possibly its service to Paris and Rome as well. Such an outcome would not only lead to a diminution of the Detroit hub, and substantially reduce Detroit's ability to be a competitive transatlantic gateway, but also cause widespread loss of economic activity and jobs within the Detroit MSA. By: InterVISTAS, Jon Ash, 202-457-0212, jon_ash@intervistas.us
July 6, 2005 Reply of Air Line Pilots Association to [Public] Answer of American Airlines Submits this reply because it is concerned that the denial of the joint application could have a severe negative effect on at least one of these two carriers, and thus on the livelihood of that carrier's pilots. The reason for this negative effect, as we show below, is that the denial of the Joint Application is likely to lead eventually to a situation in which either Delta or Northwest would not have an alliance with a North Atlantic partner, and thus would be at a severe competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the alliance carriers. In its answer to the Joint Application American Airlines assumes that should DOT disapprove the Joint Application, the Northwest-KLM and Delta-Air France immunized alliances would continue to exist. ALPA does not believe that assumption is correct, and believes that it is imperative that in reaching its decision, the Department weigh the significant negative effect that a denial could have on the U.S. applicants and their employees. Counsel: ALPA, Russell Bailey, 202-797-4095, russell.bailey@alpa.org
July 6, 2005 [Public] Reply of American Airlines - Bookmarked The best argument put forth for immunizing SkyTeam to make it competitive with oneworid is that American has an immunized alliance with Finnair ‑ hardly a competitive discipline on the proposed mega‑alliance. Likewise, the best argument put forth for ignoring the spillover effects on domestic U.S competition is that Lufthansa has immunity with Austrian, and United has immunity with Air Canada. Nothing in the answers submitted by SkyTeam's constituents comes close to overcoming the Joint Applicants' own repeated admissions that their proposed alliance is a bad deal for consumers. The Department should deny the Joint Application, and protect inter‑alliance competition for the benefit of the traveling public. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
July 6, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Under 14 CFR 302.12
July 6, 2005 [Public] Reply of The Joint Applicants - Bookmarked Declaration of Daniel M. Kasper and Darrin N. Lee Airline Antitrust Immunity - Carl Shapiro and Theresa Sullivan The Department's open skies policies, combined with the availability of antitrust immunity for international alliances, has liberalized aviation markets, enhanced consumer welfare, and produced major gains to U.S. aviation interests. The Joint Application seeks immunity for an alliance that does not substantially lessen competition, that will provide substantial benefits to consumers, and that is essential to preserving and enhancing the benefits envisioned by the Department when it approved the Northwest/KLM and SkyTeam ATI alliances. The Joint Application has received broad support from customers and affected communities. Only a single carrier ‑ a carrier with a history of opposition to open skies and alliance policies ‑ has opposed it, but its objections cannot withstand critical scrutiny and provide no basis for disapproving an alliance that will continue the march toward global open skies. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
July 6, 2005 Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202-842-3193 for Northwest / Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-663 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660 for Alitalia-Linee
July 6, 2005 Statement of Timothy J. Muris on Behalf of Northwest Airlines in Support of Reply of Joint Applicants - Bookmarked The airline industry, facing record losses and the need to perfect international networks to compete successfully, is at a crucial point in its history. Northwest, lacking a major presence in the large cities on either the East or West coasts of the United States, must be able to participate fully in the SkyTeam alliance to have a viable future as a major international carrier. Granting ATI will ensure such full participation. For the reasons in this Statement, in addition to the reasons set forth in today's Joint Reply, I believe the objections raised by American are without merit and do not reflect modern antitrust law or policy. Granting ATI will result in a more competitive international marketplace, which is the real concern of American. Because ATI will benefit America's consumers, the Joint Application should be approved. Counsel: Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia
July 14, 2005 Reply of United Air Lines and Motion for Leave to File American's filing must be viewed in the appropriate context. American, unable to match the network growth and service benefits of competitors like Star and SkyTeam due to American's and British Airways' refusal to open Heathrow to free competition and accept the Department's conditions required for a grant of immunity, is trying to convince the Department to erect artificial barriers to protect American from intensifying competition. However, such action would hinder the continuing globalization of the industry and deprive consumers of the substantial benefits that immunized alliances and free markets have bestowed. The Department should see American's objection for what it is and analyze the pending SkyTeam immunity application solely on its merits based on the Department's established criteria. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202.663.6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
July 15, 2005 Joint Motion of Applicants to Strike The Joint Applicants move that American's Reply be stricken from the record. American's Reply is based on an irresponsible and inaccurate characterization of a select few of the Joint Applicant's confidential documents. American's efforts to exploit those documents for public spectacle should not be condoned. The confidential record is consistent with the views of the Joint Applicants and their proponents that approval of this alliance will result in public benefits though the introduction of additional transatlantic service, improved paths and connectivity, greater inventory and improved consumer welfare. Counsel: Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193 for Northwest / Hogan & Hartson, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202.663.8060 for Delta / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202.944.3305 for Air France / Paul Mifsud, 202.861.5867 for KLM / Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202.463.2508 for Czech / Zuckert Scoutt Richard Mathias, 202.298.8660 for Alitalia-Linee
July 15, 2005 [Public] Motion for Leave to File and Surreply of American Airlines The Joint Applicants - unable to rebut any of the facts set forth in American's answer - have resorted to arguing about Heathrow. Yet Heathrow's only relevance to this proceeding is as a point of reference. Specifically, Heathrow data shows that global immunized alliances, in the absence of broader inter-alliance competition, have stunted growth in the open skies hub markets of Paris and Frankfurt so badly that they are now less competitive than the non-open skies London airports. While SkyTeam's and Star's' desire to change the subject is understandable, it should not distract the Department from the fact that there is no evidence that SkyTeam has been good for consumers, and none that eliminating international competition between Delta and Northwest would improve the situation. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
July 15, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment Under 14 CFR 302.12 Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
July 15, 2005 Comments of Business Travel Coalition - Support of Antitrust and Codesharing Application of SkyTeam The KLM, Delta, Air France, Northwest, Alitalia, and Czech Airlines proposal before you is fully consistent with the positive benefits the Department has said, during the past thirteen years, would come about as international carriers increase codesharing and alliance partnerships. Approval of this proposal would enable effective integration of their international services as members of the SkyTeam alliance and further promote the objective of worldwide 'Open Skies." This proposal responds to our need to develop additional international business relationships while carefully controlling our costs. Moreover, this alliance will help reduce travel times and increase travel opportunities. This alliance will also pressure other governments, including the United Kingdom, to agree to open up aviation markets. By: BTC
July 15, 2005 Re: Letter from Business Travel Coalition to Deputy Secretary Maria Cino After reviewing all comments, including those from the one party opposing the proposal, American Airlines, we are more convinced that this alliance when approved by the Department will: strengthen airlines at a time when costs, particularly fuel and security, continue to escalate; increase service options for all travelers; shorten travel times and eliminate connections in many markets; and strengthen competition among global alliances which would provide pricing discipline over the long term. By: BTC
July 15, 2005 Notice Extending Procedural Date In view of the volume of information filed by interested parties thus far, we believe that other federal agencies may need additional time to evaluate the information and prepare comments. The Department hereby modifies the procedural schedule as follows: If any federal agency decides to file a pleading as a party, it may file no later than August 10, 2005; in that circumstance, interested parties would have 7 business days from the date of that agency's filing to reply to that agency's filing. By: Karan Bhatia
July 18, 2005 Answer of American Airlines to Joint Applicants' Motion to Strike The applicants contend that American's reply of July 6, 2005 mischaracterizes SkyTeam's confidential documents and that our reply is not a proper reply but instead a 'Ire-hash" of points made in our answer. Neither assertion is valid. SkyTeam's confidential documents speak for themselves, and American's reply is legitimate and appropriate. It is also legitimate to point out - as we did in our reply - that none of the civic parties that filed answers had submitted confidentiality affidavits to see SkyTeam's documents first hand. Indeed, if any parties have engaged in mischaracterizing documents, those parties are the SkyTeam applicants, most recently in their Joint Motion itself. If the joint applicants believe that the documents American cited support their case, they should simply release them and let the public decide. American's pleading is without question a proper reply. The SkyTeam applicants understandably do not wish to be confronted with the disparity between their public and confidential statements, but that wish does not justify striking American's reply. Counsel: Carl Nelson, carl.nelson@aa.com
July 20, 2005 Re: Business Travel Coalition Support for Application By: BTC
July 20, 2005
Letters in Support:
Issued and Served August 10, 2005 Notice of Extension of Government Filings Period For the administrative convenience of relevant government agencies, the date for governmental filings is extended from August 10 to August 19. By: Karan Bhatia
August 19, 2005 Public Comments of The Department of Justice - Bookmarked Approval of the Joint Application would represent an extension of the DOT's prior practice in granting antitrust immunity. Applicants seek to create the first immunized international alliance to include two major U.S. airlines. It would be primarily an overlapping combination, in contrast to the largely end-to-end collaborations for which the original SkyTeam and Northwest/KLM alliances obtained immunity. The benefits attributable to immunity likely would be modest. And the application leaves the most important details of the coordination undefined, making it difficult to conclude on these facts that the purported benefits of immunity justify weakening the protections afforded the public by the nation's antitrust laws. Accordingly, the DOJ believes that the current record does not adequately support the requested antitrust immunity for the expanded SkyTeam alliance. Counsel: DOJ, Susan Edelheit, 202-616-5940, susan.edelheit@usdoj.gov
August 19, 2005 Motion of The Department of Justice for Confidential Treatment Under 14 CFR 302.12 Counsel: DOJ, Susan Edelheit, 202-616-5940, susan.edelheit@usdoj.gov
August 19, 2005 Confidentiality Affidavits for The Department of Justice Counsel: DOJ, Susan Edelheit, 202-616-5940, susan.edelheit@usdoj.gov
August 30, 2005 Consolidated Response of the Joint Applicants - Bookmarked First, Joint Applicants state that they are willing to amend the Alliance Agreements and thereby accept a more narrowly tailored grant of immunity, limited only to foreign air transportation via transatlantic routings, and hereby amend their application accordingly. Although all prior grants of antitrust immunity by the Department have been global in scope, the Joint Applicants believe that transatlantic immunity will provide them with the essential authority to preserve and enhance the current levels of alliance cooperation and coordination. Second the Joint Applicants will also amend their Alliance Agreements to make clear that the Alliance Agreements do not cover matters involving "interstate air transportation." The Joint Application seeks only immunity for agreements relating to foreign air transportation. To make this absolutely clear and to address the DOJ's concerns, the Joint Applicants would agree to imposition of conditions as described herein. Third the DOJ's view that the Joint Applicants do not require immunity because their envisaged procompetitive alliance activities do not create unacceptable antitrust exposure risk is untenable and at odds with an unbroken line of Department of Transportation precedents. In every case in which it has granted antitrust immunity, the Department has acted on the basis of the same good-faith representations presented by the Joint Applicants in this proceeding -namely, that coordinating competitively sensitive alliance activities - particularly those involving pricing and capacity decisions and the sharing of revenue -- requires immunity due to the very real risk of litigation exposure. The Joint Applicants cannot achieve the full benefits of their alliance without immunity, and they are entitled to no less consideration than other immunized alliance applicants. Further, the Department has routinely approved additional immunity applications by carriers from open skies countries, notwithstanding the fact that a liberal aviation agreement had already been achieved. In light of the fact that the DOJ has confirmed the Joint Applicants' view that approval of the Joint Application will not lessen competition on transatlantic routes, and in view of the fact that the Joint Applicants have agreed to drop non-transatlantic routes from their application, the competitive issues raised by American in its Surreply are irrelevant. Indeed, American concedes that Delta and Northwest should receive immunity for transatlantic alliance coordination with Air-France/KLM, although American's proposed solution is unworkable in form. Counsel: Northwest - Boies Schiller, James Denvir
August 30, 2005 Joint Motion of Joint Applicants for Confidential Treatment The Joint Applicants hereby move for confidential treatment of the redacted portions of their Response and related expert materials filed today in the captioned docket. Confidential versions of these documents are being submitted via overnight courier in a sealed envelope marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12." The confidential information at issue relates to documents that are already covered by pending Motions for Confidential Treatment filed by the respective Joint Applicants in the captioned docket. The Joint Applicants hereby adopt and incorporate by reference the augments set forth in their prior Motions for Confidential Treatment. Counsel: Delta - Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
August 30, 2005 Re: Business Travel Coalition Support for Antitrust Immunity I am again writing to the Department of Transportation to emphasize the Business Travel Coalition's strong belief that the Department should approve the application of Northwest, KLM, Delta, Air France, Alitalia, and Czech Airlines for antitrust immunity to integrate their international services as members of the SkyTeam alliance. These comments are being submitted in response to those filed by the Department of Justice on August 22, 2005. The BTC does not believe that the DOJ comments present a basis for the Department to deny this proposal. The BTC continues to strongly believe that approval of this proposal will result in both substantial benefits to travelers and businesses throughout this country and will lead to further UE/EU liberalization. By: BTC, Kevin Mitchell
August 30, 2005 United believes two aspects of the DOJ's filing are particularly significant: the finding that the grant of immunity to the applicants is unlikely to reduce competition in transatlantic markets, and the recommendation against granting the applicants' request for immunity principally because of concerns about domestic spillover risk) The DOJ recognizes that the transatlantic market is highly competitive and that, notwithstanding American's self-interested opposition to granting the joint applicants immunity for transatlantic cooperation? facilitating such cooperation among the joint applicants in transatlantic markets is unlikely to reduce competition substantially. As the DOJ points out, consumers benefit when largely complementary networks are combined to form a deeper and broader network, and when these networks freely compete with other networks. Here, even though the DOJ finds that Delta and Northwest, with their existing immunized alliance relationships, have largely overlapping networks and thus can offer fewer new consumer benefits from a further grant of immunity than in past alliance cases, it still concludes that because transatlantic competition is robust, a grant of immunity will not substantially lessen competition in these markets. But the DOJ also points out that the SkyTeam application is unprecedented, being the first application for immunity filed with the DOT by two domestic carriers. As such, the DOT's decision on the application raises important policy issues not vetted in prior proceedings where it has granted immunity to alliances between a single U.S. airline and one or more foreign carriers. The DOT's decision here will, therefore, set an important precedent that will have a direct bearing on the future structure of the domestic airline industry. For the reasons discussed below, United urges the DOT to adopt a clear policy to prohibit immunity between domestic carriers absent evidence it would achieve important benefits not otherwise attainable. Counsel: United and Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmer.com
September 9, 2005 Motion of American for Leave to File and Surreply - Bookmarked American Airlines, Inc. hereby moves for leave to file the following surreply to the Joint Response and related pleadings submitted by or on behalf of the Joint Applicants on August 30, 2005. Such a motion has ample precedent in a proceeding of this importance (OST-1997-2058-110; OST-1997-3285-57). A surreply is particularly warranted where the Joint Applicants substantially amended their application in their Joint Response (pp. 3-4) and have proposed significant new conditions on domestic effects (pp. 30-31) Accordingly, American's surreply should be accepted in the interest of a complete record for the Department's consideration. As opposition to their proposed alliance grows, SkyTeam has still failed to put forward an affirmative case to support the claim that the Joint Application is necessary to create procompetitive benefits for consumers. While SkyTeam is now willing to accept that immunity should not be granted beyond transatlantic cooperation, and that some limitation should be placed on immunity to protect domestic competition, the Department still has two important issues to decide: • Whether the Joint Applicants have made the necessary showing that eliminating transatlantic competition between Delta and Northwest would deliver public benefits to consumers that outweigh potential adverse consequences. • Whether the domestic effects of international cooperation would be inappropriately shielded from antitrust scrutiny by the Joint Applicants' proposal. American's surreply responds to the Joint Applicants on these two key issues. Counsel: American, Bruce Wark, 817-967-3812, bruce.wark@aa.com
September 9, 2005 Motion of American Airlines for Confidential Treatment American Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby moves the Department for confidential treatment of the accompanying confidential motion and surreply. As provided by the Department's rules, our confidential motion and surreply is in a sealed envelope labeled "Confidential Treatment Requested Under 14 CFR 302.12. Our confidential motion and surreply makes reference to confidential material submitted in this docket by the Joint Applicants. This material is protected from public disclosure by the Department's notice of October 18, 2004. Consistent with that notice, we will provide our confidential motion and surreply only to holders of valid confidentiality affidavits on file in this docket. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
September 12, 2005 Motion for Leave to File and Comments of US Airways These comments do not address the specifics of SkyTeam' s amended application, and US Airways takes no position on it. Rather, US Airways comments on a broader issue – the appropriate regulatory approach for the Department in considering antitrust immunity for international operations by global alliances that include multiple U.S. airlines, whether SkyTeam-Northwest or others. This issue is of utmost importance as the extraordinary financial forces buffeting the U.S. airline industry increase the pressure for inter-carrier integration and/or consolidation - whether by mergers, immunized alliance participation, or non-immunized cooperation. The proceeding in this docket therefore has ramifications far broader than the outcome of the specific application before the Department, as the precedent set here will guide carrier and alliance strategic planning - including that of US Airways - for the foreseeable future. Counsel: US Airways, Howard Kass, 703-872-5230, howard_kass@usairways.com
September 15, 2005 Motion of American Airlines to Suspend Consideration of Joint Application American Airlines, Inc. hereby moves the Department to suspend consideration of the captioned joint application for antitrust immunity in light of the bankruptcy filings by both Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc. on September 14, 2005. The Delta and Northwest bankruptcies have a significant and material effect on the evidentiary record in this proceeding, which did not contemplate or address simultaneous Chapter 11 filings by both of the U.S. carrier applicants. The full impact of the two bankruptcies on the antitrust immunity being sought by Delta, Northwest, and their four European SkyTeam partners will remain uncertain for a considerable period of time as the two U.S. carrier applicants undergo the bankruptcy process. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
September 16, 2005 Motion for Leave to File and Joint Applicants' Consolidated Response to American Airlines As if the Department needed any more proof of American's true motivations and delay tactics, American filed a Motion on September 15 urging suspension of this proceeding "for a period of at least 12 months" because of the Chapter 11 filings by Delta and Northwest. The Department should reject American's meritless and oppotunitic motion to dismiss. Counsel: Delta - Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
December 15, 2005 Ex-Parte Letter to Geoff Davis At this time, the Department is reviewing the comments filed in relation to the application. Decisions regarding requests for antitrust immunity and code-share authority are based upon antitrust laws and principles and the public interest. As this proceeding is pending, I am sure you understand that I cannot comment on the merits of the case. I assure you, however, that the Department will give full consideration to the joint applicants' request and all comments on the record in the docket. By: Maria Cino
December 19, 2005 Ex-Parte Letter to Johnny Isakson At this time, the Department is reviewing the comments filed in relation to the application. Decisions regarding requests for antitrust immunity and code-share authority are based upon antitrust laws and principles and the public interest. As this proceeding is pending, I am sure you understand that I cannot comment on the merits of the case. I assure you, however, that the Department will give full consideration to the joint applicants' request and all comments on the record in the docket. By: Maria Cino
December 19, 2005 Ex-Parte Letter to Mitch McConnell At this time, the Department is reviewing the comments filed in relation to the application. Decisions regarding requests for antitrust immunity and code-share authority are based upon antitrust laws and principles and the public interest. As this proceeding is pending, I am sure you understand that I cannot comment on the merits of the case. I assure you, however, that the Department will give full consideration to the joint applicants' request and all comments on the record in the docket. By: Maria Cino
December 16, 2005 Ex-Parte Letter to Robert Bennett At this time, the Department is reviewing the comments filed in relation to the application. Decisions regarding requests for antitrust immunity and code-share authority are based upon antitrust laws and principles and the public interest. As this proceeding is pending, I am sure you understand that I cannot comment on the merits of the case. I assure you, however, that the Department will give full consideration to the joint applicants' request and all comments on the record in the docket. By: Maria Cino
Order 2005-12-12 Issued and Served December 22, 2005 Order to Show Cause - Bookmarked In this consolidated docket, Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A., Czech Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Inc., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Inc., and Société Air France propose to expand cooperation under the umbrella of the SkyTeam global marketing alliance. Specifically, they seek blanket statements of authorization to engage in reciprocal code shares and approval of, and six-way antitrust immunity for, alliance agreements covering foreign air transportation via transatlantic routings. We have tentatively decided to grant the blanket statements of authorization, subject to standard conditions, thereby approving the application for code shares. We base this on our tentative conclusion that granting blanket statements of authorization is in the public interest because, under the SkyTeam umbrella, the Joint Applicants may use expanded code share authority to produce some public benefits, including some new online service and more frequent and convenient online service options. We have also tentatively decided that granting antitrust immunity for the alliance agreements is not required by the public interest. We have been unable to find, based on the present record and current circumstances, that the Joint Applicants have demonstrated that approval of antitrust immunity for the alliance agreements would provide sufficient public benefits. This tentative decision is consistent with the recommendation of the United States Department of Justice, which urged us to deny the request for antitrust immunity on the grounds that the Joint Applicants had failed to show that expanded antitrust immunity would provide significant public benefits. While we have tentatively decided not to approve additional immunity, the existing Northwest/KLM and Delta/Air France/Alitalia/Czech immunized alliances may continue to operate with their current rights and privileges, and subject to the same conditions and restrictions. By: Michael Reynolds
January 11, 2006 Joint Applicants' Response to Show Cause Order 2005-12-12 and Motion to Dismiss The Joint Applicants are extremely disappointed with the Department's tentative decision in Show Cause Order 2005-12-12 to deny antitrust immunity. The Department reached the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. However, in light of the fact that the Department remains open to reconsidering a grant of immunity to the Joint Applicants in the future, the Joint Applicants have decided at this time to withdraw their request for approval of and antitrust immunity for the Alliance Agreements. The Show Cause Order tentatively approved the unopposed blanket codeshare statements of authorization requested by the Joint Applicants under 14 C.F.R. Part 212, and found them to be in the public interest. The Joint Applicants agree with this aspect of the Show Cause Order and urge that it be made final immediately. Counsel: Delta - Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
Order 2006-2-1 Issued and Served February 6, 2006 Final Order - Bookmarked In Order 2005-12-12. we noted that the Department has typically found international codesharing arrangements to be pro-competitive and therefore consistent with the public interest because they create new online services. improve existing services, lower costs, and increase efficiency for the benefit of the traveling and shipping public. Approval of blanket code sharing will enable the Joint Applicants to offer these consumer benefits. It will enable members of SkyTeam to offer the traveling public single SkyTearn member-marketed itinerary options in markets in which, at present, they can only offer multiplecoded itineraries. Code sharing will also enable members of SkyTeam to offer consumers more frequent and convenient service through the creation of more online routings in markets where one or more SkyTeam members can already market one or more online service options. The authority to code share will also facilitate valuable marketing support for new gateway-to-gateway flights by the SkyTeam carriers that take advantage of the network linkages created when Northwest and KLM (as well as Continental) joined SkyTeam last year. The Joint Applicants filed a timely response to Order 2005-12-12, disagreeing with our tentative conclusions regarding antitrust immunity and moving to dismiss, without prejudice, their application under 49 U.S.C. § 41308 and 41309. The motion was unopposed. In view of the tentative findings in Order 2005-12-12, we grant the Joint Applicants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice, their application for antitrust immunity. By: Michael Reynolds
March 14, 2006 Destruction of Documents Affidavit of American Airlines - Carl Nelson Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 15, 2006 Destruction of Documents Affidavit of Lufthansa - David Heffernan Counsel: Wilmer Hale, David Heffernan, 202-663-6360, david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com
March 15, 2006 Destruction of Documents Affidavit of United - Jonathan Moss Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Jonathan Moss, 202-663-6670, jonathan.moss@wilmerhale.com
April 7, 2006 Affidavit of US Airways - Howard Kass
OST-2003-14397 - KLM - Exemption and Statement of Authorization Permitting Codeshare Operations April 11, 2006 Joint Application for a Statement of Authorization and Amended Exemptions Delta and CityHopper hereby apply for a statement of authorization and exemptions to permit the Joint Applicants to engage in codesharing on flights operated by CityHopper within, beyond and outside the Netherlands to the full extent permitted by the U.S.-Netherlands open skies agreement. The Joint Applicants are requesting this authority to introduce certain new codesharing services within Europe as soon as possible, and other codesharing services in the future. Specifically, the Joint Applicants request prompt approval of the following authorities:
The Joint Applicants request that this application be approved as soon as possible, that the statement of authorization remain in effect indefinitely that CityHopper's amended exemption be granted through February 15, 2007 (coextensive with its existing exemption in Docket OST-2003-14397) and that Delta's amended exemption be granted through February 6, 2008 (coextensive Delta's existing exemption in Docket OST-2005-20145). Counsel: KLM - Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202-626-6840 / Delta - Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
April 14, 2006 Re: Codeshare Audit Compliance Statement Attached is the Codeshare Audit Compliance Statement described in numbered paragraph 7 of the above‑referenced application filed on April 11, 2006. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Jonathan Echmalian, 202-637-5439
OST-2003-14397 - KLM - Exemption and Statement of Authorization Permitting Codeshare Operations Filed April 11, 2006 | Issued May 1, 2006 Statement of authorization for blanket code-share authority for Cityhopper under CFR Part 212 to: Permit Cityhopper to display the"DL" code of Delta on flights operated by Cityhopper between (1) any points in the Netherlands; (2) any point or points in the Netherlands and any point or points in any third country; and (3) any points in third countries. Amended exemption for Cityhopper under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail by displaying Delta's designator code on flights operated by Cityhopper between (1) any points in the Netherlands; (2) any point or points in the Netherlands and any point or points in any third country; and (3) any points in third countries. The applicants request that the exemption authority be granted for a period co-extensive with its exemption granted previously in the instant docket (through February 15, 2007). Amended exemption for Delta under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to include Cityhopper as an additional authorized foreign code-share partner and permit Delta to display its designator code on flights operated by Cityhopper on the following services: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between the United States and points worldwide on a third-country code-share basis pursuant to the blanket code-sharing statement of authorization with Cityhopper. The applicants request that the exemption authority be granted for a period co-extensive with its exemption granted previously in the instant docket (through February 6, 2008). CODE-SHARE ROUTES: Amsterdam-Hamburg / Amsterdam-Oslo / Amsterdam-Hanover / Amsterdam-Nuremburg / Amsterdam-Newcastle / Amsterdam-Bremen / Amsterdam-Luxembourg / Amsterdam-Riga By: Paul Gretch
June 12, 2006 Notice of Northwest Airlines and Air France of Additional Codesharing Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted to Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Societe Air France by Order 2006-2-1, dated February 6, 2006, the Joint Applicants hereby notify the Department that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, Northwest’s “NW" designator code will be displayed on flights operated by Air France on routes listed in Exhibit A (to/from Paris), and Air France’s “AF” designator code will be displayed on flights operated by Northwest on routes listed in Exhibit B (to/from Detroit). Counsel: Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184, sascha.vanderbellen@nwa.com for Northwest / Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France
June 20, 2006 Application of Comair for a Statement of Authorization Comair hereby applies for a blanket statement of authorization permitting it to display the "KL*" designator code of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on "Delta Connection" flights operated by Comair on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. within the United States and beyond the United States to third countries. Comair, Delta, and KLM seek to begin offering these codeshare services as soon as possible. Accordingly, Comair requests that this application be promptly approved and that the requested statement of authorization be granted for an indefinite duration. By Order 2006-2-1, the Department awarded Delta and KLM blanket statements of authorization for reciprocal codesharing under the U.S.-Netherlands open skies agreement and the Delta-KLM Codesharing Agreement. Subsequently, by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 1, 2006, the Department granted KLM Cityhopper B.V. a statement of authorization and an exemption, as well as an amended exemption to Delta, permitting those two carriers to codeshare on KLM Cityhopper flights. Such authority is administered in conjunction with the previously approved Delta/KLM codesharing authority. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
July 18, 2006 Application of Atlantic Southeast Airlines for a Statement of Authorization - Bookmarked Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. hereby applies for a blanket statement of authorization permitting it to display the "KL*" designator code of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on "Delta Connection" flights operated by ASA on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. within the United States and beyond the United States to third countries. ASA, Delta, and KLM seek to begin offering these codeshare services as soon as possible. Accordingly, ASA requests that this application be promptly approved and that the requested statement of authorization be granted for an indefinite duration. To the extent necessary, ASA hereby requests a waiver of the 45-day advance filing requirement under Part 212 so that ASA/KLM codesharing services may be introduced without delay. By Order 2006-2-1, the Department awarded Delta and KLM blanket statements of authorization for reciprocal codesharing under the U.S.-Netherlands open skies agreement and the Delta-KLM Codesharing Agreement. Subsequently, by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 1, 2006, the Department granted KLM Cityhopper B.V. a statement of authorization and an exemption, as well as an amended exemption to Delta, permitting those two carriers to codeshare on KLM Cityhopper flights. Such authority is administered in conjunction with the previously approved Delta-KLM codesharing authority. Now, KLM, Delta and ASA have agreed to expand codesharing to encompass Delta Connection flights operated by ASA within and beyond the United States. Accordingly, ASA requests a blanket statement of authorization under 14 C.F.R. Part 212, permitting it to display KLM's "KL*" designator code on flights operated by ASA (a) within the United States (in conjunction with KLM's services in foreign air transportation), and (b) between the United States and third countries. Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
August 16, 2006 Notice of Delta Air Lines and KLM for Additional Codesharing Delta Air Lines, Inc., KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and KLM Cityhopper B.V. notify the Department pursuant to their blanket statements of authorization that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, the carriers plan to display Delta's "DL" designator code on flights operated by KLM or Cityhopper between Amsterdam and each of the following points:
Counsel: Squire Sanders, Charles Donley, 202-626-6840 for KLM / Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999 for Delta
September 18, 2006 Notice Northwest Airlines and Air France of Substitute Codeshare Points Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted to Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Société Air France by Order 2006-2-1, dated February 6, 2006, the Joint Applicants hereby notify the Department that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, Northwest’s “NW” designator code will be displayed on flights operated by Air France between Paris, France and Amman, Jordan. Due to commercial constraints which limit the number of beyond codeshare points under the agreement, Northwest no longer intends to codeshare on Air France flights between Paris and Düsseldorf, Germany. Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Michael Goldman, 202-944-3305 for Air France / Sascha Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184 for Northwest
Filed June 20, 2006 and July 18, 2006 | Approved October 18, 2006 Department Action on Application Application of Comair, Inc. for a blanket statement of authorization to display the “KL*” designator code of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on “Delta Connection” flights operated by Comair on behalf of Delta within the United States (in conjunction with KLM’s services in foreign air transportation), and between the United States and third countries. The carrier also requests that notice regarding codeshare service to additional points via one U.S. gateway be deemed notice given via all U.S. gateways. Application of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. for a blanket statement of authorization to display the “KL*” designator code of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines on “Delta Connection” flights operated by ASA on behalf of Delta within the United States (in conjunction with KLM’s services in foreign air transportation) and between the United States and third countries. The carrier also requests that notice regarding codeshare service to additional points via one U.S. gateway be deemed notice given via all U.S. gateways.
ASA requested in its application that notice given by either Delta, Comair, or ASA be deemed notice given by all three carriers. We grant the carrier’s request. By: Esta Rosenberg
November 9, 2006 Notice of Additional Codesharing - Delta and KLM Delta, Comair and ASA, and KLM hereby notify the Department pursuant to their blanket statements of authorization that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, the carriers plan to display KLM's "KL" designator code on flights operated by Delta, Comair, and/or ASA, between KLM's authorized U.S. gateways and each of the following points:
Delta will initially be the operating carrier, providing service via the Atlanta gateway. However, pursuant to condition (d) of Department Action on Application in Docket OST-2004-19214 dated October 18, 2006, service may subsequently be operated by Delta, Comair and/or ASA via any authorized U.S. gateway. In addition, the carriers hereby give notice that flights displaying the "KL" designator code to and from points for which notice has previously been given may be operated by Delta, Comair and/or ASA via any authorized U.S. gateway Counsel: KLM, Paul Mifsud, 202-861-5867 / Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999
November 28, 2006 Notice of Additional Codesharing Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted to Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A. by Order 2006-2-1, February 6, 2006, these carriers hereby notify the Department that, beginning no earlier than 30 days from today, Alitalia's designator code "AZ" will be displayed on flights operated by Northwest between Detroit and Boston and between Detroit and New York/Newark. In addition, Northwest plans to introduce previously-noticed codeshare services between Amsterdam, on the one hand, and Milan and Rome (FCO), on the other hand. Counsel: Northwest, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184, sascha.vanderbellen@nwa.com for Northwest / Zuckert Scoutt, Richard Mathias, 202-298-8660, rdmathias@zsrlaw.com
December 22, 2006 |