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-2005-20406 - 2005 Los Angeles-Mexico City Combination Service Proceeding
|
2005 Los Angeles-Mexico City Combination Service Proceeding Order 2005-2-8 Issued and Served February 14, 2005 In view of our ability to designate only one additional U.S. carrier to serve the Los Angeles‑Mexico City market, and in light of the competing applications filed for this limited‑entry route right, we have decided to institute the 2005 Los Angeles‑Mexico City Combination Service Proceeding to select one primary and one backup carrier to provide scheduled foreign air transportation services of persons, property, and mail in the Los Angeles‑Mexico City market. The supplemental information is to be filed no later than seven (7) calendar days from the service date of this order. The Parties' responses to these submissions and their briefs will be due seven (7) calendar days thereafter. By: Karan Bhatia
February 14, 2005 Re: Clarification for Filing Supplemental Information Given that February 21, 2005 is a legal holiday, as a matter of clarification, supplemental information is to be filed no later than close of business on Tuesday, February 22, 2004. The Parties' responses to these submissions and their briefs will be due no later than close of business on Tuesday, March 1, 2005. By: Office of International Aviation, Brian Hedberg
February 14, 2005 Re: Alaska Airlines Request for Additional Time Given the short time frames provided for in the instituting order, I am asking on behalf of Alaska Airlines that each of the two respective due dates of the 21st and 28th, as stated in the order, be slipped by one day. The stated supplementation date of the 21st is a federal holiday and should be moved to the 22nd. Shifting the rebuttal date from the 28th until the 29th will then preserve the same 7 calendar period for rebuttals and should not affect the decisional process. I would ask that you consider this e mail as the equivalent of a formal request. However, if the Department feels that this request needs to be submitted on paper, I would kindly ask that you advise me at your early convenience. I will also file this request tomorrow morning with the Docket Section. Counsel: Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick
February 15, 2005 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Bruce Keiner, Jr. for Continental Airlines Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, Jr.
February 22, 2005 Supplement of Alaska Airlines - Bookmarked Selection of Alaska will not only increase intragateway competition at Los Angeles, but will also enhance intergateway competition‑a claim no other applicant in this proceeding can seriously make. Every other applicant serves Mexico City from its principal hub and, in some cases, from multiple hubs, and every other applicant will have the incentive, and the ability, to divert traffic from Los Angeles to support its operations at other U.S. gateway points. Unlike each of the other applicants, Alaska will have absolutely no incentive to divert traffic from Los Angeles to support other U.S. gateway cities. Injection of a new proven competitive force into the U.S.‑Mexico City markets is especially important in view of the limited number of designations available under existing bilateral restrictions. The Department has an opportunity in this proceeding to provide not only Los Angeles passengers, but also U.S. consumers on the West Coast, with a new travel alternative to Mexico City. Counsel: Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
February 22, 2005 Exhibits of American Airlines in Response to Order 2005-2-8 - Bookmarked In the forecast year ended March 31, 2006, American expects to carry 186,946 passengers between Los Angeles and Mexico City, including 140,337 passengers in the local market, 18,566 passengers from on-line U.S. connecting cities, and 28,042 passengers to cities in Mexico beyond Mexico City (AA* on Mexicana-operated codeshare flights). American presently offers codeshare service between Los Angeles and Mexico City on flights operated by Mexicana If American is awarded authority in this proceeding, its codeshare service with Mexicana will continue, and American will propose that Mexicana display the MX* code on American's Los Angeles‑Mexico City operations. Los Angeles‑Mexico City is the largest U.S.‑Mexico city‑pair market. With the exit of Delta Air Lines as of January 30, 2005, the remaining U.S. carrier is long‑term incumbent United Air Lines. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
February 22, 2005 Supplemental Application of America West Airlines for an Exemption
In 2004, America West committed to expanding its competitive position at LAX, and our goal is to continue growing our LAX service. As discussed in its Application, since September 2003 America West has rapidly expanded its presence at LAX, beginning transcontinental service from Boston and New York, increasing the number of cities it serves from two to nine and increasing daily LAX departures 40 percent. No other carrier offering at least ten daily departures at LAX can claim this level of growth over this period. Currently, American and Alaska are by far the dominant carriers in the LAX-Mexico market. Counsel: Baker Hostetler, David Kirstein, 202-861-1532
February 22, 2005 Supplement to Application of Continental Airlines
Continental forecasts that it will carry over 65,000 Los Angeles‑Mexico City passengers annually. Continental will offer a wide range of fares between Los Angeles and Mexico City, from low discount fares to first class fares geared to business travelers. Continental did not codeshare with Delta on its Los Angeles‑Mexico City flights, and Continental has no current plans to offer codeshare service on its proposed Los Angeles‑Mexico City flights with Delta or Aeromexico. Continental will offer interline connections with other airlines, including Aeromexico in Mexico City, and in Los Angeles. Continental may in the future implement code sharing on Aeromexico or Aerolitoral flights beyond Mexico City to offer additional on‑line connecting services. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615
March 1, 2005 Rebuttal Comments of Alaska Airlines - Bookmarked A review of the supplementary proposals submitted by other applicants in this proceeding reaffirms that Alaska's proposal best satisfies the selection criteria set forth in the Department of Transportation's instituting order. Most importantly, Alaska is the only new entrant applicant at Mexico City. The enormous competitive benefits resulting from this fact alone justifies selection of Alaska over the competing applicants. When Alaska's new entrant status is combined with its multiple daily service, impressive Los Angeles presence, extensive West Coast‑Pacific Northwest‑State of Alaska network, demonstrated success in developing Mexico markets, number one position in both the West Coast‑Mexico and Los Angeles‑Mexico markets and strong incentive to compete against the incumbent Los Angeles‑Mexico City carriers, the superiority of Alaska's proposal is clear. The Department should grant Alaska an exemption to serve Los AngelesMexico City and promptly designate Alaska under the U.S.‑Mexico bilateral as the market's second U.S. carrier. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 1, 2005 Brief of America West Airlines and Rebuttal Exhibits - Bookmarked All the applicants, except Continental, propose two daily round trips operating at approximately the same times. Accordingly, the single most important public benefit the Department can achieve in this restricted market is introducing price competition, thereby lowering the general fare level and delivering substantial savings to consumers. America West's service will focus on bringing the maximum benefit of low‑cost service to the large local LAX-MEX market. As America West explained in its Direct Exhibits, the introduction of its low‑cost service will immediately benefit this market by reducing the average LAX-MEX fare from $191 to no more than $168, or at least a 12 percent reduction. This will generate annual savings of over $15.5 million to current consumers. The reduced fares will also stimulate the market by creating approximately 161,330 new consumers annually and over $27.1 million in new consumer value. Counsel: Baker & Hostetler, Joanne Young, 202-861-1532
March 1, 2005 Reply and Brief of American Airlines - Bookmarked American will provide the most capacity, serve the largest number of passengers, provide the largest number of U.S. cities with on‑line one‑stop service behind Los Angeles, and provide the only codeshare service on the route to points in Mexico beyond Mexico City. Alaska and America West failed in material respects to comply with the evidence request, and their applications should be dismissed. The Department should proceed immediately to a final order selecting American as the second U.S. carrier on the Los Angeles‑Mexico City route. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 1, 2005 Brief of Continental Airlines - Bookmarked
Continental urges the Department to grant Continental authority to implement its realistic proposal to operate daily nonstop roundtrip service between Los Angeles and Mexico City to serve this primarily-local market and provide Continental with an anchor route to support its Los Angeles-Mexico service initiatives. Continental has developed a comprehensive U.S. -Mexico network including cities both large and small on both sides of the border. Continental's network of 30 Mexican cities is more than twice the number of cities served by American, its largest rival in Mexico. Neither Alaska nor America West has even attempted to build a comprehensive U.S.-Mexico network, despite opportunities open to them for flights between all of their hubs and points throughout Mexico, including Mexico City. Continental has developed a strong identity throughout the U.S.-Mexico marketplace and serves both hub and non-hub cities from Mexico City, and this strength at Mexico City will enable Continental to develop traffic effectively on the Los Angeles-Mexico City route. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615
March 4, 2005 Supplement One to Application of Alaska Airlines Alaska Airlines, Inc. hereby submits this supplement to its pending application for an exemption to operate scheduled service between Los Angeles, California, and Mexico City, Mexico. Attached hereto is correspondence in strong support of Alaska's application sent to the Department of Transportation by various members of Congress as well as business leaders and employees of Alaska Airlines. Alaska is especially appreciative of the strong endorsement given its application by Chairman Don Young of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley and David Wu. These letters confirm the support Alaska's application enjoys and the public benefits that will result from selection of Alaska. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
February 25, 2005 Re: Ultimate Travel Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Linda Riley
March 8, 2005 Supplement Two to Application and Motion for Leave to File of Alaska Airlines Attached hereto is a letter from the entire Washington State Congressional Delegation, including Senators Murray and Caniwell as well as Representatives Dicks, McDermott, Hastings, Inslee, Smith, Baird, Larsen, McMorris and Reichert, strongly supporting Alaska's application. Alaska is very appreciative of the Washington Delegation's endorsement of its proposed services. Alaska is also attaching a supplement to its Exhibit AS-2, which provides further detail with respect to Alaska's beyond-market schedules. Notwithstanding American's position in its Reply, Alaska believes its application, including Exhibit AS-2, complies fully in every material respect with the Department's instituting order and that its application establishes without question that Alaska is the best choice to replace Delta on the Los Angeles-Mexico City route. So that there is no doubt, however, as to Alaska's commitment to this service or its compliance with the instituting order, Alaska is submitting this supplement to its schedule identifying elapsed travel times for its beyond-market connecting services. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 9, 2005 Motion of American Airlines to Strike Late-Filed Direct Exhibit of Alaska Airlines As American urged in its reply and brief of March 1, Alaska's application should be dismissed for failure to comply in material respects with item (3) of the evidence request. That called for proposed schedules, including flight numbers, complete routings from origin to destination (including behindgateway and beyond-gateway points), with elapsed times, departure and arrival times, equipment types including seating configuration, days scheduled, and classes of service offered. Alaska submitted none of this information with respect to behind Los Angeles connecting schedules on the due date, and now asks that its supplemental filing be accepted two weeks late and after replies and briefs have been submitted. If there is ever to be a proceeding in which the Department enforces its evidentiary rules, this is that proceeding. In light of "the need to restore service quickly" on the Los Angeles-Mexico City route, the Department imposed unusually expedited procedural dates, allowing one week for direct exhibits and one week for replies and briefs. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl.nelson@aa.com
March 10, 2005 Reply and Motion for Leave to File of Alaska Airlines American's motion is nothing more than an obvious attempt by American to seize on a technicality in the hope that such a tactic would overshadow the manifest inferiority of its proposal on the merits. Beyond that, American misreads the Department's instituting order and then greatly exaggerates the single item of information that Alaska did not initially provide, the elapsed time of travel for its beyond-market passengers, information which in any event is readily available from multiple public sources. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 14, 2005 Supplement Three to Application of Alaska Airlines Attached hereto is correspondence in strong support of Alaska's application from Washington State Governor Christine O. Gregoire and Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski of Oregon. Also supporting Alaska's application are members of the city council of the City of Los Angeles, the Port of Seattle and the Alaska Airlines Master Executive Council of the Air Line Pilots Association, International, in addition to numerous Alaska employees and business leaders. Alaska is deeply grateful for the support given its application. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 18, 2005 Supplement Four to Application of Alaska Airlines Attached hereto is correspondence endorsing Alaska's application from the Hon. James K. Hahn, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe. Also supporting Alaska's application is the Alaska Airlines Master Executive Council of the Association of Flight Attendants as well as local business leaders. Alaska is very appreciative of the strong support given its application. Counsel: Alaska and Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
March 9, 2005 Re: Applause Travel Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Anne Edmaun
March 9, 2005 Re: Bourke Travel Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Kim McKee-Bourke
March 7, 2005 Re: Carlson Wagonlit Travel Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Lara Cole
March 25, 2005 Re: Corporate VAT Management Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Jim Kelly
March 10, 2005 Re: Cortan Industries Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Roger Coursan
March 4, 2005 Re: Theodore Kulongoski, Governor of Oregon Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Theodore Kulongoski
March 11, 2005 Re: Lumberman's Underwriting Alliance Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: James Trenter
March 8, 2005 Re: Myrna's Travel Service Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Shirlee Lugus
March 8, 2005 Re: Myrna's Travel Service Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Kathy Skelton
March 23, 2005 Re: Portland Business Alliance Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Bob Van Brocklin
March 11, 2005 Re: Regence Blueshield Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Mary McWilliams
March 10, 2005 Re: Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Mark Reis
March 11, 2005 Re: Travel House Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Robert Kerr
March 4, 2005 Re: Travel in Style & Class Act Tours Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Carol Kennedy
March 7, 2005 Re: Travel Pie Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Ian Quartermaine
March 4, 2005 Re: Uptown Landing Cruise & Travel Letter in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Joan Bush
March 4, 2005 Correspondence of Oregon State Congressional Delegation in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Earl Blumenauer, Darlene Hooley, and David Wu
March 4, 2005 Correspondence of Washington State Congressional Delegation in Support of Alaska Airlines By: Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott, Doc Hastings, Jay Inslee, Adam Smith, Brian Baird, Rick Larsen, Cathy McMorris, and Dave Reichert
Order 2005-05-01 Issued and Served May 4, 2005 Final Order - Bookmarked The Los Angeles-Mexico City market is the third largest U.S. Origin and Destination (O&D) market (behind New York-Mexico City and Miami-Mexico City, respectively) encompassed by the U.S.-Mexico agreement. Although the market enjoys the benefits of some connecting traffic, local traffic accounts for the vast majority of the over 670,000 passengers carried on nonstop flights between Los Angeles and Mexico City. In that same year, before Delta withdrew services on the route, the designated Mexican-flag carriers, Mexicana and Aeromexico, carried over 75% of the passengers in the non-stop market. Mexicana alone carried over 55% of the total non-stop passengers in the market. Given the Mexican carriers' dominance in the Los Angeles-Mexico City market, the loss of Delta's direct-carrier services, and the termination of Delta's code-share services with Continental and Northwest on the Los Angeles-Mexico City route, it is in the public interest to restore quickly the full complement of U.S. carrier operated services and to choose an applicant with a strong service proposal that also demonstrates a strong incentive to compete in this market, currently dominated by foreign carriers. After careful examination of the proposals in this case, we have decided to select Alaska as the primary carrier to provide foreign scheduled combination air service between Los Angeles, California, and Mexico City, Mexico. In addition, we have decided to select America West for back‑up authority in the subject market By: Karan Bhatia
March 5, 2007 Application of Alaska Airlines for Renewal of Exemption Alaska Airlines, Inc. hereby requests renewal of the exemption authority granted to it by the Department of Transportation in the above-captioned docket to perform scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Los Angeles, California, and Mexico City, Mexico. This exemption authority expires on May 4, 2007. Alaska requests renewal of this authority for a two-year period on its existing terms and conditions. Alaska currently operates twice daily roundtrip scheduled flights on the Los Angeles-Mexico City route using B737 aircraft. Counsel: Squire Sanders, Marshall Sinick, 202-626-6651, msinick@ssd.com
Filed March 5, 2007 | Issued May 8, 2007 Renewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Los Angeles, California, and Mexico City, Mexico. By: Paul Gretch |
||