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-2007-27331 - Alaska Airlines, et al v. Los Angeles World Airports - Chronological Listing
Inital Complaints and Scheduling Notice
Complainants' Pleadings - Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines (Alaska Airlines et al. v. LA World Airports et al.)
Complainants' Pleadings - Tom Bradley International Terminal Airlines (Aer Lingus at al. v. LA World Airports
Intervenors' Pleadings
Respondents' Pleadings
Department Notices
Department Orders
Prehearing Conference and Hearing Transcripts
|
Alaska Airlines, Inc., AirTran Airways, Inc., ATA airlines, Inc., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Midwest Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines CO. and US Airways Group, Inc. (Complainants) v. Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Booard of Airport Commissioners, and The City of Los Angeles, California
February 16, 2007 Joint Complaint in Opposition to New Terminal Charges at LAX - Bookmarked
Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-812-0000, rogoldberg@sheppardmullin.com for LAX / Wiley Rein, Edward Faberman for AirTran and Frontier / Howard Kass for US Airways, Carol Skornicka for Midwest / J.C. Buehler for ATA Airlines / Thomas O'Grady for Alaska Air / Robert Kneisley for Southwest
Served February 16, 2007 On February 16, 2007, seven airlines filed a complaint with the Department of Transportation against the Los Angeles World Airports. The complaint alleges that the recently-increased terminal rental rates and lease policy for air carriers using Terminals 1 and 3 at Los Angeles International Airport, which LAWA operates, are: 1) discriminatory; 2) improperly use “Fair Market Value” to set rental rates; and 3) are unreasonable and excessive under 49 U.S.C. §47129, which was enacted as section 113 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, P.L. 103-305 (August 23, 1994). The complainant airlines also allege that LAWA improperly refused to provide relevant documents and information. The new fees took effect on January 1, 2007. The complainant airlines – Alaska Airlines, Inc., AirTran Airways, Inc., ATA Airlines, Inc., Frontier Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and U.S. Airways Group, Inc. -- use Terminals 1 and 3. The statute prescribes very short deadlines for a decision on whether the complaint should be set for hearing before an administrative law judge and for the issuance of decisions by the administrative law judge and us. 49 U.S.C. §47129(c). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §47129 and Subpart F of the Department's Rules of Practice, 14 C.F.R. Part 302, adopted at 60 Fed. Reg. 6919 (February 3, 1995), we hereby give notice to the parties in this proceeding and all other interested persons of the following procedural dates that will govern filings in this proceeding. In order to process the complaint in an orderly and timely manner we are also directing all parties that are interested in participating or intervening in this proceeding to file such a petition or request directly with the Department.
By: Andrew Steinberg
February 20, 2007 This notifies Complainants in the above-captioned matter, as well as all entities which Complainants identified on their Certificate of Service to their Joint Complaint and Brief (served February 16, 2007), that Kaye Scholer LLP represents Respondents in this matter.
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
February 23, 2007 Supplemental Notice of Email Addresses Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000
Aer Lingus Group plc; Air Pacific; Air Tahiti NUI; All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.; Asiana Airlines, Inc.; British Airways Plc; Cathay Pacific Airways Limited; China Airlines Ltd.; China Eastern Airlines; China Southern Airlines Company Limited; Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V.; Deutsche-Lufthansa AG; EL AL israel Airlines Ltd.; EVA Airways Corp.; Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd.; Korean Airlines Co. Ltd.; Lan Airlines S.A.; Philippine Airlines, Inc.; Qantas Airways Limited; Singapore Airlines Limited; Swiss International Air Lines Ltd. and Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. v. Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commisioners, and The City of Los Angeles, California February 23, 2007 Joint Complaint in Opposition to New Terminal Charges at Los Angeles International Airport - 1235 Pages
This Complaint raises the core issue of whether the Airport may raise the fees of the Tom Bradley International Terminal Airlines, ostensibly to cover its costs, when the Airport is more than covering its costs with the charges currently in place, would record more than $47 million in additional (or incremental) operating profit after the increases take efffect, has a substantial funding surplus, and has not established how or when the additional funds will be used except to finance unspecified future capital projects. Counsel:Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates, James Weiss, 202-628-1700, jim.weiss@klgates.com
March 2, 2007 Respondents' Brief in Opposition - Bookmarked Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Foreign Air Carriers
March 2, 2007 Respondents' Answer to Joint Complaint Filed February 16, 2007 Respondents' Answer to Joint Complaint Filed February 23, 2007
March 2, 2007 Certificate Required by 14 CFR 302.60
Respondent's Exhibits
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 2, 2007 Petition to Intervene - Airports Council International - North America
In this case, the complaining airlines challenge, as a matter of law, the right of an airport owner and operator (a) to take the fair market value of passenger terminal assets into account when establishing terminal rental rates and (b) to calculate airline terminal rental rates using a "commercial compensatory" method that allocates costs to airline tenants on the basis of the rentable space in the facility. The rate‑setting practices followed by ACT‑NA' s members when establishing passenger terminal rental rates vary widely as a result of differing local conditions including many different kinds of contractual relationships with airline tenants. Any ruling that prohibits per se the use of the fair market value of terminal assets or commercial compensatory methods in passenger terminal rate‑setting would threaten to disrupt the established financial arrangements at many of the nation's airports owned and operated by ACI‑NA's members. Counsel: Anderson & Kreiger, Scott Lewis, 617-621-6560, slewis@andersonkreiger.com
March 2, 2007 Petition to Intervene of Air Transport Association of America ATA submits that the complaints herein raise a "significant dispute" under 49 U.S.C. 47129. ATA petitions to intervene because this case raises a number of significant legal and policy issues with respect to the Department's policies on airport rates and charges, airport obligations under their grant assurances, and other applicable federal law. Counsel: ATA, David Berg
March 2, 2007 Petition of American Airlines for Leave to Intervene Hereby petitions for permission to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 302.20 and the Scheduling Notice dated February 16, 2007. American seeks to intervene because it operates flights and uses terminal facilities at Los Angeles International Airport, and the results of this proceeding are likely to have a significant impact on the terms/rates at which American will be able to extend its present lease or negotiate a new lease at LAX when the present lease expires. In addition, the dispute raises numerous important legal issues relating to the reasonableness of certain airport terminal charges. The resolution of those issues could potentially affect the rates and charges paid by American at airports throughout the United States. Counsel: American and Paul Hastings, Robert Span, 213-683-6000, robertspan@paulhastings.com
March 2, 2007 Petition of Continental Airlines to Intervene Hereby petitions to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Rule 20 of the Department's Rules of Practice and the Scheduling Notice dated February 16, 2007. Continental seeks to intervene because it operates flights and uses terminal facilities at Los Angeles International Airport, and the results of this proceeding are likely to have a significant impact on the terms and rates at which Continental will be able to extend its present lease or negotiate a new lease at LAX when the present lease expires. In addition, the dispute in this proceeding raises numerous important legal issues relating to the reasonableness of certain airport terminal charges. The resolution of these issues could potentially affect the rates and charges paid by Continental at airports throughout the United States. Counsel: Continental and Crowell & Moring, Lorraine Halloway, 202-624-2538
March 2, 2007 Petition of Delta Air Lines for Leave to Intervene Delta leases certain facilities at Terminal 5 at LAX under a long‑term lease with the City of Los Angeles, which has a term expiring in 2025. The complaints raise important questions of law and policy with respect to the reasonableness of LAX's airport rates and leasing policies. The outcome of this proceeding and the Department's determinations on the Complaints could affect Delta's current and future interests at LAX. In addition, the Department's determinations could establish policies that will have precedential impact on airport rate setting throughout the country. Delta is a tenant under a long term lease with the City. Delta and the City currently have disputes pending before the bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York concerning the proper interpretation of the Lease as it relates to the calculation of maintenance and operation charges pursuant to the Lease, and the City's ability to terminate the Lease. Those disputes are not before the Department. Counsel: Delta and Hogan & Hartson, Robet Cohn
March 2, 2007 Petition of Northwest Airlines for Leave to Intervene Hereby petitions for permission to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 302.20 and the Scheduling Notice dated February 16, 2007. Northwest seeks to intervene because it operates flights and uses terminal facilities at Los Angeles International Airport, and the results of this proceeding are likely to have a significant impact on the terms/rates at which Northwest will be able to extend its present lease or negotiate a new lease at LAX when the present lease expires. In addition, the dispute raises numerous important legal issues relating to the reasonableness of certain airport terminal charges. The resolution of those issues could potentially affect the rates and charges paid by Northwest at airports throughout the United States. Counsel: Northwest and Paul Hastings, Robert Span, 213-683-6000, robertspan@paulhastings.com
March 2, 2007 Petition to Intervene of United Air Lines Hereby petitions for permission to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 302.20 and the Scheduling Notice dated February 16, 2007. United seeks to intervene because it leases terminal facilities at Los Angeles International Airport from the Los Angeles World Airports Authority, and the results of this proceeding are likely to have a significant impact on the terms/rates at which United will be able to extend its present lease or negotiate a new lease at LAX when the present lease expires. In addition, the dispute raises numerous important legal issues relating to the reasonableness of certain airport terminal charges. The resolution of those issues could potentially affect not only United's lease with LAWA, but also similar leases United has entered into with airport authorities throughout the United States. Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960
March 5, 2007 Joint Reply of Complainants - Bookmarked The lack of meaningful consultation is particularly problematic, as it has led to the imposition of terminal rates that are not "fair and reasonable" because they substantially overcompensate LAWA for the airlines' use of the TBIT. The TBIT Airlines have shown that what they are paying now for the terminal space they use is fully compensatory because, at least until the tariff rates are imposed on April 1,2007, their space rent is at fair market value, which by dint of the formula LAWA has adopted exceeds LAWA's capital costs for the airlines' space. The positive margin between full market value and capital costs has covered at least some of the additional cost categories LAWA now states must be added to the M&O charges calculation. With the increases reflected in the December 27,2006 letters to the TBIT airlines now taking into account what LAWA states is all of the M&O costs, the fair market value profit margin is no longer covering any costs. It is pure profit margin to LAWA-a surplus that is not allowed under a compensatory rate structure. Expanding that profit margin to rentable space will, of course, simply increase the amount of the surplus. As they have before, Respondents attempt to use the Department's rules and procedures as both a shield and a sword in their attempt to transfer capital risk and costs improperly to the TBIT Airlines without adequately explaining the basis for doing so and without following the requirements of the Department's Policy Statement Regarding Airport Rates and Charges, 61 Fed. Reg. 3 1994, June 21, 1996. The Policy Statement requires that airport owners not seek to create revenue surpluses, and that they may spend funds only on facilities in use? With the announced increase in M&O rates, LAWA is unlawfully recovering far more than its costs for maintaining the TBIT. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates, James Weiss, 202-628-1700, jim.weiss@klgates.com
March 5, 2007 Joint Reply of Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines in Opposition to New Terminal Charges at LAX - Bookmarked Respondents' position reflects a profound (and presumably deliberate) misstatement of the role of federally-financed airports in the nation's aviation system. Indeed, if LAWA's bizarre notion of treating airports like shopping malls were adopted, untold hardship to airlines and passengers nationwide would surely follow, as airports around the country would have every incentive to pursue profit-making opportunities at the expense of their public obligation to accommodate air carriers on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 5, 2007 Respondents' Motion for Leave to File Two Documents Inadvertently Omitted from Previous Filings Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(c), Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissions, and the City of Los Angeles respectfully request that the Department grant leave to file the two documents attached to this motion. The documents are (A) LAX-6-0001, which should have been included as the first page of exhibit LAX-006, Dkt. No. OST-2007-27331-12; and (B) the resume of Garfield S. Eaton, which should have been attached to the Declaration of Garfield S. Eaton, (docket number pending). Because of clerical error, both documents were inadvertently omitted from Respondents' filings of March 2, 2007. A copy of both documents was provided by electronic mail to counsel for the Airlines at 12:42 p.m. today, when the omissions were first noticed. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholar.com
March 6, 2007 Declaration of Garfield S. Eaton
March 6, 2007 Joint Complainants' Memo Regarding Corrections and Motion for Leave to File Unauthorized Documents - Bookmarked
The Joint Complainants respectfully request leave to file modified Exhibit E to the Joint Complaint in Opposition to New Terminal Charges at Los Angeles International Airport, filed on February 23, 2007. A copied of this modified Exhibit E (the Expert Report of Daniel P. Wikel and Dr. Timothy J. Tardiff) is attached hereto. Complainants also respectfully request that the Department grant leave to file the inadvertently omitted document attached to this motion. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, Complainants seek to replace the Exhibit E filed with their Joint Complaint with the attached modified Exhibit E. The modifications Complainants seek to file are nonmaterial redactions of information regarding a confidential report referenced in the version of Exhibit E filed on February 23, 2007. Complainants seek to make these modifications, in good faith, at the request of the authors of the report. The modifications do not alter the substance of the testimony, Counsel has checked with all parties to this proceeding, including counsel for Respondents, counsel for Terminals 1 and 3 Airlines, and counsel to the Department, and none object to the filing of the modified exhibit. Accordingly, Complainants' request leave to file the attached modified Exhibit E to their Joint Complaint. In addition, Complainants respectfully request that the Department grant leave to file the inadvertently omitted document attached to this motion. The document is Attachment C.12 to Exhibit C to Complainants' Joint Complaint. Because of clerical error, this document was inadvertently omitted from Complainants' filing. A copy of this document was provided to Respondents via hand-delivery on February 28, 2007, and is attached hereto. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-661-6225, jim.weiss@klgates.com
March 8, 2007 Respondents' Notice of Compliance with the Credit Facility Requirement Respondents hereby provide notice of their compliance with the credit facility requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 47129(d)(1)(C)& (D). Copies of the two Letters of Credit issued today, showing beneficiaries designated by the Complainants and the Add-On Complainants, are attached hereto. The Letters of Credit were delivered today to the designated beneficiaries. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 8, 2007
Complainants respectfully request leave to file the attached December 27, 2006 notice letters from Los Angeles World Airports to Air Pacific and Philippine Airlines, Inc. which, due to clerical error, were inadvertently excluded from the February 23, 2007 Complaint. The information contained in these letters is largely duplicative of the December 27, 2006 notice letters received by every other airline that is a tenant in TBIT. With the exception of the specific fees listed, the omitted letters are the same in all material respects as the notice letters already in the record. However, for sake of completeness and to clarify the record, the TBIT Airlines move the Department to include Air Pacific's and Philippine Airlines' letters in the above-referenced docket. The TBIT Airlines also submit the attached declarations for Air Pacific and Philippine Airlines, who are the subject of a pending motion to dismiss filed by Respondent on March 2, 2007 based on the absence in the record of a declaration or notice letter for these parties. These declarations merely authenticate the attached letters and briefly explain the inadvertent omission. They do not alter the substance of any declarant's testimony already entered in the record of this case, nor do they otherwise attempt to introduce new testimony. The TBIT Airlines' opposition brief is being filed simultaneously with this motion.
Respondents contend that the Add-on Complaint must be dismissed because foreign air carriers cannot file complaints under 47129. Respondents further argue that the Department of Transportation would "exceed its discretion" if it allowed the TBIT Airlines to participate in these proceedings, even though their complaint involves the same terminal rent increases and maintenance and operations charges that are being challenged by domestic air carriers whose right to proceed under Section 47129 has not been questioned. Respondents' motion must be denied; indeed, the TBIT Airlines respectfully submit that it does not even present a close question. Respondents ignore DOT'S broad discretion to structure its own proceedings to address the rates and charges issues that have been raised by the TBIT Airlines and its authority and obligation to protect all carriers, domestic or foreign, from unreasonable or discriminatory rates and charges. That authority and discretion easily extend to allowing the TBIT Airlines to participate in the resolution of issues directly affecting them that are already the subject of other Complaints before the agency. Nor are the agency's authority and discretion to allow the TBIT Airlines to participate in this case eliminated by the Newark ruling, which itself invited the agency to use its other authorities to resolve the "illogical" and treaty-violative results of not allowing foreign carriers the same rights as domestic carriers to challenge unreasonable or discriminatory fees. Moreover, although it is not necessary for the Department to state its disagreement with the Newark decision to resolve the Motion, the TBIT Airlines would also point out that the decision does not bind DOT in this case in any event. Whether the Newark decision is right or wrong (and the TBIT Airlines strongly believe it to be erroneous), the Department has ample authority to allow them to continue in this proceeding,
Counsel: K&L|Gates, James Weiss, 202-661-6225, jim.weiss@klgates.com
March 9, 2007 Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners and the City of Los Angeles oppose the unprecedented petitions of five airlines at Los Angeles International Airport American Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., and United Air Lines, Inc. to intervene in these proceedings. To our knowledge, no airline that has provided service at a subject airport has ever sought to intervene in a § 47129 proceeding (as opposed to file as an Add-On Complainant), and certainly DOT has not permitted such intervention in any prior § 47129 proceeding. LAWA opposes the five petitions on the following grounds:
While LAWA vigorously opposes the five airlines' petitions to intervene and urges that their petitions should be denied, if DOT determines that a "significant dispute" is presented and is inclined to grant the petitions, in whole or in part, DOT should make clear that each of the interveners would become subject to being required to present witness testimony and documents during the proceeding on issues presented in the Instituting Order. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 9, 2007 Contingent Answer of United Air Lines Even if the TBIT carriers are not entitled to have their Complaint considered in the § 47129 proceeding (along with the Terminal 1 and 3 carriers) as of right, there is every reason for the Department to consolidate the Complaints in a single proceeding as a matter of discretion. The question whether foreign carriers can be awarded retroactive relief in the form of refunds (or credits against future charges) if the new rents and charges are found to be unjust or unreasonable need not be decided now - though, as indicated above, we believe that question clearly should be answered in the affirmative even if § 47129 procedures do not apply. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
March 9, 2007 Opposition of Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss The Respondents' motion to dismiss the Terminal 1 and 3 airlines" challenge to the imposition of more than $8 million in retroactive maintenance and operations charges for Calendar Year 20062 should be denied. The "written agreement" exception in 49 U.S.C. § 47129(e)(1) does not apply here because there is no "written agreement" executed by the T1/T3 airlines which assented to the retroactive increase by Respondent Los Angeles World Airports, or the new methodology by which the increase was calculated. Rather, the T1/T3 airlines are challenging (among other decisions) the unilateral act of LAWA in deciding in December 2006 to use a brand new methodology never agreed to by the T1/T3 airlines - to calculate terminal M&O charges, and to apply that new methodology retroactively - and in an unjustly discriminatory manner - to M&O charges already paid by the T1/T3 airlines for CY 2006. Significantly, Respondents did not enclose with their filing any "written agreement" which they assert represents the T1/T3 airlines' consent to the new charging methodology or its retroactive application. Moreover, the T1/T3 airlines never consented to LAWA imposing on them a more burdensome M&O formula than that applied to the Terminal 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 airlines, which contend that they are not subject to the new M&O charging methodology because of provisions in their long-term leases. ("With no regard to equity, LAWA is insisting that the T1/T3 airlines pay the higher M&O charges regardless of the outcome of its dispute with the T2/T4-8 airlines. It has adamantly refused repeated requests of the 11/13 airlines to maintain parity with other LAX carriers by refunding the increased M&O charges in the event that the T2/T4-8 airlines succeed in their court challenge"). Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 12, 2007 The cases that Complainants and Foreign Complainants reply upon do not support their position. 10 In both Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Lehigh-Northampton Airport Auth. and Continental Micronesia v. Commonwealth of the N. Marianas Islands, the Secretary found that "the existence of a written agreement signed by the proper parties, for a term certain, containing standard and customary clauses, is to be regarded as a 'written' agreement within the meaning of the statute. As discussed above, until Complainants' leases were terminated as of 11:59:59 pin on January 31, 2007, LAWA's imposition of M&O charges, including the increase in M&O charges retroactive to January 1, 2006, was done before Complainants' leases expired and therefore the charges were imposed pursuant to Complainants' leases. And until the Foreign Complainants' leases expire on March 31, 2007, LAWA's imposition of M&O charges, including the increase in M&O charges retroactive to January 1, 2006, is done pursuant to their still-valid leases. Finally although both Complainants and Foreign Complainants cite Delta, they both neglect to mention that the fees set by the Airport Authority in that case were "subject to revision and adjustment within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year," the same kind of "revision and adjustment" that gave rise to their complaints here, LAX-0090002 ("Each year on January 1st, LAWA assess proposed M&O Rents which are based on actual audited expenses from the prior fiscal year."). Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 12, 2007 Needless to say, Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles disagree with nearly everything that the Foreign Complainants assert in their Answer To Respondents' Motion To Dismiss Add-On Complaint Because Foreign Air Carriers Are Improper § 47129 Complainants. Given the strict time-constraints of § 47129 proceedings, however, instead of providing a pointby-point rebuttal of every argument in their Answer, LAWA only addresses their most egregious misstatements. First, the Foreign Complainants' assertion that the "The Newark Decision Is Not Final," Answer at 6, is overly simplistic and therefore misleading. While it is technically true that the opinion in The Port Authority of NY& NJ v. DOT, 2007 WL 623637 is not final until the mandate issues, that is wholly irrelevant to the fact that the opinion has full legal effect right now. Second, it is again overly simplistic and therefore misleading for the Foreign Complainants to suggest that the Secretary has discretion not to follow The Port Authority decision. If the Secretary were to find that a significant dispute exists and yet permit the Foreign Complainants to participate in this proceeding, LAWA would certainly seek review of that decision - either by a mandamus action after an Instituting Order is issued or by a petition for review after the DOT proceedings end - in the D. C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit reviewed the first two LAX rate cases, and there is no reason to believe that it will not review this one, too (if the Secretary finds that there is a significant dispute). Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 13, 2007 TBIT Airlines' Answer to Respondent's Two Motions for Leave to File an Unauthorized Document The Department should take special care to make sure that these expedited proceedings are not cluttered, and scarce time and resources taken, with unnecessary and improper filings. Indeed, LAWA promises more of the same, droping dark threats that if things do not go its way it might seek a "mandamus" from the DC Circuit - apparently, an order directing the Department to take an action that court has already found would be illogical and likely to violate US treaties, notwithstanding that the court also expressly invited the Department to use its other authorities to prevent such an untoward result. Counsel: K&L | Gates, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 13, 2007 Consolidated Reply of Carrier-Petitioners for Intervention The Department should reject LAWA's attempt to prevent American, Continental, Delta, Northwest and United from exercising their due process rights to participate as intervenors in this case. This case clearly implicates petitioners' current and future property interests at LAX. In addition, the outcome of this case could establish policies with respect to rates and charges that would have precedential impact on airport rate setting at other U.S. airports. Indeed, as ACT-NA recognizes in its petition for intervention, which LAWA has not opposed, the complaints in this case present issues potentially affecting "the interpretation of laws governing airport leasing practices and the establishment of passenger terminal rental rates, and the application of the rules of practice for proceedings of this kind." The Carrier-Petitioners clearly have a significant interest in the resolution of these issues. Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Lorraine Halloway, 202-624-2538, lhalloway@crowell.com for Continental / Paul Hastings, Robert Span, 213-683-6000, robertpan@paulhastings.com for American and Northwest / Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com for Delta / Wilimer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
March 14, 2007 Answer of Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines to Respondents' Motion for Leave to File Unauthorized Document The Department should deny Respondents' Motion for Leave to File because the filing merely serves to aggravate the use of an improper procedural tactic that should never have occurred in the first place. Respondents' motion to dismiss pursuant to the "written agreement" exception in 49 U.S.C. § 47129(e)(1) was entirely redundant of the identical argument set forth in their brief in opposition to the T1/T3 airlines' joint complaint. As the T1/T3 airlines pointed out in their Joint Reply to the opposition brief, the filing of Respondents' motion to dismiss was contrary to the Department's well-known policy that "a motions practice in these expedited proceedings is neither feasible nor, with limited exceptions, necessary." (citing Brendan Airways, LLC v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Docket OST-2005-20407, March 16, 2005 Instituting Order); ("the Department is not encouraging or supporting the development of a motions practice beyond what may be absolutely necessary for the expedited processing of complaints under our rates and charges procedures"). Respondents' Motion for Leave to File (and its Reply) merely serve to compound their prior disregard of the Department's clearly stated policy against unnecessary motions practice in section 47129 cases. These pleadings are unnecessary and duplicative, and should be rejected. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 16, 2007 Notice on Security Requirement On March 8, 2007, LAWA filed Respondents' Notice of Compliance with the Credit Facility Requirement of 49 U.S.C. § 47129(d)(1)(D), and enclosed a copy of two letters of credit, each separately showing the beneficiaries as either the T1/T3 Carriers or the TBIT Carriers who filed complaints in'this proceeding. The letter of credit for the T1/T3 Carriers is for $23,830,000, and the letter of credit for the TBIT Carriers is for $11,510,000. While both the T1/T3 and the TBIT Carriers requested in their complaints that we order LAWA to obtain a letter of credit, surety bond, or other suitable credit facility for the amounts in dispute, the carriers did not identify a specific amount for the letters of credit. Respondents represented to the Department that they obtained agreement from counsel for the T1/T3 and TBIT Carriers as to the amounts to be used for the letters of credit. Neither the T1/T3 Carriers nor the TBIT Carriers have objected to the amounts established by the respective letters of credit posted by LAWA. We have reviewed Respondents' Notice of Compliance and their two letters of credit. Upon consideration of these filings and the lack of objection by the air carriers, we have determined to accept the letters of credit filed by Respondents as satisfying their obligation under 49 U.S.C. § 47129(d)(1)(D). By: Michael Reynolds
Order 2007-3-13 March 16, 2007 Issued and Served March 16, 2007 Instituting Order - Bookmarked The Department of Transportation, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47129(c)(2), has determined that a significant dispute exists regarding the airport rates and charges complaint filed on February 16, 2007, by seven airlines against the Los Angeles World Airports, the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles, California, and thus is assigning the matter to an administrative law judge for an oral evidentiary hearing. In the interests of fairness and efficiency, we will exercise our discretion to consolidate the February 23 complaint of twenty-two foreign airlines against the same Respondents and consider both complaints in one proceeding. The ALJ is directed to issue a recommended decision by Tuesday, May 15, 2007. We will take review of the ALJ's decision and issue a final decision by June 15, 2007. By: Michael Reynolds
Served March 16, 2007 Notice of Assignment of Proceeding This proceeding has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard,C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on him, the DOT Docket Clerk, and the other persons on the attached Service List. By: Ronnie Yoder
Served March 16, 2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered commencing March 26, 2007, in Courtroom 1145 [11th Floor], at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332. The hearing will continue from day to day until concluded. Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. P.D.T. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. P.D.T. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. By: Richard Goodwin
Served March 16, 2007 Prehearing Schedule:
Posthearing Schedule: Post Hearing Briefs due seven days after conclusion of hearing.
By: Richard Goodwin
Served March 16, 2007 The Instituting Order in this proceeding, issued on March 16, 2007, directs the presiding administrative law judge, in light of outstanding discovery disputes, to determine whether to order additional document production. One dispute involves the Respondents, known as Los Angeles World Airports and the so-called T1/T3 Carriers. The T1/T3 Carriers take issue with LAWA’s claim that it has provided all of the requested information that is otherwise not privileged. In the other dispute, LAWA states that it cannot “meaningfully respond” to a certain information request of the carriers operating out of the Tom Bradley International Terminal because the TBIT Carriers’ request, according to LAWA, cross-references an Exhibit 1 which LAWA cannot locate. WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows:
By: Richard Goodwin
March 19, 2007 Re: Order on Discovery - Complainants Exhibit 1 The attached discovery requests relate directly to the Complaintants TBIT Airlines assertion (conceded by LAWA) that additional revenues derived from the significant increase in M&O charges is necessary to fund future projects at LAX. Joint Complaint at 34-39; Pan Decl. at 24; Tubert Decl. at 27. The Complaintants TBIT Airlines have claimed that LAWA has failed to disclose or document how these additional funds will be spent, and in any case, will create a surplus that exceeds the airport's actual costs. The attached information is necessary to determine the validity of LAWA's claim that the additional revenues are necessary to fund certain projects and, if so, which projects specifically, when, and at what cost. Also enclosed is Cornplaintants' TBIT Airlines Motion for Limited Additional Discovery. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates, James Weiss, 202-628-1700, jim.weiss@klgates.com
March 19, 2007 The T1/T3 airlines are filing this document to alert the Department to an apparently inadvertent but significant and potentially highly prejudicial factual error in the Instituting Order; we further request that the Department take appropriate steps to correct the error and its implications for the scope of the referral of this matter to the AU. Page 26 of the Instituting Order states: "The airport... has imposed the disputed fees on the T1/T3 Carriers for a five-year term." This is factually incorrect. The tariff adopted by the Board of Airport Commissioners on January 22, 2007 -- which imposes the new terminal charges on the T1/T3 airlines -- "has no durational term." The Order's statement that "The airport...has imposed the disputed fees on the T1/T3 Carriers for a five-year term" is clearly incorrect. If not corrected, this factual error -- and the Department's actions premised upon it -- would not only be highly prejudicial to the T1/T3 airlines but could ultimately result in a final agency decision that is fundamentally flawed. Based on the erroneous statement on p. 26 of the Order, the Department has improperly restricted the scope of the "unjust discrimination" issue to five years rather than the 15 to 19 years remaining on the leases of the airlines at T2/T4-8. Order, at 26 ("...we direct the AU to make findings as to the reasonableness and/or justification for the disputed fees for a five-year term"). Accordingly, the T1/T3 airlines respectfully request that the Department: (1) acknowledge and correct the factual error on page 26 of the Order that the airport "has imposed the disputed fees on the T1/T3 Carriers for a five-year term"; and (2) direct the ALJ to "make findings as to the reasonableness and/or justification for the disputed fees" over the entire 15 to 19 year duration remaining on the T2/T4-8 carrier leases. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 19, 2007 In an outrageous violation of the Secretary's clear and unambiguous order that "[w]e will not accept petitions for reconsideration of this order," the T1/T3 Carriers have filed just such a petition. See Motion of T1/T3 Airlines for leave to File an Otherwise Unauthorized Document, And Request Correction of Significant Factual Error In Instituting Order. The T1/T3 Carriers apparently believe that the "factual error" they claim to have identified justifies violating the Secretary's order. It does not. The Instituting Order recognized that these proceedings are far too expedited to permit the 39 parties - 7 T1/T3 Carriers, 22 TBIT Carriers, 3 Respondents, 5 Intervenor Carriers, ACI-NA and ATA - to file petitions for reconsideration. Even grouping the parties together, there are six groups of parties the T1/T3 Carriers, the TBIT Carriers, the Respondents, the Intervenor Carriers, ACI-NA and ATA - each of which would probably like to petition the Secretary to reconsider one or more aspects of the Instituting Order. It is not practically possible to do so in the limited time before the hearing begins next Monday. For all of these foregoing reasons, Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles are not responding to the substance of the T1/T3 Carriers' ill-conceived Petition for Reconsideration and respectfully request that the Secretary reject the TI/T3 Carriers' Motion for Leave to File and refuse to accept its Petition for Reconsideration for filing. If the Secretary does not do so, then Respondents respectfully request that the Secretary (1) provide Respondents an opportunity to submit a substantive opposition; and (2) establish a briefing schedule for Respondents (and all other parties) to file their own petitions for reconsideration, as there are aspects of the Instituting Order which Respondents believe are based on alleged "significant factual errors" which could result in "a final Department decision that is fundamentally flawed." Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 19, 2007 Respondents' Notice of Contact Information Pursuant to the Court's Prehearing Order dated March 16, 2007, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles provide the following contact information for Respondents:
Respondents will provide contact information in the Los Angeles area for Messrs. Rosenthal, Tomasevich and Tucker after their accommodations for the hearing have been finalized. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 19, 2007 Respondents' Motion To Require All Parties To Refile Testimony Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles respectfully moves that the Court order all parties to refile direct testimony redacting all testimony that refers or relates to issues excluded by the Instituting Order. The grounds for this motion are simple. The T1/T3 Carriers and the TBIT Carriers raised issues in their complaints - and submitted testimony on those issues - that the Instituting Order excluded from the hearing. Since those issues are no longer in the case, it is unnecessary - and would be inappropriate - for the Court to consider that testimony. In addition, granting this motion would be consistent with and help implement the Secretary's instruction in the Instituting Order that "{w]e ask the AU to disregard certain aspects of the pleadings in the course of admitting evidence and testimony in the proceeding." Accordingly, LAWA respectfully requests that its Motion To Require All Parties To Refile Testimony be granted and that each party refile (and reserve) their declarations, appropriately redacted, by 5:00 pm EDT March 21, 2007. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 19, 2007 The Instituting Order in this proceeding directed the ALJ to determine whether or not to order additional document production from LAWA to the T1/T3 Carriers and/or the TBIT Carriers. The IO, however, did not address whether the Airlines should be required to produce documents to LAWA that LAWA needs to prepare its defense. For the reasons which follow, LAWA respectfully requests that the Court permit LAWA to serve limited document requests on the T1/T3 Carriers and the TBIT Carriers and to require them to produce all responsive documents by 5 PM EDT on March 22, 2007 (the same day that the Court's Order on Discovery, issued March 16, 2007, requires LAWA to produce any additional documents or state why such items cannot be produced). The information that LAWA requests the Airlines to produce is in their possession, is highly relevant to the issues set for hearing by the Secretary in the Instituting Order, and the Airlines made none of this information available to LAWA before they filed their complaints. Accordingly, LAWA submits that good cause exists to grant its motion and respectfully requests that the Court order the Airlines to produce documents as provided in the attached form of Order. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 19, 2007 Respondents' Motion To Require The Airline Intervenors To Respond To LAWA's Narrow Document Requests The Instituting Order in this proceeding directed the ALJ to determine whether or not to order additional document production from LAWA to the T1/T3 Carriers and/or the TBIT Carriers. The IO, however, did not address whether the airlines whose motions to intervene were granted should be required to produce documents to LAWA that LAWA needs to prepare its defense. For the reasons which follow, LAWA respectfully requests that the Court permit LAWA to serve limited document requests on the Intervenor Carriers and to require them to produce all responsive documents by 5 PM EDT on March 22, 2007 (the same day that the Court's Order on Discovery, issued March 16, 2007, requires LAWA to produce any additional documents or state why such items cannot be produced). The information that LAWA requests the Intervenor Carriers to produce is in their possession, is highly relevant to the issues set for hearing by the Secretary in the Instituting Order, and none of this information was available to LAWA before the T1/T3 Carriers and the TBIT Carriers filed their complaints. Accordingly, LAWA submits that good cause exists to grant its motion and respectfully requests that the Court order the Intervenor Carriers to produce documents as provided in the attached form of Order. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 19, 2007 TBIT Airlines' Notice of Contact Information Pursuant to the Order of Discovery, below is the contact information for the Complainants TBIT Airlines. Since the hearings are being held in Los Angeles, we have included work and cell phone contact numbers for your convenience:
Counsel: Kilpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 19, 2007 United Air Lines' Notice of Contact Information United Air Lines, Inc., an intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding, hereby provides the following contact information as required by the Prehearing Order served on March 16, 2007. To the extent necessary, United designates Mr. Rabinovitz as its Lead Counsel in this proceeeding. Counsel for United:
Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
March 19, 2007 Respondents' Notice Regarding Airline Witnesses Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles respectfully notifies the Court that it is its current intention to cross-examine each of the witnesses who submitted declarations in support of the T1/T3 Complaint and the TBIT Complaint. Accordingly, if either (1) any of the witnesses who submitted declarations in support of the TI /T3 Complaint are not included on the T1/T3 Carriers' Designation of Witnesses, Testimony and Evidence/Exhibits or (2) any of the witnesses who submitted declarations in support of the TBIT Complaint are not included on the TBIT Carriers' Designation of Witnesses, Testimony and Evidence/Exhibits, LAWA intends to apply immediately to the Court, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.25, for subpoenas to require their attendance at the hearing. This notice is being given for the convenience of the Court and in an effort to avoid having to invoke the Court's subpoena power. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960, bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com
March 20, 2007 Joint Answer of Airline Intervenors to Respondents' Motion to Require Production of Documents Not only does LAWA's Motion run counter to the Instituting Order, it also seeks documents that cannot be used as post hoc justification for the rent increases at LAX. Airline agreements with other airlines (in subleases at LAX) or with other airport authorities have no relevance to the issue of whether LAWA's imposed rates are reasonable and non‑discriminatory. Airlines are not subject to the Anti‑Head Tax Act or to the federal grant assurance strictures that apply to the rental and user charges/fees levied by airport operators. And in contrast to LAWA, airlines are not monopolists; their subtenants, if any, have myriad alternatives to obtain accommodation at LAX Counsel: Paul Hastings, Robert Span for American and Northwest / Hogan & Hartson, Robet Cohn for Delta / Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960 for United / Crowell & Moring, Lorraine Halloway for Continental
March 19, 2007 Response of T1/T3 Airlines to Request for Information Regarding Pending Document Request to LAWA This submission is made pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge's order dated March 16, 2007, which directed the T1/T3 Airlines "by 5 p.m. on March 19, 2007" to "name and specifically describe, to the extent possible, the documents which they claim that LAWA has failed to produce." This information was set forth in Appendix E to the Joint Complaint (Document No. 1), along with the dates of each request and the Exhibit Numbers. Another copy of Appendix E is attached hereto. Based on the Response by LAWA dated March 2, 2007, the T1/T3 airlines are able to remove some of the items from that list. The following is a revised (shortened) list of documents that the T1/T3 airlines have requested but have not yet received from LAWA:
Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0007, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 19, 2007 Contact Information for T1/T3 Airlines Pursuant to the Pre-hearing Order dated March 16, 2007, Complainants T1/T3 Airlines provide the following information for counsel for the Complainant T1/T3 Airlines:
Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0007, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 19, 2007 Notice of Air Transport Association for Entry of Appearance and Response to Prehearing Order | Corrected Version Pursuant to the March 16, 2007 Prehearing Order, Intervenor Air Transport Association of America, Inc. hereby notifies the Office of Hearings and all parties to this proceeding as listed on the attached certificate of service, that in addition to David A. Berg and Katherine Andrus, the Association is represented in this proceeding by Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P. and that all pleadings and other filings in the case be served upon ATA via the following persons:
Counsel: Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202-944-3300, rsilverberg@sgbdc.com
March 20, 2007 Notice of T1/T3 Airlines Regarding Respondents' Witnesses Joint Complainants T1/T3 Airlines respectfully notify the Administrative Law Judge that their current intention is to cross-examine each of the witnesses who submitted declarations in support of the Respondents' Answer and Brief in opposition to the Joint Complaint. Accordingly, if any of the witnesses who submitted declarations on behalf of Respondents are not included on the Respondents' Designation of Witnesses, Testimony and Evidence/Exhibits, the T1/T3 airlines intend to immediately apply to the Administrative Law Judge, pursuant to 14 C.FR. § 30225, for subpoenas to require their attendance at the hearing. This notice is being given for the convenience of the ALJ and in an effort to avoid having to invoke the ALJ's subpoena power. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0007, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 20, 2007 The conclusions in the initial Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper, Exhibit A-1 to the Joint Complaint, reflect the fact that the terminal leases of the T2/14-8 airlines do not expire for 15 to 19 years, and that, as a result, the T1/T3 airlines are likely to be subject to discriminatory charges for that entire period of time. However, in light of the Order's directive for the ALJ to consider the impact of discrimination during the first five years of the new terminal charges, Mr. Kasper has supplemented his Report to provide his mathematical conclusions regarding the impact of the discriminatory charges during that shorter time period - all of which are based on figures already placed in the record by the T1/T3 airlines in their Joint Complaint filed February 16, 2007. Until the Order was issued on March 16, 2007, there was no reason for Mr. Kasper to have derived his mathematical conclusions using a five year period for the discriminatory impact of the new charges. By its own terms, the new tariff has "no durational term." Further, it is undisputed that the "duration of the leases for the tenants of T2/4-8" - and thus the period of discrimination against the T1/T3 airlines vis-a vis their competitors at LAX - is "the next 15-19 years." In addition, Respondents did not claim in their brief or other filings that there is a five-year duration for the terminal charges imposed by the new tariff. To the contrary, their brief acknowledged that there is no five-year limit to the new charges (see Resp. Br., Doc. 30, at 43-44), and claimed that Respondents had a "legal right" to continue to impose higher charges for the full duration of the long-term carrier leases. Respondents will not be prejudiced by the Supplemental Report because it is based on financial information that was already provided in the appendices to the Initial Report. Specifically, the financial information in the Supplemental Appendices D, E, F and G (attached to the Supplemental Report) is the same as in the Appendices in the Initial Report; the only difference is that Mr. Kasper has now provided data totals for the five year period of discrimination that the Department has directed the ALJ to consider. Essentially, for the convenience of the Court and the parties Mr. Kasper has performed simple mathematic calculations based on evidence that was already in both the Appendices and underlying evidence submitted in connection with the Joint Complaint. Supplemental Figures 3 and 4 similarly use information already in the record to make calculations in conformance with the Department's directive for the AU to consider the first five years of the discrimination between the T1/T3 airlines and their counterparts at T2/T4-8. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0007, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 20, 2007 Respondents request an Order from the Administrative Law Judge directing all parties to refile direct testimony redacting all testimony that "refers or relates to issues excluded by the Instituting order."' Complainants TBIT Airlines agree that redaction of appropriate material will simplify the consideration of issues in the case but oppose an order so broad as to require removal of all testimony that refers or relates to an excluded issue. It is self-evident that reference to an issue may be relevant even though the substance of the issue may have been excluded from the case. For example, in their Complaint and Reply the TBIT Airlines did not object to the adoption of a market rate methodology for the calculation of space rent. Instead, they describe the methodology for calculating rent in order to demonstrate that the rate calculation covers more than the actual costs of the terminal space the TBIT Airlines are using, and that therefore LAWA's claim that the additional M&O charges are merely covering costs that were not previously covered is untrue. Further, the issue of adopting a "rentable space" methodology for allocating space was not ripe for the TBIT Airlines at the time of filing the Complaint because they had not yet been presented with the new lease proposal by LAWA. The fact that LAWA has advised the TBIT Airlines that it will again be increasing their rent by adopting a rentable space methodology, thereby adding to the surplus created by the initial rent increase, goes to the issue of how large the surplus will be. LAWA's suggestion that all testimony be redacted that "refers or relates" to excluded issues is thus overbroad and would introduce tremendous uncertainty into the process of redaction. This problem can be avoided if Your Honor orders the redaction of testimony that is "directed to" an issue excluded by the Instituting Order. Such an order will accomplish the desired purpose while minimizing the likelihood of further motions practice on the issue. Counsel: Kilpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 20, 2007 Motion of TBIT Airlines for Limited Discovery and Proposed Order The TBIT Airlines respectfully request that Your Honor direct Respondents to produce all documents responsive to discovery requests pertaining to a single issue contained herein by 5:00 p.m. EDT on March 22, 2007 (the same day the Order on Discovery required Respondents to provide the information requested by the T1/T3 Airlines and the TBIT Airlines). Should Respondents be unable to produce the limited information requested herein, the TBIT Airlines request that Your Honor order Respondents to explain in detail why such information is unavailable or otherwise cannot be produced. Counsel: Kilpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 21, 2007 The Terminal 1 and 3 airlines hereby respectfully apply for issuance of a subpoena to compel the appearance at the evidentiary hearing in this case of Patricia V. Tubert, Deputy Executive Director of Respondent Los Angeles World Airports. (Two originals of a proposed Subpoena are enclosed herewith.) It is specifically requested that the T1/T3 airlines be permitted to cross examine Ms. Tubert in their case-in-chief with regard to: (1) the exhibits to the Joint Complaint of the T1/T3 airlines which Ms. Tubert authored or otherwise relate to her involvement in developing and imposing the new terminal charges; (2) statements made by Ms. Tubert during an October 10, 2005 meeting with the T1/T3 airlines to discuss the new terminal charges, and at meetings of the Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners regarding the new terminal charges; (3) the statements in Ms. Tubert's 23-page March 1, 2007 Declaration submitted with the Respondents' Brief; (4) exhibits provided by Respondents that were authored by Ms. Tubert or with which she was involved; and (5) general facts and background information relating to Los Angeles International Airport and the development and imposition of the new terminal charges at LAX which Ms. Tubert possesses because of her position at LAWA. Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com March 20, 2007 The Thomas Bradley International Terminal Complainants together with the Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 Complainants respectfully request that this Court grant leave to file the attached Joint Motion to Clarify the March 16, 2007 Prehearing Order by the TBIT and T1/T3 Airlines. The TBIT and T1/T3 Airlines have good cause to submit this motion. Clarification of the Court's Prehearing Order with respect to the designation of lead counsel for the separate Complainant groups will contribute to the orderly conduct of the hearing in this case and full and sufficient representation of the interests of both Complainant groups. For these reasons, the TBIT and T1/T3 Airlines respectfully request that this Court accept the attached unauthorized Joint Motion to Clarify March 16, 2007 Prehearing Order for filing. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com for T1/T3 Carriers / Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700, jim.weiss@klgates.com for TBIT Airlines
March 20, 2007 Having reviewed and considered the motion of the Terminal 1 and 3 airlines for leave to file their "Supplemental Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper" and having found good cause exists to grant the motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Supplemental Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper shall be accepted for filing in this case. By: Richard Goodwin
March 20, 2007 Motion of Respondent's For Leave To File An Unauthorized Document Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles seek leave to file the attached "Reply To The TBIT Airlines' Response Seeking Not To Produce Witnesses For Cross Examination." As discussed in the Reply, the TBIT Carriers' position that they should not be required to produce each of its witnesses for cross-examination would deny LAWA its due process rights to cross examine testifying witnesses. Contrary to the TBIT Carriers' suggestion, LAWA does not seek to cross-examine their witnesses on standing (an issue decided by the Instituting Order), but on issues that their witnesses have affirmatively raised in their declarations including, but not limited to, issues that go to the veracity of the witnesses and the truthfulness of their testimony. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 20, 2007 In a submission that is "stunning in its audacity" the TBIT Complainants demand that LAWA produce all of its witnesses for cross examination at the hearing, but suggest that they should not have to produce each of their witnesses because it "would save a great deal of hearing time and witness inconvenience" if their 21 witnesses are not required to appear. Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles strongly disagree. The TBIT Carriers would have this Court believe that the declarations that their 21 witnesses submitted are plain vanilla statements such that there is no real need for cross examination. The TBIT Carriers admit, however, that that is not really true by asserting that the declarations were submitted "primarily to establish the required standing for challenging the imposition of the new M&O charges." While LAWA notes that its intended questioning of the TBIT Carriers' witnesses is not dependent on the need to raise issues affirmatively that are not raised in their declarations, LAWA also notes that the T1/T3 Carriers have asserted in correspondence with LAWA that they might seek to go outside the scope of our witnesses' direct testimony in their declarations by calling our witnesses in their case-in-chief. That practice is not permitted by the Court's Ground Rules. If that is to be permitted, however - and LAWA certainly is not conceding that it should be - that, of course, provides an additional ground for each of the T1/T3 and TBIT witnesses to be present. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 21, 2007 Pursuant to the Instituting Order issued on March 19, 2007, the T1 /T3 airlines are intending to redact those portions of declarations which pertain to the alleged failure of LAWA to engage in meaningful consultations with the airlines. However, the T1/T3 airlines oppose Respondents' request that the T1/T3 airlines be required to redact "all testimony that refers or relates to" information relating to "the reasonableness and/or justification for the disputed fees beyond a five-year term." The directive in the Order for the ALJ to "make findings as to the reasonableness and/or justification for the disputed fees for a five-year term" was based on an inadvertent factual error in the Order; namely, that the tariff imposing new terminal charges at T1/T3 has "no durational term." Even if the Department does not revise its Order to permit the ALJ to make a ruling as to the reasonableness and/or justification of the terminal charges beyond the initial five years of the new charges, the scope of the redactions sought by Respondents is overly broad. Respondents' request that all parties be ordered to redact all testimony that "refers or relates to" issues excluded from the hearing under the Order. This phrase "refers or relates to" is ambiguous and would introduce tremendous uncertainty into the process of redaction. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 21, 2007 Stipulated Motion of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of China Southern Airlines Complainant, China Southern Airlines Company Limited, with the consent of all other parties and interveners to this proceeding, hereby moves the Department to accept the voluntary dismissal of China Southern without prejudice from the above referenced proceeding. Although China Southern maintains that it has been and will be impacted by Respondents' proposed fee increases, it is not a direct tenant of the Thomas Bradley International Terminal. Therefore, with the consent of all undersigned parties and interveners, China Southern voluntarily dismisses its case against Respondents without prejudice. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com / Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700, jim.weiss@klgates.com for TBIT Airlines Served March 21, 2007 Order Setting Prehearing Conference In view of various matters raised by the participants following issuance of the Instituting Order, and to help insure a fair and orderly proceeding, a prehearing conference will be conducted, by telephone, at 4 p.m. (EDT) tomorrow, Thursday, March 22, 2007. By: Richard Goodwin
March 21, 2007 Respondents' Opposition to Complainants' Joint Motion to Permit Duelling Cross-Examinations As to the issue of whether the increase in M&O fees have been imposed pursuant to a written agreement, there can be little difference, either. While it is true that the T1/T3 Carriers' leases expired, they do not contest that LAWA's imposition of retrospective M&O charges cover a period during which they were occupying terminal space pursuant to the terms of those expired leases. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3553, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 21, 2007 Respondents' Opposition to TBIT Carriers' Motion for Limited Discovery Apparently unsatisfied with the scope of the issues for hearing stated in the Instituting Order, which directed the ALJ "to limit his findings with respect to the TBIT Carriers' Complaint to whether the M&O fees... are reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory," the TBIT Carriers' motion for limited discovery now seeks information that is obviously related only, if it is related to anything, to the amount of the terminal base rent. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3553, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Opposition of the LAX Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines the motion filed by Respondents on March 19, 2007 It is patently unreasonable for Respondents to demand that the T1/T3 airlines respond to new document requests on the eve of the evidentiary hearing on the merits. Tellingly absent from the Motion is any attempt by Respondents to explain why they waited until one week before the trial to file their Motion. Given that Respondents received the Joint Complaint on February 16, 2007, there is no reasonable basis for their waiting until March 19, and one week before trial, before first seeking such documents. Notably, the first that the T1/T3 airlines ever learned of these requests was upon receipt of the Motion. Respondents did not previously request the T1/T3 airlines to search for and produce the documents when there was ample time for doing so. Having slept on their rights to seek documents in a timely manner, Respondents should not now be permitted to abuse the proceeding by demanding that Complainants comply with last-minute document requests. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg
March 22, 2007 While the T1/T3 Carriers may certainly request that the Court issue a subpoena, the purpose for which they seek this subpoena is entirely inappropriate. Indeed, as shown below, the purpose is oppressive, vexatious, burdensome, and unnecessary. Accordingly, it should be denied. LAWA has been quite clear that Ms. Tubert will appear to testify at the hearing. Indeed, the e-mail which the T1/T3 carriers attached to the Subpoena Application as Exhibit 1 specifically so states: "I can assure you, however, that LAWA does intend to make Patty Tubert available for cross-examination and, therefore, she will be physically present at the hearing." LAWA also represented to the Court, in "Respondents' Reply to the TBIT Airlines' Response Seeking Not To Produce Witnesses For Cross Examination," specifically that "LAWA also notes that it intends to produce each of its witnesses for cross examination at the hearing." Thus, the T1/T3 Carriers can have no legitimate concern that Ms. Tubert will not be available to be cross-examined at the hearing. Indeed, the T1/T3 Carriers admit that they are not really concerned that they will not be able to cross-examine Ms. Tubert - they want this Court to issue a subpoena to compel her to testify at least twice - once as a witness in their case-in-chief in addition to testifying on cross-examination. Indeed, Complainants' collective goal is actually to require Ms. Tubert to testify three times, as the T1/T3 Carriers and TBIT Carriers have a separate motion to permit them to have separate lead counsel at the hearing, and the TBIT Carriers, by letter, have indicated that they will seek to have Ms. Tubert testify in their "case-in-chief." Thus, if the Court grants Complainants' request to have separate lead counsel for the T1/T3 Carriers and the TBIT Carriers, it is clear that Complainants will seek to have Ms. Tubert testify three times In LAWA's view, that is the definition of vexatious. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3553, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Respondents' Proposed Agenda For Prehearing Conference For the assistance of the Court, we have prepared a proposed agenda for the Prehearing Conference listing the pending motions in the order submitted by the various parties together with any responses filed. Your Honor, may, of course, have additional topics that he will wish to discuss at the Prehearing Conference and by submitting this proposed agenda, we do not wish to limit the topics Your Honor may wish to raise. Respondents have not been informed by any other party of any topics that they intend to raise at the Prehearing Conference beyond the below listed pending motions. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3553, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 There was an inadvertent error on the second page of the Proposed Agenda for Prehearing Conference and I would request that the enclosed page 2 be substituted for the previous page 2. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3553, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Proposed Agenda of Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines' Proposed Agenda for Pre-Hearing Conference Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 22, 2007 Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines' Designation of Hearing Exhibits The Terminal 1 and 3 airlines respectfully submit the enclosed list of exhibits for the hearing in this case. The T1/T3 airlines expressly reserve the right to designate additional exhibits, witnesses, witness testimony, or other evidence in response to exhibits, witnesses, witness testimony, or other evidence which Respondents introduce or identify hereafter (e.g., are not already in the record before the DOT) for use at the hearing in this matter or otherwise intend to place in the record, and for rebuttal and impeachment purposes. The T1/T3 airlines also reserve the right to use at trial any of the exhibits designated by or otherwise referred to by other parties to this case or their witnesses. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 22, 2007 Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines' Designation of Direct Testimony The Direct Testimony of each witness is identical to their initial Declarations submitted with the Joint Complaint or their Supplemental Declarations submitted with the Reply of the T1/T3 airlines, except for redactions that have been made to reflect the Department's decision that the scope of this case should not include the alleged failure by LAWA to engage in meaningful consultations regarding the new terminal charges addition, we have included the Supplemental Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper, which was submitted via motion to file an unauthorized document on March 20, 2007, in response to the Instituting Order's directive for the ALJ "to make findings as to the reasonableness and/or justification for the disputed fees for a five-year term." Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 22, 2007 Witness List of Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines Joint Complainants Terminal 1 and 3 airlines hereby respectfully submit this list of witnesses they intend to call during the evidentiary hearing in this matter. The T1 /T3 airlines expressly reserve the right to designate additional witnesses, witness testimony, or exhibits in response to witnesses, witness testimony, exhibits or other evidence which Respondents introduce or identify hereafter (e.g., are not already in the record before the DOT) for use at the hearing in this matter or otherwise intend to place in the record. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 22, 2007 Redacted Declaration of Bob Montgomery
March 22, 2007 Redacted Declaration of Steve Hubbell
March 22, 2007 Order Granting Complainants' Motion for Limited Discovery It is hereby ordered that the Complainants TBIT Airlines' Motion for Limited Discovery is granted and Respondents are hereby ordered to produce the following data and information to TBIT Airlines' counsel by 5:00pm PDT March 23, 2007, or explain in detail why such information is unavailable or otherwise cannot be produced:
By: Richard Goodwin
March 22, 2007 Order Granting Voluntary Dismissal of China Southern It is hereby ordered that the Stipulated Motion of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of China Southern Airlines Company Limited is granted. By: Richard Goodwin
March 22, 2007 Order Granting Joint Motion to Clarify March 16, 2007 Prehearing Order It is hereby ordered that the Complainants TBIT Airlines' and T1/T3 Airlines' Joint Motion to Clarify March 16, 2007 Prehearing Order is granted. By: Richard Goodwin
March 22, 2007 Order Accepting Supplemental Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper It is hereby ordered that the Supplemental Expert Report of Daniel M. Kasper shall be accepted for filing in this case. By: Richard Goodwin
March 22, 2007 By: Richard Goodwin
March 22, 2007 It is hereby ordered that the T1/T3 Carriers and TBIT Carriers shall produce the following documents to Respondents' counsel by 5:00pm PDT March 23, 2007, or state why such documents cannot be produced:
By: Richard Goodwin
Amended Prehearing Order A/O March 22, 2007 In view of the stringent time limits imposed on these proceedings, and the tight schedule for the hearing and briefs necessitated thereby, the parties be and are hereby ordered to adhere to the following schedule:
By: Richard Goodwin
Served March 23, 2007 Order Correcting Transcript of Prehearing Conference The following corrections are made to the transcript of the Prehearing Conference, held on March 22, 2007. Objections to this Order should be made at the hearing in this matter, scheduled to begin on March 26, 2007. By: Richard Goodwin
March 23, 2007 Please enter our appearance for the Complainants Thomas Bradley International Terminal Airlines. Counsel: KL Gates, Timothy Hobbs, 202-628-1700, tim.hobbs@klgates.com / KL Gates, Rana Aryan, 949-253-0900, rana.aryan@klgates.com March 22, 2007 Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Respondents' List of Direct Testimony
Each of these Declarations was filed on March 2, 2007, by LAWA in support of its opposition to the Complaints filed by the T1/T3 Carriers and the TBIT Carriers in this matter. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Respondents' Production of Information Pursuant to Order on Discovery With the exception of one exhibit, LAX-079, all the information produced hereby was provided to or available to the airlines at LAX in 2006 at the latest, months before the commencement of these proceedings. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Respondents' List of Witnesses
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 22, 2007 Designation of Witnesses of the TBIT Airlines and Testimony and Evidence/Exhibits - 163 Pages Complainants TBIT Airlines designate the following individuals as witnesses, along with their pre-filed declarations/expert reports. Where and to the extent appropriate, these pre-filed declarations/expert reports were redacted consistent with the Department of Transportation's ruling in the Instituting Order that the scope of this case should not include the alleged failure of Respondents to engage in meaningful consultations prior to the imposition of the new terminal charges. The redacted versions of these declarations/expert reports -- copies of which are attached hereto - are, in all other respects, identical to those submitted with the TBIT Airlines Joint Complaint and Joint Reply. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 23, 2007 A prehearing conference was held, by telephone, on March 22, 2007. The orders I issued in the PHC are reflected in the transcript. In particular, I ruled that I would keep Complainants' case open for witnesses designated by Respondents who Complainants may wish to call as part of their respective cases-in-chief. An Order Correcting Transcript will issue at the same time and accompany this Report. By: Richard Goodwin
March 23, 2007 Respondents' Updated Notice of Contact Information Pursuant to the Court's Prehearing Order dated March 16, 2007, and in conformity with Respondents' prior Notice of Contact Information, Los Angeles World Airports, Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners, and the City of Los Angeles provide the following updated contact information for Respondents' counsel, providing local contact in Los Angeles information for them:
Counsels' e-mail and cell phone contacts, as provided earlier, remain unchanged. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 23, 2007 Respondents' Disclosure of Information Pursuant to the Court's March 22, 2007 Order Information responsive to the requests is presented in the attached schedules which set forth the methodology used to determine debt service on TBIT. As is the case every year, the predicted fiscal year numbers are subject to change. LAWA performs a reconciliation every year whereby any overcharge to the airlines is credited back to them (and any undercharge is charged to them). LAWA notes that the attached schedules do not reflect a budget variance in the debt service amounts that was identified during one of the two semi-annual Landing Fee reconciliation discussions which took place last month. That budget variance will be corrected, along with other budget variances, during the final reconciliation for FY2007 (which ends June 30, 2007). Accordingly, while the numbers in these spreadsheets are subject to change, the methodology is not. Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 23, 2007
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Steven Rosenthal, 202-682-3500, srosenthal@kayescholer.com
March 23, 2007 Amended List of Exhibits of the LAX T1/T3 Airlines The Terminal 1 and 3 airlines respectfully submit the enclosed amended list of exhibits for the hearing in this case, which includes additional documents produced by Respondents labeled LAX-105, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Good cause exists for the designation of these additional exhibits because Respondents only produced them today, March 23, 2007. In addition, attached as Exhibit B is a substitute for the previously designated E-20. This document is substantively the same as the prior document but will be enlarged for presentation during the hearing. Good cause exists for this substitution because the replacement exhibit will result in a better quality enlargement. Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 23, 2007 Response of the TBIT Airlines to Order to Produce Documents TBIT Airlines hereby respond that, based on their investigation conducted to date, no such documents exist. To the extent TBIT Airlines’ ongoing investigation produces any such documents, they will be provided as soon as they are located. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 23, 2007 Certificate of Compliance of the LAX Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines On Friday March 23, 2007, the Terminal 1 and 3 airlines served the following materials on counsel for Respondents:
Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 24, 2007
Counsel: Sheppard Mullin, Roy Goldberg, 202-218-0000, rgoldberg@sheppardmullin.com
March 24, 2007 Reply of the TBIT Airlines to the Respondents' Objections to Relevant Evidence In their opposition to Complainants TBlT Airlines' Designation of Witnesses, Testimony and Evidence/Exhibits, Respondents improperly seek -- through vague, nonspecific and admittedly incomplete objections -- to exclude information that is plainly relevant to the matters at issue in this proceeding. Respondents object to "portions" of four paragraphs of the declarations filed in support of the TBIT Airlines' Complaint, yet offer only "fairly representative" quotes from two of the four paragraphs with which they take issue. The sole basis for Respondents' objections is that language within these four paragraphs somehow falls outside the scope of the Departments' Instituting Order. Respondents' objections are misplaced and without merit. Specifically. Respondents take issue with paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Declaration of Wikel and Tardiff paragraph 6 of the Reply Declaration of Clark, and paragraph 24 of the Reply Declaration of Olson Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
March 22, 2007
March 27, 2007 Transcript of Proceedings
Served March 29, 2007 The proceedings in the above captioned case involved matters which the parties and the court agree should be held confidential. These matters will be handled during “in camera” sessions of the court and will generate a separate transcript and handling of evidence. By: Richard Goodwin
March 29, 2007 Respondents' Declarations of Counsel
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Stanley Hammer
March 30, 2007 TBIT Airlines' Declarations of Counsel
Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Kenneth Knox
April 2, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavit of LAX Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines - Roy Goldberg Confidentiality Affidavit of LAX Terminal 1 and 3 Airlines - Courtney Sheehan Counsel: Sheppard Mullin
April 3, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavit for Air Transport Association of America - Robert Silverberg Confidentiality Affidavit for Air Transport Association of America - Claire Shapiro
Order 2007-4-1 Issued April 3, 2007 | Served April 6, 2007 On March 19, 2007, the T1/T3 Carriers in this proceeding filed a "Request for Correction of Significant Factual Error in Instituting Order" and accompanying motion to file an unauthorized document. stating that the Department's Instituting Order, issued March 16, 2007, contained a factual error which should be corrected relating to the scope of the Instituting Order. The Respondent objected to the Request given the expedited time frame. The Instituting Order noted. at page 32, that the Department would not accept petitions for reconsideration of this Order. The Request for Correction of Significant Factual Error in Instituting Order, is hereby DENIED. By: Michael Reynolds
March 29, 2007 Respondents' Declarations of Counsel
Counsel: Kaye Scholer, Stanley Hammer
March 30, 2007 TBIT Airlines' Declarations of Counsel
Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Kenneth Knox
April 4, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavits of Southwest Airlines and AirTran
Counsel: Southwest and Wiley Rein
April 5, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavits of US Airways and Alaska Airlines
April 5, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavits of Air Transport Association
April 4, 2007 Declarations of LA Airports Division and General Counsel Lynn Mayo Raymond Ilgunes Kelly Martin
April 6, 2007 Confidentiality Affidavits of United Counsel
Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Brenda Gardner
April 6, 2007 TBIT Airlines respectfully request leave to file unauthorized documents due to errors in the Respondents' calculations of the terminal charges at Los Angeles International Airport. During last week's proceedings, Respondents admitted to a "data entry error into the terminal capital charge model" that affected the debt service and other calculations for Terminals T1/T3 and TBIT. In addition, LAWA has provided information in response to the TBIT Airlines' discovery request and their follow-up requests for amplification of the responses that LAWA provided. All of this information was made available well after the opportunity to take it into account in the TBIT Airlines' supporting declarations and reply declarations. The parties and Your Honor agreed that amended declarations could be filed in order to respond to the changes in the terminal charge calculations. The same rationale applies to changes that are necessitated by the discovery materials. Accordingly, Complainants TBIT Airlines hereby request leave to file the attached Supplemental Joint Expert Report of Daniel P. Wikel and Dr. Timothy J. Turdiff and to have said report entered into the record of this proceeding. Counsel: Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, James Weiss, 202-628-1700
April 4, 2007 Transcript of Proceedings
April 9, 2007 The Complainant Terminal 1 and 3 airlines, on the one hand, and the Respondents Los Angeles World Airports, et al, on the other hand, hereby stipulate to the following:
|