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:
American Airlines Press Release
http://www.moretravelchoices.com/
American Airlines and British Airways In the News
OST-2007-28845 - oneworld Antitrust Application 2007 - Dismissed June 16, 2008
OST-2001-11029 - US-UK Alliance Case 2001
OST-2002-13861 - American Airlines and British Airways - Reciprocal Codesharing- US-UKAntitrust Immunity Applications
DOJ Workshop on Airline Competition - October 23, 2008
|
OST-2008-0252 - Antitrust Immunity August 14, 2008
Joint Application for Antitrust Immunity
"Bookmarked" PDF Copies of The Joint Application and Exhibits: Joint Application for Antitrust Immunity
American Airlines, Inc., British Airways Plc, Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A., Finnair Oyj and Royal Jordanian Airlines jointly apply under 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308 and 41309 for approval of and antitrust immunity for a set of bilateral and multilateral alliance agreements. These agreements include a Joint Business Agreement that will create metal neutrality among oneworld’s core transatlantic members – American, British Airways and Iberia. Collectively, these agreements will provide for revenue sharing and closer integration, giving oneworld the ability to offer consumers a much-needed competitive alternative to the SkyTeam and Star alliances. American, British Airways and Iberia will implement their bilateral and multilateral alliance agreements immediately, and will implement the JBA within 18 months of the Department’s final order granting antitrust immunity – a timeframe consistent with the precedent set in SkyTeam II (Order 2008-4-17). The Joint Applicants are seeking antitrust immunity in order to create a sorely needed third globally branded and integrated alliance – one capable of competing with SkyTeam and Star on equal footing. The Department has repeatedly recognized the importance of interalliance competition, something oneworld is simply not in a position to provide without approval of the proposed alliance. As a result, Star and SkyTeam have a collective 95% market share in over 25,000 transatlantic city-pairs accounting for nearly one in five U.S.-Europe bookings (over 5.6 million annually). An integrated oneworld will not just be more efficient – it will create interalliance competition, providing the economic incentives necessary for all three alliances to deliver the maximum level of consumer and competitive benefits. In 2001, American and British Airways presented the Department with an application that would have created the industry's largest immunized alliance based on speculation about the impact of Open Skies on US-UK competition. Today, oneworld is presenting an application that will create the smallest immunized alliance based on actual changes observed since the US-EU Open Skies Agreement took effect. Additionally, American, British Airways and Iberia have executed a JBA creating far more integration than that presented in 2002. The need for more robust interalliance competition is real, and prior concerns about competition between the US and London have been fully addressed. Counsel: Jeffrey Ogar, 817-967-3478 for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223 for Iberia / Sami Sarelius, 358-9-818-4070 for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland, 212-490-9100 for Royal Jordanian
August 18, 2008 Joint Responses to Interrogatories In prior antitrust immunity proceedings, the Department has requested responses to interrogatories. The Joint Applicants have reviewed the dockets in the U.S.-U.K Alliance Case (DOT-OST-2001-11029), SkyTeam (DOT-OST-2004-19214), Star (DOT-OST-2005-22922), SkyTeam II (DOT-OST-2007-28644), oneworid (DOT-OST-2007-28845) and Star II (DOT-OST-2008-0234) in an effort to provide the Department with relevant information at the outset of this proceeding. We believe that these responses will facilitate swift approval of the Joint Application so that oneworid may move expeditiously to implement the alliance agreements, including the Joint Business Agreement among American, British Airways and Iberia, giving consumers long overdue interalliance competition. Counsel: Jeffrey Ogar, 817-967-3478 for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223 for Iberia / Sami Sarelius, 358-9-818-4070 for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland, 212-490-9100 for Royal Jordanian
August 18, 2008 Re: American Airlines' Production of Confidential Documents American Airlines, Inc. hereby produces confidential documents in the captioned docket pursuant to Exhibit JA-28 of the Joint Application. We request confidential treatment of these documents in accordance with the Joint Applicants' Rule 12 motion of August 14, 2008, which we incorporate herein by reference. Exhibit JA-28 and a public index of the documents being produced are attached. Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647
August 18, 2008 Re: British Airways Rule 12 Motion for Confidential Treatment Pursuant to the Joint Applicants' Rule 12 motion for confidential treatment dated August 14, 2008, which we incorporate herin by reference, British Airways is submitting its confidential documents in the referenced docket. A public index of the documents being produced is attached. Counsel: Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970
August 19, 2008 Re: Iberia Request for Confidential Treatment and Index of Confidential Documents Enclosed please find five sets of the confidential documents of Iberia in connection with the above‑referenced proceeding in Docket DOT-OST-2008-0252. The enclosed documents are being filed under seal pursuant to a joint motion of the applicants for confidential treatment under 14 C.F.R. § 302.12, which was filed with the Department on August 14, 2008. Electronic versions of this letter and the Iberia Index of Confidential Documents were yesterday filed in the public record and served on those persons shown on the Certificate of Service attached to the Joint Motion. Counsel: Steptoe & Johnson, Carol Gosain, 202-429-6464
Served August 19, 2008 Notice Providing Access to Documents On August 15, 2008, the Joint Applicants filed a joint motion under 14 C.F.R. § 302.12 of the Department’s regulations seeking confidential treatment for supporting documents and information. They state that this material is confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive, which qualifies it for being withheld from public disclosure. They ask that access to this material be limited to counsel and outside experts who have filed valid confidentiality affidavits. In order to afford interested parties prompt access to the documents under conditions agreed to by the Joint Applicants and imposed by the Department under similar recent circumstances, we will grant immediate interim access to all documents covered by the Rule 12 Motion to counsel and outside experts for interested parties who file appropriate affidavits with the Department in advance. Moreover, Parties will be permitted to make copies of the exhibits, at the Dockets facility, for use by persons who have filed confidentiality affidavits. We also find it appropriate to grant interim access to any subsequent materials that may be filed in this case under a Rule 12 Motion to counsel and outside experts for interested parties who file appropriate affidavits with the Department in advance, unless the party filing the Motion objects. By: Michael Reynolds
August 19, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit of AirTran Airways
Confidentiality Affidavit of AirTran Airways
Confidentiality Affidavit of AirTran Airways
August 19, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit of Northwest Airlines
Confidentiality Affidavits of Continental Airlines
Confidentiality of Delta Air Lines
Confidentiality Affidavits of Lufthansa German Airlines
Confidentiality Affidavits of United Air Lines
August 22, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit of Continental Airlines
Confidentiality Affidavits of Dallas-Ft. Worth International Airport
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of James & Hoffman for Allied Pilots Association
August 20, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Virgin Atlantic Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of the American Society of Travel Agents
August 25, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of United Air Lines
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 14, 2008 Re: Support Form Letters of:
Please support and approve the application for antitrust immunity filed by American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian. Approval of this application by the U.S. Department of Transportation would enable these five oneworld alliance airlines that operate transatlantic service to work closely together to deliver highly competitive flight schedules, fares and service as well as compete on equal footing with Star and Sky Team alliances, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity for transatlantic flights. In addition, please support and approve the request by American, British Airways and Iberia to establish a joint business agreement for operations between North America and Europe, which would create a more efficient and comprehensive transatlantic network for the carriers' customers. This action will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air alliances.
OST-2008-0252 - oneworld Alliance - Antitrust Immunity August 25, 2008 Motion of Virgin Atlantic to Consolidate Proceedings and to Suspend Answer Date In Docket OST-2008-0252, American, BA, Finnair, Iberia, and Royal Jordanian seek approval of and antitrust immunity for certain of their alliance agreements. In Docket OST-2002-13861, American and SA have applied for broad codesharing authority. As will be explained below, the competitive issues raised by the two Applications are so closely interrelated that the Department should consider them in a single, consolidated proceeding. Consolidation is warranted to ensure full vetting of all relevant issues in an efficient and reasoned manner and is fully consistent with prior DOT precedent and practice. The codesharing application filed by American and BA would authorize the carriers to display each other's codes on all bilaterally-authorized routes, including the highly-concentrated and access-constrained U.S.-London Heathrow market, in which the carriers hold a highly dominant position. In order for the Department to authorize American and BA to codeshare on these access-constrained routes, the Department will have to determine that the proposal will not be injurious to competition-a question that is squarely at issue in the ATI proceeding. As will be explained below, this codeshare application raises competitive issues that are inextricably linked to the issues in the ATI case, such as whether competing carriers have the tools and opportunity to offer meaningful competition to the American/BA combine and whether the Department (if it were to decide to approve the application) should seek to impose conditions on its approval to ensure a level competitive playing field. In the docketed ATI proceeding, American, BA, and their partners have undertaken to argue why their link-up would not be detrimental to competition, and Virgin Atlantic fully intends to participate in that proceeding and offer compelling evidence that this proposed arrangement indeed poses a profound threat to competition and that the opportunities for competitive entry in the relevant markets are not nearly as robust as the Joint Applicants claim. Virgin Atlantic strongly believes that the Department simply cannot view the contemplated codeshare arrangement in isolation, given the enormous degree of overlap between the competitive issues raised by these Applications. Moreover, Virgin Atlantic believes that many of the materials that American and BA have submitted in the ATI docket will be critical and relevant to the Department's analysis of the codeshare request. Virgin Atlantic also urges the Department to suspend the answer date in the codeshare docket, OST-2002-13861, which pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 212.10(e)(1) would otherwise be August 26, 2008. The Department should not require interested parties to file answers to the codeshare application in advance of a full opportunity to carefully review the Joint Applicants' lengthy ATI application and the materials (including the confidential materials) that support it. The parties simply must have the opportunity to review the voluminous confidential documents, which address issues that are highly relevant to the codesharing application as well, and determine their relevance to the competitive issues triggered by the instant codesharing request before filing thorough and reasoned answers. Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
August 20, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of the US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
August 26, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of American Express Travel Related Service Company
August 27, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of Counsel for Spirit Airlines August 14, 2008 Re: Support Form Letters of:
Please support and approve the application for antitrust immunity filed by American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian. Approval of this application by the U.S. Department of Transportation would enable these five oneworld alliance airlines that operate transatlantic service to work closely together to deliver highly competitive flight schedules, fares and service as well as compete on equal footing with Star and Sky Team alliances, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity for transatlantic flights. In addition, please support and approve the request by American, British Airways and Iberia to establish a joint business agreement for operations between North America and Europe, which would create a more efficient and comprehensive transatlantic network for the carriers' customers. This action will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air alliances.
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
August 27, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of Virgin Atlantic Airways
Support Form Letters:
Please support and approve the application for antitrust immunity filed by American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian. Approval of this application by the U.S. Department of Transportation would enable these five oneworld alliance airlines that operate transatlantic service to work closely together to deliver highly competitive flight schedules, fares and service as well as compete on equal footing with Star and Sky Team alliances, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity for transatlantic flights. In addition, please support and approve the request by American, British Airways and Iberia to establish a joint business agreement for operations between North America and Europe, which would create a more efficient and comprehensive transatlantic network for the carriers' customers. This action will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air alliances.
Re: Support Form Letters of:
Please support and approve the application for antitrust immunity filed by American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian. Approval of this application by the U.S. Department of Transportation would enable these five oneworld alliance airlines that operate transatlantic service to work closely together to deliver highly competitive flight schedules, fares and service as well as compete on equal footing with Star and Sky Team alliances, which currently enjoy broad antitrust immunity for transatlantic flights. In addition, please support and approve the request by American, British Airways and Iberia to establish a joint business agreement for operations between North America and Europe, which would create a more efficient and comprehensive transatlantic network for the carriers' customers. This action will have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air alliances.
August 28, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Virgin Atlantic Airways
September 1, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
September 1, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of US Airways
OST-2008-0252 - Antitrust Immunity
September 3, 2008 Joint Applicant's Response to Virgin Atlantic Motion to Consolidate Proceedings The Joint Applicants have no objection to Virgin Atlantic's August 25, 2008 motion seeking consolidation of the two dockets captioned above. As the Joint Application in OST-2008-0252 itself states, antitrust immunity is necessary to create the commercial incentives for full behind/beyond and transatlantic codesharing, so there is no need to rule on the codeshare application before the Joint Application. If Virgin Atlantic had asked the Joint Applicants to stipulate to consolidation they would have done so in advance. However, while the Joint Applicants do not oppose the relief requested, we strongly object to Virgin Atlantic's erroneous and unsupported allegations about the lack of competitiveness of overlap city-pairs. The claim that American and British Airways have "combined market shares that range from 50% to 100%" is also overstated. MIDT data shows that more than 95% of all customers on the six American/British Airways nonstop overlap routes will continue to enjoy nonstop competition to Heathrow after the proposed alliance is approved. The highest current combined booking share (79.3%) is on the smallest route - Dallas/Fort Worth-London - where more than one in five passengers fly the competition (MIDT, July 2008). While Virgin Atlantic may hope to return to the days when Bermuda II protected Heathrow incumbents - including Virgin - from competition, oneworld is moving forward to ensure that the consumer benefits of U.S.-EU Open Skies continue to expand. Counsel: Jeffrey Ogar, 817-967-3478 for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223 for Iberia / Sami Sarelius, 358-9-818-4070 for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland, 212-490-9100 for Royal Jordanian
Re: Support Form Letters of:
Re: Support Form Letters of:
OST-2008-0252 - Antitrust Immunity
September 4, 2008 Motion of Virgin Atlantic to Amend Notice Providing Access to Documents In the Motion which requested confidential treatment for those materials, the Joint Applicants requested that the Department limit access to such materials "to counsel and outside experts" who file confidentiality affidavits in accordance with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. On August 19, 2008, the Department issued a Notice Providing Access to Documents in Docket OST-2008-0252. Virgin Atlantic hereby moves the Department to slightly amend its Notice, so that a technical expert on its Government Affairs team may be permitted to review such materials, and have the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the case. Virgin Atlantic wishes to note from the outset that it does not in principle object to the protection of the Joint Applicants' confidential materials from public disclosure. Virgin Atlantic also appreciates the desire of the Joint Applicants to protect their confidential business information. However, the Department's ruling on access to this information-confining access of carrier parties to counsel and outside experts-is unduly narrow, and unreasonably constrains the ability of the government affairs team at Virgin Atlantic to comment on the instant applications. Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
September 4, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
August 26, 2008 Re: Fort Smith Regional Airport, AR Letter in Support
Re: Support Form Letters of:
August 28, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Mayor of East Moline, IL By: John Thodos
August 29, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Speaker of Oklahoma House of Representatives By: Chris Benge
Re: Support Form Letters of:
August 28, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce By: Molly Grover
August 29, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Texarkana Regional Airport By: Stephen Luebbert
September 3, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Ft. Worth Hispanic Chamber of Commerce By: Rudy Lopez
Re: Support Form Letters of:
September 11, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit for Spirit Airlines
August 28, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Okaloosa County Airports By: Greg Donovan
Re: Support Form Letters of:
September 2, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority By: Torrance Richardson
August 19, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce By: Ronn Cupp
Re: Support Form Letters of:
September 12, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of Association of Professional Flight Attendants
Support Form Letters of:
OST-2008-0252 - Antitrust Immunity
September 16, 2008 Virgin Atlantic's motion should be denied, an outcome fully consistent with long-standing Department precedent. Otherwise, the floodgates would open, the number of individuals gaining access to confidential documents would expand dramatically, and the risk of undue competitive harm to applicants would increase significantly. By limiting the affidavit procedure to counsel and outside experts, the Department has struck a careful balance between the ability of opposing parties to participate while protecting the applicants from competitive harm. Virgin Atlantic - with nine affidavits already on file - has presented no basis for the Department to disrupt that balance. Counsel: Carl Nelson for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas for Iberia / Sami Sarelius for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland for Royal Jordanian
September 16, 2008 Motion for Leave to File and Reply of Northwest Airlines oneworld identifies no specific harm in granting this expert access to the documents, but claims that such access would open the “floodgates” and create an unspecified “risk of competitive harm” to oneworld. There is no floodgates problem nor undue risk posed by the very limited relief requested for dedicated government affairs experts. Northwest agrees with Virgin that dedicated government affairs experts -- who do not have a commercial role in the company -- can and should be granted access to the confidential record. Contrary to oneworld’s protestations, there is no basis to conclude that granting dedicated government affairs personnel access to the full record would compromise the Department’s procedures, or create any risk of competitive harm to the applicants. The Department has made a substantial effort in recent years to streamline its procedures – with the objective of reducing the costs and burden on applicants and interested parties in proceedings. The costs of retaining outside attorneys and outside experts in a major antitrust immunity proceeding can easily run into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars. The analysis of traffic and economic data is critical to alliance proceedings. There is no regulatory reason to force interested parties to retain outside experts at great additional expense when they already employ dedicated government affairs personnel capable of performing the necessary analysis and observing the Department’s confidentiality rules. Accordingly, Northwest urges the Department to grant access to dedicated government affairs technical experts who file affidavits in this proceeding. Counsel: Northwest, Sascha Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184
September 16, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Virgin Atlantic Airways
September 5, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Mayor of Tallahassee By: John Marks III
September 10, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Arkansas State Representative By: Steve Harrelson
September 16, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport
Support Letters of:
Support Letters of:
Support Letters of:
Re: Ex-Parte Letter to Congressman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
September 18, 2008 Re: Support Letter of Los Angeles World Airports On behalf of Los Angeles World Airports, I would like to request that the U.S. Department of Transportation approve the application for antitrust immunity filed by American Airlines, British Airways, Iberia, Finnair and Royal Jordanian Airlines. An award of antitrust immunity would permit these five oneworld alliance partners to work more closely together to deliver flight schedules, fares and service in transatlantic markets on a competitive footing with Star Alliance and SkyTeam airline members, which already enjoy broad transatlantic immunity. By: Gina Marie Lindsey
September 25, 2008 Affidavits of Air France
Re: Ex-Parte Letter to Governor of California
Re: Support Letter of Kansas City International Airport
Re: Support Letter of City of Artesia, NM
OST-2008-0252 - oneworld Alliance - Antitrust Immunity
October 3, 2008 Joint Applicants' Motion to Strike Confidentiality Affidavits Submitted by Air France The Joint Applicants hereby move to strike two of the four confidentiality affidavits submitted by Air France on October 1, 2008. The affidavit of Jean-Michel Barthelemy states that he is "presently serving as Vice-President European and International Affairs and acting as a lawyer within Societe Air France." The affidavit of Laurent Timsit states that he is "presently serving as Deputy Vice President European and International Affairs and acting as a lawyer within Societe Air France." Neither of these two affiants states that he is in fact a lawyer, in contrast to the accompanying affidavits of Beryl Baldous and Manal Maila, both of whom assert "I am a lawyer." We sent an email inquiry to Air France seeking clarification, and received a response from Manal Maila stating that "these two individuals are my superiors and act as lawyers as they are in charge of Regulatory Affairs within Air France and in particular of competition issues." Based on the affidavits themselves and the quoted response to our email, it is apparent that Messrs. Barthelemy and Timsit are not lawyers. They are therefore ineligible to submit affidavits under the Department's well-established policy that only lawyers and outside experts may view confidential material. Because Messrs. Barthelemy and Timsit may be under the misapprehension that they are entitled to review confidential materials even though they are not lawyers, and in order to minimize competitive harm, the Department should immediately direct Air France to withhold our confidential documents (or any discussion about their content) from these two individuals pending a ruling on our motion to strike. Counsel: Bruce Wark, 817-967-3478 for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223 for Iberia / Sami Sarelius, 358-9-818-4070 for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland, 212-490-9100 for Royal Jordanian Issued and Served October 3, 2008 Order Striking Affidavits of Air France Today, October 3, 2008, American Airlines filed a motion to strike two affidavits submitted by Air France employees in the above-captioned case. American argues that the two affiants seeking access to the confidential record are not lawyers, in contravention of Department policy. We have reviewed the affidavits and determined that they do not provide sufficient information to justify access to the confidential record under the Department’s August 19th Notice Granting Access to Documents. The affiants have not, at a minimum, stated that they are counsel for Air France who are licensed to practice law. We hereby strike the affidavits of Jean-Michel Barthelemy, dated September 25, 2008, and Laurent Timsit, also dated September 25, 2008. We must take this action immediately without awaiting a response from Air France due to the risk of unauthorized disclosure of commercially sensitive information. The individuals listed above are not authorized to access or discuss the confidential record based upon the affidavits filed to date. By: Susan McDermott
October 14, 2008 Petition of Societe Air France for Reconsideration of Order 2008-10-2 The Joint Applicants' Motion claims that the Department's "longstanding" precedent compels it to strike the affidavits and bar Air France from having the full benefit of advice from its senior in-house regulatory affairs counsel. The Joint Applicants argue that acceptance of the Barthelemy and Timsit affidavits would "open the floodgates" and somehow increase the "risk of undue competitive harm." The Joint Applicants are wrong in both respects. As in Northwest-Hawaiian (Order 1992-6-14) and Texas Air-People Express (Order 1986-10-11) cases, the two Air France individuals are responsible for the company's regulatory affairs and are not responsible for commercial or marketing decisions. Their review of the confidential documents would be solely related to the preparation of Air France's participation in this case. There is no risk that the Joint Applicants would be competitively harmed by providing such access, nor have they demonstrated any such risk. Counsel: European and International Affairs, Beryl Baldous
October 14, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Association of Professional Flight Attendants
October 14, 2008 Re: Motion of Virgin Atlantic Airways to Require Additional Documents and Data On August 15, 2008, American, British Airways, Iberia, Royal Jordanian and Finnair applied for approval of and antitrust immunity for certain of their alliance agreements and activities. In support of their Joint Application, the Parties argue that the US-EU and US-UK markets have "changed" since their previous application was filed and that competitive conditions now would support an unconditioned grant of antitrust immunity. The Joint Application contains several statements about how approval of the proposed alliance would be pro-competitive. While the Joint Applicants assert that the conclusion of the EU-US Open Skies agreement has been a "game-changer" that dictates approval of the Joint Application and eliminates the need for any conditions to be imposed on this arrangement, those assertions are not supported by hard facts. There are several significant issues that are not adequately addressed in the Joint Application, or, in certain cases, are virtually ignored. Moreover, there are certain information requirements that do not appear to have been met. Accordingly, Virgin Atlantic respectfully urges the Department to not establish a procedural schedule for this case until such time as the Joint Applicants submit additional data to support their request for antitrust immunity and the Department determines that the record is complete. Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
October 14, 2008 Re: Motion of Virgin Atlantic Airways for Confidential Treatment Virgin Atlantic hereby moves the Department for confidential treatment of the accompanying Motion of Virgin Atlantic Airways to Require Additional Documents and Data. Virgin's confidential motion makes reference to confidential material submitted in this docket by the Joint Applicants, which is protected from public disclosure by the Department's August 19, 2008 Notice Providing Access to Documents. Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
October 15, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana
October 15, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana
October 23, 2008 Hereby supports Virgin Atlantic Airways' motion to require the Joint Applicants in the above-captioned docket to submit additional documents and data before the Department determines that the Joint Application is complete and establishes a procedural schedule. The Department should refrain from setting any procedural schedule in this proceeding until the Joint Applicants complete production of the additional documents and data and interested parties are afforded sufficient time to review these documents, information, data and answers. The proposed alliance involves combining the resources of the largest U.K. carrier with its largest U.S. competitor on the largest transatlantic market and largest U.S.-foreign destination route in the world - London Heathrow. American and British Airways collectively hold - by far - the most slots at London Heathrow, London's preferred airport for business passengers. Counsel: Air France, Jean-Michel Barthelemy
Joint Applicants' Answer to Virgin Atlantic's Motion to Require Additional Documents and Data Virgin Atlantic has made no secret of its intention to engage in dilatory tactics in an attempt to prevent oneworld from enjoying the same benefits of integration that Star and SkyTeam have been allowed to develop over the past several years. Despite having had a 10-member team of lawyers and economists reviewing the confidential docket for two months, Virgin waited until the Department issued an evidence request in the Star proceeding (Order 2008-10-3, OST-2008-0234, 10/8/08) to file its motion in an obvious effort to delay the Department's consideration of the Joint Application. The Department should reject Virgin's motion and promptly proceed to deem the application complete and establish a procedural schedule. Virgin - unhappy that it is faced with unprecedented new entry at Heathrow - has always been a vocal opponent of U.S.-EU Open Skies. Virgin's opposition to the Joint Application is nothing more than a last ditch effort to scuttle the benefits of transatlantic liberalization by undermining the Department's open skies/alliance policy. The Department has already granted similar flexibility to American, US Airways, and United, by granting complete waivers of their start-up conditions through March or April 2010. In contrast, Delta initiated its U.S.-China service by the March 30, 2008, start-up deadline, and intends to continue providing at least four flights per week on this important route even during the current economic turmoil. However, in Delta’s business judgment, the market cannot profitably support more than four weekly flights under current market conditions. Granting this request for a temporary dormancy waiver will give Delta the flexibility it needs to adjust its Atlanta-Shanghai schedule now to react to the temporary trough in demand, but quickly expand its U.S.-China service as appropriate to match increasing demand as soon as market conditions warrant. Counsel: Jeff Ogar, 817-967-3478 for American / Garofalo Goerlich, Don Hainbach, 202-776-3970 for British Airways / Steptoe & Johnson, William Karas, 202-429-6223 for Iberia / Sami Sarelius, 358-9-818-4070 for Finnair / Condon & Forsyth, Michael Holland, 212-490-9100 for Royal Jordanian
October 23, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of American Airlines
October 23, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of American Airlines
OST-2008-0252 - Antitrust Immunity
October 24, 2008 Joint Applicants' Answer to Air France's Petition for Reconsideration As a party to the joint motion for confidential treatment filed by the SkyTeam applicants in OST-2007-28644 on June 28, 2007, Air France urged that "access [should] be granted only to counsel and outside experts who file affidavits"; that "absent this limitation on access," Air France would "face a greater risk of the confidential documents and the information contained therein being disclosed and resulting in competitive harm"; and that "the request to limit disclosure to counsel and outside experts is fully consistent with longstanding Department precedent and policy." In the first SkyTeam docket, OST-2004-19214, Air France filed its own individual motion for confidential treatment on September 28, 2004, urging that access to its internal documents "should be strictly limited" to counsel and outside experts, and that such a limitation "is fully consistent with Department precedent and policy" Air France cited sev |
