OST-98-4647 / American Eagle / High Density Rule - Chicago O'Hare / 2nd Motion of Reno Air / December 28, 1998

 

Application of

AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. / OST-98-4647

under 49 U.S.C. 41714 for an exemption from the high density rule governing Chicago O'Hare slots (14 CFR Part 93)

(Greenville/Spartanburg, South Carolina)

 

SECOND MOTION OF RENO AIR TO STRIKE

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

 

For reasons stated in its Motion of December 9, 1998 and incorporated by reference here, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno Airs) respectfully requests that the Department strike pages 5-7 of the pleading filed by United Air Lines, Inc. (United) on December 1, 1998 and further strike United's Answer filed on December 18, 1998 in this docket.

For the second time, United raises in a wholly inappropriate proceeding (dealing with an Application of American Eagle Airlines for a slot exemption to serve the Chicago O'Hare-Greenville/Spartanburg market) the issue of Reno Air slots at O'Hare and urges the Department to reallocate to another carrier Chicago O'Hare exemption slots granted Reno Air for dedicated Reno-Chicago service (Orders 94-9-30 and 97-10-16).

By continuing to inject irrelevant Reno Air slot issues into this case, United has pushed beyond the limits of the Department's generally liberal pleading requirements to the point where it borders on an abuse of the Department's process. United's tactic is simple. By provoking a response from an entity not involved in this docket (in this case Reno Air and the Reno/Tahoe civic parties), United is able to use that response as a vehicle to restate irrelevant arguments, extend debate and, presumably, delay Department action on the American Eagle Application.

The fact that United served its pleading on Reno Air and that Reno Air felt constrained to reply to protect its rights does not satisfy the requirements of due process of law and fundamental fairness or make United's arguments relevant to the issues in this docket. The simple fact is that the Reno Air slot issues raised by United are irrelevant to this proceeding and are not the proper subject of argument in this docket.

Reno Air is not a party to this proceeding and serving Reno Air with a of copy of United's pleading does not change that fact. Without question, any actions taken at United's urging would have severe adverse effects upon Reno Air, the Reno/Tahoe community, the State of Nevada and the traveling and shipping public. Fundamental fairness and due process of law require that these issues, if they are to be addressed by the Department at all—which we believe unnecessary in any event— be raised in an appropriate forum, with proper safeguards to insure that an adequate record is developed. By its unilateral actions, United cannot alter those requirements.

Under these circumstances, Reno Air moves to strike those portions of United's pleadings dealing with Reno Air's Reno-Chicago O'Hare slots. Reno Air also respectfully puts the Department on notice that it does not intend to answer any additional United pleadings in this regard, preferring to put an end to any further abuse by United of the Department's process. Therefore, the absence of any further response by Reno Air should not be taken as acquiescence to United's irrelevant, erroneous, and misplaced arguments.

Finally, under the unique circumstances created by United's insistence on filing multiple irrelevant pleadings and to the extent the Department deems necessary, Reno Air respectfully requests leave to file this Second Motion to Strike.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen H. Lachter

LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN H LACHTER

COUNSEL FOR RENO AIR, INC.

December 28, 1998