OST-97-2055
Home
| OST Filings by Docket | OST
Filings by Carrier | OST
Filings by Proceeding | OST
Filings by Day
Office of Intl Aviation
Filings by Carrier | Office of
Intl Filings by Day
OST-97-2055
American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways PLC (Antitrust Immunity / Exemptions, Certificate Authority, Foreign Air Carrier Permit, and Statements of Authorization)
Order 97-5-13 | OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054 / 2055 / 2056 / 2057 | Issued and Served May 16, 1997
We direct American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways PLC to provide the additional information and evidence described in the attachment to this order.
Attachment – Additional Request for Information and Evidence
By: Charles Hunnicutt
OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 | OST-96-1700 | July 18, 1997
Motion of Continental Airlines
to Require Supplemental Information Submission
American has announced that it is investing in and entering into an alliance with Aerolineas Argentinas and Austral, and that it and its proposed partner, British Airways, have entered into alliances with Iberia. Additionally, SEPI has announced that there may be further investment in Iberia by both American and British Airways. These alarming announcements indicate that there will be significant expansion in the global mega-alliance planned by American and British Airways. Combining American, one of the largest U.S. airlines, with British Airways, Aerolineas Argentinas, Iberia, Austral, and the TACA Group will perpetuate American's stranglehold on the U.S.-Latin America market, ally all the carriers providing any significant services between Miami and Central America, permit the alliance to dominate the U.S.-Spain and U.S.-Argentina markets, and preempt future alliances between other carriers that might seek to compete in these markets. Worse still, if American and British Airways were themselves allowed to combine and given immunity from the antitrust laws, incorporating these other carriers into their quest for global domination would allow them to crush competitors throughout the U.S., Europe and Latin America. The Department must not endorse the American/British Airways effort to squelch competition on a piecemeal basis without considering the interrelationships among these alliances, particularly when they intersect at American's Miami mega-hub.
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500
American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways Plc (Antitrust Immunity, Exemptions, Certificate Authority, Statements of Authorization)
OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 | July 25, 1997
Response of American Airlines to Order
97-5-13
American Airlines, Inc. hereby responds to Order 975-13, May 16, 1997, which requires the submission of supplemental and updated exhibits and documents in connection with the captioned applications.
Re: American Airlines and British Airways
Editor's Note: Above Items Available in PDF on July 28th
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647
Response of British Airways to Order
97-5-13
British Airways Plc ("British Airways") hereby responds to the Department of Transportation (the "DOT" or "Department") Order No. 97-5-13, dated May 16, 1997, requesting additional information and evidence from both British Airways and American Airlines, Inc.
Motion of British Airways for
Confidential Treatment
Counsel: British Airways and Sullivan Cromwell, Richard Sauer, 202-956-7500
OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 | OST-96-1700 | July 29, 1997
Answer of American Airlines
to Motion of Continental Airlines
American has no plans to include Iberia in American's code-sharing agreement with the TACA Group. Nor does American have any plans to include Aerolineas (or Austral) in the American/British Airways alliance, or in American's code-sharing agreement with the TACA Group. These are entirely separate matters, and should be considered by the Department in separate proceedings as they are submitted for approval. If Continental's tactic were to prevail, the Department would rarely conclude any proceedings involving cooperative arrangements between carriers, particularly where, as here, the initial applications have been subjected to protracted delays in processing.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647
As Delta has already pointed out in the American-TACA proceeding, American's principle reason for entering into an alliance with the TACA Group is to further entrench its already dominant position in the U.S.-Central American marketplace. American and the TACA carriers are each other's principle competitors to and from the United States. The evidence in the American-TACA docket indicates that American's primary impetus in creating the alliance is to eliminate competition with its principal Central American competitors. American's plan to join forces with Aerolineas Argentinas, its largest competitor between the United States and Argentina, represents American's latest effort to strengthen its dominant position and solidify its stranglehold over U.S.Latin American markets.
Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060
Answer of the City of Houston
and the Greater Houston Partnership
Houston continues to object to American's emergence as the "chosen instrument" of U.S. aviation policy in Latin America. American is creating precisely the type of competitive stranglehold on this market that Pan American held until two decades of government pressure fmally introduced competition. Unless the Department acts quickly and decisively, the U.S. - Latin American market will retrogress to an anti-competitive, anti-consumer monopoly, just as it was prior to the mid-1960's. It now has come full circle. American is attempting to reinvent the chosen instrument policy rejected more than fifty years ago through a network of alliances, joint ventures, and equity investments which would have made Juan Trippe, Pan American's legendary founder, proud. Continental's motion sets forth the naked numbers with respect to American's dominance, but it goes beyond numbers. Houston's future as a major gateway to Latin America depends in large part on the Department's commitment to maintaining competition in these markets. A "chosen instrument" also means "chosen," and therefore highly limited, gateways. Houston's concern is obvious, but it should be of concern to every other major hub airport in the U.S. with the exception of Miami and Dallas/Ft. Worth.
Counsel: Leftwich Douglas, Frederick Douglas, 202-434-9100
American's announced plan to acquire an ownership stake in Aerolineas Argentinas, Iberia, and Austral and to enter into code-sharing alliances with these carriers is only the latest in a series of unprecedented alliance relationships American has announced over the past year with a number of its principal foreign-flag competitors in key international markets where American is already the dominant U.S. airline. In addition to its proposed alliance with the TACA Combine, American is seeking immunity from the antitrust laws to implement an alliance with British Airways, and Departmental approval for an alliance with Avianca, despite the fact that American is already one of only two U.S. carriers authorized to serve London's Heathrow Airport, and holds more authority in the entry-restricted U.S.-Colombia market than its only U.S.-flag competitor. American has already obtained approval to implement alliances with TAM for service to Brazil, where American holds more frequencies by a considerable margin than any of its U.S.-flag competitors, and with Aero California for service to Mexico.
Counsel: United and Ginsburg Feldman, Joel Burton, 202-637-9130
American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways Plc (Antitrust Immunity)
OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054, 2055, 2056, 2057 | August 4, 1997
Further Response of American
Airlines to Order 97-5-13
American Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.39, hereby moves that the Department withhold Exhibits 15, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 17.5, 17.6, and 17.7 from public disclosure. These exhibits are being submitted in further response to Order 97-513, May 16, 1997.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-857-4246
Answer of Trans World Airlines
The applicants' request for in camera treatment is an insult to every attorney and consultant for other parties to this proceeding. They have all filed affidavits, as required by the Department, affirming that they will keep the information confidential, share it only with others who have filed similar affidavits, and use it only for purposes of participating in this proceeding. Attorneys and consultants for other parties have had access on a confidential basis to the documents that have already been submitted by American and British Airways. TWA has seen no information in the numerous trade press articles on the alliance that would indicate that any person who has filed an affidavit has violated their representation to the Department. There is no basis for believing that any sensitive information in the in camera documents will be given either to the press or to airline operating personnel.
Counsel: TWA and Richard Fahy, 202-457-4764
American Airlines, Inc. et. al. and The Taca Group Reciprocal Codesharing Services Proceeding / Joint Applications of American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways PLC / Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. / Motion of Delta for Confidential Treatment
OST-96-1700 | OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054 | OST-97-2055 | OST-97-2056 | OST-97-2057 | September 11, 1997
Answer
of Delta Air Lines, Inc. to Supplemental
Information Response
Delta hereby files this Answer in response to the Supplemental Information submitted by American and TACA on August 27, 1997. The perfunctory and dismissive responses of American and the TACA Group to the Department's information request do nothing to allay the competitive concerns raised by Delta, Continental and TWA. Indeed, the paucity of information supplied by the American/TACA responses serves only to underscore the need for oral evidentiary proceedings by which the Department can more adequately explore American's true motivations in entering into these additional agreements with Iberia and Aerolineas Argentinas and the true relationships between these arrangements and the proposed American-TACA arrangement.
Motion
of Delta Air Lines, Inc. For Confidential
Treatment Pursuant to Rule 39
Delta requests confidential treatment only to the extent required by Order 97-5-4 and the Department's Notice Requiring Supplemental Information dated August 22, 1997. While Delta has no independent objection to the public disclosure of these materials, Delta is filing under seal, accompanied by this Motion, a confidential version of its Answer, which contains references to the confidential information submitted by American.
Counsel: Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202 663 8060
American Airlines, Inc. and Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A. (Codesharing and Statements of Authorization)
Undocketed | OST-97-2965 | OST-97-2966 | OST-96-1700 / OST-97-2058 / 97-2054-2057 | October 17, 1997
Answer
of Continental Airlines
Counsel: Continental and Crowell Moring, Bruce Keiner
Answer
of Delta Air Lines -
(Also Filed in Dockets 7)
Motion
of Delta Air Lines for
Confidential Treatment
Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn
Consolidated
Answer of The Government of Puerto Rico
Counsel: Verner Liipfert, John Merrigan
Answer
of Trans World Airlines
Attachment: Common US Codeshare Points, TWA/Air Europa Unique US Codeshare Points, American/Iberia Unique Codeshare Points
Counsel: TWA and Richard Fahy, 202-457-4764, rfahy@ibm.net
Consolidated
Answer of United Air Lines
Exhibit UA-1: DGAC - Request for Operations by Regime of Code Share to Palma de Mallorca
Counsel: United and Ginsburg Feldman, Joel Burton, 202-637-9130
OST-97-2965 | OST-97-2966 | Undocketed | OST-96-1700 | OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054-2057
There is no question that Delta has violated the Department's affidavit procedures. Delta has used confidential information it obtained in the American/British Airways proceeding -- and promised to use "only for purposes of participating in [that] proceeding and for no other purpose" -- in the American/Iberia (and American/TACA Group) dockets. This is a serious, clearcut, and inexcusable violation of the Department's orders and of Delta's own affidavits, and fully justifies striking Delta's answer from all dockets in which it has been submitted.
Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647
OST-97-2965 | OST-97-2966 | Undocketed | OST-96-1700 | OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054-2057 | October 21, 1997
Answer
of Delta Air Lines to Motion of American
Airlines
Placed in its proper context, American's motion is nothing more than an attempt to transform a procedural triviality into another false claim of abuse of the Department's confidentiality procedures. This claim has no more merit than American's previous assertions of abuse, which Delta repudiated in its September 25, 1997 consolidated answer in OST-97-2058 at pages 13-14. The information discussed in Delta's filing has a direct and substantive bearing on the AA/BA proceeding and on how the Department should evaluate American's proposed alliances. Furthermore, Delta fully protected the confidentiality of this information, and provided it only to the Department and AA/BA affidavit holders. In these circumstances, American's motion lacks substance and should be denied.
Counsel: Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060
Northwest Airlines, Inc. - (Thailand Delay Start-Up)
OST-97-2055 | OST-97-2209 | November 21, 1997
Northwest Airlines, Inc. respectfully requests that it be exempted from the 90-day dormancy period attached to one of Northwest's five U.S.-Thailand frequencies to enable Northwest to begin operating the fifth frequency no later than June 30, 1998.
Note: Application was accepted in the Docket section after the close of business on Friday, 11/21/97, but was not made available until today, 11/24/97.
Counsel: Megan Poldy for Northwest, 202.842.3193
Order 98-1-18 | OST-97-2965 | OST-97-2966 | Undocketed | OST-96-1700 | OST-97-2058 | OST-97-2054, 2055, 2055, 2057
Based on the facts as stated in the pleadings, we find that Delta, through its agents, has violated the Department's confidentiality procedures in several significant respects, and that the carrier's answer to the American/Iberia applications should be stricken, both the "confidential" and the redacted versions, in all dockets in which it has been filed. While we have considered other sanctions as well, we have decided against taking such action in light of certain mitigating factors that should be taken into account.
By: Charles Hunnicutt
American Airlines, Inc. and British Airways PLC
| Order 99-7-22 OST-97-2058 OST-97-2054 OST-97-2055 OST-97-2056 OST-97-2057 |
Issued and Served July 30, 1999 | Order Terminating Proceedings | Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreeemnts / Exemptions, Certificate Authority / Undocketed Air Carrier Permit Authority and Statements of Authorization |
Throughout the course of these proceedings we have maintained that the public interest requires an Open-Skies agreement with the United Kingdom meeting the criteria described above. We now understand that the United Kingdom has not made sufficient progress internally in resolving the issue of London airport access to permit the continuation of productive negotiation of such an Open-Skies agreement. In these circumstances it is clear that the fundamental predicate for processing the captioned applications no longer exists. Against this background, we are dismissing the applications and terminating the proceedings in the referenced dockets.
By: Bradley Mims
Home
| OST Filings by Docket | OST
Filings by Carrier | OST
Filings by Proceeding | OST
Filings by Day
Office of Intl Aviation
Filings by Carrier | Office of
Intl Filings by Day
