Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | 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

List of Air Carrier Payments

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  OST

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Correction In rule document 01-27177 beginning on page 54615 in the issue of Monday, October 29, 2001, the Federal Register inadvertently dropped the word ``not'' in an eligibility section of the rule in the course of editing and printing the document. This error made it appear that certain parties were eligible for government compensation when in fact the rule as drafted specifies the contrary. As a result, make the following correction: PART 330--[CORRECTED] On page 54622 in the first column, in the eighth line, insert the word ``not'' after ``operator), you are''.

By:  Office of the Secretary

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

In the final rule establishing procedures for compensation of air carriers, promulgated as 14 C.F.R. Part 330 and published at 66 Fed. Reg. 54616 (October 29, 2001), the Department has inexplicably reversed course, admonishing all-cargo carriers that, except in circumstances not pertinent to Atlas, "you must not alter the . . . RTM reports you earlier submitted to the Department or add previously unreported . . . RTMs to your total." 66 Fed. Reg. at 54623. The Department's new formulation serves to prevent all-cargo air carriers like Atlas from claiming RTMs operated on behalf of other carriers in the second quarter of 2001, even though there would be no double counting of RTMs resulting from their inclusion. As discussed below, the rule's new interpretation of the Act's all-cargo compensation mechanism is at odds with Congressional intent, misallocates federal funds among eligible U.S. carriers and disadvantages those carriers that have expanded U.S. all-cargo capacity through use of the ACMI business model.

The final rule was issued, erroneously in our view, without the benefit of public notice and comment. By calling for comments by November 13, 2001, the Department has signaled its willingness to entertain changes. Atlas Air very much hopes that the Department will promptly exercise its authority to modify the rule in accordance with our suggestions herein.

Atlas Air objects to Section 330.31(d)(4) of the final rule, which states that the Department will calculate each all-cargo airline's proportionate share of total compensation under the Act based on its share of a subset of its total Revenue Ton Miles (RTMs), that is, counting only those RTMs routinely reported quarterly to the Department on its Form 41, for purposes pre-dating and unrelated to the purposes of the Act. Because present (as opposed to proposed) DOT regulations instruct Atlas and other, similarly situated carriers not to report certain of their RTMs on Form 41, the announced formula seriously undercounts their true share of capacity owned and operated by U.S. all-cargo airlines, with corresponding misallocations of compensation under the Act.

Counsel:  Atlas, Air, John Holum

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

• Congress included direct and indirect air carriers within the universe of persons eligible to be reimbursed for losses.
• Reportable "revenue ton miles" (RTM) is a statutory measure only of the can on reimbursement, not a measure of loss or of basic eligibility for reimbursement.
• The DOT regulation incorrectly limits relief to those companies that are the reporters of RTM's, even though other companies actually generated the RTM's.
• Emery generates RTM's and its operation of aircraft has significant economic risks.
• Contractual obligations with aircraft operators, most extending beyond December 31, 2001 (i.e., wet lease arrangements) with lift dedicated to Emery. The planes fly and Emery pays whether any freight is on board or not.
• Dedicated fixed network.
• HUB operation - obligation for plant, equipment and employees.
• Losses are allocable between direct and indirect carriers.

By:  Emery

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Overall we believe the Rule tracks the requirements and objectives of the Act, and establishes a straightforward application process. While we appreciate the need to make the Rule effective immediately upon its issuance on October 29, 2001, the air carriers need a better understanding of several provisions to ensure applications for the second and third installment payments conform to the requirements. We are submitting these comments within the 14-day comment period permitted under the Rule and ask DOT to issue clarifying guidance and comment on the Agreed-upon Procedures presented by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") as soon as possible. Since clarifying guidance will not be issued until after air carriers submit applications for the second installment payments, we ask DOT to permit air carriers to amend those applications to comply with any guidance issued pursuant to these comments or comments submitted by other interested parties.

By:  ATA, Robert Warren

Sections 330.7 and 330.37 of the Final Rule require "an independent auditor's review of the reasonableness and accuracy of its claim of actual losses for the period of the claim," and "an independent auditor's review of the reasonableness and accuracy of its forecasts and data." As currently drafted, the independent audit requirement cannot be satisfied under AICPA professional standards. The term "forecast" as used in the Final Rule is not consistent with the definition of a financial forecast in AICPA professional standards, including the minimum presentation guidelines for a financial forecast. Further, under AICPA professional standards, independent CPA practitioners cannot perform a review-level engagement of a financial forecast as contemplated in the Final Rule.

By:  AICPA

Even if the distinction drawn by DOT between direct and indirect air carriers were valid, the Department fails to understand at least a portion of the indirect air carrier industry. Simply stated, not all indirect air carriers of cargo operate in the same way. For example, a unique, limited, finite, set of indirect air carriers generates the freight carried (and hence the RTMs attributable to that freight); enters into long term, guaranteed, contracts with direct air carriers for dedicated lift which require payment irrespective of the freight on board; and takes the entire financial risk for this operation. Therefore, even if the total amount of compensation claimed by the industry exceeds the $500,000,000 cap, the data generated by this class of indirect air carrier is fully auditable and measurable within the meaning of the Statute, which permits an allocation formula based, not solely on Revenue Ton Miles actually flown by the claimant, but also on "other auditable measures". This class of indirect air carrier therefore fits squarely within the statutory scheme and cannot legally or logically be excluded from compensation under the Act - even if an allocation is necessary.

The other major area of concern to Association members is the treatment of direct air carriers that "wet lease" aircraft to other direct air carriers. Again, the issue of "eligibility" is confused with the subject of "allocation" to arrive at a wholly illegal, illogical and unfair conclusion. With respect to eligibility, it is uncontroverted that the "direct wet lessors" are air carriers as defined in the Act. Therefore, to the extent that losses in the wet lease operation are attributable to the events of September 11, they must be considered as eligible for compensation. The only remaining issue is whether the wet lease Revenue Ton Miles should be considered if an allocation eventually is necessary. It is here that the Department unreasonably bends the Statute to arrive at a preordained conclusion. Holding that a lessee, rather than a lessor is "entitled" to report RTMs, DOT has refused to pay certain wet lessors for the losses experienced in their wet lease operations. The justification for this conclusion is apparently based on a BTS conclusion that, for wholly other reporting purposes, the Department requires lessees to report wet lease RTMs; the Department goes on to conclude that such reporting requirements mandate that the lessor cannot be compensated for its actual demonstrated losses. While it may be true that, under the Form 41 and T-100 reporting systems, the wet lessee is currently responsible for the filing, the Statute at issue here does not require the RTM data to have been previously filed with the Secretary - only that it be filed with the Secretary as part of the compensation process. Therefore, to the extent that a wet lessor can file the information that matches the data it would have filed with the Secretary on Form 41 or T-100, it can easily be included in the allocation process

By:  Cargo Airline Association, Stephen Alterman, 202.293.1030

By:  Custom Air Transport

The U.S. Department of Transportation's rule on Procedures for Compensation o Air Carriers under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act ("the Stabilization Act") does not reflect what I believe was Congress' intent with regards to the compensation of cargo carriers who offer capacity on a "wet lease" or "ACMI" (which stands for "Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance, Insurance") contract basis.  Stated simply, I believe that Congress intended any "auditable" revenue ton miles (RTMs) flown by ACMI contract lessors should be accounted for the purpose of providing federal compensation.

Additionally, it is worth noting that this interpretation of the Stabilization Act's Section 103 is widely supported in the industry. It is my understanding that both the Air Transportation Association (ATA) and the Cargo Airlines Association are expected to file comments supporting the position that the Stabilization Act's Section 103 "other auditable measure" provision includes ACMI lessors.

By:  James McGovern

The Section-by-Section analysis of the regulations correctly quotes the Act as basing the compensation on Available Seat Miles (ASMs) or Revenue Ton Miles (RTMs), "or other auditable measure as reported to the Secretary." 66 Fed. Reg. 54619. However, it then amplifies on this directive by expressing the belief that, in the case of so-called "wet lease" operations, where the lessor provides the aircraft and the crew and operates the flight, the lessor can appropriately claim the RTMs resulting from an operation only when that is how the RTMs "were reported to the Department in accordance with BTS regulations and guidance" (emphasis supplied), thus adding the past tense to the mandated reports to the Secretary. It then quotes BTS guidance for those pre-existing, routine reports to the Secretary as stating that the lessee, rather than the lessor, reports RTMs on wet lease operations. We believe that this is an unreasonable requirement. Nothing in the Act mandates total reliance on previous reports to the Department of Transportation, which were collected for the purpose of aggregating industry statistics and not for purposes of determining eligibility for government benefits.

We believe Congress did not intend such treatment of U.S. airlines. It is certainly acceptable to rely on long-standing reports for guidance, to the extent that they fairly describe each carrier's share of total U.S. capacity. But whether, by permitting augmentation of previous reports to reflect RTMs actually operated by an airline, or by affording meaning to the phrase "other auditable measure" in the Act, the Regulations should recognize the legislative intent to apportion compensation according to each airline's share of total RTMs during the second quarter of 2001, and not only those reported to the Department under forms and procedures predating adoption of the Act.

By:  Members of Congress from Florida

Parts 2 and 4 of Form 330-A request certain operational data that most charter air carriers do not use in the ordinary course of business forecasting. For example, forecast available seat miles (ASM’s) and Revenue Passenger Miles (RPM’s) are tools that are consistent with forecasts for scheduled air carriers, but are not useful in forecasting charter business. Scheduled airlines forecast, manage, and measure their performance against the revenue they generate by each seat filled by a paying passenger and the cost to provide that seat.

Charter air carriers predominantly sell only full planeload charter flights to tour operators, cruise lines and the Department of Defense who, in turn, pay for the whole airplane by the block hour or, in the case of the military, through a uniform rate making process applicable for all of the seats on the aircraft.  Naturally, ASM and RPM data are maintained and reported as historical data, but only in retrospect. Load Factor is also known only in retrospect, but is not useful in charter revenue forecasting. The risk of filling the entire aircraft is that of the charterer. The air carrier establishes a block-hour price that assumes the load factor will be 100%.

By:  NACA, Ron Priddy

DOT's concern that various contracts "would make it difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish among the many different kinds of contractual arrangements that exist for providing air transportation" does not justify DOT's determination to deny payments to indirect air carriers. There are many different and unique contractual relationships between parties today. These parties daily interpret and successfully function under these contracts without government intervention. For example, contracting parties routinely divide revenue received pursuant to a contract's terms without difficulty. Similarly, the parties can provide to the Department whatever data it needs to make appropriate allocations of relief.

By:  Winston Strawn, James Burnley

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Air Medical Services, Dawn Mancuso

By:  BAX Global, Frederick Perry

By:  Southern Air, Thomas Gillies

Counsel:  Sher Blackwell, Mark Atwood

By:  Worldwide Flight, Brad Stanius

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Cargo Airline Association, Stephen Alterman, 202.293.1030

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

These comments clarify the position of Federal Express Corporation that, if the Department decides to compensate indirect air carriers in the narrow circumstances identified by the CAA, it must also make adjustments to avoid double-counting both losses and revenue ton-miles (RTMs) under section 103 of the Act. As the rule states, the direct air carrier reports its RTMs to the Department on Form 41. Thus, if the Department provides compensation to an indirect air carrier that has assumed the contractual responsibility of paying for aircraft usage whether or not operated, it should reallocate to that indirect air carrier the direct carrier's RTMs relating to that usage. In that fashion, the total RTMs considered would not change.  

The Department is legitimately concerned about paying double compensation, and it should not have to bear the responsibility of ensuring that it does not pay twice for the same operational losses. Therefore, as Emery has suggested, the Department may want to seek the information it needs to make an appropriate allocation. For example, it may want to require both carriers to consent to the payment of any compensation in a manner that departs from the Department's rules.

There should be no double-counting in the case of wet leases either. Both Atlas Air, Inc. and the Air Transport Association of America made clear in their comments that wet lessors should only be allowed to claim compensation for RTMs that "do not duplicate RTMs used by another carrier in the calculation of its compensation under the Act." Comments of the Air Transport Association, OST-2001-10885-11 at 3. In the case of wet leases to domestic carriers, the lessee reports the RTMs to the Department. However, since the RTMS are not "flown by" the lessee, the lessee cannot claim compensation for those flights. Comments of Atlas Air, Inc., OST-2001-10885-3 at 8-9. In the case of wet leases to foreign carriers, the RTMs are not reported, and the lessee is ineligible for compensation under the Act.

For example, the Department may wish to require the carriers to submit copies of the contract establishing the joint arrangement and allocating the fmancial responsibility among the carriers.

Counsel:  Federal Express, Thomas Donaldson, 901.434.8586, tfdonaldson@fedex.com

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers and American West World Wide Express, Inc.

This letter is sent on behalf of American West World Wide Express, Inc., an air freight forwarder and an air carrier under 49 USC § 40102. American West is an air freight forwarder with an FAA operating authority, WP-95-11-005. American West filed an application under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act on November 19, 2001 for losses incurred as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and projected future losses as provided under the Act.

The application filed six (6) days after the deadline established under Section 330.21 for air carriers, other than air taxis, was occasioned by the fact that the regulations issued by the Department of Transportation on October 29, 2001 at page 54615 of the Federal Register, improperly and illegally defined eligible air carriers in Section 302.11 as a "certificated air carrier, a commuter air carrier or an air taxi" and specifically stated that "air freight forwarders as described in Part 296", and other "indirect air carriers", are not eligible to apply for compensation.

The Department should further take note that American West was not dilatory in its effort to determine the applicability of the Act to its situation and indeed immediately following the September 11, 2001 disaster and subsequent grounding. Mr. Josh Brown, President & CEO of American West, immediately contacted the Air Freight Forwarders Association inquiring as to how indirect carriers would be compensated. He was informed, at that time, that he should contact members of Congress as the Department was limiting compensation to direct air carriers. It was not until responses were received from the attached letters and subsequent communications in the trade press reported that Airborne and Federal Express, direct competitors of American West, had received money from the fund that American West even knew that application was possible.

Counsel:  Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

We continue to appreciate and applaud DOT's unflagging efforts in carrying out a program whose size and swiftness has no precedent. To that end, we implore DOT not to impose a narrower definition of incremental losses than that conveyed by the statute or by GAAP requirements. All incremental losses (including impairment losses) and potential benefits incurred as a direct result of the September 11 attacks should be permitted, regardless of whether they are considered non-recurring. In accounting, a loss is considered to be "incurred" if the likelihood that a loss has been experienced is probable or certain, and there is an ability to measure that loss. Impairment and other losses are required by GAAP because they capture the full economic effect to a company's financial status. Such an approach would fulfill the letter and intent of the Stabilization Act.

By:  CAA, Stephen Alterman; RAA, Deborah McElroy; and ATA, Carol Hallett

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

America West Airlines, Inc. submits this letter in response to a letter dated December 3, 2001 on behalf of an air freight forwarder operating under the name American West Worldwide Express, Inc. seeking compensation under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. In this connection, America West wishes to make clear that it is not associated or affiliated in any manner with American West World Wide. Indeed, America West wants the Department to understand in connection with processing applications for compensation under the Act that it has no business relationship with this company.

Counsel:  Baker Hostetler , Joanne Young, 202.861.1500, jyoung@bakerlaw.com 

The recovery period will vary among the three different segments (rotor wing, fixed wing domestic, and fixed wing international) of the air medical industry. The rotor wing segment appears to be approaching full recovery. It is anticipated that the domestic fixed wing segment will recover within six months, while the international fixed wing segment will take longer to achieve full recovery. Three months have lapsed and the domestic fixed wing segment has not fully recovered and the international fixed wing segment continues to see flight volumes off by at least 50%.

By:  Association of Air Medical Services, Dawn Mancuso, 703.836.8732

I am writing to call your attention to a matter - compensation of air carriers for "wet lease" operations -- which may be an issue in the Department of Transportation's forthcoming response to comments on the above-cited Final Rule. Because this issue is of great importance to my client, Custom Air Transport, and several other smaller cargo air carriers, I request your office to ensure that the Department's response takes full account of our position. The material in this letter is drawn entirely from comments filed in the regulatory docket by CAT and other carriers and trade associations. We are also filing a copy of this letter in the Department's docket.

Most, though not all, of these comments, however, were directed toward the situation of a domestic carrier that operates wet leases on behalf of foreign air carriers. Indeed, Atlas Air does perform most of its operations on behalf of such carriers. Some comments also assert that "the vast majority" of wet lease operations are on behalf of foreign air carriers. Since foreign carriers do not report their RTMs, and are not eligible for compensation, it would be very simple to allow U.S. carriers credit for RTMs operated on their behalf. Thus, several commenters suggest that the rule be amended to allow operating carriers to claim credit for RTMs so long as they are "(1) drawn from pre-existing, auditable records of the carrier and (2) do not duplicate RTMs used by another carrier in the calculation of its claim for compensation under the Act." The problem with this solution is that it avoids the issue of how to treat carriers, such as CAT, that operate flights on behalf of other U.S. carriers. CAT operates up to half of its total flights, carrying freight for Integrated carriers such as Emery and DHL, under contracts to a charter broker. These operations are of vital importance to integrated carriers, which do not maintain sufficient capacity in their own fleets to carry all the freight tendered to their freight forwarding affiliates.

We have no way of knowing how the Department will decide to resolve this issue. It may be that our fears are unfounded. We are. however, concerned that the Department could well take the "easy way out" and decide to apportion to the operating carrier only those RTMs that were operated for foreign airlines, thus avoiding the more difficult decision to switch RTMs from one U.S. carrier to another. To do so, however, would result in great harm to CAT and similarly situated carriers, and would not be justifiable under the Act.

By:  Sher Blackwell, Mark Atwood, 202.463.2513

By:  Medjet International, Inc., Jeffrey Tolbert, 205.592.4460

By:  James Dann

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

On September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act ("the Act"). The Act makes available to the President funds to compensate air carriers, as defined in the Act, for direct losses suffered as a result of any Federal ground stop order and incremental losses beginning September 11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001, resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. In a final rule being published in today’s Federal Register, the Department is amending its application procedures for this compensation program. This document requests further comments on the issue of whether the Department should establish a set-aside of compensation funds for classes of air carriers, such as air ambulances and air tour operators, for whom the final rule’s compensation formula may not adequately reflect their share of direct and incremental losses.

Comments should be received by January 16, 2002; late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

By:  Read Van de Water

Double counting – compensating more than one carrier for the same operation – is contrary to the statutory scheme of the Act. Under the Act, the amount of compensation available to a carrier is not simply a function of actual documented losses. Rather, compensation availability is limited by a formula based on the available seat-miles or revenue ton-miles (or other auditable measure) as reported by the carriers. The formula approach was clearly envisioned as a way to permit carriers to participate in a finite amount of compensation based on their proportionate market shares. Market shares are not "shared "due to multiple carriers participating in particular operations. Indeed, permitting two or more carriers to be compensated for the same operation would give greater weight to some operations than others, contrary to the broad and proportionate distribution principle evident from the language of both section 101 and 103.

By:  Read Van de Water

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sky Knight, Brian Kilcullen

USATA, which represents commercial air tour companies nationwide, is of the opinion that the way in which actual losses are calculated and federal grants distributed to air tour/air taxi operators under current regulatory procedures does not accurately compensate these operators for losses incurred as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Under the current ASM formula, operators may receive no more than approximately 10 percent to 12 percent of actual losses. This does little to assist these operators in their financial recovery. We believe there is a far more accurate way, still using Available Seat Miles (ASMs) as the baseline for such calculations, for the government to compare losses incurred by air tour operators with those of major air carriers and compensate these companies more equitably.

In effect, this recommended new formula would multiply the calculated ASMs as shown on an operator’s’ 330-C form by the percentage loss in revenue resulting from September 11^th. What this would do is to help compensate an operator for actual ASMs lost rather than compensate them only for ASMs flown. This would maintain Available Seat Miles as the mathematical underpinning of the calculation yet compare grant dollars to actual financial losses.

By:  USATA, SteveBassett

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Air Vegas is of the opinion that the way in which actual losses are calculated and federal grants distributed to air tour/air taxi operators under current regulatory procedures does not accurately compensate these operators for losses incurred as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Under the current ASM formula, operators may receive no more than approximately 10 percent to 12 percent of actual losses. This does little to assist these operators in their financial recovery. We believe there is a far more accurate way, still using Available Seat Miles (ASMs) as the baseline for such calculations, for the government to compare losses incurred by air tour operators with those of major air carriers and compensate these companies more equitably.

By:  Air Vegas Airlines, James Petty

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

I would like to comment on the air carrier stabilization act compensation. I own a small floatplane charter company in Southeast Alaska.. We operate a fleet of six, six passenger DeHavilland Beavers all of which are on floats. Because our business is highly seasonal around the tourism industry we reap all our rewards during May-September, much like farming. Without the highly profitable sir months we could not remain viable and sustain the losses we incur from. October through April. I was very disappointed at our first payment when I compared it to the lamer airlines which seem to be much more productive per dollar of cost per Available Seat Mile. In comparison, I took the average daily revenue of the major carriers and divided their avg. daily revenue into their compensation payment. This figure yielded an average of 8.5 days of revenue loss that each carrier was compensated. As a smaller carrier w were compensated. days of revenue. This is a dramatic inequity in compensation and I believe it is a result of a formula that is weighted to the larger carriers with larger aircraft that carry more seats greater distances. I realize it is hard to make it fair for everyone, but I would appreciate scare consideration for the smaller carriers, especially the Alaskan carriers that already struggle with skyrocketing insurance rates.

By:  Taquan Air, Brien Salazar

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Thank you for your letter of October 10 requesting clarification as to the standards being applied under the direct compensation provisions of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42, (Act). In particular, you expressed concern over whether the Department was complying with Congressional intent, and was acting consistently, regarding computation of air carrier losses on a pretax or after-tax basis. On October 25, the Department published in the Federal Register a Final Rule entitled "Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers."

By: Norman Mineta

By:  Associated Aircraft Group, Thomas McQuade, 203.790.6800

By:  Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, Jeff Stein

By:  Sky Knight Air Services, Brian Kilcullen, 954.772.0200

By:  Trans North Aviation, Ron Schaberg

By:  Baptist LifeFlight, Kevin Stanhope

By:  Aero Med Express, Mike Moser

By:  Duke University Hospital, Edward Eroe

By:  HealthNet, G. P. Sovick

By:  MediFlight Medical Center, Joy Englund

By:  LifeFlight of Maine, Thomas Judge

By:  Baptist Medical Transport

By:  Gundersen Lutheran Medlink Air, Mike McKee

By:  LifeStarOne, Sharen Martin

By:  American West Worldwide Express, Josh Brown

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, M. B. Lindsay

By:  Eagle Air Med, James Hunt

By:  Flight For Life Services, Jim Singer

By:  Mercy Flight Central, Paul Hyland

By:  Sun West Aviation, David Fenner

By:  CALSTAR California Shock/Trauma Air Rescue, Joseph Cook 

By:  Omni Transport Systems, JoAnn Parker

By:  LifeFlight, Maria Fernandez

By:  Eagle III Emergency Air & Ground Life Express, Thomas Madigan

By:  AirMed 1, Rod Gardner

By:  San Juan Regional Medical Center, Mike Berve

By:  New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services, Joel Hochhalter

By:  Frederick Hinkle

By:  Bloch R. Richard

By:  Mayo Medical Transport, Thomas Allenstein

By:  Air Life of Oregon, Vern Bartley

By:  STATCARE Louisville Medical Center, John Blumenstock

By:  LifeFlight Eagle, Seth Myers

By:  Boston MedFlight, Suzanne Wedel

By:  James McCarthy

By:  Med-Link/Chritus Health, Karl Guillory

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Thomas Allenstein 

By:  Saber Cargo Airlines, Michael Dockery

By:  CareFlite North Central Texas Services, Ed Major

By:  LifeGuard Alaska, Jason Schwebach

By:  Sherry Stohler 

By:  Rocky Mountain Holdings, L.L.C. d/b/a Rocky Mountain Helicopters, J. Russell Spray

By:  Rocky Mountain Holdings/LifeNet, Craig Yale

By:  AIRescue International, Francine Vogler

By:  Wisconsin Aviation, Jim Schumachel 

By:  Columbia Helicopters, Richard Humphreys, 503.678.1222

By:  Studentcity.com, Mario Ricciardelli

By:  Scenic Airlines, Chad Dixon

By:  PACE, Darrell Richardson

By:  Heli USA Airways, Nigel Turner

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Request of the New York/New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc., J.F.K. Airport Customs Brokers Association, Inc. and the South Florida Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers Non Aircraft-Operating Common Carriers Association, Inc. for an extension of the deadline for the submission of compensation requests under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization and the governing Department of Transportation regulations found at 14 CFR Part 330 et seq.

By:  Carlos Rodriguez

By:  Parkview Hospital Health System, Cathy Harris

By: Vision Air, William Acor

By:  Special Aviation Systems, Marilyn Ruhe

By:  GWV International, Paul Roberts

By:  Care Flight International, Marth Kreye 

By:  St. Patrick Hospital and Health Sciences Center, Robb Foote

By:  AAMS Association of Air Medical Services, Dawn M. Mancuso

Direct air carriers and indirect air carriers involve one economic unit that transports cargo. In this context, without the direct air carriers, the indirect air carriers would not generate any income or RTMs because no one would be flying their cargo. Likewise, without indirect air carriers, the direct air carriers would not generate any income or RTMs because there would be no cargo for them to fly. Certain operations, such as Federal Express ("FedEx") and United Parcel Service ("UPS"), have this single economic unit in one place because the corporation includes both the direct and indirect air carrier function. Other operations, however, involve two independent corporations. For example, EAFC, an ACMI indirect air carrier, hires direct air carriers to fly EAFC's cargo. This combination of operations (indirect and direct) constitutes one economic unit that generates RTMs that the direct air carriers reported to DOT. In the economic units involving one company, e.g., FedEx or UPS, the direct air carrier reported the RTMs generated by the one-company economic unit's internal indirect and direct air carrier functions. Similarly, in the economic units involving two companies, e.g., EAFC and its ACMI direct air carriers, the direct air carrier reported the RTMs generated by the two­company economic unit's indirect and direct air carrier functions.

By:  Winston & Strawn, Jim Burnley

By:  First Flight, Janice Willette

CTS submits this comment, in part, to request that the Department compensate indirect air carriers that qualify as "air carriers" (and that submit timely applications) without regard to the citizenship of the direct air carriers. In its Final Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on January 2, 2002, the Department amended Part 330 to permit "indirect air carriers" to submit applications for compensation. The Department requires, among other things, that the indirect air carriers qualify as air carriers. What is not clear in the Rule is whether the Department will consider granting compensation to qualifying indirect air carriers that contract with foreign direct air carriers.

Cuba Travel Services Prospectuses Filed with the Department for 2001

By:  Zuckert Scoutt, Lonnie Anne Pera

ABC is a perfect example of the typical public charter operator. It is a U.S. citizen that generally arranges six to seven flights each week between specified points: one flight each week between Miami and Santiago de Cuba, one flight each week between Miami and Holguin, and four to five flights each week between Miami and Havana. ABC charges one coach fare for the charter flights to Santiago, one coach fare for the charter flights to Holguin, and one coach fare for all but one of the charter flights to Havana. For one weekly Havana charter flight, ABC charges a first class and a coach fare. The public charter prospectuses that ABC filed with the Department identified the direct air carriers, the aircraft type and capacity, and the flight schedule (including date and routing), and the passenger manifests identified the number of passengers who actually traveled on each flight identified in the prospectuses. (ABC also must report to OFAC the total passengers who traveled to Cuba.) The proposed formula, therefore, can easily be used to determine compensation for ABC - and other public charter operators.

ABC Charters Prospectuses Filed with the Department for 2001

By:  Zuckert Scoutt, Lonnie Anne Pera

By:  Classic Lifeguard Aeromedical Service, Michael Smith 

By:  Biscayne Helicopters, Daryl Martin

By:  North Memorial Medical Center, Patrick Coyne

By:  Westchester Medical Center, Ted Tully 

By:  Michelle McEnany

By:  Midwest Medflight, Mike Eastlee

STPs, as a class, have suffered significant losses as a direct result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. For example, from September through December, 2001 VTI has seen its advance bookings for its Spring 2002 operations decrease by 42% as compared to its pre­September 11 forecast and decrease by 42% as compared to the same period in 2001. VTI understands that this decrease is typical for the STP industry as a whole. On a percentage basis, the incremental losses attributable to this decrease are significantly higher than the losses reportedly suffered by the air carrier industry as a whole.

Vacation Travel Prospectuses Filed with the Department

By:  Vacation Travel International, Jim Modane

By:  Grand Aire Express, Bruce Marshall

For those carriers that have not yet received second-round payments, ATA urges DOT to remit those payments to eligible applicants no later than January 31, 2002. Even though their applications were submitted well before the end of 2001, eligible cargo applicants have received only 50 percent of the permissible payments. Given the passage of time and the resolution of various issues that made the RTM pool highly variable up to this point in time, ATA believes it is appropriate and possible for DOT to complete second-round payments by the end of January and to issue third round payments within 10 days of receiving completed applications. ATA believes this timeline is reasonable and will give government auditors the ability to make subsequent adjustments to carrier payments consistent with the Stabilization Act. As noted, final payments would be subject to a possible debit or credit. Once DOT establishes a timeline for payments, it is important that DOT make it public, or at least available, to all eligible applicants. A published timeline, particularly at this juncture in the year, will greatly facilitate carriers' cash planning and financial reporting activities, as well as serve the intent of the Stabilization Act.

To simplify this process for everyone, ATA recommends that DOT publish on its web site, in addition to the payments received by each eligible applicant, the ASMs and/or RTMs used as a basis for that payment. Further, the ASM and RTM information for each eligible applicant should be broken down into two categories: (1) those previously reported by the applicant to DOT under current rules as delineated in 14 CFR 241, and (2) those additional ASMs or RTMs which the carrier is claiming as part of its application, but which were not previously reported to DOT by that applicant. DOT should also include a column with the combined total. For an applicant claiming ASMs or RTMs that it did not previously report to the Secretary under 14 CFR 241, the site should include, for that applicant, a statement by the Department that the carriers who did report those ASMs or RTMs to the Secretary are either: (1) not eligible for compensation or (2) voluntarily have not and will not claim such compensation.

By:  Air Transport Association, David Berg

By:  Albany Med Flight, Tina Giangrans

By:  Georgia Baptist LifeFlight, Jim Groover

By:  Air One East Texas Medical Center, Judy England

By:  AeroCare, Gregory Gust 

By:  Twin Cities Air Service, Lillian LeBlanc 

By:  Airlift Northwest, Michael Copass

By: LifeGuard Alaska, Jason Schwebach

By:Critical Air, Dennis Brozowski

By:  Tampa General Hospital
John Scott 

By:  St. Anthony Hospitals Flight for Life, Kathleen Mayer

By:Med-Trans Corporation, Kelly Cermak

By:  Air Evac Lifeteam, Colins Collins

By:  New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services, Joel Hochlalter

By:  St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Philip Willis

By:  BAX, Vicki Hassman

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Boros Garofalo, Gary Garofalo, 202.822.9070

By:  Inova FairFax Hospital, Shirley Riggsbee

By:  Helicopter Association International, Roy Resavage

By:  National Air Transportation Association, Joseph Burnside

By:  Richard Rooney

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By: Sun Western Flyers, John Ewing, 520.726.4715

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  James Dann

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Donley Watkins

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Read Van De Water

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

On September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (``the Act''). The Act makes available to the President funds to compensate air carriers, as defined in the Act, for direct losses suffered as a result of any Federal ground stop order and incremental losses beginning September 11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001, resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. In ord