Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2008-0234 - Star Alliance - Add Continental to Immunized Alliance
Order 2007-2-16 - Final Order - Granting Antitrust Immunity
OST-2005-22922 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Expansion Agreements and an Amended Coordination Agreement
OST-1996-1434 - Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Commercial Alliance AgreementsPR Newswire-First Call - Continental Airlines, United Airlines and Eight Star Alliance Members Ask U.S. DOT for Antitrust Immunity to Better Serve Customers
DOJ Workshop on Airline Competition - October 23, 2008
|
Air Canada, The Austrian Group, British Midland Airways Ltd, Continental Airlines, Inc., Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Polskie Linie Lotniecze LOT S.A., Scandinavian Airlines System, Swiss International Air Lines Ltd., TAP Air Portugal and United Air Lines, Inc. OST-2008-0234 - Approve and Confer Antitrust Immunity on Certain Alliance Agreements July 23, 2008 Joint Application to Amend Order 2007-2-16 - Bookmarked
Continental currently is a non-immunized member of the SkyTeam Alliance. Earlier this year, the SkyTeam carriers secured antitrust immunity for a series of alliance agreements among Air France, Alitalia, Czech, Delta, KLM, and Northwest - including an integrated JV agreement linking the transatlantic networks of Delta and Northwest with those of Air France and KLM. Delta and Northwest recently announced plans to merge. Continental now has announced that it is withdrawing from the SkyTeam Alliance and seeks to participate in the Star Alliance instead." At the same time, Continental plans to establish an alliance relationship with United to replace its relationships with Delta and Northwest. The authority sought in the present application will enable these transactions to proceed and is entirely consistent with the authority recently granted to Delta, Northwest, and their SkyTeam partners pursuant to an application that also sought antitrust immunity for a series of alliance agreements between two U.S. airlines. The Department's recent decision to approve the SkyTeam application, therefore, is directly applicable to the approval sought here. By extending to Continental the existing antitrust immunity granted to the Star ATI Carriers in Order 2007-2-16, approval of the present application will improve the ability of Continental and the Star ATI Carriers to compete effectively with the recently strengthened SkyTeam Alliance, and it will maximize the benefits that Continental and its passengers will derive from Continental's participation in the Star Alliance.Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960 for Air Canada, Lufthansa and United / Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604 for Air Canada / Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615 for Continental / Austrian Airlines, David Shapiro / British Midland, TJ Bye / LOT Polish Airlines, Krzystof Ziebinski / SAS, Hans Ollongren / Swiss, Ignazio Strano / TAP Arir Portugal, Jose Guedes Dias
July 23, 2008 Motion of Air Canada for Confidential Treatment Air Canada has joined in an Application filed today in this Docket to amend Order 2007-2-16. The Joint Application requests, among other things, the addition of Continental to the immunized Star Alliance grouping and approval of various agreements between the parties. Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
July 24, 2008 Notice Providing Access to Documents On July 23, 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
July 25, 2008
July 29, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Request of Translated Documents of Lufthansa Deutsche Lufthansa AG is submitting under seal in the enclosed envelope five copies of English-language translations of the copies of certain confidential documents filed in the original German language in the above-referenced docket. These are translations of the documents referenced as LH000372-LH000421, LH000432-LH000437, LH000438-LH000443, LH000521-LH000550, LH000635-LH000644, LH000850-LH000862, LH000884-LH000897, LH000898-LH000900, and LH000930 in the index of Lufthansa's confidential documents submitted as an attachment to the Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment filed on July 23, 2008 in the above-referenced docket. Lufthansa hereby incorporates that Joint Motion by reference and requests confidential treatment for these translations pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice in Proceedings, 14 C.F.R. § 302.12. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, David Heffernan, 202-663-6360
July 30, 2008 On behalf of the Joint Applicants in the above-referenced proceeding, we are submitting the attached document as a Supplement to Appendix A to the Joint Application filed on July 23, 2008. This document, relating to the Document Production of the applicants that are not party to the integrated joint venture agreement among Air Canada, Continental, Lufthansa and United, was inadvertently not included with the original filing of the application. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960
August 1, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of the Greater Houston Partnership
August 4, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of AirTran Airways - Edward Faberman
July 30, 2008 Form Letters in Support of Continental:
This letter conveys my request that you support Continental Airlines’ application to the Department of Transportation to enter into an alliance relationship with United and with other members of the Star Alliance. Continental is a vital part of our economy and approval of its proposed agreements will help ensure Continental’s long-term competitiveness.
July 30, 2008 Form Letters in Support of Continental:
This letter conveys my request that you support Continental Airlines’ application to the Department of Transportation to enter into an alliance relationship with United and with other members of the Star Alliance. Continental is a vital part of our economy and approval of its proposed agreements will help ensure Continental’s long-term competitiveness.
July 31, 2008 Re: Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Support of Continental Airlines This letter conveys our request on behalf of the Houston Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that you support Continental Airlines' application to the DOT to enter into an alliance relationship with United and with other members of the Star Alliance. By: Laura Murillo
August 8, 2008 On behalf of the Joint Applicants in the above-referenced proceeding, we are submitting the attached revised Exhibit JA-11 to the Joint Application filed on July 23, 2008. The exhibit has been revised to reflect minor revisions in the data and to clarify source materials used in preparing the exhibit. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Jonathan Moss
August 11, 2008 Affidavits for Delta Air Lines
Form Letters in Support of Continental:
This letter conveys my request that you support Continental Airlines' application to the DOT to enter into an alliance relationship with United and with other members of the Star Alliance. Continental is a vital part of our economies and approval of its proposed agreements will help ensure Continental's long term competitiveness.
August 12, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of the Air Line Pilots Association
Form Letters in Support of Continental:
August 14, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
August 18, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit of US Department of Justice
August 20, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit of Northwest Airlines
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of the American Society of Travel Agents
August 22, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of Air France
August 26, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of American Express Travel Related Service Company
August 25, 2008 Re: Ohio Governor in Support of Continental Airlines This letter conveys my request that you support Continental Airlines' application to the Department of Transportation to enter into an alliance relationship with United and with other members of the Star Alliance. Continental is a vital part of the Ohio economy and approval of this proposed agreement will help ensure its long-term competitiveness. By: Ted Strickland
September 4, 2008 On behalf of the Joint Applicants in the above-referenced proceeding, we are submitting the attached revised Exhibit JA-11 to the Joint Application filed on July 23, 2008. This exhibit corrects some minor, inadvertent errors discovered in the data supporting the revised Exhibit JA-11 filed on August 8, 2008. We apologize for any inconvenience. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz
By: Michael Reynolds
Order 2008-10-3 Issued and Served October 8, 2008 Order Requesting Additional Information By this Order, the Department requests additional information, as described in the Attachment, from Air Canada, Austrian, bmi, Continental, Lufthansa, LOT, SAS, Swiss, TAP, United, and the affiliates of all the above carriers. We find that the additional information is necessary to analyze the application and decide the case. We believe that, with the satisfactory submission of the information requested, the evidence of record should be sufficient for us to establish a procedural schedule and act on this application according to applicable legal and policy standards.
By: Susan McDermott
October 27, 2008 Re: Supplemental Information Responses of United Air Lines and Lufthansa In response to Order 2008-10-3 in the above-referenced proceeding, enclosed are the original and four copies of (i) the Joint Applicants' confidential responses to the Department's Clarification Questions set forth in Order 2008-10-3; (ii) supplemental document productions of Deutsche Lufthansa AG and United Air Lines, Inc. (also filed on a confidential basis); (iii) indices of those documents; (iv) privilege logs identifying and describing all withheld documents; and (v) certifications signed on behalf of the joint applicants. The above‑referenced responses to the Clarification Questions and supplemental documents are confidential business information and are being provided under seal in boxes marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12," consistent with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. The Joint Applicants hereby incorporate by reference their pending Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment filed on July 23, 2008, and request confidential treatment for their joint responses to the Department's Clarification Questions and all of the supplemental documents produced herewith, for all of the reasons set forth in the Joint Motion. The Joint Applicants request that the Department promptly issue an order finding the Joint Application to be substantially complete and setting forth a procedural schedule for comments and other such responsive pleadings necessary for the Department to act on the Joint Application. Air Canada and Continental Airlines, Inc. will submit their respective confidential documents and related materials under separate cover. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, David Heffernan, 202-663-6360
October 27, 2008 Re: Supplemental Information Response of Continental Airlines In response to Order 2008-10-3 in the above-referenced proceeding, enclosed are five copies of: (i) the supplemental document production of Continental Airlines, Inc. (filed on a confidential basis); (ii) the index ofthose documents; and (iii) a privilege log identifying and describing all withheld documents. The above-referenced supplemental documents are confidential business information and are being provided under seal in boxes marked "Confidential Treatment Requested Under § 302.12," consistent with the Department's Rule 12 procedures. Continental hereby incorporates by reference the Joint Applicant's pending Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment filed on July 23,2008, and requests confidential treatment for its supplemental documents produced herewith, for all of the reasons set forth in the Joint Motion. Continental requests that the Department promptly issue an order finding the Joint Application to be substantially complete and setting forth a procedural schedule for comments and other such responsive pleadings necessary for the Department to act on the Joint Application. Counsel: Crowell & Moring, Gerald Murphy, 202-508-8855
October 27, 2008 Motion of Air Canada for Confidential Treatment Counsel: Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604
October 28, 200 Re: Motion for Confidential Treatment and English Language Translations of Lufthansa Documents Deutsche Lufthansa AG is submitting under seal in the enclosed envelope five copies of English-language translations of certain confidential documents filed in the original German language on October 27, 2008 as part of the Joint Applicants' Supplemental Information Response to the Department's Order 2008-10-3 in the above-referenced docket. These are translations of the documents referenced as LH001343-LH001353 and LH001354-LH001366 in the index of Lufthansa's confidential documents responsive to DOT Order 2008-10-3. Lufthansa hereby incorporates by reference the Joint Motion for Confidential Treatment filed on July 23, 2008 in the above-referenced docket and requests confidential treatment for these translations pursuant to Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice in Proceedings, 14 C.F.R. § 302.12, for the same reasons set forth in the Joint Motion. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, David Heffernan, 202-663-6360
October 28, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavits of American Society of Travel Agents
October 30, 2008 Motion of Delta Air Lines for Additional Documents and Evidence By their application, United, Continental, and eight other Star alliance members seek 10-way antitrust immunity for what would be the largest antitrust immunized alliance grouping ever approved. While Delta is a strong proponent of ATI alliance relationships, this particular alliance raises new and novel questions due to interlocking investment relationships affecting U.S. carriers outside the alliance, as well as an unprecedented expansion of ATI cooperation in limited-entry markets where other U.S. carriers are precluded from responding competitively. Therefore, in addition to the documents and evidence requested in the Order 2008-10-3, Delta moves the Department to require the additional information:
Counsel: Delta, Scott McClain, 404-773-6514
October 31, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Interactive Travel Services Association
October 31, 2008 Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of American Society of Travel Agents
November 3, 2008 Answer of Joint Applicants to Motion of Delta Air Lines The Joint Applicants hereby respond to the October 30, 2008 Motion of Delta Air Lines, Inc. in the above-captioned matter. In its motion, Delta requested that the Joint Applicants provide additional material with respect to four issues, all of which the Joint Applicants previously have addressed. The specific questions raised by Delta are either irrelevant to the Department's analysis or have been addressed fully in the Joint Application and the Joint Applicants' Response to the Department's Request for Additional Information (Order 2008-10-3). Nonetheless, the Joint Applicants will address each of Delta's numbered request items. Lufthansa's minority equity investment in jetBlue. does not raise an issue for purposes of the Joint Application. Indeed, the same underlying issue existed in relation to the recent SkyTearn application to which Delta was a party (see Docket OST-2007-28644): Northwest's direct equity stake in Midwest Airlines is far larger than Lufthansa's interest in jetBlue. And yet, the issue of potential coordination between Midwest and either Northwest or Delta does not appear to have been raised by the SkyTeam applicants or addressed in their antitrust compliance protocols. In any event, nothing about Lufthansa's limited interest in jetBlue creates any incentive for Continental to coordinate with jetBlue or for jetBlue to coordinate with Continental. This is a very different situation from the case of one market participant's direct equity investment in a direct competitor. In that case, the investing firm benefits directly from reducing the intensity of its competitive conduct versus the acquired entity; its return on the investment increases as the acquired company's profits increase. In this case, Lufthansa has no control or influence over Continental, so the basic incentives to coordinate are not increased by Continental's introduction to Star or the A++ Agreement. Delta's third item relates to the Department's longstanding policy of granting antitrust immunity to alliances involving foreign carriers from countries that have entered into open skies agreements with the United States. Under the Department's policy, such grants of immunity, including the immunity granted to the Star ATI Alliance carriers, generally are global in scope, which means that the alliance partners enjoy immunity to engage in cooperative activities with respect to services and routings between the United States and all foreign countries (i.e., including not only the homeland countries of the foreign carriers that participate in the immunized alliance and other foreign countries that have signed open skies agreements with the United States, but also other foreign countries that have not entered into open skies agreements with the United States). See, e.g., Order 2007-2-16 (Star ATI carriers); Order 2002-6-18 (granting global immunity to the Delta/Air France/Alitalia/Czech/Korean alliance). For example, Delta's grant of immunity for its alliance with Air France and other SkyTeam members includes immunity to engage in cooperation with respect to services and routings between the United States and Russia, even though Russia has not entered into an open skies agreement with the United States. Thus, the scope of the immunity requested by the Joint Applicants is consistent with Department policy and precedents, including the immunity granted to Delta's own alliance. Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960 for Air Canada, Lufthansa and United / Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604 for Air Canada / Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2615 for Continental / Austrian Airlines, David Shapiro
November 7, 2008 Reply of Delta Air Lines and Motion for Leave to File Delta hereby replies to Star’s Answer of November 3, 2008. Star’s superficial Answer attempts, unconvincingly, to brush aside the important evidentiary and public interest policy issues raised in Delta’s motion. Without this information, the record is incomplete and the Department lacks the information necessary to make a responsible public interest decision concerning the proposed Star alliance expansion. The Department should direct the Joint Applicants to submit all required record material and supplemental information responses to the docket, and to serve interested parties who have filed confidentiality affidavits with confidential versions of the materials. See Order 2008-10-3, “We direct [the applicants] to file the additional information and evidence described in the Attachment to this Order in the docket.” On October 27, 2008, the Joint Applicants apparently gave the Department 44 pages of supplemental responses to clarification questions. However, this document was not served on counsel for any interested party, nor was a “public version” made available in the docket, consistent with normal Department Practice. See, e.g. June 19, 2006 Star Supplemental evidence response, public version, Docket OST-2005-22922. Given the significant issues at stake in this proceeding, it is important for interested parties and the traveling public to have timely access to the record evidence. Counsel: Delta, Sascha Van der Bellen, 202-842-4182
November 10, 2008 Sur-reply and Motion for Leave to File of Joint Applicants The Joint Applicants hereby respond to the November 7, 2008 Reply and Motion for Leave to File of Delta Air Lines, Inc. in the above-captioned matter. In its Reply, Delta merely rehashes the very same issues raised in its prior filing of October 30, 2008, to which the Joint Applicants already responded on November 3, 2008. The specific questions raised by Delta have been addressed fully in the Joint Application, the Joint Applicants' Response to the Department's Request for Additional Information and the Joint Applicants' November 3, 2008 Answer. The Joint Applicants respectfully urge the Department promptly to issue an order finding the Joint Application to be substantially complete and setting forth a procedural schedule for comments and such other responsive pleadings necessary for the Department to reach a decision in this proceeding. Delta is mistaken that the Joint Applicants failed to comply with the Department's Order 2008-10-3 by not filing a "public version" of their October 27, 2008 Supplemental Information Response in this docket. The Joint Applicants filed a letter on October 27, 2008 in the docket clearly indicating that the Supplemental Information Response was confidential and being submitted pursuant to their previously-filed motion under Rule 12 of the Department's Rules of Practice for confidential treatment. Moreover, the Joint Applicants' Supplemental Information Response and supplemental document productions were provided to counsel for Delta who submitted valid confidentiality affidavits pursuant to the Department's Notice Providing Access to Documents issued July 24, 2008. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960 for Air Canada, Lufthansa and United / Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604 for Air Canada / Crowell & Moring, Bruce Keiner, 202-624-2500 for Continental
American Airlines, Inc., British Airways Plc, Finnair Oyj, Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A. and Royal Jordanian Airlines / Star Alliance Order 2008-11-7 Issued and Served November 12, 2008 By this Order, the Department takes the following action with regard to the oneworld proceeding: (1) we consolidate two related oneworld proceedings into Docket OST-2008-0252; (2) we deny requests to change confidentiality procedures; and (3) we defer action on a pending motion to require additional documents and data. With regard to the Star proceeding, we strike two confidentiality affidavits, consistent with the approach taken in the oneworld proceeding. By: Michael Reynolds
Order 2008-11-8 Issued and Served November 12, 2008 By this Order, we determine that the record in the above-captioned case is substantially complete and establish a schedule for public comments. Based on our initial review of the application, supporting materials, and pleadings, we find that the issues raised by Delta have already been addressed by the Joint Applicants in the application, the Joint Applicants’ response to our evidence request, or the Joint Applicants’ November 3 answer. To the extent that Delta, or any other interested party, believes the facts and evidence submitted thus far present a relevant policy issue that should affect the outcome of the case, they may address that issue in their comments. In response to Delta’s arguments, we draw the attention of all interested parties to the following: (1) Lufthansa’s minority stake in JetBlue is addressed in the Joint Applicants’ November 3 answer, and otherwise a matter of public record; (2) the Joint Applicants’ plans to cooperate in global markets are addressed in their answers to numbers two, three, and six of the Clarification Questions in Order 2008-10-3; (3) the Joint Applicants’ plans to cooperate in limited-entry markets are disclosed in the Joint Applicants’ November 3 answer; and (4) the competitive impact of cooperation at the Newark and Dulles airports may be analyzed using traffic and booking data submitted on the record, and is otherwise addressed in the Joint Applicants’ November 3 answer. Answers – must be filed no later than 14 calendar days from the date of issuance of this Order. Replies – must be filed no later than 7 business days after the last day for filing an answer. By: Michael Reynolds
November 18, 2008
Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of American Society of Travel Agents and Pillsbury Winthrop
Re: Confidentiality Affidavit of Interactive Travel Services Association and Pillsbury Winthrop
November 21, 2008 The Interactive Travel Services Association and the American Society of Travel Agents request a 14 day extension of the deadline to submit an answer to the Star alliance antitrust immunity application, from Wednesday, November 26, 2008 to Thursday, December 11, 2008. The Department set the deadlines for submission of answers in Scheduling Order 2008-11-8, which is shorter than its previous scheduling orders in similar proceedings. The Department’s provided no explanation or justification for its departure from its standard practice. The Joint Applicant’s ATI request, if approved, would be of one the largest immunized alliances in the Department’s history. The large volume of documents require more than the abbreviated 14 day answer period for the parties to review and provide meaningful answers. Because of the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, ITSA/ASTA respectfully suggests that a 14-day extension would also accommodate the parties’ respective schedules, while affording them an answer period more consistent with the Department’s established precedent. Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000
November 24, 2008 The untimely Motion by ITSA/ASTA to delay the briefing schedule in this proceeding should be denied. The Department's Scheduling Order 2008-11-8 found the record in this proceeding to be substantially complete as of October 27, 2008, and established a reasonable schedule for the submission of answers and replies. The Department has broad discretion to set an appropriate comment period and no other party has objected to the Scheduling Order. ITSA/ASTA offer no explanation for why they opted to wait almost a week and a half after the Department issued the Scheduling Order to request more time. ITSA/ASTA state that they need more time in which to review the documents that the Joint Applicants have submitted, but ITSA/ASTA have had the opportunity to access the confidential record in this proceeding for the past four months (since July 24, 2008, when the Department issued its Notice Providing Access to Documents in this proceeding), including access to the completed record since October 27, 2008. Legal representatives for ITSA/ASTA and the American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. have filed a total of 23 affidavits in this docket, on August 22, August 26, October 28, October 31 and November 18, 2008. ITSA/ASTA and their outside counsel have had ample time to review the record and develop positions, and have no basis for claiming that they will be prejudiced in any way by the procedural schedule that the Department has established. Counsel: Wilmer Hale, Bruce Rabinovitz, 202-663-6960 for Air Canada, Lufthansa and United / Holland & Knight, Anita Mosner, 202-419-2604 for Air Canada
November 26, 2008 Answer of the American Society of Travel Agents and the Interactive Travel Service Association - Bookmarked The harm from granting ATI is not limited to its direct impact on fares paid by consumers directly. A city-pair analysis does not accurately assess the effect the grant of ATI would have on the power of airlines over travel agencies. It is airline network market power that matters in the airline-agency context. Granting full ATI over travel agencies would tip the scales in favor of the airlines to the point of undermining the ability of travel agencies to negotiate compensatory and balanced deals with them. From the travel agency perspective, and considering that airlines are buyers of travel agency services, the combined clout of the Star carriers negotiating jointly with travel agencies (or corporations) would be extraordinary given the number of transatlantic routes the three currently immunized Star alliance airlines (and four with Continental) collectively and individually dominate. As representatives of the leading distributors of the Joint Applicants services, ITSA and ASTA have a strong interest in ensuring that any grant of immunity is no broader than necessary than to achieve demonstrable benefits. In reviewing the application, the Department should look for ways to minimize any adverse impact ATI would have on travel agents to offer reasonably priced fares to consumers, to minimize any adverse impact on the distribution of fare information to consumers, and to minimize harm to other constituencies. A limited carve-out in any grant of ATI to exclude any coordination for independent travel distributors, as described below, would have minimal impacts on the overall proposed antitrust immunity, while at the same time preserve the existing competition in travel distribution, to the direct benefit of consumers. Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop, Kenneth Quinn, 202-663-8000
November 26, 2008 Answer of Delta Air Lines - Bookmarked While Delta understands that Joint Venture alliances can produce substantial consumer benefits, the Department's examination of the Star expansion proposal needs to be evaluated with the same scrutiny and caution that has been applied to other alliances involving multiple U.S. carriers. Immunity must be strictly limited to that necessary to achieve important public interest benefits - which in this case clearly precludes any immunity for regions outside the transatlantic, and especially in non-open skies countries where other U.S. carriers are precluded from responding competitively. Due to the unique investment relationship between Lufthansa and jetBlue, any grant of antitrust immunity to coordinate involving Lufthansa, Continental and United must be subject to stringent conditions to protect the large and important New York City market from harmful spillover effects. Counsel: Delta, Sascha Van der Bellen, 202-842-4184
November 26, 2008 Confidentiality Affidavit for Counsel of Lufthansa Counsel: Wilmer Hale, David Heffernan |
||