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


OST-1999-6323 - US-China Air Service


U.S.- China Air Service (2001)

OST-99-6323 Filed April 8, 1999
Issued October 12, 1999
Notice

HTML

U.S.- China Market

On April 8, 1999, representatives of the United States and the People's Republic of China signed a Protocol that amends the U.S.-China Air Transport Services Agreement. The Protocol provides for the expansion, in phases, of U.S.-carrier services in the market beyond the 27 weekly frequencies previously authorized. Under the first two phases, a total of 17 weekly additional frequencies were available either for immediate allocation or for allocation effective April 1, 2000, to the three U.S. carriers now designated to serve the U.S.-China market (Federal Express, Northwest, and United). By Order 99-8-9, dated August 12, 1999, the Department proceeded to finalize its allocations for those first two phases. Under the third phase, effective April 1, 2001, the United States may designate a fourth U.S. carrier. That newly designated carrier and the three previously designated U.S. carriers may operate a combined total of ten additional weekly frequencies. It is these opportunities that are the subject of this notice. The purpose of this notice is to invite applications, as set forth below, from carriers interested in using these opportunities. All four designated carriers will be eligible for allocation of the ten additional frequencies for services on Routes A and B of the agreement.  On Route A, any designated U.S. airline may operate combination and all-cargo services with full traffic rights between any point or points in the United States, via Tokyo or another point in Japan, to Shanghai, Guangzhou, Beijing and two additional points in China to be selected by the United States, from among Chinese airports open to scheduled international operations . On Route B, any designated U.S. airline may operate all-cargo services with full traffic rights between any point or points in the United States, via any intermediate points, to any point or points in China open to scheduled international operations, and beyond to points outside China.

Carriers interested in using the opportunities available April 1, 2001, should file applications within 21 calendar days from the service date of this notice. Answers to such applications should be filed within 14 calendar days from the application date. Replies to answers should be filed within 7 calendar days after the answer date.

By:  Bradley Mims


United Parcel Service Co.

OST-99-6323 October 28, 1999 Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity;, Designation and Frequency Allocation  

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Exhibit 1:  Affidavit  
    Exhibit 2:  Map Of Proposed Service   
    Service List  

Applies for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity so as to authorize it to engage in the scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between any point or points in the United States via intermediate points to a point or points in the People’s Republic of China and to points beyond with full traffic rights between all points on the route. UPS requests that it be granted the fourth designation to serve China available on April 1, 2001, and that it be granted the ten weekly frequencies which also become available on that date. UPS further requests route integration authority enabling it to integrate services on the above-described route with services provided on other routes or under the various exemption authorities held by UPS. UPS proposes to initiate service between the U.S. and China on April 1, 2001, operating six weekly, year-round frequencies between Ontario, California; Anchorage, Alaska; and Beijing and Shanghai, China and four weekly, year-round frequencies between Newark, New Jersey; Anchorage, Alaska and Shanghai, China, over Tokyo, Japan. Other Asian and European markets will be served over Tokyo and Anchorage, and the balance of the U.S. as well as Latin America and eastern Canada will be served over UPS’s principal hub in Louisville, Kentucky. UPS will utilize B-747 freighter aircraft currently in its fleet.

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9699, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


U.S.- China Air Services 2001

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Supplement to Application of American Airlines

HTML

U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Application of Delta Air Lines for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Frequency Allocation   

Scanned Copy

U.S. - China Air Services (2001)
    Atlanta- Shanghai Service   
    Portland- Shanghai Service   
    Service List  

Counsel:  Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Application of Federal Express for Frequencies

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
    Exhibits FX-101 - FX-106 (Native PDF)  
    Exhibit FX-101:  U.S. Beijing Schedule  
    Exhibit FX-102:  U.S.- Shanghai Schedule  
    Exhibit FX-103:  U.S.- Dalian Schedule  
    Exhibit FX-104:  Eastbound Beijing- U.S. Schedule  
    Exhibit FX-105:  Eastbound Shanghai/Shenzhen- U.S. Schedule  
    Exhibit FX-106:  Eastbound Dalian- U.S. Schedule  
    Service List  

Counsel:  FedEx, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Application of Northwest Airlines

HTML

U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
    Exhibit NW-1:  Frequency Summary  
    Exhibit NW-2:  All- Cargo Service Plan  
    Exhibit NW-3:  Route Map  
    Exhibit NW-4:  Combination Service  
    Exhibit NW-5:  Combination Service Map  
    Exhibit NW-6:  B747 Fleet  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Elliott Seiden, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Application Of Polar Air for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Designation and Frequency Allocation

HTML

U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
    Exhibit PO-1:  Service Proposal  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321

OST-99-6323 November 2, 1999 Application of United Air Lines for Frequency Allocation

HTML

U.S.- China Air Services (2001)
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5161, jeffery_manley@kirklnad.com


U.S. China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of American Airlines

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Answer of City of Chicago   

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  City of Chicago

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Delta Air Lines

HTML
Scanned Copy

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Wayne County, Michigan and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Country Airport

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Detroit Airport, David Katz, 734.942.3563

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Federal Express and Request for Oral Evidentiary Hearing

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Federal Express, Rush O'Keefe, 901-395-5189

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Answer of Louisville International Airport

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  General Manager LIA, James Delong

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Northwest Airlines

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Answer of Ontario International Airport

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Airport Manager, Peter Drinkwater

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Polar Air Cargo

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999   Consolidated Answer of Port of Portland

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Port of Portland, Bill Alberger, 703.461.3790

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of Greater Rockford Airport Authority

HTML

U.S.- China

Counsel:  GRAA, James Loomis

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Answer of City/County of San Francisco    

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  City/County of San Francisco

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of United Air Lines

HTML

U.S.- China
    Attachment  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5161, jeffery_manley@kirkland.com

OST-99-6323 November 16, 1999 Consolidated Answer of UPS

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600


U.S. China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 November 17, 1999 Motion and Consolidated Answer of the State of Alaska

HTML - With Letter to Slater
Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Re:  Letter from Governor of Alaska to Rodney Slater   
    Service List  

Counsel:  Assistant Attorney General, John L. Steiner, 907.279.5832, John_Steiner@law.state.ak.us


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 November 19, 1999 Petition for Leave to Intervene as a Party and Answer of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  
    Supplemental Certificate of Service  

The IBT is requesting to participate as a party to this proceeding because it believes that the outcome is of extreme importance to its members employed by UPS, as well as to its members employed by other companies, and to the economy generally. The IBT members employed by UPS enjoy good wages and benefits under the terms of the collective bargaining agreements with that company. Those terms and conditions of employment not only benefit the employees and their families directly, but also benefit the communities in which they reside and pay taxes. Retention and expansion of these jobs and employment opportunities is of interest to the members, the IBT, and the general economy. All-cargo/express air service has a tremendous impact on businesses and employment outside the airline industry. New air service to China by UPS will have the greatest impact on U.S. economy, U.S. businesses, U.S. employees and the working men and women of UPS represented by the IBT.

Counsel:  IBT, Gary Witlen, 202.624.7466


U.S.-China Service Opportunities

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Reply of American Airlines

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Reply of The State of Alaska - Electronic Submission U.S.- China

Counsel:  Alaska

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of The City of Chicago - Electronic Submission U.S.- China

Counsel:  Chicago, Eduardo M. Cotillas, (312) 744-6478, ecotillas@ci.chi.il.us

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of Delta Air Lines

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Alexander Van der Bellen, 202.663.8060

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of FedEx

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  FedEx, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Reply of Greater Rockford Airport Authority

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  GRAA, James Loomis

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Reply of Louisville International Airport

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Louisville Airport, James Delong

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of Northwest and Answer in Opposition to Request of FedEx for Oral Evidentiary Hearing

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of Polar Air Cargo

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of Port of Portland - Electronic Submission U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel: Port of Portland, Bill Alberger, 703.461.3790

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of The City and County of San Francisco - Electronic Submission U.S.- China

Counsel:  San Francisco, Mara Rosales, (650) 794-5065

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of United Air Lines

HTML

U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5200, jeffery_manley@kirkland.com

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Consolidated Reply of UPS

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China
    Exhibit A:  Procedural Schedule  
    Exhibit B:  Direct Exhibit Requirements  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


U.S.-China Service Opportunities

OST-99-6323 November 23, 1999 Corrected Certificate of Service U.S.-China Air Services 2001

Counsel:  FedEx, Angeline N. Bird, 901.395.5189


U.S.- China Air Service (2001)

Order 00-1-21
OST-99-6323
Issued January 24, 2000
Served January 26, 2000
Order Instituting Proceeding

HTML - Includes Attachments

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Appendix A:  Summary of Applications  
    Appendix B:  Civic Party Answers  
    Appendix C:  Evidence Request  

We have decided to institute the U.S.-China Air Service (2001) case to consider the selection of an additional U.S. carrier to serve the market and the allocation of 10 additional weekly frequencies to designated carriers to provide scheduled services in the market, effective April 1, 2001. By this order we also establish further procedures and a procedural schedule that will be used in the comparative selection proceeding. This proceeding will consider the applications of American, Delta, UPS, and Polar for the available U.S. carrier designation, and the applications of those carriers and Federal Express, Northwest, and United for allocation of some or all or tile 10 new weekly frequencies available for allocation.

By:  Bradley Mims


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 1, 2000 Information Response of Federal Express U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Exhibit FX-R-1  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Federal Express, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901-395-5189

OST-99-6323 February 1, 2000 Information Response of Northwest Airlines U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Attachment:  U.S.-China Monthly Operations, 1999 by Routing & Aircraft Type  
    Service List  

Counsel: Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 February 1, 2000 Information Response of United Air Lines U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Attachment:  U.S.-China Flights Marketed and Operated by United Air Lines (12 ME December 1999)  
    Service List  

Counsel:  United and Kirkland Ellis, Jeffrey Manley, 202-879-5161


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 2, 2000 Petition of American Airlines for Reconsideration of Order 00-1-21

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

American Airlines, Inc. hereby petitions for reconsideration of Order' 2000-1-21, January 26, 2000, instituting the U.S.-China Air Services (2001) proceeding. On, reconsideration, the Department should state that it will provide the same routing flexibility to the newly designated carrier that is presently enjoyed by incumbent carriers to respond to changes in market demand. In addition, the Department should require each applicant carrier to respond to an additional information request on cargo shipments.

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 7, 2000 Answer of Federal Express to Petition for Reconsideration

HTML
Scanned Copy

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Federal Express agrees with American that complete historical data are necessary to develop a full evidentiary record. The requested information will enable the Department to assess the air service needs of the U.S.-China market accurately.

Counsel:  Federal Express, Rush O'Keefe, 901-395-5189

OST-99-6323 February 7, 2000 Answer of Northwest Airlines to Petition for Reconsideration

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Northwest is particularly concerned that compliance with the information request proposed in Part 11 of American's Petition would be extremely problematic and could result in inconsistent and confusing information that would not be helpful to the parties or the Department in examining the issues in this case.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 February 7, 2000 Answer of United Air Lines

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

American has offered no support for its asserted definition of "express cargo" nor for the need for the requested data covering over four years. United has no detailed records of its cargo for the period requested by American that would enable it to identify shipments falling in to the ad hoc "express cargo" category proposed by American. If the Department intends to obtain data broken out into a distinct category such as that proposed by American, it would need to undertake a rulemaking proceeding subject to notice and comment. One of the issues that would be explored in such a proceeding is the appropriate definition of 44express cargo." Such a rulemaking, if adopted, would put carriers on notice of the need to retain records in the detail needed to provide such data and would give them adequate time to comply. It is unreasonable, however, to require carriers to undertake such reporting after the fact. United would have to search hundreds of thousands of U.S. -China cargo waybills to make the breakout American seeks and even then United cannot be confident that "express cargo" shipments can be properly identified. United strongly opposes American's untimely request for this additional information.

Counsel:  Kirkland Ellis, Jeffery Manley, 202.879.5161, jeffery_manley@kirkland.com

OST-99-6323 February 7, 2000 Answer of UPS to Petition for Reconsideration

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

On a separate but related issue, UPS notes that in Order 2000-1-21, at the top of page five, the Department indicated that it would require all applicants to provide passenger traffic carried on any code-sharing partner's aircraft for both historical and forecast periods. However, in the Department's Evidence Request at Appendix C to that Order, the Department appears to have omitted this requirement. United Parcel Service Co. respectfully requests that the Petition for Reconsideration of American Airlines be denied and that the Department grant such other relief as may be deemed just and necessary.

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 9, 2000 Reply of Northwest and Motion for Leave to File U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Northwest Airlines, Inc. submits this Reply to the Answer of Federal Express Corporation to the Petition of American Airlines, Inc. for Reconsideration of Order 2000-1-21. Because neither Order 2000-1-21 nor 14 C.F.R. § 302.37 contemplates the filing of replies to answers to petitions for reconsideration, Northwest respectfully requests leave to file this reply. As discussed below, although submitted in the form of an answer to American's Petition, Federal Express' pleading is in fact a separate and untimely petition for reconsideration, to which other parties should have an opportunity to respond.

In short, under the guise of filing an answer to American, Federal Express has submitted its own de facto petition for reconsideration. Order 2000-1-21 required the parties to file petitions for reconsideration within seven calendar days of the service of that order. If Federal Express wanted the Department to require the applicants to produce additional passenger data or additional cargo data, it could and should have submitted its request within that time frame. Federal Express' de facto petition, however, was filed well after the deadline expired. There is no legitimate justification for Federal Express' untimely request, and the Department should reject Federal Express' effort to have the Department impose new information requirements on the applicants.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 10, 2000 Motion of American for Leave to File and Reply to Answers to Petition for Reconsideration

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

In short, the cargo data we have requested is highly relevant to the issues in this proceeding, and should be required in order to produce a complete record for the Department's consideration.

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com

OST-99-6323 February 10, 2000 Motion of FedEx for Leave to File and Unauthorized Document and Reply to Answers to Petition for Reconsideration U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Counsel:  FedEx, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 11, 2000 Motion to File and Otherwise Unauthorized Document and Objections of UPS

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001

The Department should reject American's, Federal Express's and Northwest's Unauthorized Replies and refuse to receive them for consideration in this case. The procedures set forth in the Instituting Order for this proceeding, as well as the DOT procedural rules generally, do not provide for Unauthorized Replies, and American, Federal Express and Northwest have made no showing why their Unauthorized Replies should be received here. The Department provided an excellent procedural schedule in the Instituting Order for this proceeding which allows the parties ample time for the presentation of fully documented cases without unduly delaying the decision to be made in this case.

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 14, 2000 Answer of Federal Express

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Federal Express continues to believe that this unique proceeding - which pits the interests of shippers against the interests of passengers - should be referred for decision to an administrative law-judge. The evidentiary issues here are precisely the types of issues that an experienced administrative law judge would routinely handle. The repeated rounds of motions, answers, and replies show why the appointment of an ALJ to handle the collection and analysis of the record would actually expedite this proceeding. An ALJ would have convened a brief pre-hearing conference to hear all parties' views of the issues and the information that they believe necessary to resolve them.

Counsel:  FedEx, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 14, 2000 Motion for Leave to File an Otherwise Unauthorized Answer of Federal Express U.S.-China Air Services 2001

Federal Express respectfully moves the Department to grant it leave to file the attached answer responding to UPS's Objections filed on February 11, 2000. In its Objections, UPS asserts that American's petition for reconsideration of Order 2000-1-21, and Federal Express' answer to that petition, are procedurally defective, which is not true. Further, UPS's position that cargo carriers should not have to disclose the extent of their participation in the U.S.-China market is inconsistent with its prior position that the Department should require combination carriers to disclose the same information. Fairness and the public interest therefore dictate that the Department should receive and consider Federal Express' answer to UPS's objections. In addition, since this answer is being filed within one business day of the Objections to which it relates, granting this motion will not unfairly prejudice any applicant or unduly delay this proceeding.

Counsel:  Federal Express, Rush O'Keefe, 901-395-5189


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 18, 2000 Motion for Leave to File and Supplement No. 1 of Delta Air Lines U.S.-China Air Services 2001 / Cincinnati
    Service List  

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060, robert.cohn@shawpittman.com


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

Order 00-2-29
OST-99-6323
Issued and Served February 25, 2000 Order on Reconsideration

HTML

US-China Air Services (2001)

By this order, we grant the petition for reconsideration of Order 2000-1-21 filed by American Airlines, and, on reconsideration, we will defer a decision on American's request with respect to the scope of authority to be awarded in this proceeding until we issue our tentative decision, and we will deny American's request with respect to requiring applicants to file additional historical cargo data.

As the parties have correctly noted, the Department's standard practice in carrier selection cases is to require the selected carrier to serve the city-pair market(s) that it proposed to serve. This is because that specific service pattern is often critical to the Department's decision to select one carrier over another for the available route rights. Nevertheless, we recognize that in a given situation there may be circumstances where the standard condition may not be appropriate. Given the particular facts and circumstances of the U.S.-China market, we believe that such a decision is better made in this case after the record has been fully developed and, specifically, after we are in a position to make a tentative decision as to which carrier, if any, to authorize for new service to China and how to allocate the available frequencies. By deferring a decision on the issue raised by American until we issue our tentative carrier selection decision, we will afford all parties and the Department the opportunity, based on a complete evidentiary record, to determine whether the Department's standard condition should be applied in this case. Parties that have not commented on the issue, but wish to do so, and parties that have commented and wish to supplement their comments will be free to do so at the various evidentiary stages of the case.

We have decided to deny American's petition to the extent that it requests that all applicants be required to provide additional evidence on their historical cargo traffic, with the data broken down into express cargo traffic and total cargo traffic.

We conclude that the evidence request attached to Order 2000-1-21 will result in sufficient historical cargo data to provide an adequate record for decision in this proceeding, including a decision on the precise issues raised by American. We have already released to the parties to this case the historical traffic data (cargo and passenger) collected by the Department for U.S. and foreign carriers serving the U.S.-China market. Furthermore, the evidence request attached to Order 2000-1-21 requires applicants to provide specific details on their traffic forecasts. As such, the applicants can be expected to provide considerable additional information regarding the cargo needs of the market in their direct and rebuttal exhibits, thereby further enhancing the record in this proceeding. Our evidentiary approach is consistent with that we have followed in other selection cases where we found the record adequate for decision. Against this background, we are not persuaded that the additional information requested by American, or as revised by Federal Express, would be of sufficient use in this case to justify the additional burden on the applicants required to produce it.

We also will not require applicants to provide historical data on code-share traffic. The evidence request already requires carriers to provide a full description of the code-share services provided in the U.S.-China market. In addition, as discussed above, applicants are required to provide specific details to support their forecasts of any code-share traffic and we are confident that the information supplied together with that already available will provide an adequate record on this matter.

By:  Bradley Mims


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 February 28, 2000  Motion for Leave to File and Comment of FedEx Pilots Association U.S.- China
    Service List  

Since Federal Express started serving the U.S.-China market, FPA pilots have experienced first hand China's explosive growth and its yet-untapped potential, China's demand for American products and technological assistance continues to rise and the Department must choose the air express/cargo carrier that can best help U.S. businesses to meet this demand. As the pre-eminent carrier of U.S. exports around the world, Federal Express has played a leading role in meeting the needs of U.S. businesses in China.

The Department should grant Federal Express the frequencies it needs to enhance and further develop its Chinese facilities for the benefit of U.S. exporters and other shippers. If given the opportunity, the FPA is convinced that the effect of expanding Federal Express' services in China will be similar to other situations where the introduction and expansion of Federal Express' services in foreign nations spurred competition in the U.S. economy and job creation. The Department should preserve and expand the creation of such jobs and their concomitant benefits for everyone involved. Equally important, under the contract signed between the FPA and Federal Express in February 1999, FPA pilots earn competitive salaries and receive one of the best retirement packages in the industry. These employment benefits have an effect on the FPA pilots' families, their local communities, and the national economy. Moreover, the FPA is dedicated to ensuring a safe and reliable operation, and to improving consumer service.

Counsel:  FedEx Pilots, Michael Stimson, 901.752.8749


U.S. China Air Services (2001)

Carrier China Web Sites:  American | Federal Express | UPS

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of State of Alaska U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1   
    Exhibits:  100- 300 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Anchorage Airport, Morton Plumb

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  American's U.S.- China Direct Exhibits

Testimony from AAChina Web Site

U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  AA-T-1 to AA-T-5  
    100 Series:  AA-101 to AA-153  
    200 Series:  AA-201 to AA-224  
    300 Series:  AA-301 to AA-319  
    400 Series:  AA-401 to AA-410  
    500 Series:  AA-501   
    500 Series:  AA-502  
    600 Series:  AA-601  
    700 Series:  AA-701 to AA-703  
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of The City of Chicago U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  ORD-DT-1 to ORD-DT-2  
    Exhibits:  ORD-101 to ORD-126  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9800

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Direct Exhibits for U.S.- China U.S.- China
    Exhibits List  
    Exhibits: CVG-T-1 to CVG-203  
    Exhibits: CVG-204 to CVG-504  
    Service List  

Counsel:  CNKIA, Robert Holscher, 606.767.3080

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Delta's U.S.- China Direct Exhibits U.S.- China
    List of Exhibits  
    Testimony:  DL-T-1

Scanned Copy

 
    Exhibits:  DL-100 to DL-139  
    Exhibits:  DL-140 to DL-160  
    Exhibits:  DL-210 to DL-299  
    Exhibits:  DL-301 to DL-407  
    Exhibits:  DL-700  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Federal Express Direct Exhibits U.S.- China
    List of Exhibits  
    Testimony  
    Exhibits:  FX-201 to FX-207  
    Exhibits:  FX-208 to FX-423  
    Exhibits:  424  
    Exhibits:  FX 701 to FX-709  
    Letter in Support  

Counsel:  Federal Express, Rush O'Keefe, 901-395-5189

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of Greater Rockford U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1 to T-2  
    Exhibits:  100- 500 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel: GRAA, James Loomis

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of International Brotherhood of Teamsters U.S.-China
    Testimony and Exhibits:  T-1 to IBT-303  
    Service List  

Counsel:  IBT, Gary Withen

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of Los Angeles World Airports U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1 to T-2  
    Exhibits:  100- 300 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel:  LAWA, Lydia Kennard

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of Louisville Regional Airport Authority U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1 to T-2  
    Exhibits:  100- 200 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel:  LRAA, James DeLong

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of Newark Regional Partnership U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1  
    Exhibits:  100- 300 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel:  RBP, Chip Hallock

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Northwest's U.S.- China Direct  Exhibits U.S.- China
    Table Of Contents  
    Narrative:  N-1

HTML

 
    Series 100:  101 to 115  
    Series 200:  200 to 214  
    Series 300:  301 to 330  
    Series 400:  401 to 426  
    Series 500:  501 to 505  
    Series 700:  701 to 703  
    Series 800:  801  
        Series 800:  801...Continued    
       Series 800:  801...Continued    
       Series 800:  801...Continued   
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Direct Exhibits of City of Ontario U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1 to T-3  
    Exhibits:  100- 400 Series  
    Exhibits:  500 Series  
    Exhibits:  500 Series  
    Service List  

Counsel:  City of Ontario, Mary Jane Olhasso

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  Polar's U.S.- China Direct Exhibits U.S.- China
    Exhibits PO-T-1 to PO-500

HTML - Testimony

 
    Service List  

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Direct Exhibits of The City of San Francisco U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  SFO-DT-1 to SFO-D T-2  
    Exhibits: SFO-1 to SFO-28  
    Exhibits: SFO-29  

Counsel:  Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9800

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  United's U.S.- China Direct Exhibits U.S.- China
    Table of Contents  
    Testimony:  UA-T-1 to UA-T-2

HTML - With Narrative UA-N-1

 
    Narrative:  UA-N-1  
    100 Series:  UA-101 to UA-125  
    200 Series:  UA-201 to UA-262  
    300 Series:  UA-301 to UA-322  
    400 Series:  UA-401 to UA-423  
    500 Series:  UA-501 to UA-530  
    600 Series:  UA-600 to UA-601  
    700 Series:  UA-701 to UA-706  
    800 Series:  UA-800  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6000

OST-99-6323 February 29, 2000 Re:  United Parcel Service Direct Exhibits U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1 to T-3  
    Service List  

Counsel:  GKMG, Morris Garfinkle, 202.342.5201


American Airlines, Inc.

OST-99-6323 March 3, 200 Re:  Extra Exhibits - American Airlines U.S.- China
    Exhibits  

Counsel: American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com


U.S.- China Air Services 2001

OST-99-6323 March 3, 2000 Comments of American Airlines U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com


U.S.-China Service Opportunities

OST-99-6323 March 7, 2000 Re:  Indianapolis Airport Authority in Support of American's Application U.S.- China

By:  Indianapolis International Airport

OST-99-6323 March 7, 2000 Re:  Northwest's U.S.- China Direct Revised Exhibits U.S.- China
    Table Of Contents  
    Revised Exhibits:  NW-203, 204, 205, 301, 302, 319, 322, 325, 330,   

Counsel:  Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 March 8, 2000 Re:  Revised Exhibits for United Parcel Service U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Errata Sheet for Exhibits  
    Exhibits (Revised):  UPS-1150, 1203 to 1215, 1250, 1251, 1260, 1301     

Counsel:  UPS and Kelly Drye, David Vaughan, 202-955-9600


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 March 9, 2000 Motion to Compel and Extend Time of FedEx

HTML

U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

In reviewing the direct testimony and exhibits of UPS, Federal Express noted serious flaws in its submissions that made them impossible to analyze. Although there appeared to be many errors, we were especially concerned that the direct testimony referred to exhibits and exhibit pages that did not exist.  We therefore request that the Department ask both UPS and Northwest to supply by Monday, March 13, 2000, red-lined versions of all revised exhibits and testimony for the record. Further, we ask that the Department extend the time for filing rebuttal exhibits by 13 days to enable all parties to start afresh at the same time on March 13 with a clean set of exhibits. If granted, the Department should also extend the time for filing briefs by 13 days.

Counsel:  FedEx, Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 March 10, 2000 Answer of Delta Air Lines to Motion of FedEx

Scanned Copy

U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Delta Air Lines, Inc. supports Federal Express's request. Due process requires the Department to grant additional time to evaluate the substantial revisions submitted by UPS and Northwest. UPS's changes, in particular, go well beyond the bounds of standard Department practice with respect to the submission of errata. UPS's changes involve fundamental revisions to correct significant mistakes that were rampant throughout UPS's voluminous direct exhibit presentation. In addition, Delta did not receive timely service of UPS's direct exhibits on the due date established by the Department in the Instituting Order. Delta's counsel did not receive its copy of UPS's exhibits until the close of business on the day after direct exhibits were due. The copy of UPS's exhibits that were sent by UPS to Delta personnel in Atlanta were also not timely received and eventually were resent via Federal Express two days late. Delta also supports Federal Express's request to require UPS and Northwest to submit "redlined" versions of the revised exhibits in order to afford the Department's staff and other parties the ability to comprehend the full scope of the massive changes made, particularly by UPS, to its exhibits.

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060

OST-99-6323 March 10, 2000 Answer of Northwest to Motion of FedEx U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby Answers the Motion filed yesterday by Federal Express Corporation, wherein Federal Express requests a 13-day delay in the due dates for rebuttal exhibits and briefs in this proceeding, citing the filing by UPS and Northwest of revised exhibits. Northwest did file a handful of revised direct exhibit pages on March 7. Most of these revisions correct errors of a typographical character or involve stylistic edits (such as the addition of subheadings for the ease of readers), and none impact the substance of Northwest's direct case. There is nothing unusual about the filing of revised exhibits, indeed it occurs in almost every route proceeding of this nature. Northwest filed its revised exhibits 7 days after the direct exhibit due date, and served all parties by hand or overnight delivery, leaving a full three weeks for rebuttal. Northwest does not believe any delay in the remaining due dates in this proceeding is warranted under the circumstances.

Nevertheless, in an effort to facilitate prompt resolution of Federal Express' procedural objection, Northwest does not oppose a short extension of due dates. The 13-day extension sought by Federal Express, however, is excessive. Northwest believes a 7-day extension should be more than sufficient to dispose of Federal Express' Motion. This would cause rebuttals to be due on Tuesday, April 4, and Briefs on Tuesday, May 2. As for Federal Express' demand for "redlined" versions of revised exhibit pages, to Northwest's best recollection the Department has never required such redlining in a route proceeding. To do so here would be unwarranted and unduly burdensome. Northwest believes its revised exhibits are self-explanatory.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 March 10, 2000 Answer of UPS to Motion to Compel and to Extend Time U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Exhibits (Revised):  UPS-1146, 1150, 1203 to 1215, 1250, 1251, 1260, 1301     
    Testimony:  UPS-T-3  
    Service List  

The vast majority of the changes made by UPS are merely corrections to Exhibit numbers in source references and corrections to typographical errors. UPS chose not to stipulate to Federal Express' requested extension because Federal Express is obviously intent on delaying this proceeding as much as possible. For example, Federal Express urged that the Department conduct an oral evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, even though the Department had not held an oral evidentiary hearing procedure in years. Given the large number of parties to this proceeding, an oral evidentiary hearing, with all of its attendant procedural steps (e.g. briefs to the Administrative Law Judge, Recommended Decision, cross-examination etc.), would add many months to the procedural schedule. The Department rightly rejected this request.  Federal Express then requested a delay for the submission of further evidence by certain applicants.  Again the Department rejected the request. It is therefore not surprising to see Federal Express again suggesting a delay here.

UPS filed its corrections to its Exhibits six business days after the filing of the Exhibits - the day after Northwest filed its corrections - which is a normal time period for such filings. Nevertheless, although UPS does not think it necessary, UPS would not object to a oneweek extension in the submission date for Rebuttal Exhibits (if only to permit the Department to focus on reviewing the merits of the case as opposed to ensuring that every footnote is now correctly annotated).  With regard to Federal Express' Motion to Compel the filing of red-lined replacement pages, although UPS believes its previous filing was adequate and Federal Express has nowhere explained why it is entitled to red-lined versions, UPS is supplying red-lined versions of its substituted pages herewith to eliminate further debate.

Counsel:  UPS and Kelly Drye, David Vaughan, 202-955-9600


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

Order 00-3-17
OST-99-6323
Issued March 21, 2000
Served March  21, 2000
Order

HTML

U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

We have decided to extend the due date for the filing of rebuttal exhibits and briefs by seven days-to April 4, 2000, and May 2, 2000, respectively. We have also decided not to compel Northwest Airlines to file a "red-lined" version of its revised direct exhibits.  We have reviewed the changes made by both Northwest and UPS in their corrected direct exhibits. While in both cases some of the changes revise various numbers presented in the exhibits or provide more detailed information, the majority of the changes involve non-substantive corrections to the exhibit material. In these circumstances, we believe that a one-week extension of both dates will give the parties sufficient time to deal with the revisions in preparing their rebuttal exhibits, as well as sufficient time to prepare their briefs, while still ensuring that the Department can continue to proceed in a timely manner in this case. Regarding the request for a "red-lined" version, our review of Northwest's corrections indicates that the vast majority of the changes made by Northwest are readily apparent and self-explanatory. Thus, we are not persuaded that compelling Northwest to provide a "red-lined" version of its changes is necessary in the circumstances presented.

By:  Bradley Mims


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits of State of Alaska U.S.- China

Counsel:  GKMG, Anita Mosner, 703.312.0350, consult@gkmg.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits of American Airlines U.S.- China
    Table of Contents  
    200 Series:  AA-R-201 to AA-R-239  
    200 Series: AA-R-240 to AA-R-274  
    300 Series:  AA-R-301 to AA-R-367  
    400, 500, 700 Series:  AA-R-401 to AA-R-704  
    800 Series:  AA-R-801 Letters in Support  
    900 Series:  AA-R-901 to AA-R-912  
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202-496-5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the City of Chicago U.S.-China
    Table of Contents  
    Testimony:  ORD-RT-1 to ORD-RT-2  
    Exhibits:  ORD-R-101 to ORD-R-119  
    Exhibits:  ORD-R-120 to ORD-R-125  

Counsel:  Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9800

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the Delta Air Lines U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  DL-R-T-1 to DL-R-T-3  
    Exhibits:  DL-R-100  
    Exhibits:  DL-R-101 to DL-R-216  
    Exhibits:  DL-R-217 to DL-R-317  
    Exhibits:  DL-R-318 to DL-R-800  

Counsel:  Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the Federal Express U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  FX-RT-1 to FX-RT-2  
    Exhibits:  FX-R-101 to FX-R-140  
    Service List  

Counsel:  FedEx, David Glauber, 901.395.5189, daglaube@fedex.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters U.S.-China

Counsel:  GKMG, Anita Mosner, 703.312.0350, consult@gkmg.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the Los Angeles World Airports U.S.-China

Counsel:  GKMG, Anita Mosner, 703.312.0350, consult@gkmg.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the Louisville Regional Airport U.S.-China

Counsel:  GKMG, Anita Mosner, 703.312.0350, consult@gkmg.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of the Regional Business Partnership U.S.-China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  RT-1 to RT-2  
    Exhibits:  R-101 to R-106  

Counsel:  Regional Business Partnership, Howard Kass, 973.242.4209

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits of Northwest Airlines U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  R-S to RT-5  
    Exhibits:  RS-101 to R-121  
    Exhibits:  RS-201 to R-255  
    Exhibits:  RS-301 to R-601  

Counsel:  Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of City of Ontario U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  T-1  
    Exhibits:  101 to 104  

Counsel:  GKMG, Anita Mosner, 703.312.0350, consult@gkmg.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of Polar Air Cargo U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Testimony:  PO-RT-1  
    Exhibits:  PO-R-101 to PO-R-126  

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of The City of San Francisco U.S.-China
    Table of Contents  
    Testimony:  SFO-RT-1 to SFO-RT-2  
    Exhibits:  SFO-R-1 to SFO-R-41  
    Exhibits:  SFO-R-42 Letters in Support  

Counsel:  San Francisco International, Mara Rosales

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Exhibits and Testimony of United Air Lines U.S.- China
    Table of Contents  
    Testimony:  UA-RT-1  
    100 Series:  UA-R-100 to UA-R-125  
    200 Series:  UA-R-200 to UA-R-216  
    300 Series:  UA-R-300 to UA-R-314  
    400, 500, 600 Series:  UA-R-400 to UA-R-601  
    700 Series:  UA-R-700 to UA-R-712  
    800 Series:  Letters in Support  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6000, jmanley@wilmer.com 

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Re:  Rebuttal Testimony and Direct Exhibits of UPS U.S.- China
    Exhibit List  
    Rebuttal Testimony:  UPS-RT-1 to UPS-RT-7  
    Rebuttal Testimony:  (continued)  
    Exhibits 100 Series:  UPS-R-100 to UPS-R-112  
    Exhibits 200 Series:  UPS-R-200 to UPS-R-218  
    Exhibits 300 Series:  UPS-R-301 to UPS-R-317  
    Exhibits 300 Series:  UPS-R-318 to UPS-R-338  
    Exhibits 400 Series:  UPS-R-400 to UPS-R-413  
    Exhibits 500 Series:  UPS-R-500 to UPS-R-524  
    Exhibits 500 Series:  UPS-R-525 to UPS-R-572  
    Exhibits 600 Series:  UPS-R-601 to UPS-R-633  
    Exhibits 700 Series:  UPS-R-700 to UPS-R-704  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600

OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Rebuttal Exhibits of Wayne County, Michigan and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Country Airport U.S.- China
    List of Exhibits  
    Narrative:  DTW-R-N-1  
    Exhibits:  DTW-R-1 to DTW-R-24  
OST-99-6323 April 4, 2000 Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Exhibits Stating the Position of Wayne County, Michigan and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Country Airport U.S.- China

Counsel:  Detroit Airport, David Katz, 734.942.3563


U.S.-China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 April 21, 2000 Re:  Letter in Support for Delta Air Lines U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Attachment:  Letter from the Kentucky Governor's Office  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8000


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 May 1, 2000 Brief of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters U.S.- China
    Service List  

Counsel:  IBT, Gary Witlen, 202.624.7466


U.S. China Air Services (2001)

Carrier China Web Sites:  American | Federal Express | UPS

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of the State of Alaska U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Attorney General's Office, John Steiner, 907.269.5163

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of American Airlines

Scanned Copy

U.S.-China
    Exhibits:  Charts, Maps  
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@amrcorp.com 

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Re: Brief of the City of Chicago U.S.-China
    Brief of the City of Chicago  
    Exhibits:  Letter in Support, Charts, Maps  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9898, quinnk@winstim.com 

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of Delta Air Lines

Scanned Copy

U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Delta and Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202-663-8060

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of Federal Express Corporation (FedEx)

Scanned Copy

U.S.-China
    Exhibits:  Letters, Financial Times Article  
    Service List  

Counsel:  FedEx Corporation, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of the Los Angeles World Airports U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  LAWA, Philip Depoian, 310.646.8158

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of the Regional Business Partnership Newark U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  RBP, Chip Hallock, 973.242.4209, challock@rbp.org 

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of Northwest Airlines
Electronic Submission
U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Meghan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of the City of Ontario U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  City of Ontario, Mary Jane Olhasso, 909.395.2010

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of Polar Air Cargo U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Stephen Lachter, 202.862.4321, lachter@erols.com 

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Re:  Brief of City and County of San Francisco U.S.-China
    Brief of City and County of San Francisco  
    Service List  

Counsel:  SFIA, Mara Rosales, 650.794.5065

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Re:  Brief of United Air Lines U.S.-China
    Brief of United Air Lines  
    Exhibit UA-126:  Advertisement; Index of Letters in Support  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6000, jmanley@wilmer.com

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of United Parcel Service (UPS)

Scanned Copy

U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com 

OST-99-6323 May 2, 2000 Brief of Wayne County, Michigan and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Country Airport
Electronic Submission
U.S.-China
    Service List  

Counsel:  Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport , Bill Alberger


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 May 10, 2000 Re:  Supplemental Rebuttal Exhibits of United Air Lines U.S.- China
    UA-R-128, 129:  Service to Shanghai  
    UA-R-802, 803:  Letters in Support  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com 


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 July 20, 2000 Re:  Letters in Support of United Air Lines Application U.S.- China
    Attachment:  Letters in Support  
    Service List  

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com 


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

Order 00-11-24
OST-99-6323
Issued November 21, 2000
Served November 24, 2000
Order to Show Cause U.S.-China Air Services 2001
    Appendix A:  Current Service   
    Appendix B:  Combination Service Proposals  
    Appendix C:  Civic/Labor Party Positions  
    Appendix D:  Summary of Pleading  

By:  Susan McDermott


U.S.- China Air Service (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 7, 2000 Comments of Polar Air Cargo U.S.- China
    Service List  

Polar Air Cargo, Inc hereby advises the Department that it will not be filing an objection to the Department's tentative decision in Order 2000-11-24 in the above-captioned proceeding. Under the circumstances, Polar believes that a swift finalization of the new designation is in the public interest so that vitally needed all-cargo airlift can be initiated promptly on April 1, 2001.

Counsel:  Polar, Kevin Borland, 202.785.1995, kevibo@polaraircargo.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 14, 2000 Comments of United Parcel Service U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

One issue of concern to UPS is that any delay in the completion of this proceeding would jeopardize the April 1, 2001 start-up date. The ability to begin service on April 1, 2001 is essential to the realization of the economic benefits that UPS forecasted in its exhibits and testimony. Thus, any delay in this start-up date translates into a delay of benefits to tile U.S. economy, our customers, and our people. This problem is more significant for UPS as the new designee. The other carriers awarded frequencies in the Order are not as affected by tile timing of the final issuance as they already have operating authority from the Civil Aviation Authority of China.

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202.955.9600, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Comments of American Airlines to Order to Show Cause U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Counsel:  American, Carl Nelson, 202.496.5647, carl_nelson@aa.com 

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Comments of Delta Air Lines U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Delta is disappointed with the Department's tentative decision, and firmly believes that the public interest would be substantially better served by using the available designation to provide U.S.-China travelers with their first new combination carrier choice in twenty years, than by awarding the designation to an all-cargo carrier that is already firmly established in the U.S.-China marketplace. However, Delta recognizes that the Department is unlikely to alter its tentative decision at this stage of the proceeding, and Delta will therefore not object to the Show Cause Order.  The designation of UPS will not produce benefits of a comparable nature with respect to its much-touted express service, because U.S.-China shippers are already able to use UPS's substantial existing network of China services for their U.S.-China delivery needs. The record does not support, and the Show Cause Order did not find, that the ultimate identity of the carrier operating an all-cargo flight is an important factor for consumers.

Counsel:  Shaw Pittman, Robert Cohn, 202.663.8060

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Objections of Federal Express U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Counsel:   Federal Express, Thomas Donaldson

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Objections of Northwest Airlines U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193 

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Comments of the City and County of San Francisco in Support of the Order to Show Cause U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

Counsel:  SFO Airport, Mara Rosales, 650.821.5065

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Comments of United Air Lines U.S.- China Air Services 2001
    Service List  

While commending the Department for its decision in this case, United nonetheless urges the Department, as a matter of the highest priority, to seek a new bilateral agreement with China that includes a comprehensive opening of the Chinese market for U.S. carriers. The slow progress of liberalization of U.S.-China air services has left this important market lagging far behind the overall global aviation market. Moreover, the limited incremental additional U.S. carrier opportunities for new China services secured by the U.S. government in recent years have led to a series of high-profile, protracted and extremely competitive route proceedings, including this one, that have proven expensive and time-consuming for carriers, civic and other interested parties, and for the Department. A broader and more wide-ranging new bilateral agreement would obviate the need for the Department regularly to allocate limited additional rights on a piecemeal basis, as it has been required to do over the past two years in particular. In sum, a comprehensive new agreement providing for substantial liberalization would provide a more efficient means of bringing U.S.-China air services into line with the broadly liberalized global aviation arrangements already achieved in other regions largely due to the leadership of the U.S. government.

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 15, 2000 Comments of the City of Chicago U.S.- China Air Services 2001

Counsel:  Winthrop, Stimson, John Gillick


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 22, 2000 Response of United Parcel Service U.S.- China
    Service List  

UPS confines its observations to one fact: no party has objected to the designation of UPS as the new entrant to serve the China market or to the allocation of six frequencies to UPS. Accordingly, UPS urges the Department of Transportation (the "DOT" or the "Department") to finalize this decision without delay so that UPS can immediately commence the licensing process in China, a process which cannot begin until UPS has been officially designated by the U.S. Government.

Counsel:  Kelley Drye, Michael Francesconi, 202.955.9864 


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 26, 2000 Consolidated Answer of Federal Express U.S.- China
    Service List  

The Department's unchallenged finding in this case was clear and straightforward: the U.S.-China market needs more all-cargo service.' Consistent with that finding, the Department proposed to grant six frequencies to United Parcel Service, an all-cargo carrier, to initiate service as the fourth designated U.S. air carrier. Notwithstanding that clear finding, when allocating the remaining four frequencies, the Department tentatively awarded three frequencies to combination carriers. This proposal is inconsistent with the Department's findings, and would leave FedEx one frequency short of the number needed to operate two daily round trips to China.

Counsel:  FedEx, M. Rush O'Keefe, 901.395.5189

OST-99-6323 December 26, 2000 Answer of Northwest Airlines U.S.- China
    Service List  

Federal Express provides no grounds for the Department to award all four frequencies to it or to reduce the tentative allocation to Northwest. To the contrary, as stated in Northwest's own Objections, there is both a clear basis in the record and a strong policy reason to award two frequencies to Northwest. An award of two frequencies to Northwest would give Northwest the flexibility to add one all-cargo frequency and one combination frequency, thereby simultaneously adding needed capacity to the all-cargo market and producing greater network competition between Northwest and United in the combination market. On the other hand, Federal Express does not clearly explain why it needs two more frequencies, much less all four available frequencies, either of which would simply further cement Federal Express' existing dominant position. Nor does federal Express clearly identif~y how it would use two or four frequencies if it were to receive them. Thus, Federal Express has offered the Department no valid reason to alter its award in the manner urged by Federal Express.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.842.3193

OST-99-6323 December 26, 2000 Consolidated Answer of United Air Lines U.S.- China
    Service List  

Northwest has been making a meal out of United's alleged "advantage" for over six years. It is worth noting once again that United has this advantage today solely because only United, and not Northwest, was willing to take the risk of expanding its U.S.-China services to daily patterns in 1994 after the sharp drop in demand following the Tiananmen Square events in 1989. United undertook this expansion at a time when no one else (including Northwest and FedEx's predecessor, Evergreen) wanted additional U.S.-China frequencies. United used 14 frequencies to set up what became successful daily patterns to Beijing and Shanghai via its Tokyo hub. When additional frequencies because available in 1999 United, unlike Northwest and FedEx, focused its proposal on the addition of a single additional daily pattern, this time nonstop to Shanghai via its San Francisco hub. Northwest and FedEx would have the Department punish United and San Francisco for those carriers' own lack of foresight and commitment to the U.S.-China market.

The Department's decision to award United one more frequency than Northwest and FedEx each received is fully consistent with its stated approach to the allocation of frequencies to the incumbent U.S.-China carriers.

Counsel:  Wilmer Cutler, Jeffery Manley, 202.663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

OST-99-6323 December 26, 2000 Answer of the City of Chicago U.S.- China
    Service List  

Turning initially to FedEx, it continues in its quest, begun in the initial allocation proceeding and continued in this proceeding, to obtain all, or virtually all, of the frequencies available for allocation in each of these proceedings. The short answer to FedEx's request is that the Department has determined that the U.S.-China market needs both passenger and cargo service, and has struck what it believes to be an appropriate overall balance between allocations for combination and all-cargo carriers. Withdrawal of two combination frequencies from United and award of these frequencies to FedEx would seriously distort that balance, with nine, and perhaps ten (if Northwest used its frequency to provide all-cargo service), of the frequencies available for allocation in this proceeding being allocated for all-cargo service. It is beyond question that there is a need for United's two additional combination services in the U.S.-China market, and FedEx's request for additional frequencies should be denied.

Counsel:  Winthrop Stimson, Kenneth Quinn, 202.775.9800, quinnk@winstim.com 

OST-99-6323 December 26, 2000 Answer of the City and County of San Francisco U.S.- China
    Service List  

San Francisco agrees with the Department. Each of the incumbents has submitted a viable proposal. The issue is how to select the best mix of services. FedEx should not be given all four "residual" frequencies. In fact, its efforts throughout this proceeding have been a hodgepodge of tag-along services with so many intermediate stops that third country traffic would exceed China traffic.

Counsel:  San Francisco International, Mara Rosales, 650.794.5065


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

Order 1-1-6
OST-99-6323
Issued January 5, 2001
Served January 10, 2001
Final Order

4:30 pm Version of Final Order

U.S.- China 
        Attachment:  Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity     

We have decided to make final our tentative decision in Order 2000-11-24 and select UPS as the fourth airline authorized to serve China and allocate it six weekly frequencies for this service. We also make final our proposed additional frequency allocations to United, Northwest, and Federal Express.

Although the competing applicants for the new airline authorization have expressed disappointment with our tentative decision, no party has objected to our proposed selection of UPS to serve China or to our allocation of six weekly frequencies to UPS for its services. We therefore will make that selection final and will award UPS the necessary certificate authority and frequency allocation for its proposed services. The award to UPS will bring new all-cargo capacity to this valuable market. It will also provide consumers the benefit of carrier choice and a full range of competitive all-cargo services to the services now offered by Federal Express, as well as enhanced competition with the services offered by Chinese-flag carriers. This new airline service will serve our objective to increase the number of competitors in this market and to expand the range of price/service options available to consumers.

The principal objection to our tentative decision involved our allocation of the remaining four frequencies available on April I under the 1999 Protocol, with both Northwest and Federal Express contending that they should have been allocated more of the remaining frequencies. Both carriers have argued that such additional allocations to themselves would provide greater public benefits.

We have fully considered the arguments raised by Northwest and Federal Express and find that neither carrier has presented any new evidence or argument to warrant modifying our tentative allocations of the remaining four frequencies.

This case was instituted as the second phase of a major expansion of services provided for under the 1999 U.S.-China Protocol that enabled both sides to double the number of frequencies operated over a three-year period, and the allocations to incumbent carriers must be considered in the context of the overall expansion of services permitted. The first phase of the agreement enabled the three incumbent carriers to add 17 additional flights to the market. As a result of allocations made under the first phase of the agreement, Federal Express and Northwest each was allocated six additional flights and United was allocated five. In making those allocations, we recognized that the market had been restricted for many years and that all of the incumbent carriers had proposed services that would benefit the traveling and shipping public and respond to the pent-up demand for service. Collectively the incumbent carriers requested more frequencies than were available, reflecting the high demand for service and the need in both the cargo and combination segments of the market for additional new services. Recognizing the deficiencies in both segments of the market, we allocated the frequencies to ensure that all three carriers could expand their services and that both segments of the market would benefit.

Taking into consideration the combined frequency awards in both proceedings under the Protocol, each of the three incumbent carriers would be allocated a total of seven weekly frequencies to expand its operations in the market to meet the demands for service. We believe that these overall allocations meet our stated objectives of ensuring that all of the incumbent carriers be able to make substantial use of the service expansions under the Protocol and that both the combination and cargo segments of the market benefit from those service expansions.

Both Northwest and Federal Express have renewed service and structural arguments made prior to our tentative decision in arguing now for greater awards to each of them. Federal Express contends that its cargo proposal offers greater economic benefits and that an award for all-cargo service is more consistent with the Department's show-cause order. Northwest claims that its various proposals are better substantiated and supported, warranting a greater award. Both argue that they should be allocated more frequencies so that they can be more competitive in the market, with Federal Express arguing that it should get more since the majority of U.S.-China frequencies are used for combination services, and Northwest arguing that it needs a greater allocation because it holds fewer overall frequencies than United.

We agree with both Northwest and Federal Express that additional services by both would benefit the public. However, having carefully reviewed all of these renewed arguments, we do ot find, upon reviewing the record as whole and the combined awards under the Protocol, that any party has made a persuasive showing that the overall public interest would be better served by increasing one caffier's allocation over another's in this case. Our combined awards to the incumbent carriers, taking into account both phases of the allocation, ensure that the combination and all-cargo segments of the market benefit from the service expansions now available and that all carriers serving can participate and compete substantially in the markets at issue. As we said in our tentative decision, with the awards in this proceeding United will be able to increase its current nonstop services in the San Francisco-Shanghai market, one of the largest U.S.-China markets, to a daily service and offer enhanced competition with the code-share services of Northwest and Air China from San Francisco. Northwest will be able to increase either its passenger or all-cargo services in the market. Federal Express will be able to expand further its existing all-cargo services that now serve three Chinese cities. We remain convinced that these allocations best serve the public interest and no party has provided any persuasive arguments that warrant modifying our proposed allocations.

By:  Susan McDermott


U.S.- China Air Services (2001)

Order 1-1-6
OST-99-6323
Issued January 5, 2001
Served January 10, 2001
Erratum U.S.- China 
        Attachment:  Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity     

By:  Susan McDermott


Northwest Airlines, Inc.

OST-02-11327 Electronically Filed January 11, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Application for Temporary Allocation of U.S.- China Frequencies and Motion for Expedited Action U.S.- China Frequencies
    Service List  

Northwest Airlines, Inc. hereby respectfully requests a temporary allocation of three (3) U.S.-China frequencies to enable Northwest to operate one (1) additional weekly round-trip combination service between Detroit and Shanghai, via Tokyo (Narita), Japan, commencing on February 5, 2002 and continuing through April 4, 2002, and to operate two (2) additional weekly round-trip cargo services between the United States and Shanghai via Tokyo (Narita) Japan, commencing on February 1, 2002 and continuing through April 6, 2002. The temporary allocations requested by Northwest are in the public interest because Northwest will make use of scarce U.S.-China frequencies that otherwise would be dormant, and by so doing will ensure that the public continues to benefit from the rights negotiated for and allocated to U.S. carriers pursuant to the U.S.-China bilateral aviation agreement.

Northwest requests a temporary allocation of three (3) unused China frequencies so that Northwest can provide additional services in the U.S.-China passenger and cargo markets. The Department long has recognized that it has a public interest obligation to preserve the highest possible levels of service in international air transportation markets, particularly in limited-entry markets such as U.S.-China.

United Airlines has been allocated a total of twenty-one (21) U.S.-China frequencies by the Department. See e.g., Order 2001-1-6. According to published OAG and CRS schedules, United will suspend its daily Chicago-Beijing service effective January 30, 2002 and resume the service on April 7, 2002. Therefore, there will be at least three (3) unused U.S.-China frequencies available for Northwest's use throughout the period for which it has requested the temporary allocation of U.S.-China frequencies.

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.942.3193, megan.rosia@nwa.com


Northwest Airlines, Inc.

OST-02-11327 January 16, 2002 Answer of United Air Lines Temporary Allocation of US-China Frequencies
    Service List  

United has no objection to Northwest's proposal for temporary allocation of three U.S.-China frequencies currently used by United to provide Chicago-Beijing service provided that this temporary reallocation in no way impairs United's ability to operate to China upon resumption of its scheduled service on April 6/7 and provided that the temporary allocation will preserve United's ability to continue during the suspension period to sell its nonstop service on such resumed flights. Northwest's application notes its intention to operate frequencies between January 30 and April 6. The Department should be aware that United will operate from Chicago to Beijing on January 30, arriving on Beijing on January 31, and from Beijing to Chicago on January 31 and that it will resume service from Chicago to Beijing on April 6 and from Beijing to Chicago on April 7. Any temporary reallocation of frequencies must allow United to hold out its scheduled service in accordance with that schedule.

Any temporary allocation of China frequencies must also guarantee that United will be able to continue sales during the suspension period and resume service without the need to seek any additional authority from the PRC government. Because there is no formal notification requirement relating to frequency allocations under the U.S./China bilateral air services agreement, United understands that the U.S. does not advise China of the allocation of frequencies by DOT in a formal diplomatic note. In order, therefore, to assure that China understands the parameters of the temporary allocation, the U.S. must make it clear in any order reallocating frequencies and in any other communication with the government of the PRC (including communications made by Northwest based on any reallocation order) that reallocation of frequencies to Northwest is temporary and that United intends to resume service on April 6/7 as described above and will continue to sell Chicago-Beijing nonstop service after January 30.

Counsel:  United and Wilmer Cutler, Jeffrey Manley, 202.663.6670, jmanley@wilmer.com


Northwest Airlines, Inc.

OST-02-11327 January 16, 2002 Re:  Polling Letter Temporary Allocation of U.S.- China Frequencies

Counsel:  Northwest, Megan Rae Rosia, 202.942.3193, megan.rosia@nwa.com 

OST-02-11327 Filed January 11, 2002
Issued January 16, 2002
Notice of Action Temporary Allocation of U.S.- China Frequencies

Northwest requests a temporary allocation of three U.S.-China frequencies to enable Northwest to operate one additional weekly round-trip combination flight between Detroit and Shanghai, via Tokyo (Narita) Japan, and to operate two additional weekly round-trip all-cargo flights between the United States and Shanghai via Tokyo (Narita) Japan. Northwest states that United will suspend its daily Chicago-Beijing service effective January 30, 2002, and resume service on April 7, 2002. Northwest intends to operate the additional Detroit-Shanghai service beginning February 5, 2002, through April 4, 2002, and the U.S. Shanghai all-cargo service beginning February 1, 2002, through April 6, 2002.

United filed an answer to Northwest's application stating that it had no objection to the Department's allocating Northwest three temporary U.S.-China frequencies provided that the temporary allocation would not impair United's ability to operate to China upon resumption of its scheduled service on April 6/7, and provided that United will be able to sell its nonstop service on such resumed flights during the suspension period without the need to seek any additional authority from the Government of China. Northwest responded, stating that it had no objection to complying with United's request.

By:  Paul Gretch


OST-1999-6323 - US-China All-Cargo Service

September 29, 2005

Application for Renewal and Amendment of Certificate Authority

United Parcel Service Co., pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40102 and Part 302.201 et seq. of the Procedural Regulations of the Department of Transportation, hereby applies for renewal and amendment of its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Route 797, authorizing UPS to provide scheduled U.S.-China all-cargo services.

The Department originally granted certificate authority to UPS for Route 797 by Order 2001-1-6 in the above-captioned docket. Under this certificate, UPS is authorized to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between the terminal point Anchorage Alaska, via the intermediate point Tokyo, Japan, and the co-terminal points Beijing and Shanghai, China. Subsequent to certificate issuance, the Department granted UPS exemption authority to provide foreign air transportation of property and mail between Anchorage, Alaska and Guangzhou, China by Order 2004-10-8 in Docket OST-2004-18468.

Counsel: Kelley Drye, David Vaughan, 202-955-9864, dvaughan@kelleydrye.com


OST-1999-6323 - US-China All-Cargo Service

October 18, 2005

Answer of United Air Lines

By its application, UPS seeks renewal of its U.S.-China route authority contained in UPS' Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Route 797. UPS also seeks amendment of its certificate for Route 797 to encompass those route rights available to U.S, carriers for services to China under the current U.S.-China bilateral air services agreement.

United has also filed an application for renewal and amendment of its own U.S.-China route authority contained in United's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Route 246. Although United's application was filed over three years ago and was unopposed, the Department has taken no action on its application. United's Certificate continues in effect under S U.S.C. §558(c) pending a final order by the Department. See Application of United, dated September 16, 2002, in Docket OST-1997-3020, as supplemented by the Answer of United to Application of Northwest, September 24, 2004 (Dockets OST-2004-19077 and 1997-3020).

United has no objection to the approval of UPS' application so long as United's own pending application is granted no later than UPS' application. Both carriers seek renewal of authority which they are currently using to operate scheduled air transportation services between the U.S. and China and amendment of their authority to grant them broad operating rights between the U.S. and China which would afford them flexibility in operating services to China consistent with recent amendments to the bilateral air services agreement between the United States and the People's Republic of China. There is nothing controversial in United's amendment request (which was unopposed by any party), and there is no apparent reason why the Department's action on United's application has been delayed.

In these circumstances, the Department should move quickly to grant the applications of both United and UPS regarding their U.S.-China certificate authority and do so without further delay.

Counsel: Wilmer Cutler, Jeffrey Manley, 202-663-6670, jeffrey.manley@wilmerhale.com


 

July 19, 2017

Motion of Delta Air Lines

Delta Air Lines, Inc. hereby requests permission to move one weekly frequency from Tokyo Narita-Shanghai Pudong route to Atlanta-PVG. This frequency was awarded to Delta by Order 2001-1-6. Delta hereby respectfully requests the Department amend the Order to authorize Delta to operate this specific China frequency from Atlanta. The new flights will start July 20, 2018 with 777 aircraft.

In connection with this request, Delta is shifting 6 of its 7 weekly NRT-PVG frequencies to Atlanta, exercising its discretion to do so consistent with the gateway flexibility granted by the Department in awarding these frequencies in Orders 1994-6-3 and 1995-2-30. Atlanta is the largest US market without nonstop service to China. Allowing Delta to fill out its service pattern to full daily flights will offer significant flexibility to travelers wishing to use the proposed Atlanta flight.

Currently, only two of twenty-one US carrier operated routes to points in China Zone 1 currently operate with less than daily service, demonstrating the value carriers have placed on offering daily service even under the bilateral constraints on Zone 1 slots. Dispersal of slots to serve more US cities has not been a strategy pursued by carriers, finding greater consumer response to the operation of daily service. At this time one US-China Zone 1 frequency remains unallocated by the Department, and has for many years, demonstrating the difficulty of US carriers operating less-than-daily flights on any China Zone 1 route. In fact, based on the traveling public preference for daily operations the Department would maximize public benefit if it allowed Delta to reallocate the single frequency awarded in Order 2001-1-6 to complete a full day-of-week service pattern for ATL-PVG.

Counsel: Delta, Alexander Krulic, 202-216-0700





OST-1996-1915 - US-China Frequency Allocation
OST-1999-6323 - 2001 US-China

July 19, 2017

Notice of Delta Air Lines Regarding China Frequency Utilization and Intent to Rely on Route Integration Authority

Delta intends to rely on its blanket route integration authority granted by Order 2010-12-24 to institute new daily service between Atlanta and Shanghai-Pudong, China, effective July 20, 2018.

To establish this new service Delta will fly 6x weekly Atlanta-Shanghai flights using unrestricted, gateway-flexible China frequency awarded by 1994-6-3 and 5 unrestricted, gateway-flexible China frequencies awarded by 1995-2-30. Separately, Delta has additionally applied to transfer 1 restricted China frequency awarded in Order 2001-1-6 in order to operate a daily service pattern. All mentioned frequencies are currently used to fly the Tokyo (Narita)-Shanghai route.

Counsel: Delta, Christopher Walker, 202-216-0700

 

July 27, 2017

Re: Polling Results

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the Motion filed on July 19, 2017 in the above referenced docket and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the application be granted as soon as possible.

Counsel: Delta, Christopher Walker, 202-216-0700

 

Filed July 19, 2017 | Issued July 31, 2017

Notice of Action Taken

Amendment to the frequency allocation of Order 2001-1-6, to permit Delta to move one weekly Zone 1 US-China frequency from the Tokyo (Narita)-Shanghai market to the Atlanta-Shanghai market.

By Order 2001-1-6, we allocated one weekly frequency to Northwest Airlines, Inc. for any of the US-China services it proposed in that US-China air services proceeding. By Order 2009-1-8, that frequency, among others, was transferred from Northwest to Delta in light of the Delta/Northwest merger. Delta states that it plans to re-introduce Atlanta-Shanghai service by moving this one weekly frequency from the Tokyo-Shanghai route to the Atlanta-Shanghai route. In connection with its motion, Delta filed a letter with the Department, stating that it also plans to move five weekly gateway-flexible frequencies allocated by Order 1995-2-30, and one weekly gateway-flexible frequency allocated by Order 1994-6-3 from the Tokyo-Shanghai market, to provide daily service in the Atlanta-Shanghai market beginning July 20, 2018.

Delta may continue its use of the Tokyo-Shanghai frequency until it commences the new Atlanta-Shanghai service, but in no case beyond July 30, 2018.

By: Brian Hedberg


 

September 14, 2018

Notice of Delta Air Lines Regarding China Frequency Utilization and Intent to Rely on Route Integration Authority

Delta Air Lines, Inc. respectfully notifies the Department that it will operate two one-way flights in January 2019 connecting Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and Shanghai Pudong International Airport using Delta’s blanket route integration authority and two unrestricted, gateway-flexible US-China Zone 1 frequencies currently allocated to Delta’s daily ATL-PVG service.

The PVG-LAS flight will depart China on January 7, 2019 and the LAS-PVG return flight will depart the US on January 12, 2019. These flights will have through-numbered connections to Atlanta. At the conclusion of the January 12 LAS-PVG flight, Delta will resume its daily ATL-PVG flying with its full suite of seven weekly frequencies.

Counsel: Delta, Christopher Walker

 

 

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