Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | OST Filings by Carrier
OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day | Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day

OST-01-10885

List of Air Carrier Payments


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 October 25, 2001 Request for Comments

Federal Register Publication

Compensation of Air Carrier
    Appendix A:  Forms for Certified and Commuter Carriers  
    Appendix B:  Forms for Certified Cargo Carrier  
    Appendix C:  Forms for Air Taxi Operators  

By:  OST


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 1, 2001 Correction to Final Rule Compensation of Air Carrier

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

By:  Office of the Secretary


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 7, 2001 Comments of Atlas Air

HTML

Compensation of Air Carrier

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

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

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

Counsel:  Atlas, Air, John Holum


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 8, 2001 Talking Points of Emery Air Freight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Emery


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Air Transport Association of America, Inc.  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  ATA, Robert Warren

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Microsoft Word File (Includes Attachments)

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
    Attachments  

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

By:  AICPA

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Cargo Airline Association Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  Cargo Airline Association, Stephen Alterman, 202.293.1030

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Custom Air Transport Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Custom Air Transport

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Re:  Letter from Congressman James McGovern Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  James McGovern

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Re:  Comments of Members of Congress from Florida Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  Members of Congress from Florida

OST-01-10885 November 13, 2001 Comments of The National Air Carrier Association

Microsoft Word File

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  NACA, Ron Priddy

OST-01-10885 November 13, 2001 Comments of Winston & Strawn Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Winston Strawn, James Burnley


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Air Medical Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Air Medical Services, Dawn Mancuso

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of BAX Global Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
    Attachment:  Letter from Senator George Voinovich, Ohio  

By:  BAX Global, Frederick Perry

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Southern Air Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Southern Air, Thomas Gillies

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of TEM Enterprises d/b/a Casino Express Airlines Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Sher Blackwell, Mark Atwood

OST-01-10885 November 9, 2001 Comments of Worldwide Flight Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Worldwide Flight, Brad Stanius


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 21, 2001 Motion of the Cargo Airline Association to File an Otherwise Unauthorized Document Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Cargo Airline Association, Stephen Alterman, 202.293.1030


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 November 27, 2001 Comments of Federal Express Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

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

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

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


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

OST-01-10885 December 3, 2001 Re:  Aviation Relief Desk Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
    Attachments  

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

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

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

Counsel:  Dow Lohnes, Jonathan Hill


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 December 10, 2001 Joint Position of Cargo Airline Association (CAA), Regional Airline Association (RAA),  and Air Transport Association (ATA)

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 December 20, 2001 Response of America West Airlines

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

OST-01-10885 December 20, 2001 Correspondence from Association of Air Medical Services

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

OST-01-10885 December 20, 2001 Comments of Custom Air Transport

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

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

By:  Sher Blackwell, Mark Atwood, 202.463.2513

OST-01-10885 December 20, 2001 Correspondence from Medjet International

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 December 20, 2001 Summary of Meeting between DOT Officials and Medjet International

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  James Dann


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 December 27, 2001 Request for Comments

Microsoft Word File

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  Read Van de Water

OST-01-10885 December 27, 2001 Final Rule - Response to Comments

Microsoft Word File

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Read Van de Water


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 Dated December 20, 2001
Docketed January 4, 2002
Letter of Sky Knight Air Services, in Response to an Aviation Relief Desk Telephone Conversation Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sky Knight, Brian Kilcullen

OST-01-10885 January 7, 2002 Comments of the USATA United States Air Tour Association Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  USATA, SteveBassett


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 7, 2002 Comments of Air Vegas Airlines Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Air Vegas Airlines, James Petty


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 10, 2002 Comments of Brien Salazar, President Taquan Air Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Taquan Air, Brien Salazar


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Re:  Response to Air Transport Association for Clarification Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By: Norman Mineta

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Associated Aircraft Group Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Associated Aircraft Group, Thomas McQuade, 203.790.6800

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 14, 2002
Comments of Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, Jeff Stein

OST-01-10885 January 7, 2002
Docketed January 14, 2002
Comments of Sky Knight Air Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sky Knight Air Services, Brian Kilcullen, 954.772.0200

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Trans North Aviation Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Trans North Aviation, Ron Schaberg

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Baptist LifeFlight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Baptist LifeFlight, Kevin Stanhope

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Aero Med Express Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Aero Med Express, Mike Moser

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Duke University Hospital Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Duke University Hospital, Edward Eroe

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of HealthNet, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  HealthNet, G. P. Sovick

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of MediFlight Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  MediFlight Medical Center, Joy Englund

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of LifeFlight of Maine Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  LifeFlight of Maine, Thomas Judge

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Baptist Medical Transport Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Baptist Medical Transport

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of Gundersen Lutheran Medlink Air Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Gundersen Lutheran Medlink Air, Mike McKee

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of LifeStarOne Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  LifeStarOne, Sharen Martin

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of American West Worldwide Express Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  American West Worldwide Express, Josh Brown


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002 Comments of University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Eagle Air Med Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Eagle Air Med, James Hunt

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Flight For Life Services  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Flight For Life Services, Jim Singer

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Mercy Flight Central, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Mercy Flight Central, Paul Hyland

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Sun West Aviation Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sun West Aviation, David Fenner

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of CALSTAR California Shock/Trauma Air Rescue Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 8, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Omni Transport Systems L.L.C. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Omni Transport Systems, JoAnn Parker

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of LifeFlight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  LifeFlight, Maria Fernandez

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Eagle III Emergency Air & Ground Life Express Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of AirMed 1 Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  AirMed 1, Rod Gardner

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of San Juan Regional Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  San Juan Regional Medical Center, Mike Berve

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services, Joel Hochhalter

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002 Comments of Frederick Hinkle Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Frederick Hinkle

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002 Comments of Bloch Richard Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Bloch R. Richard

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Mayo Medical Transport Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Mayo Medical Transport, Thomas Allenstein

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Air Life of Oregon Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Air Life of Oregon, Vern Bartley

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of STATCARE Louisville Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  STATCARE Louisville Medical Center, John Blumenstock

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of LifeFlight Eagle Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  LifeFlight Eagle, Seth Myers

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002 Comments of Boston MedFlight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Boston MedFlight, Suzanne Wedel

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002 Comments of James McCarthy Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  James McCarthy

OST-01-10885 January 13, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of Med-Link/Christus Health Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Med-Link/Chritus Health, Karl Guillory


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Saber Cargo Airlines Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Saber Cargo Airlines, Michael Dockery

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of CareFlite North Central Texas Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  CareFlite North Central Texas Services, Ed Major

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 15, 2002
Comments of LifeGuard Alaska Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  LifeGuard Alaska, Jason Schwebach

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of Sherry Stohler  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sherry Stohler 

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Rocky Mountain Holdings, L.L.C. d/b/a Rocky Mountain Helicopters Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Rocky Mountain Holdings/LifeNet Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Rocky Mountain Holdings/LifeNet, Craig Yale

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of AIRescue International Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  AIRescue International, Francine Vogler

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Wisconsin Aviation, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Wisconsin Aviation, Jim Schumachel 

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Columbia Helicopters, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Columbia Helicopters, Richard Humphreys, 503.678.1222

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Studentcity.com  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Studentcity.com, Mario Ricciardelli

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Scenic Airlines, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Scenic Airlines, Chad Dixon

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Pace Airlines Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  PACE, Darrell Richardson

OST-01-10885 Docketed January 15, 2002 Comments of Heli USA Airways, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Heli USA Airways, Nigel Turner


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 17, 2002 Request for Extension of Time by NY/NJ Foreign Freight Forwarders to Submit Applications for Compensation Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Carlos Rodriguez

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Parkview Hospital Health System Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Parkview Hospital Health System, Cathy Harris

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Vision Air  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By: Vision Air, William Acor

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Special Aviation Systems, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Special Aviation Systems, Marilyn Ruhe

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of GWV International Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  GWV International, Paul Roberts

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of Care Flight International  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Care Flight International, Marth Kreye 

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of St. Patrick Hospital and Health Sciences Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of AAMS Association of Air Medical Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of Winston & Strawn on Behalf of Emery Air Freight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

By:  Winston & Strawn, Jim Burnley

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 16, 2002
Comments of First Flight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  First Flight, Janice Willette

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of Cuba Travel Services, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

CTS files a public charter prospectus (comprising OST forms 4532 and 4533) each month for the charter programs that it proposes to arrange. Each prospectus states that CTS has a contract, under which the direct air carrier will provide the transportation set forth in the prospectus, and that CTS has financial security arrangements in place to protect passenger payments. The Department must approve each prospectus before CTS can advertise, sell tickets on, take reservations for, or accept any money for any public charter flight. The Department considers CTS an indirect air carrier because CTS is indirectly arranging and selling charter air transportation. The approved prospectus is evidence of the charter program and of CTS's authorization to engage in these carrier services. There is no other DOT authorization or licensing process that CTS must follow for CTS to be considered an "indirect air carrier."

Cuba Travel Services Prospectuses Filed with the Department for 2001

By:  Zuckert Scoutt, Lonnie Anne Pera

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of ABC Charters, Inc Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

ABC Charters Prospectuses Filed with the Department for 2001

By:  Zuckert Scoutt, Lonnie Anne Pera

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002 Comments of Classic Lifeguard Aeromedical Service Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Classic Lifeguard Aeromedical Service, Michael Smith 

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Biscayne Helicopters, Inc Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Biscayne Helicopters, Daryl Martin

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of North Memorial Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  North Memorial Medical Center, Patrick Coyne

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Westchester Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Westchester Medical Center, Ted Tully 

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Michelle McEnany Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Michelle McEnany

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Midwest Medflight  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Midwest Medflight, Mike Eastlee

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Vacation Travel International, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

Vacation Travel Prospectuses Filed with the Department

By:  Vacation Travel International, Jim Modane

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Grand Aire Express, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Grand Aire Express, Bruce Marshall

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Air Transport Association  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

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

By:  Air Transport Association, David Berg

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Albany Med Flight
Tina Giangrans
Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Albany Med Flight, Tina Giangrans

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Georgia Baptist LifeFlight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Georgia Baptist LifeFlight, Jim Groover

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Air One East Texas Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Air One East Texas Medical Center, Judy England

OST-01-10885 January 9, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of AeroCare Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  AeroCare, Gregory Gust 

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Twin Cities Air Service, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Twin Cities Air Service, Lillian LeBlanc 

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Airlift Northwest Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Airlift Northwest, Michael Copass

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of LifeGuard Alaska Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By: LifeGuard Alaska, Jason Schwebach

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Critical Air Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:Critical Air, Dennis Brozowski

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Tampa General Hospital Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Tampa General Hospital
John Scott 

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of St. Anthony Hospitals Flight for Life Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

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

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Med-Trans Corporation Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:Med-Trans Corporation, Kelly Cermak

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Air Evac Lifeteam Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Air Evac Lifeteam, Colins Collins

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  New Mexico Lifeguard Air Transport Services, Joel Hochlalter

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc. Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Philip Willis

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of BAX Global Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  BAX, Vicki Hassman


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 18, 2002 Motion of BAX Global for Confidential Treatment Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Boros Garofalo, Gary Garofalo, 202.822.9070

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Inova FairFax Hospital Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Inova FairFax Hospital, Shirley Riggsbee

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Helicopter Association International Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Helicopter Association International, Roy Resavage

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of National Air Transportation Association  Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  National Air Transportation Association, Joseph Burnside

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed January 17, 2002
Comments of Richard Rooney Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Richard Rooney


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 15, 2002
Docketed January 18, 2002
Comments of Sun Western Flyers, Inc. dba Sun Care Air Ambulance Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By: Sun Western Flyers, John Ewing, 520.726.4715


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 24, 2002 Meeting Summary Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  James Dann


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 29, 2002 Comments of Donley Watkins Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Donley Watkins


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 30, 2002 Amendment to Final Rule Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Read Van De Water


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 February 1, 2002 Amendment to Final Rule Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

On September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (``the Act''). The Act makes available to the President funds to compensate air carriers, as defined in the Act, for direct losses suffered as a result of any Federal ground stop order and incremental losses beginning September 11, 2001, and ending December 31, 2001, resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. In order to fulfill Congress' intent to expeditiously provide compensation to eligible air carriers, the Department used procedures set out in Program Guidance Letters to make initial estimated payments amounting to about 50 percent of the authorized funds. On October 29, 2001, the Department published a final rule and request for comments establishing application procedures for air carriers interested in requesting compensation under this statute. On January 2, 2002, the Department published amendments to the final rule responding to comments and establishing a deadline for submitting applications by indirect air carriers and wet lessors'. This document further amends the final rule to allow additional time for indirect air carriers and wet lessors' to submit applications for compensation. This rule is effective February 1, 2002.

By:  Read Van De Water


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 February 11, 2002 Comments of Deaconess Billings Clinic Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Deaconess Billings Clinic, Christy Baxter


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 February 11, 2002 Comments of Life Flight Program Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Life Flight Program, Linda Munyer

OST-01-10885 February 12, 2002 Request of NY/NJ Foreign Freight Forwarders, JFK Airport Customs Brokers and SouthFlorida Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers for Extension of Time to Submit Compensation Applications Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
      Service List   

On behalf of our clients, The New York/New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc., the J.F.K. Airport Customs Brokers Association, Inc. and the South Florida Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers and Non-Aircraft-Operating Common Carriers Association, Inc., we enclose an original and ten (10) copies of a Request for Extension of Time to Submit Compensation Applications

By:  Rodriguez O'Donnell, Carlos Rodriguez, 202.973.2999, rodriquez@rofgw.com


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 13, 2002
Docketed February 12, 2002
Comments of Star Care V Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Star Care V, Wendy Wells

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed February 12, 2002
Comments of Cal-Ore Life Flight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Cal-Ore Life Flight, Dan Brattain

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed February 12, 2002
Comments of Albany Med Flight Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Albany Med Flight, Tina Giangrasso

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed February 12, 2002
Comments of Westchester Medical Center Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Westchester Medical Center, Ted Tully

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002
Docketed February 12, 2002
Comments of Critical Air Medicine Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Critical Air Medicine, Dennis Brozowski

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed February 13, 2002
Comments of Inova Fairfax Hospital Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Inova Fairfax Hospital, Shirley Riggsbee


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 11, 2002 Comments of Wiggins Airways Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Wiggins Airways


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 February 15, 2002 Supplemental Comments of BAX Global Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

In sum, and as discussed in BAX's January 16 Comments, by artificially constricting the scope of operations for which cargo indirect air carriers can receive compensation (essentially all-cargo operations conducted by a DAC that has not applied or is ineligible to apply for compensation under the Act), the Department has greatly reduced if not constructively eliminated the ability of IACs to receive the compensation Congress assured them. Worse yet, the Amended Final Rule further restricts legitimate IAC claims by denying compensation for IAC combination movements and "clarifying" earlier restrictions on claims for domestic all-­cargo movements. BAX vigorously opposes these restrictions and maintains that the Department's regulations, as interpreted by the Amended Final Rule, are inherently inconsistent with the requirements of the Act and frustrate its objectives. Watered-down compensation to IACs is neither appropriate nor lawful. BAX urges in the strongest terms that the Department address the issues presented here before final disbursements are made from the passenger carrier fund or the all-cargo carrier fund.

Counsel:  Bax Global, Vicki Hassman, 949.752.4000


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 23, 2002
Docketed February 20, 2002
Comments of Acadian Ambulance & Air Med Services Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Acadian Ambulance & Air Med Services, Erroll Babineaux

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed February 20, 2002
Comments of Native American Air Ambulance Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Native American Air Ambulance, Richard Heape


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 February 12, 2002
Docketed February 27, 2002
Comments of Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Accordingly, we strongly oppose any subsidies to the air tour industry. Under the statutory language, use of the set-aside is discretionary. While it may be appropriate to provide funding to certain classes of operators such as air ambulance operators, it is clearly inappropriate to subsidize the air tour industry. It is clearly counter-productive to subsidize the operators who are preventing the Congressionally mandated restoration of natural quiet at Grand Canyon National Park.

By:  Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, Jim McCarthy, 602.253.8633


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 14, 2002
Docketed March 5, 2002
Comments of Lifeflight of Maine Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

LifeFlight experienced substantial in-direct losses as a result of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 due to the closure of air space and the uncertainty and additional flight requirements post Sept. 11. Losses result from a substantial decline in flight requests and completions during the month of September. As an air ambulance service must provide and staff an aircraft on a 24 hour basis for response to unpredictable emergencies, LifeFlight incurs significant fixed costs which must be covered regardless of our ability to bill third party payors for services to their covered beneficiaries.

By:  Lifeflight of Maine, Thomas Judge


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 16, 2002
Docketed March 11, 2002
Comments of NATA National Air Transportation Association Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

As a whole, the losses experienced as a direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, are not accurately reflected when using the Available Seat Mile (ASM) formula found in 14 CFR 330. This is because the on-demand air charter customer pays a fee for the use of the entire aircraft when chartering as opposed to the airline customer who pays for the use of a single seat.

By:  NATA National Air Transportation Association, Joseph Burnside


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 11, 2002 Final Rule: Request for Comments

 

Final Rule on Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers (Federal Register Publication from April 16, 2002)


HTML

 

Form 330 - Microsoft Word 

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
    AttachmentCompensation Forms  

There are two groups of carriers whose compensation under the original statutory ASM formula falls well below the compensation for carriers generally. Class I includes those air taxi, commuter, and regional carriers who reported an average of 10,000 ASMs or fewer per day, or 310,000 for the reporting period of August 2001. Class II includes air taxi, commuter, and regional air carriers reporting between 310,000 and 10 million ASMs. All-cargo carriers are not eligible to participate in the set-aside, which, under the statute, applies only to carriers who report ASMs and whose compensation comes from the $4.5 billion portion of the statutory authorization for passenger carriers.

Of the carriers who have applied for compensation to date, there are 143 carriers in the first class and 96 in the second. The Department believes that identifying classes of carriers eligible for a set-aside in these broad terms is more sensible, fair, and easy to administer than dividing carriers into smaller functional or local classes (e.g., air ambulances, air tour operators generally or those based in a particular place, public charters, etc.), each with a separate compensation methodology that may address its own situation but not fit that of others. These broad classes include the vast majority of the carriers in these smaller groupings, including most of the carriers that submitted comments to the docket.  With respect to the commenter that operates spring break charters for students, the Department does not believe that it can base a set-aside class on the experience of a single carrier with respect to loss claims that are subject to adjustment until Spring 2002, well after the September-December 2001 compensation period intended by Congress.

In further response to comments concerning the methodology for determining compensation in situations in which a direct and an indirect air carrier, or a wet lessor and a wet lessee, are both involved in an operation, the Department has decided to delete two provisions of its January 2, 2002 final rule: §§330.31(d)(1)(iv) and 330.31(d)(2)(iv). These provisions required wet lessor and indirect air carrier applicants to document that lessees or direct air carriers are either ineligible for compensation or voluntarily will not or have not claimed compensation with respect to the operations in question.

By:  Steven Hatley


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 January 9, 2002
Docketed April 12, 2002
Comments of AeroCare Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  AeroCare, Gregory Gust


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 16, 2002

Model Agreed-Upon Procedures and Simplified Procedures Pursuant to 49 CFR

Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Under 49 CFR § 330.37, before an applicant is eligible to receive payment from the final installment of compensation under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (the Act), there must be an independent public accountant's (IPA) report based on the performance of agreed-upon procedures (AUPs) satisfactory to the Department with respect to the carrier's forecasts and actual results. The IPA's engagement must be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards applicable to AUP engagements. The applicant must submit the results of the AUP engagement to the Department with its application for payment of the final installment. Section 330.37 has been expanded to specify the core requirements to be covered by these procedures.

Model AUPs were submitted to the Department by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the Air Transport Association (ATA), and we have modified those procedures in certain respects to be more consistent with our needs. These model AUPs, found in section II of this guidance document, are being made available on the Department's web site, www.dot.gov, along with the simplified procedures addressed below, or can be obtained from the DOT contact noted in the preamble to the air carrier compensation rule under "For Further Information Contact." These model procedures are provided solely as an aid to applicants in meeting the requirements of the Act and the air carrier compensation rule, and the use of the model procedures, or any other procedures, does not diminish or affect in any way the Department's right to examine fully and audit all aspects of all claims for compensation.

By:  Steven Hatley


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 24, 2002 Comments of Todd Hunter Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Todd Hunter


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 25, 2002 Comments of Todd Hunter Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Todd Hunter

OST-01-10885 April 2, 2002 Comments of Gary Shankman Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Gary Shankman


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002 Comments of Kitty Hawk Air Cargo Compensation of Air Carriers

Although Kitty Hawk Aircargo had originally forecast that it would suffer an incremental loss for September 11 through December 31, 2001, such did not turn out to be the case, based on actual year-end results. Excluding write downs for asset impairments, Kitty Hawk Aircargo produced greater operating income than it forecast to be the case in its November 12, 2001 Part 330 submission to the DOT. These gains exceed the losses attributable to the FAA ground stop order. Kitty Hawk Aircargo will submit to the Department Form 330 (Final) reflecting these actual results by the deadline for submission of final claims.

Implementing a setoff that would reduce or eliminate an air carrier's compensation for its direct losses due to a subsequent gain would be inconsistent with the plain language of the Stabilization Act and would frustrate the clear intent of Congress to compensate air carriers for both direct and incremental losses. If Congress had intended for the Department to implement such a setoff, there would have been no need to distinguish between the two types of losses - Congress would merely have provided that air carriers are to be compensated for their losses, if any, incurred from September 11th through the end of the year without specifically addressing losses suffered as a result of the ground stop order. The Final Rule ignores this statutory two part definition of compensatory losses. Such plain language cannot simply be ignored.

Accordingly, Kitty Hawk Aircargo maintains that under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act it is entitled to be compensated for its direct losses incurred as a result of the federal ground stop order imposed on September 11th without reduction for any subsequent profits or gains it may have earned during the remainder of the year. Kitty Hawk Aircargo will file such a final claim on or before the date provided for doing so.

Counsel:  Silverberg Goldman, Robert Silverberg, 202.944.3300, rsilverberg@sgbdc.com


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Air Transport Association of America Compensation of Air Carriers

There is no support in either the Act or its legislative history for the proposition that a carrier that suffered direct losses due to the ground stop, but did not later incur incremental losses, is ineligible to be compensated for its ground stop losses. Rather, Congress specifically directed the President to compensate carriers for any losses incurred as a direct result of the ground stop, plus any additional incremental losses incurred thereafter as a direct result of the terrorist attacks on the United States. Nowhere in the statute or the legislative history is there any suggestion that Congress intended the Department to reduce the compensation payable to a carrier because of the ground stop order based on the carrier's financial performance subsequent to the lifting of the ground stop. To the extent the Department is now seeking to write such a provision into the statute through rulemaking, its action is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute and directly contrary to congressional intent.

Counsel:  Air Transport Association of America, David Berg

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Atlas Air  Compensation of Air Carriers

Atlas is concerned that in deleting sections 330.31(d)(1)(iv) and 330.31(d)(2)(iv) of the Final Rule issued on January 2, 2002, the Department appears to be permitting what it identified several months ago as an unacceptable double counting of revenue ton miles (RTMs). Under the deleted provisions, in order to receive compensation, indirect air carriers were required to submit documentation that the direct air carrier providing the transportation was either ineligible for or would not claim compensation based on those RTMs. The explanation for this deletion states that "the Department believes that removing these provisions will permit more equitable treatment for wet lessors and indirect air carriers without impinging on the interests of wet lessees and direct air carriers." 67 Fed. Reg. 18474.

Counsel:  Atlas Air

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of BAX Global Compensation of Air Carriers

It should make no difference whether cargo travels in the belly as opposed to on the main deck of an aircraft - either movement is compensable to the IAC from the $500 million fund. BAX, therefore, urges the Department to apply the recently recognized concept of separate losses for IACs and DACs to allow IACs to claim losses and related RTMs attributable to cargo tendered to both U.S. and foreign direct combination carriers.

Counsel:  BAX, Vicki Hassman

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Cargo Airline Association Compensation of Air Carriers

The CAA objects to the Department's failure to notice its proposed changes for comment. Many provisions in the April 16 rule create fundamental changes - without adequate analysis - in the way the Act will be implemented. The Department's failure to follow statutorily prescribed procedures (see Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553) threatens to delay the process. Now the Department has again changed the rules, giving certain classes of carriers yet another 30 days to file amended applications. Coupled with the need to resolve the issues raised by the comments submitted, it appears that further payments to those cargo carriers that have already submitted applications will again be significantly delayed. The CAA therefore asks that the Department move expeditiously to make the appropriate payments to all-cargo carriers that have not yet received second round payments.

Counsel:  Cargo Airline Association

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Eagle Canyon Airlines and Eagle Jet Charter Compensation of Air Carriers

Given the above factors, ECA and EJC are confident that absence of the words small certificated from section 330.43 represents nothing more than an oversight in the fashioning of a regulation that, necessarily, was accomplished by the Department on an expedited schedule. There is no plausible basis for concluding otherwise, particularly since small certificated and commuter carriers are identical in every material respect. That a carrier such as ECA or EJC holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity with a specific small-aircraft limitation, whereas a commuter air carrier holds a fitness determination with a small-aircraft limitation imposed by regulation, is a distinction without a difference.

Counsel:  Boros Garofalo, Aaron Goerlich

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Emery Air Freight Compensation of Air Carriers

There is a suggestion in the Final Rule's preamble that direct and indirect carriers may be treated differently if eligible claims exceed the limit of appropriated funds. There is nothing in the Act to support any such differentiation. Compensation is to be paid to "air carriers", which includes both direct and indirect operations. Any shortfall in compensation should be borne pro rata among all eligible claimants.

Counsel:  Winston Strawn, James Pitts

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Federal Express Compensation of Air Carriers

The Department's Third Final Rule' contains manifest errors and lacks rational foundation. As a result, this simple compensation program has become inconsistent with the statute it purports to implement, and fails to meet even minimal regulatory standards of due process, fairness, and transparency. The Department should withdraw the latest "emergency final rule" and issue a proposed rule that complies with the terms of the Stabilization Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other applicable statutes.

Counsel:  Federal Express, Rosh O'Keefe, 901.434.8586

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of GWV International Compensation of Air Carriers

No distinction was made in the Stabilization Act between "direct" and "indirect" air carriers. "Air Carrier" is defined in 49 U.S.C. §4010(a)(2) as a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide foreign or interstate air transportation. "Indirect Air Carrier" is defined by 14 C.F.R. § 380.2 as an entity that is involved in air transportation but doesn't operate aircraft, such as a public charter operator. There is no language in the statute to suggest that Congress intended to exclude indirect air carriers from participation in the compensation pool nor even to discriminate against indirect air carriers with respect to the compensation available to them or to the portion of the pool in which they would share.

Counsel:  GWV, Paul Roberts

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Vacation Travel International Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Vacation Travel International, Jim Moldane

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Eagle III Emergency  Air and Ground Life Express  Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Eagle III Emergency  Air and Ground Life Express 

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Sierra Club Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Jim McCarthy

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Sierra Club Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Dickson J Hingson

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of LifeLight of Maine Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  LifeLight of Maine

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of STATCARE Air Ambulance Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  STATCARE Air Ambulance

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Association of Air Medical Services  Compensation of Air Carriers

Counsel:  Association of Air Medical Services


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 29, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Request of Atlas Air for an Additional 45 Days, to Submit the Independent Auditor's Report Compensation of Air Carriers

This is to request an additional 45 days, until June 30, for Atlas Air to submit the independent auditor's report required to accompany its final Application for Compensation pursuant to the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, and the Final Rule on Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers, 67 Fed. Reg. 18468 (April 16, 2002). Atlas is preparing its application, can readily complete Form 330 incorporating all pertinent information by the May 16, 2002 deadline, and expects to submit the application by that date. However, it appears highly unlikely that Atlas will be able within the allotted time to also submit, as required by 49 C.F.R. § 330.37, an independent public accountant's report based upon the performance of agreed-upon-procedures (AUPs) satisfactory to the Department with respect to the Atlas Air's forecast and actual results. While the AUPs have been under discussion for some time, they did not become available in their final form until April 16, 2002. Moreover, within the past few weeks Atlas Air has hired a new comptroller, who will need a reasonable amount of time to prepare to assist in this project. In addition, the report on Atlas Air's application will be prepared by its new independent public accountant, Ernst and Young, and that firm will also will require some time to become familiar with Atlas Air's accounts and back-up documentation. Atlas believes it will be possible to overcome these obstacles within an additional 45 days, and therefore requests (1) that it be permitted to file its application on time without an accompanying independent public accountant's report, and (2) that it be given an extension of time, until June 30, 2002, to submit the independent public accountant's report.

By:  Atlas Air, John Holum

OST-01-10885 May 1, 2002 Correction to Comments of Sierra Club Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Sierra Club, Dickson Hingson 

OST-01-10885 April 30, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Airlift Northwest Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Airlift Northwest, Michael Copass

OST-01-10885 April 19, 2002
Docketed May 1, 2002
Comments of Shannon AirMed1  Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Shannon AirMed1, Rod Gardner


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 25, 2002
Docketed May 3, 2002
Comments of HealthNet Aeomedical Services Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  HealthNet Aeomedical Services, George Sovick,

OST-01-10885 May 3, 2002 Comments of National Air Transportation Association Compensation of Air Carriers

NATA is pleased that the Department of Transportation has acknowledged the disparate compensation provided air taxi operators under previous compensation formulas. However, we are concerned that the new set-aside filing requirements pose an unnecessary hardship upon the very small business the set-aside was intended to assist.  In the previous two rounds of application and compensation, the department did not require data to be segregated by type of operation as is now the case. It was not unreasonable of operators applying for compensation to believe that they would not need to separate this data in the future. However, under the new third-round regulations, such operators who are unable to segregate data will likely be required to return any funds previously received under the first- and second-round payouts.

By:  National Air Transportation Association, Joseph Burnside


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 26, 2002
Docketed May 7, 2002
Comments of Nicholas Sanders Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Nicholas Sanders

OST-01-10885 May 7, 2002 Comments of Capital Cargo International Airlines Compensation of Air Carriers

The criteria for determining which carriers need apply full Agreed Upon Procedures, and those that apply simplified procedures should not be based on ASMs or RTMs but rather the materiality of the loss reimbursement requested. The current methodology could require a carrier that has a certain level of ASMs or RTMs perform full AUPs when the carrier's actual loss reimbursement is relatively small. This could unfairly burden the carrier despite the difference in claim size.

By:  Todd Hunter


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 May 9, 2002 Comments of Jet Arizona Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Jet Arizona, James Swartz


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 April 23, 2002
Docketed May 14, 2002
Letter form the Honorable Charles Schumer to Norman Mineta, Secretary, Regarding the Final Rule on Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  United States Senate, Honrorable Charles Schumer

OST-01-10885 May 14, 2002 Comments of Emery Air Freight Corporation Compensation of Air Carriers

EAFC is filing this supplement because it is concerned that certain of the comments filed by the Cargo Airline Association, a trade association of which EAFC is a member, may be misconstrued as an endorsement by the entire CAA membership of the now rejected prohibition on direct and indirect carriers both claiming the RTMs from their joint operations.

By:  Venable Baetjer, James Pitts


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 May 14, 2002 Request for Extension on Behalf of Air Ambulance Services Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Association of Air Medical Services, Dawn Mancuso

OST-01-10885 May 14, 2002 Comments of Guardian Air a division of Flagstaff Medical Center Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Guardian Air, Jeanine Hanson


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 May 15, 2002
Docketed May 16, 2002
Request of New England Life Flight for Extension Compensation of Air Carriers

By:  Boston MedFlight, Suzanne Wedel


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

OST-01-10885 August 16, 2002 Final Rule - Federal Register Copy (August 20, 2002)

Final Rule - Federal Register Pre-Publication

HTML

Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act - Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers
    Attachment:  Part 330 - Procedures for Compensation  

We view the legislative history of the Act as consistent with our interpretation of the meaning of its language. Congress enacted the statute at a time when its members, and many other observers, believed that the air carrier industry as a whole would suffer immediate and prolonged financial losses as a result of the terrorist attacks. Congress was concerned that the effect of both the order and the public's fear of flying would force individual carriers and the industry as a whole over the brink of collapse, with devastating impacts on the rest of the United States economy.

It is our view that Congress intended the compensation payments to serve as a stabilizing force for individual air carriers and for the industry. The purpose of the payments was to mitigate or prevent losses as a way of preventing bankruptcies, massive service disruptions and additional layoffs. In this context, we are not persuaded by claims that a carrier is entitled to be compensated for temporary losses suffered during the Federal ground stop order, when that same carrier returned to profitability and actually achieved better-than-forecasted profits during the remainder of 2001. Nor are we persuaded that a carrier's ground stop losses necessarily reduced the overall profitability of the company over the entire post-September 11 period; as noted, some and potentially all of those losses were only temporary in nature, and experience suggests that some carriers, especially cargo carriers, did better than expected after September 11 because of such September 11-related factors as increased shipments of military cargo, diversion of cargo to all-cargo aircraft from combi aircraft, etc. Again, we do not believe the Act requires, or Congress intended, to provide compensation to carriers in such situations.

The Department is interested in Form 330 (Final) and the information and records that bear on the numbers in that form. In reviewing applications, the Department requests additional supporting information and documents where needed for the Department to make a proper determination. With respect to timetable, we have paid out over $4.3 billion of the $5 billion that was appropriated, and we remain committed to making the remaining payments as soon as possible. With respect to publishing the final denominators, the Department has adjusted the denominators with each round to reflect the latest information and experience. At this time, the final numbers have still not been determined because of late filed data. Any air carrier paid under the formula can readily determine the denominator used in calculating its payment by using its own ASM or RTM total and $4.5 billion and $500 million, respectively. We have not made the minor edits to Form 330 (Final) suggested by ATA because most carriers were able to complete the form without confusion, and where there were inconsistencies the Department was able to readily resolve them.

By:  Read C. Van de Water


Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

May 2, 2003

OST-01-10885 - Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act - Procedures for Compensation of Air Carriers

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | Federal Register Final Publication

We are considering changes to the definitions for the two classes of set-aside air carrier in 14 CFR 330.43. Class I would now consist of those carriers reporting 75,000 or fewer ASMs to the Department for the month of August 2001, while Class II would consist of those reporting between 75,001 and 10 million ASMs for that month. The set-aside formula for Class I carriers would be based on a mean ASM rate for that class of $0.984 per ASM. The formula for Class II carriers would be based on the rate of $0.984 for each of the first 75,000 ASMs, and $0.24 for each ASM from 75,001 to 10 million. Use of these mean ASM rates would not reduce the payments any set-aside carrier has received. They would increase the maximum possible payment for set-aside carriers that reported 310,000 or fewer ASMs, but, primarily, would increase payments to the smallest carriers in that group.

Comments on the subject of this proposed rule must be received on or before May 19, 2003.

By: Read C. Van de Water


July 29, 2003

OST-01-10885 - Compensation of Air Carrier

Final Rule - Federal Register Publication

This rule adjusts the amount of compensation available to two classes of carriers under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. The effect of the change permits increased compensation for some small air carriers. DATES: This rule is effective July 29, 2003.

By: Steven Hatley


Home | OST Filings by Number | OST Orders and Notices | OST Filings by Carrier
OST Filings by Proceeding | OST Filings by Day | Office of Intl Aviation Filings by Carrier | Office of Intl Filings by Day