BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________________________ Application of ) ) AMERICAN AIRLINES , INC. ) ) Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3491 for an exemption ) Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3932 pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11.15 ) ( Lansing, Michigan

– Washington, D.C.) )

_______________________________________________ )

CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF AMERI C AN AIRLINES , INC. TO

APPLICATION OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC AND ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. ( Lansing, Michigan

– Washington, D.C. ) Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:
Howard Kass Vice President

– Regulatory Affairs Abigail Donovan Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs American Airlines, Inc. 1101 17 th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326

- 5153 howard.kass@aa.com abigail.donovan@aa.com September 24 , 20151 BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_______________________________________________ Application of ) ) AMERICAN AIRLINES , INC. ) ) Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3491 for an exemption ) Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3932 pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11.15 ) ( Lansing, Michigan

– Washington, D.C.) )

_______________________________________________ )

CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES , INC. TO

APPLICATION OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC AND ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. ( Lansing, Michigan

– Washington, D.C. ) On August 11, 2015, American 1 petition ed the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) for an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 93.123, and from any other relevant re gulation, to preserve the nonstop service between Lansing , Michigan’s , Capital Region International Airport (“LAN”) and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (“DCA”), that Sun Country will terminate on October 1, 2015 (“American Application”)

. On August 28, 2015, the FAA published the Summary of American’s petition in the Federal Register, and established a 20

- day period for
inter ested parties to file comments

. 2 On September 15, 2015, Delta filed an answer to the American Application, 3 as well as its own application for LAN

- DCA service. 4 American hereby replies to the Delta Answer, and answers in opposition to the Delta Applicatio n.

1 Common names are used for carriers. 2 See Summary Notice No. 2015

- 53, Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; American Airlines, Inc., 80 Fed. Reg. 52359 (“Summary Notice”)

. The 20

- day comment period ended September 17, 2015. 3 See Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc., September 15, 201 5, Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3491 (“Delta Answer”). 4 See Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc., September 15, 2015, Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3932 (“Delta Application”).2

I. THE ONLY RELEVANT ISSUE IS ACHIEVING THE BEST RESULT FOR LANSING, A SMALL COMMUNITY THAT IS LOSING ITS NONSTOP DCA AIR SERVICE In evaluating the American Application, the FAA must ignore Delta’s attempts to distract it with other issues, and focus on one question: What is the best result for Lansing, a small community whose travelers will lose nonstop access to the entire Washingt on, D.C., metropolitan area through no fault of their own ? The answer, voiced loudly and clearly by the LAN community and the broader M id

- Michigan region , is to grant American an exemption for
LAN

- DCA service without delay

. Lansing’s Capital Region Airpor t Authority (“CRAA”) has filed multiple pleadings and letters demonstrating their support for American , as well as empirical evidence that American is
the best choice to provide LAN

- DCA service. In the wake of an economic impact analysis conducted by Trillion Aviation , Inc. showing the substantially greater economic benefits American would provide, the CRAA Board passe d a formal resolution declaring its support for the American Applicat ion. 5 O ver 1, 1 00 letters of support filed by Mid

- Michigan political leaders, business executives, and residents all attest that American is the community’s choice to
continue LAN

- DCA service

. The community has spoken. FAA should hear it and respond by granting an exemption to American for LAN
- DCA service.

5 See Additional Comments of the Capital Region Airport Authority in Support of the Application of America n Airlines, Inc. for an Exemption, September 24, 2015, Docket FAA

- 2015

- 3491 with attached Capital Region Airport Authority Resolution # 15

- 27, September 23, 2015

.3

II. THE FAA DOES NOT NEED TO ESTABLISH A CARRIER SELECTION CASE
Delta seek s to draw out the evaluation process by urging “the FAA, in conjunction with DOT, to establish a carrier selection cas e for the allocation of this DCA capacity, should it be
deemed available.” 6 Delta’s position is wrong on two counts.
A. Incumbency Does Not Affect t he Availability of an Exemption Delta’s assertion that exemption relief is not available to American because it is an incumbent is a canard. 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 does not mention incumbency

– the two tests it lists involve the pub lic interest and safety. E xemptions are available to any carrier that can satisfy
both tests, and indeed, there are numerous examples of exemp tions being granted to carriers to
maintain existing service that would otherwise be lost. 7

B. The FAA Already Established the Procedural Calendar
T he FAA does not need to establish a nother procedural calendar and/or a carrier selection
case because it alread y determined the procedural calendar when it published the Summary Notice in the Federal Register and establish ed the 20

- day period for public comment on the
American Application

. 8 During this period, only two parties filed pleadings : Delta , who was the only carrier to oppose the American Application and file an application of its own ; and the CRAA who has filed multiple pleadings in support of American’s proposal. The FAA has the complete set of applications for LAN

- DCA service , and the record is complete

. Further delay in awarding American the right to operate LAN

- DCA helps Delta and
harms M id

- Michigan air travelers. Delta is the largest carrier at LAN, and any delay in granting an exemption to American prevents the introduction of new competition.

6 Delta Application, p. 1. 7 See American Application, p. 16, Figure 4 for a comprehensive list. 8 To American’s knowledge, the FAA has never previously held a formal carrier selection proceeding to evaluate the grant of an exemption under 14 CFR § 93.123.4

Sun Country advised FAA on May 1, 2015, that it was retu r ning its LAN

- DCA service exemption

. Delta had over three months to apply for LAN

- DCA service, and was asked by the CRAA to operate LAN

- DCA after Sun Country’s departure, but decli ned. 9 Only after American applied to preserve LAN

- DCA service did Delta feign interest in protecting service to the Nation’s Capital for Mid

- Michigan travelers , by filing a copy
- cat application that proposed nearly identical slot times and equipment as Am erican

. The FAA should not permit Delta to effectively re
- start this proceeding and prolong the evaluation of American’s exemption request for its own commercial benefit. To do so would only exacerbate the harm to the Mid

- Michigan region by prolonging the time LAN is without nonstop service to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Instead, the FAA should immediately grant an exemption to American to continue LAN

- DCA service.

III. CONTRARY TO DELTA’S ASSERTION, ASHBACKER DOES NOT APPLY
A. The American Applica tion and Delta Application Are N ot Mutually Exclusive Contrary to Delta’s suggestion, 10 Ashbacker 11 do es not apply to the matter at hand. In
Ashbacker , the Supreme Court held that, “where two bona fide applications are mutually
exclusive , the grant of one without a hearing deprives the loser of the opportunity which Congress chose to give him.” 12 However, the American Application and Delta Application are not mutually exclusive.

9 Delta was only interested in working with the CRAA to apply for a Small Community Air Service Development grant which would provide Delta a revenue guarantee for service between LAN and Atlanta. 10 See Delta Answer, p. 1, fn1. 11 See Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC , 326 U.S. 327 (1945). 12 See 326 U.S., at 333 (emphasis added).5

Just as FAA ha d authority under 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 to grant an exem ption to Sun Country for an operation exceeding the High Density Rule (“HDR”) limit, FAA has the

same authority to grant exemption s to both American and Delta should it decide to do so

. 13 Furthermore, granting exemptions to both American and Delta would not “render the HDR meaningless”. 14 The FAA and DOT have previously granted exemptions to the HDR for
communities in danger of losing nonstop DCA service. 15 Lansing has supported its nonstop
DCA service for nearly four years, and benefited from previous FA A action to protect it. 16

F urther FAA action to protect existing LAN

- DCA service will not create a sudden influx of HDR exemption requests for DCA service because granting the American A pplication does not change the number of operations at DCA. Indeed, other carriers that usu ally participate in DCA slot proceedings did not apply or comment on the American A pplication as they underst ood this is a proceeding about M id

- Michigan air service to DCA.
B. Delta’s Result

- Focused Interpret ation of Ashbacker is Incor rect Delta’s suggestion that FAA must grant an unlimited number of exemptions, or else
violate Ashbacker is incorrect. 17 Ashbacker was not concerned with ensuring an equal outcome for applicants ; rather, it ensure s all applicants are required to meet the s ame standard , regardless of which applicant files first

. 18
Unlike the facts in Ashbacker , FAA does not need to take an exemption fro m American to give it to Delta

. Moreover, the standard for evaluating the Delta Application remains the same

13 T he safety prong does not prevent the FAA from issuing exemptions to both American and Delta. In granting the exemption to Sun Country, FAA stated: “Air traffic control procedures ensure the safety of operations conducted at DCA regardless of the total number of operations authorized .” (Exempti on No. 10466, March 2, 2012, Docket FAA

- 2012

- 0089, p.2 (emphasis added).) 14 Delta Answer, p. 1, fn1. 15 See American Application, pp. 15

- 16. 16 See American Application, pp. 13

- 14. 17 See Delta Answer, p. 1, fn1. 18 See 326 U.S., at 332.6

after the American Application is granted

– Delta must “show (1) why granting the request is in the public interest... and (2) why granting the request would not adversely affect safety or would provide an equivalent level of safety provided by the rule.” 19 FAA is well within its legal authority to grant American’s application as satisf ying the criteria set forth in 14 C.F.R. § 11.81, then conduct an independent evaluation of the Delta Application using the same standard.

IV. CONCLUSION Delta’s Application is nothing more than a n effort to delay American from beginning
LAN service , stymieing the introduction of a new competitor and alliance network into the Mid

Michigan air service market , and further prolonging the time LAN is without nonstop air service

to the Nation’s Capital

. The FAA should ignore both Delta’s attempt to re

- start the evaluation of the American Application, and its claims that Ashbacker must be applied.

19 Exemption No. 10466, March 2, 2012, Docket FAA

- 2012

- 0089, p. 2 (emphasis added).7

The Lansing community and greater Mid

- Michigan region have spoken loudly and clearly. They want American to provide continued LAN

- DCA service. Time is of the essence

– Mid

- Michigan travelers will lose DCA service on October 1, 2015. The FAA should heed the community’s calls of support for the American Application

. Accordingly, American Airlines respectfully requests that the FAA grant its petition for an exemption to maintain service between LAN and DCA without further delay.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________ Howard Kass Vice President

– Regulatory Affairs Abigail Donovan Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs American Airlines, Inc. 1101 17 th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 326

- 5153 howard.kass@aa.com abigail.donovan@ aa.com