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.)

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 17th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 326-5153

howard.kass@aa.com

abigail.donovan@aa.com

September 24, 2015
 

1

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, American1petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) 

for an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 93.123, and from any other relevant regulation, 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 

interested parties to file comments.

2 On September 15, 2015, Delta filed an answer to the 

American Application,3as well as its own application for LAN-DCA service.4 American hereby 

replies to the Delta Answer, and answers in opposition to the Delta Application.

 

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, 2015, 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 Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area through no fault of their own? The answer, voiced loudly and clearly by the 

LAN community and the broader Mid-Michigan region, is to grant American an exemption for 

LAN-DCA service without delay.

Lansing’s Capital Region Airport 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 passed a formal resolution declaring its support for 

the American Application.5 Over 1,100 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 American 

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 seeks to draw out the evaluation process by urging “the FAA, in conjunction with 

DOT, to establish a carrier selection case 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 the 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 public interest and safety. Exemptions are available to any carrier that can satisfy 

both tests, and indeed, there are numerous examples of exemptions being granted to carriers to 

maintain existing service that would otherwise be lost.7

B. The FAA Already Established the Procedural Calendar

The FAA does not need to establish another procedural calendar and/or a carrier selection 

case because it already determined the procedural calendar when it published the Summary 

Notice in the Federal Register and established 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 Mid-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 returning 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 declined.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 American.

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 Application and Delta Application Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Contrary to Delta’s suggestion,10 Ashbacker11 does 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 had authority under 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 to grant an exemption to 

Sun Country for an operation exceeding the High Density Rule (“HDR”) limit, FAA has the 

same authority to grant exemptions 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 FAA action to protect it.16 

Further 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 Application does not 

change the number of operations at DCA. Indeed, other carriers that usually participate in DCA 

slot proceedings did not apply or comment on the American Application as they understood this 

is a proceeding about Mid-Michigan air service to DCA. 

B. Delta’s Result-Focused Interpretation of Ashbacker is Incorrect

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 ensures all applicants are required to meet the same standard, regardless 

of which applicant files first.

18

 

Unlike the facts in Ashbacker, FAA does not need to take an exemption from American 

to give it to Delta. Moreover, the standard for evaluating the Delta Application remains the same 

 

13 The 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.” (Exemption 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 satisfying 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 an effort to delay American from beginning 

LAN service, stymieing the introduction of a new competitor and alliance network into the MidMichigan 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 17th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 326-5153

howard.kass@aa.com

abigail.donovan@ aa.com