BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

________________________ _____________ ) In the matter of the application of ) ) Docket DOT-OST-2010-0072 VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. D/B/A GOL ) ) for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. §41301 )

________________________ _____________ )

OBJECTION OF US AIRWAYS, INC. Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Howard Kass Vice President – Legal and Government Affairs Benjamin T. Slocum Director and Assistant General Counsel US Airways, Inc. 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-5153 howard.kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com August 28, 20121 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

________________________ _____________ ) In the matter of the application of ) ) Docket DOT-OST-2010-0072 VRG LINHAS AEREAS S.A. D/B/A GOL ) ) August 28, 2012 for an exemption from 49 U.S.C. §41301 )

________________________ _____________ )

OBJECTION OF US AIRWAYS, INC. US Airways, Inc. 1 hereby objects to the request of GOL for the renewal of its exemption authority to engage in “charter foreign air transporta tion of persons, property, and mail between the United States and Brazil, and on other charters ....” (Application of GOL, August 9, 2012, Do cket DOT-OST-2010-0072, p.1.) 1. US Airways presently holds seven of the 105 GRU-eligible frequencies after the Department of Trans portation (“Department”) reallo cated these frequencies to US Airways and notified t he Brazilian government. ( See Notice of Action Taken, August 2, 2010, Dockets DOT-OST-2010-0183 and DOT-OST-2009-0003.) However, US Airways remains unable serve Sao Paulo-G uarulhos (GRU) – Brazil’s largest O&D

market. 2. For over two years, US Airways has worked with the Brazilian government to achieve a clear path to GRU service. This includes reaching an agreement with Infraero in late-April 2011 that resolved US Airways’ issues at GRU, and established that US Airways would start service in late-2012 (“Agreement”). 2

1 Common names are used for carriers. 2 US Airways agreed to delay the st art of its service to avoid commencing service during a period of runway construction that further limited airport capacity.Objection of US Airways to Application of GOL

2 3. Subsequent to the Agreemen t, US Airways learned that airport construction delays would affect its late- 2012 start date. Nevertheless, US Airways understood the rest of the Ag reement remained intact, and continued working to begin GRU service at a date to be agreed upon. 4. However, at an Apr il 2012 meeting to establish t he new start date for US Airways’ GRU service, Infraero informed US Ai rways that because of the privatization of GRU, it could not honor the Agreement concerning US Airways’ service. Furthermore, no decisions would be made until the new privat e operator of GRU t ook control of the airport. US Airways was then informed that Infraero and the new private operator had not yet begun conversations abo ut operating the airport. 5. Since that April 2012 m eeting, US Airways continues its efforts in Brazil to

re-establish a timeline for comme ncement of GRU service, in cluding multiple meetings with the new private operator of GRU. 6. US Airways objects to the renewal of GOL’s exemption authority for

charter service between the Un ited States and Brazil, at a time when U.S. carriers cannot fully utilize all of t he negotiated rights they are ent itled to under the Agreement

between the Government of t he Federative Republic of Br azil and the Government of the United States of America, signed on March 21, 1989, and subsequent bilateral agreements (“U.S.-Brazil Agreements”), such as using GRU-eligible frequencies toObjection of US Airways to Application of GOL

3 serve GRU. 3 Granting these rights would continue the compet itive imbalance between

carriers with and without access to GRU. 4 7. The Department has previously de clined to grant additional rights to foreign carriers where there were concerns about overall market acce ss. For example, when Delta and Aeroflot requested to implem ent a reciprocal codeshare arrangement, American and United complained t hat the Russian authorities re fused to authorize their third-country codeshare arrangements, despite permissive language in the U.S.-Russia

bilateral. 5 As a result, the Depar tment waited nearly two years – a period that included another round of bilateral negotiations in wh ich the third-country codesharing language was amended, and assurances were provided by the Russian government that such arrangements would be approved – to appr ove the Delta-Aeroflot arrangement. 6 Similarly, the Department has previously declined to grant additional rights to foreign carriers where new entrants could not serve specific airports in the foreign carrier’s home country. Exampl es of this include the deferral of US Airways and bmi’s request to codeshare between t he U.S. and London-Gatwick afte r Continental objected, citing a lack of access to London airports, including London-Heathrow; 7 and denying

3 The Brazilian government has repeatedly cited domes tic laws and local issues as barriers to GRU service. However, as the Brazilian government crea ted these issues, it could resolve them as well. 4 GOL obtained exemption authority to provide sche duled service between Brazil and the United States, after stating that it intended to begin service between GRU and Miami, Flor ida, via Caracas, Venezuela. ( See Notice of Action Taken, April 3, 2012, Docket DOT-OST-2012-0039.) 5 See Docket DOT-OST-2007-26805. 6 See Notice of Action Taken, November 10, 2008, Docket DOT-OST-2007-26805. See also Docket DOT-OST-2006-26106 (delaying the approval of Northwest-Aeroflot codesharing 25 months). 7 See Notice of Action Taken, October 1, 2004, Docket DOT-OST-2004-18932.Objection of US Airways to Application of GOL

4 United and bmi’s request for ex tra-bilateral authority to pr ovide codeshare service at London-Heathrow, following the objections of Continental, Delta, and Northwest. 8 8. Accordingly, US Airways requests that the Department deny GOL’s Application for a Statement of Authorization until such time as US Airways can serve GRU using the rights negotiat ed by the Department and in cluded in the U.S.-Brazil Agreements.

WHEREFORE, US Airways respectfully requests that the Department deny GOL’s Application for Renewal of an Exemption until such time as US Airways is able to serve GRU, as discussed herein. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Benjamin T. Slocum Howard Kass Vice President – Legal and Government Affairs Benjamin T. Slocum Director and Assistant General Counsel US Airways, Inc. 1401 H Street, NW, Suite 1075 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 326-5153 howard.kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com August 28, 2012

8 See Notice of Action Taken, December 3, 2003, Docket DOT-OST-2003-15758.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on August 28, 2012, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Objection of US Airways, Inc. by em ail upon those addressees listed below: urskr@state.gov esta.rosenberg@dot.gov brian.hedberg@dot.gov brett.kruger@dot.gov john.allen@faa.gov dan.weiss@united.com steve.morrissey@united.com jonathan.linde@united.com robert.wirick@aa.com francis.heil@aa.com james.kaleigh@aa.com sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com charles.donley@squiresanders.com rbkeiner@crowell.com gmurphy@crowell.com lhalloway@crowell.com

/s/ Benjamin T. Slocum

Benjamin T. Slocum