BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.

AND

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for transfer of international route authority under

49 U.S.C. § 40109, 41105

(Los Angeles-Mexico City)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2015-0025

ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Robert J. Cortelyou

Senior Vice President – Network Planning

Joe Esposito, Vice President - Network Planning 

Americas

Amy Martin, Director, Network Planning, Latin 

Amercia

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

1030 Delta Boulevard

Atlanta, Georgia 30320

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director – Regulatory and International 

Affairs & Associate General Counsel

Christopher Walker

Regional Director – Regulatory and International 

Affairs

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005

(202) 842-4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

chris.walker@delta.com

February 26, 2015
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.

AND

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for transfer of international route authority under

49 U.S.C. § 40109, 41105

(Los Angeles-Mexico City)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2015-0025

ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES

Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) hereby answers in opposition to the Joint 

Application of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”) and American Airlines, Inc. (“American”) to 

transfer Alaska’s Los Angeles (LAX) - Mexico City (MEX) exemption authority to 

American. American proposes to offer two (2) daily frequencies in the market. Today 

Delta is filing a superior competing application for three (3) daily LAX-MEX flights which 

will better serve the public interest. Under well settled principles of administrative law 

the Department must institute a route case to decide the merits of the competing 

applications.1

 

American and Alaska inappropriately rely on the certificate transfer provisions of 

49 U.S.C. 41105 to support their request for transfer of limited term exemption and 

designation authority. These authorities are limited in nature and are expressly subject 

to revocation and reallocation provisions. In Order 97-11-35 the Department made 

1 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327 (1945)

 
Delta Answer

Page 2

clear that the certificate transfer provisions of section 41105 do not apply to frequency or 

exemption allocations: 

The case before us is a frequency allocation case. While some of the parties 

have invoked route transfer cases as precedential guidance, the transfer 

language of the act relates to the transfer of certificate authority. Frequency 

allocations are not certificate awards. We have traditionally deemed them to be 

in the nature of exemption authority. As with exemptions we typically grant 

frequency authority for a limited period of time – in limited entry markets for no 

more than one year. As with exemptions we award frequency allocations on the 

express basis that we may modify or revoke them in our discretion and without 

hearing. Furthermore we make frequency allocations subject to a 90 day 

dormancy provision whereby frequencies automatically revert to the Department 

if they are not being used by the authorized carrier. Certificate holders, on the 

other hand, have specific rights under the provisions of section 41110 of the Act 

concerning their certificate authority, even in cases where their authority has 

been dormant.

We have treated frequency awards in this fashion because in the limited-service 

markets where we must make such awards we have wanted to preserve 

maximum flexibility to respond to changing conditions, whether in terms of the 

operations of carriers already serving, the interests of carriers that might want to 

serve, the overall state of the applicable bilateral relationship, or any other public 

interest factors. 

Id. at pp 5-6. 

For good reason the Department appropriately and correctly decided that 

temporary exemption and frequency awards should be subject to reevaluation on their 

public interests merits. Just as the Department decided in Order 97-11-35, a route case 

should be instituted here to decide the merits of which competing application – Delta at 

three daily frequencies, or American at two daily frequencies – would best serve the 

public interest. American and Alaska inappropriately rely on merger precedent to 

support this discrete, one-off transaction of exemption authority. Contrary to these 
Delta Answer

Page 3

assertions, DOT and Congress have made clear that different rules apply to wholesale 

mergers; for example, with respect to DCA slot exemptions: 

49 U.S.C. 41714 (j) EXEMPTIONS MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED.—No 

exemption from the requirements of subparts K and S of part 93 of title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations, granted under this section or section 41716, 41717, or 

41718 may be bought, sold, leased, or otherwise transferred by the carrier to 

which it is granted, except through an air carrier merger or acquisition. 

(emphasis added) 

American and Alaska are not merging. American and Alaska are not transferring 

a certificate as contemplated by section 41105. And, the public interest requires a 

thorough and thoughtful examination of the disposition of these temporary exemption 

and designation authorities. 

As detailed in Delta’s Application, Delta has been growing its presence in Los 

Angeles to provide a strong, competitive hub network to United and American which 

have historically dominated service at LAX. The award of LAX-Mexico City Authority to 

Delta will enhance competition at this important gateway. 

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director, Regulatory and 

International Affairs & Associate General 

Counsel

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing Answer has been served this 26th day of February, 2015, 

upon the following persons via email:

Air Carrier Name Email Address

Alaska Airlines David Heffernan dheffernan@cozen.com

Alaska Airlines Marshall Sinick sandysinick@gmail.com

American Howard Kass howard.kass@aa.com

American Robert Wirick robert.wirick@aa.com

Frontier Mark Atwood matwood@cozen.com

Frontier Steve Lachter stephen.lachter@lachterlaw.com

Hawaiian/JetBlue Jonathan Hill jhill@cooley.com

Hawaiian/JetBlue Parker Erkmann perkmann@cooley.com

JetBlue Robert Land robert.land@jetblue.com

Republic Bob Cohn robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

Republic Pat Rizzi patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

Southwest/AirTran Bob Kneisley bob.kneisley@wnco.com

Southwest/AirTran Leslie Abbott leslie.abbott@wnco.com

Spirit Airlines David Kirstein dkirstein@yklaw.com

Spirit Airlines Joanne Young jyoung@yklaw.com

Sun Country John Fredericksen john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

Sun Country Thomas Ting thomas.ting@suncountry.com

United Dan Weiss dan.weiss@united.com

United Thomas Bolling thomas.bolling@united.com

Virgin America Barbara Russell barbara.russell@virginamerica.com

Brian Hedberg brian.hedberg@dot.gov

Robert Finamore robert.finamore@dot.gov

Brett Kruger brett.kruger@dot.gov

Reese Davidson reese.davidson@dot.gov

Info info@airlineinfo.com