### July 22, 2011

Continental Airlines, Inc. and United Air Lines, In c. are commonly owned by United Continental Holdings, Inc. as a result of the merger completed on October 1, 2010. United and Continental have provided a Transition Plan which has been acce pted by the FAA and for which Operation Specification A502 has been issued in anticipation of a Single Operating Certificate (SOC) being granted in late 2011. The final operating certific ate will be the current Continental Airlines certificate (CALA014A). With the transition activities underway, the purpos e of this letter is to request approval for an exemption from a single regulation to ensure a smoo th transition to a Single Operating Certificate.

Applicable Regulation & Extent of Relief Requested The carriers are following the process outlined in 14 CFR 11 in requesting a one-time exemption from the regulation cited below:

§121.291 Demonstration of emergency evacuation pr ocedures.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each certificate holder must conduct an ac tual demonstration of emergency evacuation procedures in accordance wi th paragraph (a) of appendix D to this part to show that each type and model of airplane with a seating capacity of mo re than 44 passengers to be used in its passenger-c arrying operations allows the evacuation of the full capaci ty, including crewmembers, in 90 seconds or less.

(1) An actual demonstration need not be conducted i f that airplane type and model has been shown to be in compliance with this paragraph in effect on or afte r October 24, 1967, or, if during type certificatio n, with §25.803 of this chapter in effect on or after Decem ber 1, 1978.

(2) Any actual demonstration conducted after Septem ber 27, 1993, must be in accordance with paragraph (a) of appendix D to this part in effect on or after th at date or with §25.803 in effect on or after that date.

(b) Each certificate holder conducting operations w ith airplanes with a seating capacity of more than 44 passengers must conduct a partial demonstration of emergency e vacuation procedures in accordance with paragraph ( c) of this section upon:

(1) Initial introduction of a type and model of air plane into passenger-carrying operation;

(2) Changing the number, location, or emergency eva cuation duties or procedures of flight attendants w ho are required by §121.391; or

(3) Changing the number, location, type of emergenc y exits, or type of opening mechanism on emergency exits available for evacuation. Safety & Regulatory Compliance Post Office Box 4607 HQSSY Houston, TX 77210-4607 Tel 713 324 8598 Fax 713 324 8538 continental.com(c) In conducting the partial demonstration require d by paragraph (b) of this section, each certificat e holder must:

(1) Demonstrate the effectiveness of its crewmember emergency training and evacuation procedures by conducting a demonstration, not requiring passenger s and observed by the Administrator, in which the f light attendants for that type and model of airplane, usi ng that operator's line operating procedures, open 50 percent of the required floor-level emergency exits and 50 percent of the required non-floor-level eme rgency exits whose opening by a flight attendant is define d as an emergency evacuation duty under §121.397, a nd deploy 50 percent of the exit slides. The exits and slides will be selected by the administrator and m ust be ready for use within 15 seconds;

(2) Apply for and obtain approval from the certific ate-holding district office before conducting the demonstration;

(3) Use flight attendants in this demonstration who have been selected at random by the Administrator, have completed the certificate holder's FAA-approved tra ining program for the type and model of airplane, a nd have passed a written or practical examination on t he emergency equipment and procedures; and

(4) Apply for and obtain approval from the certific ate-holding district office before commencing opera tions with this type and model airplane.

(d) Each certificate holder operating or proposing to operate one or more landplanes in extended overw ater operations, or otherwise required to have certain equipment und er §121.339, must show, by simulated ditching condu cted in accordance with paragraph (b) of appendix D to this part, that it has the ability to efficiently carry out its ditching procedures. For certificate holders subject to §121 .2(a)(1), this paragraph applies only when a new ty pe or model airplane is introduced into the certificate holder' s operations after January 19, 1996.

(e) For a type and model airplane for which the sim ulated ditching specified in paragraph (d) has been conducted by a part 121 certificate holder, the requirements of pa ragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of appendix D t o this part are complied with if each life raft is removed from sto wage, one life raft is launched and inflated (or on e slide life raft is inflated) and crewmembers assigned to the inflated life raft display and describe the use of each item of required emergency equipment. The life raft or slide life ra ft to be inflated will be selected by the Administr ator.



### The specific portions of the regulation which impac t the scenario at hand are sub (b) and sub (e). Relief from the regulatory requirement for partial evacuation and ditching demonstrations for the Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A319/A320 is requested. This request is made following a detailed risk assessment which determined that operating exp erience, personnel controls, lack of procedural change, training quality and enhanced fr equency of emergency training have established an equivalent level of safety.

Risk Evaluation and Equivalent Level of Safety The following are key factors in the determination that United Airlines should be granted the requested relief:

• The Boeing 747 was first introduced to the Continen tal certificate in 1970.

• United has 21+ years of operation of the B747

• United has 17+ years of operation of the A319/320

• Successful prior evacuation demonstrations have bee n conducted by United for each type:

o B747-400 – April 2008 upon interior reconfiguration

o A319/320 – December 1993 upon introduction of the t ype

• Continental’s approved evacuation procedures were i ncorporated into United’s Flight Attendant Operations Manual (FAOM) March 29, 2011. In additi on, computer-based training on these procedures was initiated on the same date. Effecti ve April 15, 2011, seven months in advance of the projected issuance of an SOC, United flight att endants participating in 2011 recurrent training are completing hands-on drills for each aircraft ut ilizing these procedures.

• United flight attendants are currently flying the B 747-400 and A320 aircraft with these evacuation procedures without a requirement for partial evacuation demons trations . Thesechanges in procedures are already in use today, hav ing been deemed safe for passenger carriage.

This is not a new factor being introduced at SOC.

• By the projected SOC date 71% of active flight atte ndants will have completed Recurrent Emergency Training (RET) and 100% will have accompl ished Integration training via eLearning including a comprehensive review of emergency proce dures with more than 20 knowledge validation assessments specific to evacuation proce dures required for each participant.

• Conducting a single partial evacuation demonstratio n using a randomly selected crew to demonstrate procedures currently in use on the airc raft will not validate the efficacy of the procedures. The on-going training and associated k nowledge validation/testing of all United flight attendants of their understanding of the end -state emergency procedures provides a more thorough confirmation of flight attendant competenc y than would be achieved through a partial
evacuation demonstration.

• All such changes related to evacuation procedures h ave been completed under the FAA approval process for such procedures including ensuring comp atibility between flight deck and cabin procedures.

o A thorough review of both carrier’s procedures veri fied that a high degree of similarity existed between the two carrier’s emergency procedu res prior to the merger

• Currently, both carriers exceed FAA requirements by conducting flight attendant hands-on emergency training on a 12-month interval in lieu o f the 24 months required by regulation.

• Actual in-service performance has demonstrated safe ty through expeditious, safe and successful evacuations. From 2008 to date, United has had sev en aircraft evacuations. Of them, two resulted in minor passenger/crew injuries (treated and relea sed at the scene), and one had a serious injury (to a crewmember) resulting in a broken bone. Four of the seven events experienced a single
blocked door exit due to an unusable slide. These door failures were attributed to various failures and the performance is consistent with the expectat ions set forth in evacuation scenarios.

• Extensive controls are in place to prevent pre-merg er crewmembers from operating aircraft until appropriate transition training is complete:

o United crewmembers and mechanics are not being hire d, but moved as part of an A502 controlled merger, to the CALA014A certificate.

o Crewmembers on the United aircraft moving to the Co ntinental certificate will be fenced by the contract and each group cannot and will not fly the other group’s aircraft.

o This condition will continue until a single contrac t is negotiated which permits crossfleeting, a single seniority list is established an d technology and process integration involving crew scheduling and tracking can be accom plished. These steps are not forecast to be completed until 2013.

o Further, each carrier’s scheduling system will not recognize or accept employee numbers from the opposite carrier. This fact becomes a str ict control prohibiting the possibility of crossing of personnel until appropriate procedural and technical hurdles have been met.

The carrier believes such controls are more than su fficient to demonstrate a steady-state condition will exist at SOC without changes in assigned perso nnel on these fleet types.



### In conclusion, extensive operating history with the se aircraft types, including demonstrated capabilities to train flight deck, cabin, and maint enance crew personnel as well as the on-going successful operation of the equipment, provides a v alidation of the carrier’s ability in a manner far better than accomplishment of a demonstration. Controls introduced by the Carriers ensure no changes in process, people, or planes are occurr ing at the time SOC is granted. On the day of

### SOC the operation will be unchanged from the day pr ior and follow months of steady state

operation and enhanced training, establishing a cle ar equivalent level of safety.

Resourcing Impacts & Public Interest The costs of accomplishment of the emergency evacua tion and/or ditching demonstration are significant in terms of both financial and resource commitments for both the carrier and the FAA. Costs include aircraft out of service time, s lide repack requirements in light of scarcity of 747-400 slide assemblies, as well as travel require ments for both carrier and FAA resources. Avoidance of these direct and indirect costs for an ineffective demonstration runs contrary to the public interest. However, more significant is the resource drain imp osed on both FAA and Carrier resources dedicated to the integration project. United foresees further benefit to safety due to Co mpany and FAA resources remaining focused on managing the integration process in ways which have a potential to manage risk far more effectively than these demonstrations. Resources being committed to a task for which an equivalent level o f safety has been shown runs contrary to the public interest. Further, minor injuries are common to participants during completion of even partial evacuation demonstrations. In light of this likelihood, condu cting such a demonstration after an equivalent level of safety has been shown runs contrary to the public interest.

Past Precedent for Exemption In 1992, Continental Micronesia (CMI) was granted E xemption 5525 waiving the requirement to conduct demonstrations on the B727 and DC-10 based upon demonstrations having previously been accomplished by Continental and a common set o f emergency procedures in use by crewmembers from both carriers. The FAA summarized the carrier’s filing as follows in the exemption: “CMI submits that these requirements have, in effec t, already been met. They were met by CAL utilizing its flight attendants in Boeing 72 7-100 and -200 series aircraft as well as McDonnell-Douglas DC-10-10 and -30 series aircra ft. These are the same aircraft which will be transferred from CAL to CMI, and the aircraft will be operated by CMI utilizing the cockpit and cabin crews who are prese ntly serving in the same capacity with CAL. [emphasis added] Section 121.291(b) outlines the circumstances when a partial evacuation demonstration is to take place. Section 121.291(e) details the proce dures for simulated ditching demonstrations. CMI submits that the demonstrations required by the rule have been performed utilizing the same equipment and, philoso phically speaking, by the same people. As indicated above, there will be no material chang e to the airplanes being used by CMI. The airplanes which were being operated by CAL will be transferred to and operated by CMI. CMI flight attendants will come fr om CAL. ” [emphasis added] The FAA agreed with this analysis and granted exemp tion based upon the lack of change in the operation (people, planes and process), which paral lels the scenario described here, stating in part: “The purpose of the evacuation and ditching demonst rations is to confirm the efficacy of the air carrier's emergency evacuation, ditching pr ocedures, and training and maintenance programs. These are only required by the FAR upon t he initial introduction of a type and model of airplane. CAL successfully conducted these demonstrations. The crews at CMI will be from CAL. The FAA notes that CMI indicates that its future op erations will be identical to operations which are presently conducted by CAL, and that CAL has successfully accomplished the required demonstrations.

### The FAA finds that CMI has shown that its proposed exemption would provide a level

of safety equivalent to the regulation. ” [emphasis added] Given the FAA has previously allowed a newly certif icated carrier to avoid demonstrations even when operating in the remote environment of the Sou th Pacific, the granting of approval in the present case seems clearly warranted.

Conclusion & Request for Non-Publication To deny this petition is to put forth that an aircr aft’s change in assigned operating certificate – without any associated change in aircraft, people, or process – somehow results in a potentially unsafe condition warranting an expensive and resour ce-intensive demonstration. An equivalent level of safety has been demonstrated with regard t o the purposes for which the partial evacuation and ditching demonstrations are accompli shed. In light of this equivalency, to require conduct of these demonstrations is not in t he public interest due to the associated costs, resource drain and potential for personal injury. The company requests that processing of its petitio n not be delayed for publication and comments in the Federal Register. Publication woul d cause unnecessary delay to the carriers’ opportunity to avail themselves of the requested re lief and reveal private corporate data contained in this petition. We look forward to your response to this request. S hould you require any additional information to evaluate this request please contact me and I wi ll ensure it is quickly provided.

Sincerely,

Don Gunther Staff Vice President Safety
Continental Airlines