PUBLI C VERSIO N BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . Join t Applicatio n o f AMERICA N AIRLINES , INC . BRITIS H AIRWAY S PL C FINNAI R OYJ IBERI ALINEA S AEREA S D E ESPANA , S.A . ROYA L JORDANIA N AIRLINE S unde r4 9 U.S.C . § § 4130 8 an d 4130 9 fo r approva l o fan d antitrus t immunit yfo r allianc e agreemen t Docke t DOT-OST-2008-025 2

ANSWE R O F VIRGI N ATLANTI C AIRWAY S Communication s wit h respect t o thi s documen t shoul d b e directe d to : Jil l Brad y Genera l Counse l VIRGI N ATLANTI C AIRWAYS , LTD . Th e Office , Mano rRoya l Crawley , Wes t Susse xRH1 0 9N U Unite d Kingdo m Anit a M
. Mosne r Soph yChe n HOLLAN D & KNIGH TLL P 209 9 Pennsylvani a Avenu e NW , Suit e 10 0 Washington , D C 20006-680 1 Phone : (202)419-260 4 Fax : (202 ) 955-556 4 Email : anita.mosner@hklaw.co m Email : sophy.chen@hklaw.co m Attorney s fo r VIRGI N ATLANTI C AIRWAY S LTD . Date : Apri l 14,201 0PUBLI C VERSIO N BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C . Join t Applicatio n o f AMERICA N AIRLINES , INC . BRITIS H AIRWAY S PL C FINNAI R OYJ IBERI ALINEA S AEREA S D E ES P A N A , S.A . ROYA L JORDANIA N AIRLINE S unde r4 9 U.S.C . § § 4130 8 an d 4130 9 fo r approva l o fan d antitrus t immunit yfo r allianc e agreemen t Docke t DOT-OST-2008-025 2

ANSWE R O F VIRGI N ATLANTI C AIRWAY S I . INTRODUCTIO N AN D SUMMAR YO F ARGUMEN T O n February13 , 2010 , th e Departmen t issue d a n orde rwhic h conferre d tentativ e approva l an d antitrus timmunit yupo n variou s member s o fth e oneworl d alliance , an d upo n th e Join t Busines s Agreemen t("JBA" ) betwee n America n Airlines , Britis h Airway s an d Iberia
. Orde r2010-2-8 , "Sho wCaus e Order, " o r"SCO. " O n Marc h 30 , Virgi n Atlanti csubmitte d i n thi s Docke t extensiv e comment s whic h explaine d wh yth e Departmen t shoul d no t confe rAT I upo n thi s deal
. Objectio n o fVirgi n Atlanti cAirway s t o Orde rt o Sho wCaus e ("V S Objection")
. Virgi n Atlanti cals o argue d tha ti fth e Departmen t wer e t o issu e suc h a n approval , i t mus tstrengthe n verysignificantl yth e measure s pu t i n plac e t o remed yth e sever e competitiv e an d consume rharm s threatene d b ythi s alliance
. O n Marc h 30 , th e Join t Applicant s file d thei row n respons e t o th e Sho wCaus e Order
. Join t Applicants ' Comment s o n Sho wCaus e Orde r2010-2- 8 ("J AComments"). I n tha t response , th e Join tApplicant s claime d that , despit e th e finding s mad e b ybot hPUBLI C VERSIO N U.S
. an d Europea n authoritie s tha t th e Join tApplicant s wil l hol d marke tpowe rat Heathro wafte rthei rdea l i s consummated , thei rallianc e shoul d b e approve d outrigh t an d withou t th e applicatio n o fan yremedies
. Id. at 2 . A s Virgi n Atlanti cwil l demonstrat e below , thes e assertion s ignor e real-worl d condition s a t Londo n Heathrow , an d ar e utterl y withou tsupport . Indeed , th e recor d i n thi s cas e support s outrigh tdenia l o fth e Join t Application or , at a bar e minimum , approva l wit h condition s tha t ar e fa rmor e robus t tha n thos e recommende d i n th e Sho wCaus e Order
. II . DISCUSSIO N A . DO TCorrectl yDefine d Heathro wa s a Separat e Relevan t Market . I n thei rresponse , th e Join t Applicant s disput e DOT' S findin g tha t U.S.-Londo n Heathro wi s a separat e relevan tmarket , id. a t 3 , an d argu e tha tther e i s n o reaso n fo r th e Departmen t t o appl yan yremedie s i n thi s case , id. at 4-5 . Indeed , i n thei r comments , th e Join t Applicant s describ e a U.S.-Londo n marke t wher e slot s ar e neithe r scarc e no rexpensiv e an d i n whic h th e marke t fo rthos e slot s i s fluid
. See id. at 2 . The y assert tha tLondo n Heathro wan d Gatwic k Airport s ar e substitute s fo ron e another , id. a t 3 , despit e th e stamped e awa yfro m Gatwic k whic h occurre d afte ral l U.S
. carrier s wer e finall ypermitte d t o serv e Londo n Heathrow , Answe ro fVirgi n Atlanti cAirway s (Ma y 18 , 2009 ) ("V S Answe rI" ) at 10-12 . Th e partie s als o conten d tha ti n thi s marke t passenger s d o no tbu yseat s o n flight s betwee n airports , bu t instea d bas e thei rpurchas e decision s o n "networks. " See J AComment s at3 . Thi s mythica l marke t doe s no t exist
. Th e recor d i s replet e wit h evidenc e tha t slot s at Heathro wremai n bot h scarc e an d costly , an d tha tmechanism s tha tar e i n plac e a t Heathro wt o facilitat e ne wentryhav e consistentl yfaile d t o yiel d an yprim e tim e slots
. ACL/BA ARespons e (Jan
. 8 , 2009 ) at1 , 3 . O n th e issu e o fsubstitutability , th e Join t Applicant s assertth e reaso n fa rmor e passenger s trave l t o Londo n ove rHeathro wPUBLI C VERSIO N instea d o fGatwic k

i s becaus e th e alliance s wan tthe m t o trave l tha t way , an d no t becaus e consumer s deman d this
. J AComment s a t3 ("fT]hi s i s largel ybecaus e o f alliance—no t consumer—preference.")
. Thi s assertio n i s fanciful
. Alliance s an d airline s mak e decision s base d o n thei rassessmen t o fpassenge rdemand
. The ywoul d no t choos e t o operat e at Heathro w(especiall ygive n it s extremel yhig h costs , scarcit yo f slot s an d facilities , an d congestion ) unles s thei rcustomer s strongl ydemande d it
. Th e notio n tha t alliance s see k acces s t o Heathro wfo rreason s unrelate d t o custome r preferenc e i s groundless , an d DO Tshoul d giv e n o credenc e t o thi s baseles s claim
. Alon g similarlines, th e Join tApplicant s assert tha t th e larg e shar e o fslot s the y hol d a t Heathro wshoul d no t b e o fconcer n t o th e Department , o n th e ground s tha t othe r alliance s hol d large rpercentage s o fth e availabl e slot s a tthei row n hom e airports
. Id. a t 4 . A s Virgi n Atlanti cha s noted , thi s i s a compariso n o fapple s an d orange s whic h prove s nothing
. See Repl yo fVirgi n Atlanti c(Jan
. 20 , 2010 ) ("V S Reply" ) at 3 . Heathro wi s completel yfull , an d ther e i s n o chanc e tha t an yne wcapacit yatth e airport wil l becom e availabl e unti l wel l int o th e 2020's
. See ACL/BA ARespons e at 4 ("[T]her e wil l b e n o capacit yincreas e a t Heathro wt o facilitat e ne wtransatlanti cservice s befor e th e opening o fa 3r d runwa yi n aroun d 2015-2020." ) Thi s i s a best-cas e scenario
. Mor e likel ytha n not , a ne wrunwa ycoul d b e partiall yoperationa l befor e 202 0 an d no t full y operationa l unti l a t leas t203 0 du e t o environmenta l constraints
. V S Answe rI at 21 . Indeed , Britis h Airway s CE O Willi e Wals h recentl yacknowledged , "It' s wel l recognize d tha t Heathro wi s full , bu t Madri d ha s capacity, " i n offerin g t o financia l analyst s on e o fth e principa l reason s fo rth e BA-I B merger—th e nee d fo rflexibilit yt o gro wa tMA D give n curren t an d futur e constraint s a tLHR
. "Britis h Airway s Walsh : Heathro wFull , Mor e Slot s Eyed, " Wal l Stree t Journa l (Nov
. 13 , 2009) , available at http://dowjones.de/site / 2009/11/british-airways-walsh-heathrow-full-more-slots-eyed.html
.PUBLI C VERSIO N Th e riva l Europea n hub s ar e no t similarl yconstrained
. Ane wrunwa ya t Frankfurt i s unde rconstructio n an d i s expecte d t o b e place d int o servic e b y2011 , an d i t i s wel l documente d tha t carrier s hav e ampl e roo m t o gro wa t Pari s Charle s d e Gaulle
. Anothe rrelevan t poin t i s tha t th e U.S.-Londo n Heathro wmarke t i s unique—th e marke t i s s o larg e tha t a carrie rwhic h seek s t o b e a n effectiv e competito rther e mus toperat e severa l dail yfrequencie s i n ke ycit ypairs , wherea s comparabl e U.S.-Frankfurt an d U.S.-Pari s market s ar e serve d wit h fa rlowe rfrequency
. Th e Join t Applicant s als o argu e tha tth e possibilit yo fintra-allianc e slo ttransfer s shoul d b e sufficien tt o assur e th e possibilit yo fne wentryat Londo n Heathro wmovin g forward
. J AComment s at 4-5 . Thi s assertio n ignore s th e fac ttha tth e alliance s themselve s nee d t o maintai n a certai n cor e o fshort-hau l service s t o an d fro m Heathro w i n orde rt o mee t th e demand s o floca l an d connectin g travelers , see V S Objectio n at 8 , 14 , an d tha t arriva l an d departur e slot s atcertai n time s o fda yar e virtuall yimpossibl e t o obtain , V S Answe rI at 21-28 . Ofcourse , intra-allianc e transfer s ar e n o answe rat al l fo rnon-aligne d carrier s suc h a s Virgi n Atlantic
. Th e Join t Applicant s attemp t t o sideste p thi s compellin g poin t by arguin g tha t Virgin' s veryshort-ter m lease s o fHeathro wslot s t o thir d partie s shoul d someho wvitiat e Virgi n Atlantic' s wel l supporte d concer n abou t it s futur e acces s t o slots
. J AComment s a t 5 . Whil e curren t economi ccondition s hav e universall ydrive n carrier s t o mak e short-ter m capacit yadjustments , thes e decision s hav e n o bearin g that , i n th e longe rterm , du e t o th e significan tan d recognize d capacit yconstraint s atHeathrow , Virgi n Atlanti c(an d othe rcarriers ) wil l b e unabl e t o expan d servic e t o counterac t th e overwhelmin g dominanc e o fth e Join tApplicant s o n th e overla p routes .PUBLI C VERSIO N B . DO TWa s Correc t t o Impos e Slo t Remedies , bu t Shoul d Hav e Gon e Further . Th e Join t Applicant s als o clai m tha tneithe rriva l alliance s no rVirgi n Atlanti cwil l nee d an yremedie s i n orde rt o compet e effectivel ya tLondo n Heathrow
. Id. A s note d above , th e Join tApplicant s clai m tha t becaus e Virgi n Atlanti cha s lease d certai n o fit s Londo n Heathro wslot s t o othe rcarriers , ne wentrya t Londo n Heathro wi s n o longe r problematic
. Id. Thi s argumen t i s no tpersuasive
. A s Virgi n Atlanti cpreviousl yha s explained , i ti s leasin g a handfu l o fslot s t o tw o short-hau l carrier s o n short-ter m lease s i n respons e t o th e recen t sever e economi cdownturn
. See V S Repl ya t5 . Mor e importantly , give n th e fac t tha tairlin e networ k plannin g i s a long-ter m proposition , th e importan t thin g i s tha t Heathro wslot s ar e veryscarc e an d wil l continu e t o b e veryscarc e fo rth e lon g term . I n fact , Virgi n Atlanti ci s no talon e i n seekin g t o preserv e futur e us e o f it s slots
. Thi s winte rAmerica n Airline s operate d dail yflight s betwee n LH R an d Brussel s wit h a widebod yaircraft , presumabl yt o retai n th e us e o fit s slots
. Give n th e sever e capacit yconstraint s atHeathrow , Virgi n Atlanti ccontinue s t o believ e tha t th e Departmen t shoul d hav e impose d remedie s o n al l o fth e overlappin g U.S.-Londo n Heathro wmarket s serve d b yth e Join tApplicants , an d give n th e significan t marke t share s hel d b yth e Join t Applicants , tha tmor e slot s shoul d hav e bee n mad e availabl e t o potentia l competitors
. Virgi n Atlanti cfurthe rbelieve s tha tthes e slot s shoul d b e mad e availabl e a t n o cos t t o th e ne wentrant. I n respons e t o th e origina l 199 6 announcemen to fth e Join t Applicants ' intentio n t o see k antitrus timmunity , th e U.S
. Genera l Accountin g Offic e (GAO ) expresse d concer n abou t th e competitiv e implication s o fsuc h a n alliance ; i n particular , tha t i fAmerica n Airline s an d Britis h Airway s wer e t o receiv e compensatio n fo ran yslot s the yma ygiv e up , i twoul d increas e th e cost s o f marke tentry . GA O Testimony , T-RCE D 97-103 , "Internationa l Aviation : Competitiv e Issue s i n th e U.S.-U.K
. market, " Testimon yo fJoh n H
. Anderson , Jr
. (Jun
. 4 , 1997) , atPUBLI C VERSIO N 14 . A s Virgi n Atlanti cha s indicated , i ti s especiall ytrouble d b yth e prospecttha t thes e slot s onl yb e mad e availabl e fo ra short-ter m lease , wit h n o clea rrigh to frenewal
. (Virgi n Atlanti cals o raise d severa l concern s abou t th e potentia l administratio n o fth e slo t remedy , whic h wil l no tb e repeate d here. ) Th e Join t Applicant s complai n tha t th e applicatio n o fa slo tremed ywoul d impos e a n allege d "valu e transfer " betwee n themselve s an d other s servin g th e U.S.-Londo n Heathro wmarket
. J AComment s at5 . Thi s assertion—tha tth e remed yimpose d woul d no t b e neede d t o mitigat e a los s o fcompetitio n an d woul d unfairl y"benefit " othe r competitors—i s wel l wid e o fth e mark
. Firs t o fall , th e objectiv e o fth e remedie s doe s no t concer n whethe ro rno t the ybenefi ta n individua l carrier , bu trathe rwhethe rth e remedie s compensat e agains tth e har m don e t o consumers . Th e Join tApplicants ' positio n grossl yunderstate s th e threa t t o competitio n pose d b ythei ralliance
. Second , th e Departmen t ha s propose d tha t th e Join t Applicant s receiv e compensatio n fo rth e us e ofthes e slot s ( a featur e t o whic h Virgi n Atlanti cobjects)
. SC O a t 27 . Third , th e requiremen t tha t carrier s payfo rthes e slot s maycreat e a stron g disincentiv e fo rne w service , a s th e carrie rpayin g fo rthi s slo talread yi s takin g th e considerabl e commercia l ris k o fattemptin g t o compet e agains t a n entrenche d incumbent
. Th e Join t Applicant s als o argu e tha t th e creatio n o f"flex " slot s i s inappropriate , an d tha t thos e slot s shoul d b e require d (a tleas t initially ) t o b e use d a tspecifi cgateway s whic h fac e a los s o fcompetitio n a s a resul to fth e BA-America n quasi-merger
. J A Comment s a t 7 . Thes e market s ar e MIA-LHR , an d DFW-LHR
. Id. Virgi n Atlanti curge s DO Tt o impos e stronge ran d wide rslo t divestitur e condition s tha n thos e whic h wer e propose d i n th e Sho wCaus e Order
. Thus , whil e Virgi n Atlanti cwoul d no tobjec t t o havin g th e "flex " slot s initiall yhel d asid e fo rcarrier s whic h propos e nonsto p servic e betwee n Miam i o rDallas/Ft
. Wort h an d Londo n Heathrow , Virgi n Atlanti cbelieve s tha tPUBLI C VERSIO N th e numbe ro fslot s o n offe rt o d o thi s i s quit e inadequate
. I fth e Departmen t wer e minde d t o mak e th e slot s availabl e fo rus e fo rnonsto p servic e fro m othe rU.S.-Londo n Heathro woverla p gateway s o rfo rone-sto p servic e o n th e overla p routes , Virgi n Atlanti c consider s tha t summe r201 3 (a s suggeste d byth e Join t Applicants , J AComment s at 7 ) i s to o earl yt o mak e slot s availabl e fo rsuc h services
. Service s fro m non-overla p market s (whic h ma yoffe ronl ya one-sto p alternativ e t o th e overla p markets ) deserv e lowe rpriorit ytha n applyin g nonsto p remedie s becaus e DO Tha s conclude d tha t one sto p servic e i s no t a n effectiv e constrain t o n nonsto p service
. SC O a t 1 6 (findin g tha t connectin g service s vi a othe rEuropea n point s provid e n o meaningfu l competitio n t o th e nonsto p overla p services)
. Asignifican t failin g o fth e propose d remed yi s tha t i t doe s no trequir e th e slot s t o b e take n u p a s a pre-conditio n t o th e propose d allianc e proceedin g (i.e., a "fi xi t first " typ e o fapproach)
. Thi s seriousl yan d detrimentall yaffect s th e effectivenes s an d viabilit y o fth e propose d commitments
. Thi s approac h i s criticall yimportan t i n thi s cas e becaus e a "fi xi t first " approac h i s th e onl ywa yt o sto p BA/AAfro m th e outse tfro m entrenchin g thei rdominan tposition s befor e slo tcommitment s ar e take n up , i fever . Allowin g th e Join t Applicant s t o begi n coordinatin g (i.e., jointl ysettin g prices , maximizin g thei r schedules ) withou t a pre-confirme d an d pre-approve d ne wentran ti n plac e wil l mak e i t increasingl ydifficul tfo reffectiv e entryt o occu ra s BA/AAwoul d alread yhav e commence d benefittin g fro m th e advantage s o fth e allianc e (e.g., th e advantage s o f additiona l frequencies , highe rpenetratio n o ffrequen ttraveler s throug h a join tFF P an d greate rcorporat e accoun tpenetratio n throug h capacity , frequenc yan d schedul e domination) , thu s increasingl yentrenchin g th e Join tApplicants ' dominan tmarke t position s ove rtime
.PUBLI C VERSIO N C . Th e "Fixes " t o th e JB ASuggeste d byth e Join t Applicant s ar e Insufficien t t o Addres s DO TConcerns . I n th e Sho wCaus e Order , DO Ttoo k issu e wit h severa l provision s wit h th e JBA , determinin g tha t the ywoul d no t creat e incentive s fo rth e Join tApplicant s t o expan d servic e an d capacit yi n th e market
. I n fact , DO Tdetermine d tha tsevera l provision s o f th e JB Awil l likel yinhibit , no t encourage , th e introductio n o fne wcapacit yunde rth e join t venture . I n response , th e Join t Applicant s hav e propose d certai n amendment s t o th e JBA
. A s wil l b e explaine d below , man yo fth e propose d "fixes " t o th e JB Atha t hav e bee n propose d byth e Join t Applicant s ar e entirel ycosmetic , an d d o no ti n an y meaningfu l wa ychang e th e basi cthrus t o fth e agreement , whic h i s t o maintai n a fir m clam p o n pricin g an d capacit yo n U.S.-Londo n Heathro wmarket
. Specifically , th e Join t Applicant s hav e propose d t o strik e th e provision s o fth e

§ § 3.3. 1 an d 5.6.6 . Instead , th e partie s no wpropos e tha t §3.3.4.1
. However , i t i s veryeas yunde rthi s agreemen t | See JB A(revised ) at

Britis h Airway s an d America n attemp tt o mak e muc h o fth e chang e t o thei r agreemen t However ,PUBLI C VERSIO N

Id. a t art . 4 . I n short , th e variou s "fixes " t o th e agreemen tbein g advance d b yth e Join t Applicant s ar e no t reall y"fixes " a tall
. The yar e window-dressin g tha ti s intende d t o mas k th e tru e intentio n behin d thi s deal , Indeed , th e cal l fo r decisio n makin g by"consensus " give s
III . CONCLUSIO N I n urgin g approva l o fthei ranticompetitiv e arrangement , th e Join t Applicant s woul d hav e th e Departmen t ignor e year s o fsettle d precedent
. Fo rexample , th e Join t Applicant s assert (fancifully ) tha t airlin e passenger s ar e mor e intereste d i n network s tha n the yar e i n specifi croutes , an d tha tLondo n Heathro wn o longe ri s a separat e relevan tmarket
. Althoug h on e o fth e primaryjustification s give n fo rthi s decisio n i s tha t i t i s neede d t o preserv e "parity " amongs tth e variou s multicarrie rairlin e alliances , th e fac t i s tha t approva l o fthi s dea l wil l distortcompetition , no trestor e it
. A s Virgi n Atlanti cha s argue d before , th e Departmen tshoul d resis tth e clai m tha t thi s dea l shoul d b e rubbe rstampe d becaus e othe ralliance s alread yhav e receive d ATI
. Ther e ar e critica l distinction s betwee n thi s allianc e an d thos e whic h precede d it
. Non e o fth e othe rallianc e case s centered aroun d a n airportwhic h i s close d t o ne wgrowth , an d th e Departmen t i s oblige d a s a matte ro flawt o bas e it s decisio n o n th e recor d befor e it
. Blin d adherenc e t o prio rdecision s i n th e interes t o f"parity " i s no trequired
. Indeed , i n th e presenc e o fwid e disparat e facts , suc h adherenc e i s no tpermitted
.PUBLI C VERSIO N

Accordingly , th e Departmen t shoul d no tmak e fina l th e tentativ e conclusion s o f Orde r2010-2-8 , an d shoul d instea d issu e a n orde rdisapprovin g th e propose d alliance
. I n th e alternative , th e Departmen t mus t strengthe n th e condition s tha t woul d b e impose d t o mitigat e th e anticompetitiv e impact o fthi s arrangement . full ysubmitted ,
Anit a M
. Mosne r Soph yChe n HOLLAN D & KNIGH TLL P 209 9 Pennsylvani a Avenu e NW , Suit e 10 0 Washington , D C 20006-680 1 Phone:(202)419-260 4 Fax : (202 ) 955-556 4 Email : anita.mosner@hklaw.co m Email : sophy.chen@hklaw.co m Attorney s fo r VIRGI N ATLANTI C AIRWAY S LTD .



### 1 0PUBLI C VERSIO N CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t I hav e thi s dat e serve d th e foregoin g documen t o n th e person s identifie d belo wb ycausin g a cop yt o b e sen t b yelectroni cmail
. anbird@fedex.co m andrew.forman@cwt.co m aserranzana@geclaw.co m benjamin.slocum@usairways.co m bill@mietuslaw.co m bkeiner@crowell.co m blabow@omm.co m bob.kneisley@wnco.co m bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.co m byerlyjr@state.go v carl.nelson@aa.com cdonley@ssd.co m cgosain@steptoe.co m cjsimpson@zsrlaw.co m cwilson@omm.co m david.heffernan@wilmerhale.co m dfisher@kelleydrye.co m dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.co m diarmuid.ryan@hammonds.co m dkirstein@yklaw.co m donna.kooperstein@usdoj.go v dvaughan@kelleydrye.co m dwight.moore@ustranscom.mi l ebailey@wileyrein.co m efaberman@wileyrein.co m gmurphy@crowell.co m howard_kass@usairways.com james.garzia@apgnet.co m jashetaylor@gibsondunn.co m jeff.ogar@aa.co m jeffrey.manley@united.co m jennifer.trock@pillsburylaw.co m jhill@dlalaw.co m jill.ptacek@usdoj.go v jim.ballough@faa.go v jrichardson@johnlrichardson.co m julie.oettinger@united.co m jyoung@yklaw.co m karine.faden@freshfields.co m kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.co m konstantinos.adamantopoulos@hammonds.co m kquinn@pillsburylaw.co m lachter@st a rpower . ne t leslie.abbott@wnco.co m lhalloway@crowell.co m libowd@sullcrom.co m mamaila@airfrance.f r mchopra@jamhoff.co m mcmillin@woa.co m mgerchick@gerchickmurphy.co m mgoldman@sgbdc.co m mholland@condonlaw.co m mroller@rollerbauer.co m mrosia@crowell.co m msinick@ssd.co m npeterson@wileyrein.co m paul.jasinski@ba.co m paul.yde@freshfields.co m peter.irvine@dot.go v pmurphy@gerchickmurphy.co m pmurphy@lopmurphy.co m prrizzi@hhlaw.co m pruden@asta.or g rbkeiner@crowell.co m rclayman@geclaw.co m recohn@hhlaw.co m rick.rule@cwt.co m robert.land@jetblue.co m rsilverberg@sgbdc.co m russell.bailey@alpa.or g sametta.c.barnett@delta.co m sami.sarelius@finnair.f i sascha.vanderbellen@delta.co m scott.mcclain@delta.co m sllunsford@fedex.co m thomas.bolling@coair.co m tmuris@omm.co m todd.homan@dot.go v wkaras@steptoe.co m

Jennife rM
. Nowa k Apri l 14,201 0 #931541 9 v1 0