BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITE D ) DOCKET OST-2006-26586 ) for renewal of exemption authority ) (Trinidad and Tobago-U.S.) ) __________________________________________)

REPLY OF CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITED Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: John R. Mietus, Jr. Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817-7500 (202) 747-5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

Counsel for CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITED

May 9, 2012BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

__________________________________________ ) Application of ) ) CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITE D ) DOCKET OST-2006-26586 ) May 8, 2012 for renewal of exemption authority ) (Trinidad and Tobago-U.S.) ) __________________________________________)

REPLY OF CARIBBEAN AIRLINES LIMITED

By application dated April 16, 2012, Caribbean Airlines Limited ("CAL") requested renewal of the above-captioned exemption, granted by Notice of Action Taken dated April 21, 2011 (the "Notice"), and invoked the automatic extension provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) and Part 377 of the Department's Special Regulations. No U.S. carrier opposes or has commented on the renewal application. But as he recently did in Docket OST-2010-0232 (the "Jamaica Docket"), John P.T. Gilm ore has written from Canada that he opposes renewal of CAL operating author ity to serve the United States. For the reasons set forth below, CAL respectf ully requests that the Department proceed to renew this exemption for bilaterally-authorized Trinidad and Tobago-U.S. service. The Department has already rejected the argument that Gilmore now repeats in this docket. Footnote 1 of the February 10, 2011 Notice of Action- 2 - Caribbean Airlines Reply Taken in the Jamaica Docket recognized that Gilmore, among other things,

asserted "that CAL has fa iled to provide adequate evidence to support its request. . . ." The Department then explained "that the assertions made by Mr. Gilmore. . . do not persuade us." It went on to grant CAL Jamaica/ Grenada-U.S. authority, which the De partment explained was warranted by the "public interest in the circumstance s presented and on the specific record

of this case." Gilmore, apparently writing from neither the U.S. nor the Caribbean, has yet to provide an explanation for his interest in CAL's U.S. operations or his purpose in continuing to oppose th em in this forum. Nor has any other person commented either on CAL's app lications or Gilmore's assertions in this docket. Having been so often repe ated, these assertions do no more than hamper the licensing process. It remains in the public interest for the Department to renew, without interruption, 1 CAL's authority to provide se rvice to and from the United States. The 2010 Trinidad and Tobago-U.S. bilateral air serv ices agreement, like its predecessor, clearly provides fo r such authority. CAL has held such authority for many years and has operated to the U.S. a variety of services

1 / As in the Jamaica Docket, Gilmore asserts that CAL's invocation of Part 377 should be rejected for an alleged failure to prov ide timely and adequate supporting evidence. CAL again submits that Gilmore's assertion is inconsistent with longstanding Department practice regarding Part 377. Moreover, the Department previously rejected his predicate argument ( i.e. , a lack of supporting evidence) in the Jamaica Docket. In any case, Gilmore agrees that termination of the authority on Part 377 grounds would not be appropriate, as he asserts that CAL's authority should be extended "to provide the applicant with the opportunity to cure the [alleged] deficiencies by amendment. . . ."