\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

September 5, 2014

By Electronic Submission and E-Mail

Suzanne Masterson, Manager, Airworthiness/Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115

Ian Y. Won, Aerospace Engineer

Transport Standards Staff

Transport Airplane Directorate

Federal Aviation Administration

1601 Lind Avenue, SW

Renton, WA 98057

Re: Joint Petition of Atlas Air, Inc., Kalitta Air LLC., and Southern Air Inc. for an

Exemption (Docket FAA-2014-0184)

Dear Ms. Masterson and Mr. Won:

Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”), Kalitta Air LLC., and Southern Air Inc. (“Petitioners”)1hereby

respond to the FAA’s request2for “specific details and justification regarding the ‘public interest’

needs and ‘US National’ needs” supporting the grant of the above-referenced Exemption

Petition to allow the Petitioners to operate B-747 freighter aircraft while transporting tall rigid

cargo restrained to withstand a 3.0g (“3G”) forward load.

The Petitioners hold a vital position in this Nation’s transportation sector by providing the

majority of the U.S. carrier airlift capacity for large and irregularly-sized cargo. This airlift

capacity is critically important to the U.S. Government, particularly for military and diplomatic

1 World Airways, Inc., one of the original petitioners, ceased operating soon after the Joint Petition

was filed, and thus is no longer a petitioner.

2

See Letter from S. Masterson, FAA, to P. Sanderlin, Kalitta Air, dated August 6, 2014 (“FAA’s

August 6 Letter”).
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 2

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

missions, international humanitarian and development organizations, NGOs, and U.S. industry.

It is essential that the United States maintain a healthy air cargo sector capable of transporting

large and irregularly-sized cargo, including tall rigid cargo, over long distances around the world

in support of U.S. National and public interest needs. Absent the requested exemption,

however, the already existing stress on this air cargo sector will increase, its ability to provide

this vital service will be significantly undermined, and the beneficiaries of this airlift – such as the

U.S. military, other governmental agencies, humanitarian/relief organizations, and U.S. industry

– will have far fewer carrier/service choices and aircraft available to handle their future airlift

needs for cargo, including tall rigid cargo.

With the additional information provided below, coupled with the Joint Petition’s

demonstration that a grant of the exemption would provide an equivalent level of safety and

have no adverse impact on safety of flight, the Petitioners respectfully submit that the FAA has

sufficient information to justify the prompt grant of the requested exemption.

I. There is an Urgent Need for this Exemption to Enable the Petitioners to Address

Critically Important U.S. National and Public Interest Needs for the Transportation of

Tall Rigid Cargo.

The Joint Petition demonstrated that an exemption to allow the Petitioners to transport

tall rigid cargo restrained to withstand a 3G forward load would provide an equivalent level of

safety and would not adversely affect the safety of upper deck occupants on B-747 freighters

during emergency landing conditions. The Joint Petition explained that the 9G forward restraint

requirement is an anachronistic regulatory “come along” by which a 1950s passenger

compartment standard was applied to freighter aircraft without any freighter-specific data

supporting that requirement.

The Joint Petition also demonstrated that there is an urgent need for the exemption

because the 9G requirement is preventing the Petitioners from carrying tall rigid cargo efficiently
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 3

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

and competitively in support of U.S. National and public interest needs. Indeed, the carriers’

ability to transport large, irregularly-sized, and tall rigid cargo is critically important since (i) an

increasing amount of smaller air cargo is now carried by integrated carriers and in the cargo

holds of passenger aircraft, and (ii) the demands of governmental, military, NGO, humanitarian,

and commercial shippers for transporting tall rigid cargo have substantially increased. The

Petitioners’ B-747 freighter aircraft are designed to transport tall rigid cargo safely, efficiently, and

cost-effectively, and indeed the Petitioners operate B-747 freighter aircraft to transport a wide

variety of important cargo throughout the world for a diverse group of customers, including the

U.S. Government (e.g., Department of Defense, USAID, Federal Bureau of Investigation),

international humanitarian organizations (e.g., relief NGOs, United Nations), and commercial

shippers and manufacturers (e.g., DHL, Astral Aviation, UPS, FedEx, Boeing, Rolls Royce,

Dyncorp, KBR, Exxon, and Caterpillar).

Yet the Petitioners are now prevented from fulfilling shipper requests to transport tall

rigid cargo because, as detailed in the Joint Petition, the two current methods for transporting

tall rigid cargo on the B-747 freighter (strapping to tie-down points; frangible cargo buffer) are

not economically feasible, practical or, in many cases, even possible. The turning point

occurred in mid-2013, when the FAA began to issue new informal (mostly verbal) interpretations

of cargo loading requirements relating to tie-down requirements, whether certain types of

containers constitute frangible cargo, and when a Sea-Land container is considered to be a Unit

Load Device (“ULD”) as defined in TSO C90. One illustration of this is an internal FAA

“memorandum”3, issued without prior notice and an opportunity to comment, that stated that (i)

multi-modal Sea-Land containers were not themselves ULDs, but had to be concentrically

loaded on a pallet and shored and netted to be ULDs as defined in TSO C90, (ii) Sea-Land

3 Memorandum, dated November 8, 2013, from Steven C. Fox, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, to

Steven Douglas, AFS-300.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 4

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

containers, which have generally been considered “frangible” cargo, were no longer to be

considered frangible for purposes of meeting the 9G forward restraint requirement in the B-747

manual, and (iii) Sea-Land containers placed on a ULD pallet but offset by up to 9 inches

laterally, even if netted, require additional/special tie-down requirements and do not meet the

requirements of TSO C90.4

Prior to these internal FAA “interpretations”, U.S. carriers actively and effectively

competed in the global transportation of tall rigid cargo. And, as the Joint Petition noted, more

than 420 B-747 freighters have flown more than 20 million flight hours and 4 million flight cycles

with no report of cargo shifting forward and harming an occupant on a B-747 freighter during

emergency landing conditions. See Joint Petition at 12.

The FAA’s recent positions on the 9G forward restraint requirement and tall rigid cargo

tie-down/loading requirements have had an immediate and significant adverse impact on U.S.

B-747 freighter operators, by making it much more difficult, more costly, and less effective for

them to meet shipper demands for the transport of tall rigid cargo. At the same time, their

4

The legal validity and binding nature of the Memorandum is questionable. It is well-established

that agency guidance documents intended for general applicability must, among other things, be subject

to notice and public comment, contain written justification, and undergo appropriate governmental review,

including scrutiny by the Office of Management and Budget. See, e.g., Executive Order 13422, 72 Fed.

Reg. 2763 (Jan. 23, 2007); Final Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance Practices, Office of Management

and Budget Bulletin No. 07-02 (Jan. 18, 2007), 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (January 25, 2007). The

Memorandum was subject to none of these required procedures. In addition, since the internal

Memorandum constituted a substantive change in longstanding agency interpretation regarding the

transport of tall rigid cargo and the 9G forward restraint requirement, this change required a formal noticeand-comment process and a robust justification, neither of which was provided in this case. See, e.g.,

Mortgage Bankers Ass’n v. Harris, 720 F.3d 966 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (where agency has two conflicting

interpretations, notice-and-comment rulemaking is required), cert. granted, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers

Ass’n and Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 134 S. Ct. 2820 (2014); Alaska Professional Hunters Ass’n

v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“When an agency has given its regulation a definitive

interpretation, and later significantly revises that interpretation, the agency has in effect amended its rule,

something it may not accomplish without notice and comment.”); Republic Airline Inc. v. DOT, 669 F.3d

296, 301-302 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (DOT acted arbitrarily and capriciously where it departed from its precedent

without adequate explanation).
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 5

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

foreign competitors5continue to transport large containers and other tall rigid cargo

unencumbered by FAA’s internal communications, to which they are not subject. Thus, while

the global demand to transport tall rigid cargo by air has increased, the Petitioners have been

forced to cede the market to foreign carriers, losing millions of dollars of business as our

customers have been turning to our foreign B-747 competitors to meet their cargo airlift needs.

This result is directly contrary to the “public interest” in 49 U.S.C. § 40101(a)(15), which requires

the Secretary of Transportation “to strength[en] the competitive position of air carriers to at least

ensure equality with foreign air carriers, including the attainment of the opportunity for air

carriers to maintain and increase their profitability in foreign air transportation.”

The problem faced by U.S. B-747 freighter operators is compounded by the fact that due

to changes in the marketplace, there is rarely a sufficient volume of frangible cargo available to

place in front of the tall rigid cargo, and in the absence of frangible cargo, there is often an

inadequate number of tie-downs on a B-747 to restrain heavy tall rigid cargo to meet the FAA’s

ever-changing tie-down requirements. And, even when it is possible to restrain a single item of

tall rigid cargo, there is usually an insufficient number of tie-downs to transport additional cargo.

This makes the cost of transporting tall rigid cargo prohibitively expensive for the shipper

(because it requires multiple flights instead of one flight to accomplish the mission) and has

placed U.S. carriers at a severe competitive disadvantage, as foreign competitors routinely carry

Sea-Land containers and other tall rigid cargo without meeting the FAA’s 9G forward restraint

requirements.

5

The principal competitors for this type of cargo include Cargolux (Luxembourg); El Al and CAL

Cargo Airlines Limited (Israel); AirBridge (Russia); Emirates, Etihad, and Midex (UAE); Vision Air

(Pakistan); and Aerospace (Turkey).
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 6

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

More specifically, if the tie-down method is used, the space required for strapping

increases by 50% or more;6 whereas five containers could be carried before, now only three can

be transported. And, if a single piece of tall rigid cargo can be tied down but there is an

insufficient number of available tie-down points to restrain additional cargo, the shipper must

pay for the empty space on the aircraft or the additional flights needed to transport a large,

multi-piece load. Often there are not enough tie-down points on a B-747 to restrain heavy tall

rigid cargo to meet the FAA’s tie-down requirements.7Indeed, cargo pieces over approximately

30,000 pounds often have to be refused due to the inability to tie down in conformity with the

FAA’s new interpretation of the 9G forward restraint requirement.

On the other hand, if the “frangible cargo” method is used, 12-14 cargo positions (out of

29-30 such positions on the main deck) must be filled with frangible cargo. Because actual

revenue cargo that qualifies as “frangible” is so rare, the U.S. B-747 freighter operators often

are compelled to try to create frangible cargo, for example, by simply packing the requisite

positions with wooden pallets (or “skids”) – approximately 1,200 of them. This sacrifices nearly

half the space available for large cargo – all simply for wooden packing material.8Importantly,

these skids are not available everywhere; the carriers often have to scour warehouses and

shippers in an area trying to find a sufficient number, or even fly them in, thus using valuable

space. If the carriers are unsuccessful, they must refuse the shipment. This happens more

often than not in the Middle East. The time and expense required to find material to comply with

the “frangible cargo” method, purchase it, truck it to the aircraft, stack and secure it makes the

6

Before, 2-4 positions were required to secure a 20-foot container; now, 6 or more are required,

depending on weight.

7 With the other changes to cargo loading, the FAA has also further restricted the use of various

tie-down attachment points on the B-747, thus requiring an even larger area for strapping down to meet

the 9G forward restraint requirement than would otherwise be required.

8

An even larger portion of the weight capacity of the B-747 is sacrificed, because the two positions

with the greatest weight-bearing capacity – the over-wing positions – must be used for the frangible

cargo.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 7

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

shipment prohibitively expensive for most shippers; it adds up to $15,000 to the cost of a

shipment, and it takes approximately 10 hours to build up such a frangible load, costing both

man-hours and wasting time that could be used for other mission-critical flights.

These constraints have made U.S. B-747 freighter operators uncompetitive with foreign

airlines for tall rigid cargo. As explained herein, the Petitioners are aware of, and constantly

see, loads that they otherwise would have carried being transported by numerous foreign cargo

airlines because these foreign operators continue to load cargo in the manner that has

heretofore been the industry norm, but which is now forbidden for U.S. carriers. As freight

forwarder Diplomat Freight Service explained,

“For Tenders awarded by NATO, the Danish and German MOD’s, amongst

others, which are not required to move on US aircraft, we no longer even attempt

to contract these with Kalitta. For example, there is a current bid to move 320

containers from various bases in Afghanistan back to Dubai on behalf of various

coalition members. Kalitta aircraft will not be in a competitive position to transport

any of them due to the restriction on the number of containers that can be moved

on US aircraft. It would take a US carrier 107 flights to move the required load.

A foreign carrier can do it in 64 flights.”

See Exhibit 1, Letter from DFS, dated August 25, 2014 (“DFS Letter”).

And, for those airlift charters operated on behalf of USTRANSCOM which are legally

required to be performed by CRAF-participating U.S. airlines, the increased costs are borne by

the U.S. taxpayer. For example, DFS moved 276 containers in and out of Afghanistan in the

first 71⁄2 months of 2014 – an average of about 40 per month. The new restrictions required an

additional 37 flights to transport the cargo, at an additional (and absolutely unnecessary) cost to

the U.S. taxpayer of $4,625,000. See Exhibit 1.

The Petitioners estimate that they are losing tens of millions of dollars of air cargo

business because they are unable to compete effectively for tall rigid cargo shipments in light of

the 9G forward restraint requirement. Since mid-December 2013, Atlas has lost, or been unable
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 8

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

to competitively bid on, a number of opportunities to transport tall rigid cargo, including for

example:

 15 20-foot containers, Houston – Jebel Ali

 21 Sea-Land containers for UN peacekeepers, Haiti – Entebbe/Juba

 2 20-foot containers, Perth – Gabon

 Tall rigid cargo (400 x 300 x 250 cms), Tianjin – Caracas

 A GENX-1B engine (204 x 128 x 122 inches) and lift (130 x 10 x 10 inches),

Dallas/Ft. Worth – Cancun/Mexico City

 Large machinery (main piece: 600 x 228 x 280 cms) plus 33 parts of varying sizes

and weights, Milan (or another EU hub) – Kuala Lumpur

 A GENX-1B engine in dolly (232 x 102 x 96 inches)9and accompanying equipment

and accessories, Dallas/Ft. Worth or Houston – Seoul

 Large equipment (each piece measuring approximately 600 x 240 x 240 cms)10

requiring loading on a pallet and additional shoring to support the weight of the

cargo, Bologna – Salvador, Brazil

 An operations shelter (20’ x 8’ x 8’)11 and two BICON generator containers (10’ x 8’ x

8’), New York – Algiers

 Three turbines (each measuring 220 x 102 x 100 inches and weighing 21,670 lbs.),

Houston – Brisbane

 Oil rig equipment (measuring 161 x 98 x 120 inches), Houston – Baku

Indeed, one of Atlas’ airline customers has informed it that there are 2 to 3 requests per week

to ship 20-foot Sea-Land containers from Europe to Africa. And, there is a similar volume of

inquiries (2-3 per week) to carry Sea-Land containers from the United States to Africa. In

9

Although the engine and accompanying equipment were reportedly 96 inches in height, it

becomes tall rigid cargo with a height exceeding 98 inches once loaded on a pallet for transport.

10 The height of the equipment itself was reportedly less than 98 inches; but, once it is loaded on a

pallet and shoring is added to support the weight of the cargo, it becomes tall rigid cargo (i.e., height

exceeding 98 inches).

11 Although the reported height of the operations shelter and generator equipment was just 8 feet

(i.e., 96 inches), by adding a 3-inch 20-foot pallet to the pieces of equipment for transport because of their

size and weight, the equipment package becomes 99 inches and thus constitutes tall rigid cargo.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 9

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

addition, this customer continually receives inquiries to transport individual tall rigid cargo

shipments to address exigencies on the ground in Africa such as malfunctioning power

generators, medical issues, and broken oil rigs. Atlas is not able to carry such shipments due to

the FAA’s tall rigid cargo loading and tie-down requirements.

Kalitta’s experience is similar to Atlas’. In just the past 31⁄2 months, Kalitta has been

asked to bid on dozens of charters of tall rigid cargo, only to lose them on account of the higher

costs associated with the outdated 9G forward restraint requirement. These include, for

example:

 11 20-foot containers of communications equipment, Bagram-Djibouti (August 2014)

 4 20-foot containers holding a water-treatment plant, Muscat – Brisbane (July 2014)

 4 20-foot containers of equipment for the Danish Army, Karup, Denmark – Mazari

Sharif, Afghanistan (June 2014)

 7 20-foot containers of climate-testing instruments, Amsterdam – Los Angeles (June

2014)

 40 20-foot containers of food and relief supplies for the World Food Program,

Brindisi, Italy – Bangui, Central African Republic (May 2014)

 At least 7 shipments of Trent-1000 jet engines from Rolls Royce to Boeing, East

Midlands, U.K. – Seattle (since May 2014)

Kalitta is aware of these lost opportunities because it was asked to bid on these charters. The

more serious development is that increasingly the phone does not even ring. Most of Kalitta’s

logistics customers know that the extraordinary requirements being imposed on U.S. B-747

freighter operators make Kalitta uncompetitive for transporting substantial tall rigid cargo, and

thus they do not even bother to ask the carrier for a bid: “From a customer service, safety, and

reliability standpoint our preference is to utilize Kalitta. . . .[But f]or Tenders . . . which are not

required to move on US aircraft, we [DFS] no longer even attempt to contract these with Kalitta.”

See Exhibit 1. Kalitta cannot begin to calculate the value of the lost business and opportunities

it does not even know about.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 10

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

The losses apply to Kalitta’s scheduled cargo operations as well. The carrier operates

two weekly flights between New York-JFK and Amsterdam. Due to the FAA’s changed

application of the 9G forward restraint requirement, each container requires 50% additional

space either for tie-down strapping or the use of frangible cargo, and this increase represents

about $14,000 in lost revenue per container that is carried. Because of the higher price that

must be charged, Kalitta estimates that it has lost 25-50% of the oversized tall rigid cargo

previously carried on this route. For example, prior to last year, Kalitta transported helicopter

fuselages on behalf of Agusta-Westland on a weekly basis. This business has, to the best of

the carrier’s knowledge, gone to Cargolux, representing a revenue loss of $1.5 million annually.

As such, Kalitta has noted a significant reduction in business and the loss of millions of

dollars in business due to the 9G forward restraint requirement. Kalitta also notes that when

non-revenue frangible cargo can be used, it has attempted, in certain cases, to absorb the extra

costs itself, resulting in additional cost to the airline for the build-up and disposal of this cargo.

Southern Air has likewise been unable to fulfill certain missions and lost substantial

business as a result of the 9G forward restraint requirement and the FAA’s recent internal

interpretations on transporting tall rigid cargo. For example, Southern Air has missed out on

numerous DOD missions out of the Middle East carrying tall rigid cargo such as 20-foot SeaLand containers, large vehicles, and construction equipment, as well as opportunities to

transport off-shore oil rig valves between Houston and Caracas. In addition, Southern Air is

unable to transport Sea-Land containers containing medical equipment, aerial drones, support

equipment, and food supplies for U.S. troops, as well as stand-alone Canadian armored

vehicles.

The requested exemption would enable the Petitioners to support vitally important U.S.

National needs. As these U.S. National needs and missions are constantly evolving and subject
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 11

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

to the vagaries and exigencies of current events, human conflict, natural disasters, and even

training schedules, the Petitioners cannot provide an estimate of the total number of possible

missions falling within this category of U.S. National needs each year. The important point,

however, is that U.S. B-747 freighter operators will be needed, and those carriers must be able to

respond urgently to needs as they arise. In particular, it is of great importance to the CRAF

program that these aircraft be available when needed. However, the FAA’s unnecessary

restrictions have greatly reduced the economic viability of these aircraft to transport tall rigid

cargo.

As the drawdown from Afghanistan continues, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”)

is moving substantial amounts of equipment, including cargo now classified as tall rigid cargo

such as industry-standard 20-foot Sea-Land containers, large vehicles and trailers, satellite

equipment, large communications equipment, power generators, steel shelters, containerized

aerial drones, containers of tents, uniforms, supplies, and office equipment, containerized high

value shipments, and forklifts, among others, out of the country to other overseas locations or

the United States. And, despite the drawdown, a great deal of equipment and material is still

moving into Afghanistan to resupply the remaining U.S. and Allied forces, as well as the

Afghanistan national forces. With this exemption, the Petitioners would be able to participate in

this massive effort to transport important and expensive tall rigid containers and equipment,

thereby offering DOD and Allied military commands more air transportation options and greatly

enhanced flexibility to fulfill their mission-critical airlift needs in a timely and cost-effective

manner. Therefore, granting this exemption would clearly meet this U.S. National need.

Given the ever-changing and competing demands on the U.S. military, it is very difficult

– if not, impossible – to specify the scope of this mission as the FAA’s August 6 Letter asks.

The Petitioners, however, operate a very high volume of flights directly or indirectly on behalf of

the U.S. military. For example, Kalitta and Atlas operated 405 and 352 military-related charters
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 12

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

in the Middle East, respectively, during the first seven months of 2014. The Petitioners roughly

estimate that this particular critical U.S. National need could require 800 additional charters over

the next year.

Agencies of the U.S. Government, including not only the U.S. military but also the State

Department, FBI, and USAID, have worldwide operations that also involve the continuous

movement of tall rigid cargo, including 20-foot Sea-Land containers, large vehicles and trailers,

satellite equipment, large communications equipment, power generators, steel shelters,

containerized aerial drones, and other containerized shipments, among others, to support

military personnel, embassies, law enforcement, relief and development, military exercises, and

global security. These agencies frequently contract with the Petitioners, either directly or through

brokers or freight forwarders, and their missions are often very time-sensitive. Thus, the critical

U.S. National need of the DOD and the U.S. Government for additional aircraft with the capacity

to carry tall rigid cargo in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner exists outside the

Afghanistan Theater of Operations. The time-sensitive movement of tall rigid cargo for the U.S.

Government is a critical U.S. National need, regardless of whether it is a mission to transport

such cargo out of or into Afghanistan, or to or from other points around the world such as Africa,

the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Europe or the United States.

The 9G forward restraint requirement and the FAA’s recent application of it also

effectively prevent the Petitioners from carrying tall rigid cargo for U.S. allies. For example, the

French military has a sizeable presence and significant operations in Africa which require

substantial support from France. The Petitioners are now unable to provide this support.

Instead, the French military is reportedly using a Russian airline and its large Antonov aircraft

which can carry 10 containers as compared to just 3 containers12 on the B-747. The requested

12 The precise number of such containers potentially carried on a B-747 freighter depends in large

part on the weight of the cargo.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 13

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

exemption would enable the Petitioners to compete for, and carry, this type of tall rigid cargo

while, at the same time, assisting an ally of the United States in its peacekeeping, humanitarian,

and anti-terror efforts.

There are also vital commercial “public interest” needs that would be greatly served by this

exemption. Humanitarian relief and peacekeeping efforts often require the transportation of tall

rigid cargo on an exigent and cost-competitive basis. These missions involve urgently-needed

supplies shipped in large Sea-Land containers, large power generators, over-sized

communications or construction equipment, very large vehicles, and over-sized military

equipment, among others. Without the requested exemption, the Petitioners are unable to assist

in these important public interest missions, and thus people in desperate need of aid, supplies or

security/protection are denied the critical benefits of additional airlift options and capacity that the

Petitioners can offer.

For example, Atlas is a partner of Astral Aviation, which offers ad-hoc charters to over 50

destinations in the intra-Africa network on its own fleet as well as on the fleets of its network and

interline partners. Astral regularly coordinates the delivery of cargo in support of peacekeeping

operations (e.g., Japanese Contingent in Africa, UN troops in Somalia), emergency relief efforts

(e.g., Darfur Crisis, South Sudan relief operations, Mozambique and Madagascar Floods), and

humanitarian operations (e.g., Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) throughout Africa. Atlas, however,

cannot effectively participate in such vitally important airlift efforts to address massive public

interest needs when tall rigid cargo is involved because it is constrained by the outdated 9G

forward restraint requirement. Kalitta and Southern Air are similarly shut out of these charters.

Because humanitarian and relief efforts often arise as a result of unpredictable events like

natural disasters, severe weather or wars, there is simply no basis upon which to estimate the

number of missions or amount of cargo at issue in this category of public interest needs.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 14

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

Tall rigid cargo airlift missions are also needed to support critical public interest needs in

global trade, natural resources development, and the development of lesser-developed countries.

For example, the popular 20-foot Sea-Land containers are widely used around the world

throughout the global supply chain to ship oil and gas related materials, project/infrastructure

cargo, high-tech equipment, garments, and perishables because they have intermodal

compatibility, offer a built-in secure storage place, and can be used as an “office” in remote

locations. Emerging markets such as Africa (for which the President just concluded a summit

here in Washington, D.C.) are particularly reliant on the use of these 20-foot containers for

development, project, mining, and oil/gas cargo. But the Petitioners are no longer able to

participate in addressing these important public interest needs. The requested exemption

would remedy this capability gap.

Another public interest need involving tall rigid cargo revolves around large widebody

aircraft engines which regularly require long-haul air transportation. This need is particularly

acute when a widebody aircraft full of passengers is grounded on account of engine issues, and

the passengers can only continue their travels once a replacement engine is delivered. Yet, as

the recent examples noted above demonstrate, the Petitioners are essentially unable to help

this segment of the market because of the 9G forward restraint requirement.

II. Conclusion.

Granting this exemption would be in the U.S. National and public interest because it

would permit U.S. operators of B-747 freighter aircraft to safely and efficiently carry tall rigid

cargo, including multiple 20-foot Sea-Land containers, power generators, construction

equipment, aircraft engines, large oil/gas equipment, and large vehicles, for U.S. military,

humanitarian, and commercial shippers around the world. It would also enable B-747 operators

to more efficiently utilize and to realize the full capabilities of their B-747 aircraft, and would
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 15

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

enable them to maintain the availability of these aircraft, which are of vital importance to the

CRAF program. Shippers and the recipients with the critical needs set out above require

access to reasonable, safe, and timely air transportation for their shipments of tall rigid cargo.

Absent this exemption, shippers and recipients have fewer choices of carriers, fewer B-747

aircraft, and much less flexibility to handle these critical missions, because, as explained above,

without any improvement in safety, the 9G forward restraint requirement effectively precludes

U.S. B-747 freighter operators from competing for tall rigid cargo shipments. This, in turn, leads

to delays for the delivery of critical cargo and/or substantially increases costs for shippers and

recipients. The U.S. military, NGOs, and agencies with urgent humanitarian missions involving

tall rigid cargo also encounter delays and substantially increased costs in having their vital

shipments delivered and their National U.S. and public interest needs met.

The FAA should not limit any grant of this exemption to a narrow category of missions,

types of tall rigid cargo, or a narrow timeframe. The reality is that the public interest needs of

humanitarian, relief, peacekeeping, and commercial shippers and recipients and the U.S.

National needs of the U.S. Government for tall rigid cargo airlift are ongoing, widespread, and

will continue even after the drawdown in the Afghanistan Theater of Operations is complete.

We believe the exemption is fully justified based on equivalent levels of safety and U.S.

National/public interest needs, and we underscore that B-747 operators have transported such

cargo for 40+ years with no known report of cargo shifting forward and harming an occupant on

a B-747 freighter during emergency landing conditions. Any limitations on the type of tall rigid

cargo covered by this exemption or on the exemption’s duration would be unwarranted.

In sum, the Petitioners submit that granting the exemption would have no adverse

impact on safety, would provide an equivalent level of safety, and would address critically

important U.S. National needs and public interest needs.
Response to FAA’s Request for Information

Docket FAA-2014-0184

Page 16

\\DC - 026524/000001 - 5767580 v6

The Petitioners respectfully request expedited action on this request. This is an urgent

situation for the Petitioners, for the U.S. National interest, and for the public interest.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________

Title: President & CEO

Southern Air, Inc.