BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____________________________________

)

2012 CHICAGO-CANCUN COMBINATION ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0001

SERVICE PROCEEDING )

_____________________________________ )

RESPONSE OF AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC.

TO COMMENTS OF FRONTIER AIRLINES

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Bob Jordan Robert W. Kneisley

 President Associate General Counsel

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC. Leslie C. Abbott

9955 AirTran Boulevard Senior Attorney

Orlando, FL 32827 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

 1901 L Street, N.W., Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20036 

 bob.kneisley@wnco.com

(202) 263-6284

April 2, 2012
2

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_____________________________________

)

2012 CHICAGO-CANCUN COMBINATION ) Docket DOT-OST-2012-0001

SERVICE PROCEEDING )

_____________________________________ )

RESPONSE OF AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC.

TO COMMENTS OF FRONTIER AIRLINES

On March 16, 2012, the Department issued Order to Show Cause 2012-3-10 

tentatively awarding exemption authority to AirTran Airways, Inc. (“AirTran”) to provide 

scheduled service of persons, property and mail between Chicago, Illinois and Cancun, 

Mexico. On March 26, Frontier Airlines, Inc. (“Frontier”) filed Comments in response to 

the Show Cause Order which stated in part that Frontier “does not formally object” to 

the Department’s selection of AirTran. 

Normally, a statement by the losing party in a contested route proceeding that it 

does not object to the Department’s selection of the other party would end the matter, 

with no need for response. However, in this instance, Frontier took the extraordinary 

step of using its supposed “non-objection” as a platform for gratuitous criticism of 

AirTran/Southwest as well as mischaracterization of the Department’s decision. Not 

only do these statements come with poor grace from the losing party, they have no 

basis in fact and should be disregarded. 

For example, Frontier claims that the Department determined “not to give any 

credit to illusory network benefits” from the integration of AirTran and Southwest’s 

operations (Frontier Comments at 1-2). This completely mischaracterizes the 
3

Department’s decision. As Order 2012-3-10 made clear, the Department found 

AirTran’s proposal to be so superior to Frontier’s in terms of “capacity, service and 

market structure benefits” that it warranted the award of authority “even without the 

benefit of Southwest’s network” (Order 2012-3-10 at 5). Similarly, Frontier’s claim that it 

has lower fares than Southwest in Denver markets where the two carriers compete 

head-to-head (Frontier Comments at 2) is belied by recent statements of its own parent 

company to the Securities and Exchange Commission:

“Southwest pricing [in Denver] has caused downward pressure on Frontier 

yields and any future Southwest exposure may place further downward 

pressure on our revenue.”

Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. Form 10-K, March 15, 2012, p. 18. Again, Frontier’s 

claim is not only irrelevant but baseless.

As Frontier knows, the allegations in its Comments will have no effect in the 

instant case, so it is unlikely that Frontier made them for that purpose. Instead, the real 

goal of Frontier’s gratuitous charges appears to be an attempt to influence other 

pending Department proceedings in which both Frontier and Southwest are competing 

applicants.1 This is clear from Frontier’s exhortation to the Department that it “should 

use the award of limited-authority rights” in the future in a manner that would benefit 

Frontier (Id.). 

Southwest submits that Frontier’s attempt to use this proceeding to try to gain an 

advantage in other, unrelated Department proceedings is improper and should be 

disregarded. The only relevant part of Frontier’s Comments is that Frontier does not 

object to the Department’s Show Cause Order awarding AirTran authority to provide 

 

1

Frontier and Southwest are competing applicants in two pending proceedings for the award of DCA slot 

exemptions, Docket OST-2000-7182 (inside perimeter) and Docket OST-2012-0029 (outside perimeter). 
4

scheduled service between Chicago (Midway) and Cancun. That being the case, we 

urge the Department to promptly issue a final order so that AirTran can begin service in 

this important air travel market. The Department’s decision was based on a

comprehensive record demonstrating that AirTran will provide enormous public and 

competitive benefits, and has been enthusiastically received by the City of Chicago (see 

attached press release). 

Respectfully submitted,

____________________

Robert W. Kneisley

April 2, 2012
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 2, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was served via email on the following persons:

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Frontier Airlines)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Frontier Airlines

susan.kurland@dot.gov

paul.gretch@dot.gov

brian.hedberg@dot.gov

brett.kruger@dot.gov

todd.homan@dot.gov

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov

john.allen@faa.gov 

ursk@dos.gov

Rosemarie S. Andolino

Commissioner

City of Chicago Department of Aviation

rosemarie.sandolino@cityofchicago.org

Erin O’Donnell

Managing Deputy Commissioner 

City of Chicago Department of Aviation, Midway Airport

Erin@cityofchicago.org

__________________________

Leslie C. Abbott