BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a 

National Airlines 

for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 

and an amended certificate of public convenience 

and necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41102 

(foreign scheduled air transportation of persons, 

property and mail) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST -2012-0204 

__________________________________ ) 

REPLY OF NATIONAL AIRLINES TO 

ANSWERS OF DELTA AIR LINES, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA 

AND THE AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION 

Correspondence with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

September 9, 2013 

Mark W. Atwood 

Elizabeth J. Wadsworth 

Cozen O'Connor 

The Army & Navy Club Building 

1627 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Tel.: (202) 463-2513 

Counsel for National Airlines 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

National Air Cargo Group, Inc. d/b/a 

National Airlines 

for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 

and an amended certificate of public convenience 

and necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41102 

(foreign scheduled air transportation of persons, 

property and mail) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) __________________________________) 

Docket OST -2012-0204 

REPLY OF NATIONAL AIRLINES TO 

ANSWERS OF DELTA AIR LINES, AIRLINES FOR AMERICA 

AND THE AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION 

United Airlines has now elicited support for its campaign to undermine National 

Airlines' plans to offer U.S.-United Arab Emirates-Afghanistan scheduled passenger 

service, in conjunction with its codeshare partner Emirates. United's objections have 

been joined by the other industry colossus, Delta, and the organization that represents 

them, Airlines for America ("A4A"). The Air Line Pilots Association ("ALPA") has also 

entered the fray, though it limited its argument to the Fly America Act issue. 1 

National is reluctant to take any more of the Department's time in dealing with 

these objections to its tentative findings in Order 2013-4-12. The clock is rapidly 

running down, a point that is certainly not lost on the Intervenors (in fact, that is exactly 

their point). However, National does not wish to leave the impression that the addition 

1 These parties, together with United, will be referred to collectively as "the Intervenors." 

LEGAL\17216717\1 
of responses by three new parties lends any legitimacy to the tissue-thin arguments 

proffered by United in its August 29 objections. Rather, they simply compound United's 

errors, and make its anticompetitive motive all the more apparent. 

The answer of Delta - itself the recipient of 1 ,640 routes under the GSA's City 

Pair Contract award of August 16 - simply summarizes the points made by United. 

Nothing further need be said beyond what National has already written in its September 

4 Answer to United. 

The answer of A4A takes a slightly different tack, voicing concern for the integrity 

of the Department's processes. Its charge effectively is that National has acted with a 

lack of integrity, deliberately misleading the Department. National unequivocally denies 

this insinuation. It hid nothing from the Department. As National pointed out in its 

September 4 answer, at the time of the December 11, 2012 application, Washington 

Dulles was the only U.S. point it was considering for codesharing service. That 

changed subsequently due to the GAO contract proposal. However, it did not amend its 

application because acting as the marketing carrier at other U.S. points was irrelevant to 

the authority it was requesting or the factors being considered by the Department in 

determining its fitness. (See Answer of National at 4.) 

National would remind the Intervenors that this is not a carrier selection 

proceeding, in which the Department compares full service proposals and evaluates 

which best suit the public interest. Nor is it a pre-1993 application requiring a full 

"illustrative service proposal." (It is questionable whether even under the pre-1993 

regulations addition of codeshare points would have much relevance to the application.) 

Rather, this proceeding concerns National's fitness to operate scheduled passenger 

2 

LEGAL\17216717\1 
service, and the information required to support this request pertains to the resources 

needed to operate the carrier's own flights, which National intends to do between Dubai 

and Afghanistan. Thus, when National decided it wished to serve Camp Bastion, 

Afghanistan, it amended its application to so reflect, since that would involve actual 

operations by the carrier, and therefore is relevant to a determination of its fitness. 

The purpose of public notice and comment for an application such as National's 

is most definitely not to give competitors advance warning of proposed new entry, but 

rather to allow parties with information relevant to the question at hand to come forward 

and present it to the Department. United claims that National is unfit to act as a 

marketing carrier on codeshares to the UAE. It should have made those arguments on 

April 18, when it had the chance. If National is unfit with regard to seven U.S. 

codeshare points, it would also have been unfit for one. The fact that National is now a 

greater competitive threat than was initially perceived may be relevant to United, but not 

to the question before the Department. 

Putting National's code on Emirates flights at other U.S. points would make only 

minimal demands on the carrier's resources. However, DOT reversal of its tentative 

decision - the result sought by the Intervenors -- would only be possible if the 

Department decided that it likely would have found National unfit had it proposed to 

market codeshare flights at six other U.S. points. It is farfetched to imagine such a 

conclusion. 

While United, Delta and A4A purport to be motivated by high-minded concerns 

about the Department's procedures, their real point may be stated much more bluntly: 

they don't think that a tiny, upstart carrier like National (a motif that is threaded 

3 

LEGAL\17216717\1 
throughout their pleadings) has any business playing in "their" sandbox. National just 

isn't in their league. United wants National excluded because United wants to operate 

1,736 City Pair routes, rather than only 1 ,730. 

Were the Department to buy into the Intervenors' logic, it would send an ominous 

message to the many who have serious concerns about the possibility of competition 

and new entry in an industry now dominated by mega-carriers. It would also deprive the 

American public of access to single-U.S. carrier service all the way from the United 

States to Afghanistan. That country now has no U.S. carrier service, requiring U.S. 

servicemen, government employees and contractors to fly on local airlines of 

questionable quality. There is a serious public need for what National has to offer. 

Finally, with respect to ALPA's arguments that the Fly America Act does not 

permit what National is proposing, National would simply make two points: (1) that train 

left the station a long time ago; and (2) this is not the right forum in which to argue for a 

change in policy. As noted extensively in National's Answer, the National/Emirates 

arrangement is fully consistent with precedent that has been well-settled since 1991, 

and was codified in the Federal Travel Regulation in 1998. If the Intervenors believe the 

Government Accountability Office should reconsider its policy, they are entitled to make 

that argument; indeed, United is attempting to do so in its bid protest proceeding before 

the GAO at this moment. It would thus be inappropriate for the Department to try to 

change a policy adopted by another agency. 

4 

LEGAL\17216717\1 
ACCORDINGLY, National Airlines once again requests that the Department 

reject the arguments advanced by the Intervenors, and proceed without delay to issue 

the Final Order affirming its tentative decision in Order 2013-4-12. 

Dated: September 9, 2013 

5 

LEGAL\ 17216717\ 1 

~:Ly z bmitt .....::dz:.., -----:;-r--

Mark W. Atwood 

Elizabeth J. Wadsworth 

Joshua P. Stein 

Cozen O'Connor 

The Army & Navy Club Bldg. 

1627 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Counsel for National Airlines 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have served the foregoing document on the following persons on this gth 

day of September, 2013, in accordance with the Department's Rules of Practice: 

francis.heil@aa.com 

robert.wirick@aa.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com 

russell.pommer@atlasair.com 

sascha. vanderbellen@delta. com 

sametta.c.barnett@delta.com 

esauer@ssd.com 

charters@evergreenairlines.com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

gmurphy@crowell.com 

dberg@airlines.org 

ag oerlich@gg h-airlaw.com 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com 

howard.kass@usairways.com 

Benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

m benge@zsrlaw. com 

psanderlin@kalittaair.com 

john.allen@faa.gov 

lhalloway@crowell.com 

~, Russell.bailey@alpa.org //' 

~'l ' ,t 

E:Jaw M. Pefley 

( ____ __/ 

6