\\DC - 040601/000003 - 4951786 v2

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Application of

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

under 49 U.S.C. § 41718 for pendente lite authority to

operate slot exemptions between Ronald Reagan

Washington National Airport and Kansas City

(DCA-MCI)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

ANSWER OF REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Scott L. Durgin

Vice President, Administration

Ethan J. Blank,

Vice President, General Counsel

REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

8909 Purdue Road

Indianapolis, Indiana 46268

Robert E. Cohn

Patrick R. Rizzi

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

+1 202 637 4999/5659

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

Counsel for

REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

August 6, 2013
\\DC - 040601/000003 - 4951786 v2

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Application of

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

under 49 U.S.C. § 41718 for pendente lite authority to

operate slot exemptions between Ronald Reagan

Washington National Airport and Kansas City

(DCA-MCI)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

August 6, 2013

ANSWER OF REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Republic Airline Inc. (“Republic”) hereby opposes the application of Southwest

Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) for pendente lite authority to use two slot exemptions to

enable Southwest to operate service between Ronald Reagan Washington National

Airport (DCA) and Kansas City (MCI). The two slot exemptions Southwest proposes to

use are slot exemptions that have been allocated to Republic and used by Republic for

service between DCA and MCI. There is no lawful basis for the Department to withdraw

Republic’s slot exemptions and place them in a carrier selection proceeding. For the

reasons stated below, Southwest’s application should be denied.

Southwest’s application is based on the erroneous assertion that Republic’s

service between DCA and MCI would cease on January 5, 2014. (Southwest Appl. at

1-2.) But no such basis exists. Republic operates DCA-MCI service under the Frontier

Airlines brand. Frontier’s current schedules for the winter 2014 season, beyond

January 5, 2014, include DCA-MCI service. Republic uses two within-perimeter slot
Answer of Republic Airline Inc. in Opposition

Page 2

\\DC - 040601/000003 - 4951786 v2

exemptions allocated by the Department to provide this service. See DOT Order

2012-3-8. The DCA-MCI flights are available and being sold in the marketplace via

flyfrontier.com and other distribution channels.1

Since the slot exemptions were restored to Republic in 2012, Republic has

continually used those slot exemptions for service between DCA and Kansas City.

Republic is currently using the two slot exemptions and has no plans to terminate

nonstop service between DCA and MCI with the two slot exemptions allocated to it for

that service. Accordingly, there is no legal, regulatory or factual basis for the

Department to confiscate these two slot exemptions and reallocate them to Southwest,

much less on a pendente lite basis. Any such action would be reversible error.2

Republic urges the Department to promptly deny Southwest’s application.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________

Robert E. Cohn

Patrick R. Rizzi

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Counsel for

REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

1

In an effort to avoid burdening the Department with having to deal with a legally and

factually unsupported application, Republic’s counsel informed Southwest’s counsel that

Frontier’s schedules beyond January 2014 include DCA-MCI nonstop service and that Southwest

could and should independently verify that fact. Southwest apparently verified that the schedules

were in place, but nonetheless refused to withdraw its application, and thus Republic is compelled

to file this answer in opposition.

2

See, e.g., Republic Airline Inc. v. DOT, 669 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
\\DC - 040601/000003 - 4951786 v2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer of Republic Airline Inc. has been

served this 6th day of August 2013, upon each of the following persons:

bob.kneisley@wnco.com; leslie.abbott@wnco.com; marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com;

robert.wirick@aa.com; francis.heil@aa.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com;

chris.walker@delta.com; jhill@dowlohnes.com; perkmann@dowlohnes.com;

jyoung@yklaw.com; dkirstein@yklaw.com; Thomas.Ting@suncountry.com;

dan.weiss@united.com; steve.morrissey@united.com; howard_kass@usairways.com;

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; john.varley@virginamerica.com;

pmurphy@lopmurphy.com; mark_vanloh@kcmo.org; tom_mckenna@kcmo.org;

todd.homan@dot.gov; Dennis.devany@dot.gov; brian.ctr.meehan@faa.gov;

peter.irving@dot.gov.; cindy.baraban@dot.gov; bob.goldner@dot.gov

Phil.Sunderland@MWAA.com; info@airlineinfo.com

Jonathan Echmalian