Order 2012

- 7

- 26 Served: July 24 , 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.
Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 24 th day of July , 20 12

Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 00

- 7182

ORDER REALLOCATING WITHIN

- PERIMETER SLOT EXEMPTIONS AT RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT

SUMMARY
By this Order, the Department is reallocating two within

- perimeter slot exem ptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) to US Airways , Inc. for a daily nonstop roundtrip to Jackson

- Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport (JAN) in Jackson, Mississippi

.
Background

On December 6, 2004, the Department of Transportat ion issued Order 2004

- 12

- 6 , granting two slot exemptions at DCA for service inside the 1,250

- mile perimeter to Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Delta Connection (ASA) to provide a daily nonstop round trip to JAN. This Order was issued pursuant to t he Wendell H. Ford Aviation Applications of:
FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. ; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. ; and US AIRWAYS, INC.
For exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts K and S, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718( b ), Special rules for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ( with in

- perimeter slot exemptions )- 2

-

Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century (AIR

- 21), as amended by the Vision 100

– Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003, P.L. 108

- 176 (Vision 100)

. 1

By letter dated December 28, 2011, Delta Air Lines, Inc. in formed the Department that ASA’s operation of the DCA

- JAN service would cease effective March 2, 2012.

To minimize inconvenience to the traveling public using the DCA

- JAN service, on January 25, 2012, the Department issued Order 2012

- 1

- 19 granting US Airw ays Inc. temporary authority to operate the slot exemptions for DCA

- JAN service until such time as the Department grant ed long

- term authority to operate the two slot exemptions pursuant to a reallocation proceeding and the selected air carrier initiate d se rvice. As we stated in Order 2012

- 1

- 19, this grant of temporary authority wa s made without prejudice to our decision in this proceeding.

Due to ASA’s discontinuation of the DCA

- JAN service, the Department requested applications from air carriers using St age 3 aircraft to provide service to DCA from airports that were designated as medium hub, small hub or nonhub airports in 1997 2 within the 1,250

- mile perimeter established for civil operations at DCA under Title 49 U.S.C. § 49109.

The selection criteri a applicable to grant the slot exemptions are found in Title 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b), which directs the Secretary to distribute within

- perimeter slot exemptions in a manner that promotes air transportation: (1) by new entrant air carriers and limited incumben t air carriers; 3 (2) to communities without existing nonstop air transportation to DCA; (3) to small communities; (4) that will provide competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly nonstop route to DCA; or (5) that will produce the maximum competit ive benefits, including low fares.

Further, Title 49 U.S.C. § 41718(c)(3) specifies additional requirements governing the grant of within

- perimeter slot exemptions related to airport size, stating that “[o]f the exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. § 41718: (A) without regard to the criteria contained in subsection (b)(1), six shall be for air transportation to small hub airports and nonhub

1 See 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b).

2 Definitions of nonhub, small hub, and medium hub airports are provided under Title 49 U.S.C. § 41714 (h)(7), (8), and (9), which requires that hub classificatio ns be based on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Primary Airport Enplanement Activity Summary for Calendar Year 1997.

3 A new entrant carrier or limited incumbent carrier is an air carrier that holds or operates fewer than 40 slots at DCA. See 49 U.S .C. § 41714(h)(3), (5), as amended by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112

- 95, 126 Stat. 11 (Feb. 14, 2012).- 3

-

airports; (B) ten shall be for air transportation to medium hub and smaller airports; and (C) four shall be for air tra nsportation to airports without regard to their size.” Under that provision, then, a maximum of four slot exemptions may be used to serve large hubs.

The proceeding under which the Department granted ASA the slot exemptions for the DCA

- JAN service categ orized the slot exemptions as available for medium hub and smaller airports. See Order 2004

- 12

- 6.

APPLICATIONS

As summarized below, the Department received applications from Frontier Airlines
, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. , and US Airways . The entire public record for this proceeding, including proposals and reply comments, may be accessed online through the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov by performing a “search” on docket numb er DOT

- OST

- 20 00

- 7182

. Frontier Airlines: Washington DCA

- Louisville, Kentucky (SDF) 4
Frontier Airlines is requesting the two available within

- perimeter DCA slot exemptions for service between DCA and Louisville International Airport (SDF). Frontier sta tes that it is a limited incumbent air carrier, does not directly hold any within

- perimeter slot exemptions, and relies on the limited slots and slot exemption held by its affiliate Republic Airlines to offer a limited within

- perimeter network at DCA.

Fr ontier claims that Louisville is an inadequately

- served monopoly market with high fares and low capacity relative to its market demand. Frontier maintains that the current average fare for the US Airways service between DCA and Louisville is $240. Fronti er asserts that its low

- fare service would maximize the public interest objectives with competitive service against US Airways’ three daily flights. Frontier points out that, because of the short distance between DCA and SDF, one

- stop options are not comp etitive nor do they offer any pricing or service discipline. Contrasting US Airways’ current regional jet service between DCA and SDF, Frontier states that it would operate larger 138

- seat A

- 319 aircraft on the route, a more than 90% increase in market ca pacity over US Airways ’ 45

- to 70

- seat regional jets.

4 Application of Frontier Airlines, Inc., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1863, March 5, 2012.- 4

-

Southwest Airlines: Washington DCA

- Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (OKC) 5
Southwest Airlines has applied for the within

- perimeter slot exemptions for DCA service to Oklahoma City’s Will Rogers World Airport (OKC) with continuing same

- plane service to Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL). Southwest points out that it is a recent new entrant to DCA, through its acquisition of AirTran, and that its proposed service would provide nonstop service to a community withou t any such service from DCA. Southwest states that it has less than 3% of all DCA slots, while US Airways has over 50% of the total slots.
Southwest maintains that OKC is currently the largest DCA market without nonstop service, and that it has the highes t average DCA fare, at $271, of the top ten inside perimeter markets without nonstop service to DCA. Southwest states that its flight would also connect to five additional markets beyond Oklahoma City, including Dallas Love Field Airport (through

- service from DCA), Houston’s William P. Hobby Airport, Denver International Airport, Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Southwest would serve the market with 137

- seat Boeing 737

- 700 aircraft.
US Airways: Washi ngton DCA

- Jackson, Mississippi (JAN) 6
US Airways requests allocation of the available within

- perimeter slot exemptions for US Airways or US Airways Express service between DCA and JAN.
US Airways urges the Department to ensure that service to Jackson con tinues. Stating that Jackson is a small community that has supported nonstop service to DCA for the last seven years, US Airways maintains that Jackson would be harmed by the loss of its only service to DCA, and that the economic impact on Jackson would a ffect the entire S tate of Mississippi. According to US Airways, if the Department awards these slot exemptions for service to another airport, Mississippi will be the only State east of the Mississippi River without nonstop service to DCA, with the except ion of Delaware and Maryland
, and JAN will be left with only eight destinations served on a nonstop service basis from the airport

. The airline contends that legislative history shows that Congress believe d service to small communities such as Jackson is a n essential priority in DCA slot exemption allocations, and that AIR

- 21 further reflected the legislative intent to benefit small communities. US Airways argues that almost all of the statutory criteria in Section 41718(b) explicitly or implicitly benefit small communities. US Airways further asserts that Vision 100 affirmed this legislative intent by increasing the number of slot exemption s reserved for

5 Application of Southwest Airlines Co. , DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1867, March 5, 2012. 6 Application of US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1864, March 5, 2012.- 5

-

small

- and non

- hub airports from four to six. Moreover, US Airways argues, Vision 100 removed the lan guage from AIR

- 21 that gave a preference to new entrants and limited incumbents by providing in Section 41718(c)(3)(A) that the allocation of slot exemptions to small hub airports and nonhub airports could be granted without regard to whether the service w ould be provided by new entrants or limited incumbents. The airline asserts that Jackson continues to deserve the benefits of nonstop air service to DCA.
US Airways asserts that the only prior case in which slot exemptions for a small

- hub airport were re turned, and DOT selected another city rather than maintaining service to the same airport, was Midwest Airlines’ return of exemptions to serve Des Moines International Airport (DSM). 7 The airline argues that this case is distinguishable because, unlike th e Midwest case where the service to DSM was being operated at a loss, there is no evidence that Delta’s cessation of service was due to a lack of support from the Jackson community. The airline asserts that Delta’s decision to exit this route was related to Delta’s decision to shift many of its services from DCA to New York LaGuardia Airport (LGA), and not through any fault of, or lack of support for the service from, JAN. US Airways also cites to past and current Congressional support for DCA

JAN service

. US Airways also states that it would be unable to serve JAN with slots from its current holdings at DCA because the airline has already made commitments to serve other small communities, and electing to serve JAN with its own slots would require US Air ways to cancel service to one of these other small communities. The airline argues that its DCA

JAN service would offer connecting service to 27 additional destinations in the Ohio Valley and Northeastern United States , and it proposes to use either 69

- se at Embraer E

170 or 80

- seat Embraer E

- 175 aircraft with two classes of service.
Summary of the Comments

Answer of Frontier Airlines 8
Frontier contends it should be chosen over both US Airways and Southwest.

Frontier maintains that US Airways’ application improperly emphasiz es that its within

perimeter service proposal is to a small community and ignor es the other statutory criteria under which applications are to be evaluated. Frontier argues that this case is not about preserving service to JAN and that JAN effectively lost service on March 2, 2012, when Atlantic Southeast Airlines ceased flying the route under its slot exemption authority.

7 See Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
, Order 2004

- 8

- 3 (DOT Augu st 9, 2004), at 6

- 7 (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Spirit Airlines for service to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina).

8 Answer of Frontier Airlines, Inc., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1885, March 20, 2012.- 6

-

Frontier argues that the Department should not awar d the within

- perimeter slot exemptions to US Airways, because U S Airways is a legacy carrier with the largest pool of slots at DCA and its service proposal does not comprehensively address the statutory criteria. Instead, Frontier asserts, the Department should award the slot exemptions to it because it is an acknowl edged low

- cost, low

- fare, limited incumbent whose service proposal meets the maximum number of statutory criteria possible, including competition on a monopoly DCA route and low fares.
Contrasting its application with that of US Airways , Frontier argues that it meets the test of Section 41718(b)(1) as a limited incumbent, whereas US Airways not only does not but is the single lar gest holder and operator of slots at DCA with more than 450 slots after the recent approval by the DOT of the Delta Air Lines

– US Airways slot exchange

. Frontier also asserts that US Airways co uld elect to serve JAN by using a pair of slots from its current holdings . Frontier further maintains that its proposed SDF service also satisfies the Section 41718(b)(3) criterion for serv ice to small communities, with Louisville having fewer than 600,000 residents. Frontier additionally asserts that its proposal meets the Section 41718(b)(4) standard of providing competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly nonstop route to DCA. Finally, Frontier argues that its proposal best meets the Section 41718(b)(5) standard of producing the maximum competitive benefits, including low fares, because it, unlike US Airways, is an established low

- cost, low

- fare competitor; its 138

- seat A319 ma inline aircraft would produce more consumer benefits as compared to US Airways Express’ 69

- seat regional jet; SDF has two and half times more traffic demand for DCA air service than does Jackson; and SDF

- DCA has much higher average fares per mile than DCA

- JAN.
As to Southwest’s OKC application, Frontier claims that the Department should regard it and not Southwest a “limited incumbent” under Section 41718(b)(1) if Southwest’s operations at DCA are aggregated with its frequent service at Thurgood Marshall Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI) and Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). Frontier further argues that its proposed SDF service would produce more competitive benefits than Southwest’s proposed OKC service because, while Frontie r asserts its proposed SDF service would bring a new and low

- fare competitor in the Washington

- SDF market, Southwest already operates daily service from BWI to OKC (and United also has daily service from IAD to OKC). In addition, as further detailed below , Frontier claims that, on a per

- mile basis, Louisville’s DCA fares are higher than Oklahoma City’s, and Frontier’s low

- fare, monopoly

- breaking SDF service would generate more direct annual consumer savings than Southwest’s proposed OKC service. Frontier maintains that OKC receives more than 35 one

- stop connections from DCA, while there are few viable alternative options to US Airways’ nonstop monopoly flights to SDF. Frontier also contends that Louisville has a greater demand and higher prioritization fo r nonstop service to Washington, D.C., asserting that the DCA

- SDF- 7

-

market is 76% larger than the DCA

- OKC market and that Washington, D.C. is Louisville’s top destination
, compared to being the fourth largest destination for Oklahoma City.
With respect to So uthwest’s arguments about the beyond

- OKC benefits, Frontier asserts that Southwest’s same

- plane service to DAL underscores the fact that the DCA

- OKC market alone is not sufficiently large enough to merit the service and that, in any event, there are 12 dai ly nonstop flights from DCA to Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport. Frontier claims the beyond

- OKC benefits asserted by Southwest are “minimal,” because Denver International Airport currently has four daily nonstop flights from DCA, 11 from IAD, and ei ght from BWI. Houston’s William P. Hobby Airport has eight daily nonstop flights from DCA, six from IAD, and eight from BWI. Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport has three daily nonstop flights from DCA, one from IAD, and six from BWI. Las Vegas McC arran International Airport has one nonstop flight from DCA, three from IAD, and four from BWI.
In addition, Frontier urges us to be skeptical of Southwest’s claim that the DCA

- OKC fare will decrease to $163, given Southwest’s current average $186 fare in the BWI

- OKC market. Frontier estimates its average net fare on the DCA

- SDF route at $103, claiming a savings of nearly 50% on the current net average fare of $190. Frontier asserts that its low fares will stimulate the current DCA

- SDF market of 64,000 an nual passengers to 129,940 annual passengers and will result in $9.9 million in annual consumer savings on the DCA

- SDF route, thereby exceeding Southwest’s claimed benefits of $8.2 million. Finally, Frontier states that the DCA

- SDF market is much more expe nsive under US Airways’ monopoly
, as DCA

- Oklahoma City travel costs 21 cents per mile , whereas DCA

- Louisville cost s 40 cents per mile.
Response of Southwest Airlines 9

Southwest states that it is a limited incumbent; under Section 41718(b)(2), it proposes

n onstop service to OKC, a community without existing nonstop service to DCA; under Section 41718(b)(3), OKC is a small community, as it is classified as a small hub by the FAA; and, under Section 41718(b)(5), its proposal would produce the greatest level of competitive benefits, including low fares, among the three competing applicants. Southwest’s economic analysis and forecasts demonstrate, according to the applicant, that its DCA

- OKC proposal would generate $8 .2 million in annual consumer savings while

s timulating the market by an additional 55,000 passengers.
With respect to US Airways’ DCA

- JAN proposal, Southwest states that US Airways is not a new or limited incumbent, as it holds 54 percent of the DCA slots, and it could use

9 Response of Southwest Airlines Co., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1889, March 20, 2012- 8

-

two of its current slot ho ldings if it desires to continue serving JAN. Southwest urges us to consider the totality of DCA slot holdings, comparing US Airways’ portfolio of more than 450 slots to Southwest’s holdings of 25 slots, and to that of the aggregate 87 slot holdings of al l low

- cost carriers at DCA. Southwest also points out that US Airways operates 73 percent of its DCA slot holdings with commuter or regional jets, and Southwest argues that this use of smaller aircraft does not maximize public use and benefits as it fails to accommodate the greatest number of air travelers seeking to use DCA. In addition, the airline notes that, since Delta’s DCA

- JAN service began in 2005, total O&D traffic declined 35% and the load factor decreased from 68% in calendar year 2005 to 46% f or the year ended third quarter 2011, and the fare increased 87% from 2004. Southwest also asserts that it would charge lower fares to OKC than US Airways would to JAN. The airline estimates that the fare US Airways would charge in DCA

JAN would produce a yield of 27.0 cents per Revenue Passenger Mile (RPM) while Southwest’s yield for DCA

- OKC would average 14.1 cents per RPM, or 48% less.
With regard to Frontier’s DCA

- SDF proposal, Southwest maintains that the market is already well

- served from DCA with t hree daily nonstop flights provided by Frontier’s affiliated companies on US Airways’ behalf, generating 84 passengers per day each way (PDEW). The Oklahoma City route, on the other hand, with no current nonstop service to DCA, generates 46 PDEW, and Sou thwest estimates that new daily DCA

- OKC nonstop service would stimulate and increase the local market to 109 PDEW. Finally, Southwest believes the interlocking relationships between Republic Holdings and US Airways, under which Republic’s commuter carrier s fly major contract services for US Airways, and to a smaller degree, for Frontier, will discourage “vigorous” competition by Frontier in the DCA

- SDF market. Southwest maintains that, under Frontier’s proposal, DCA

- SDF would become the third DCA route (a long with Omaha and Kansas City) where both nonstop competitors would be a member of the Republic Holdings family. According to Southwest, US Airways accounts for 43 percent of all Republic Holdings’ contract daily departures

– 392 out of 904

– and is twi ce the size of Republic’s next largest customer.
Consolidated Answer of US Airways 10
US Airways argues that only its proposal seeks to serve a small

- hub airport, as both SDF and OKC were ranked as medium

- hub airports in 1997 while JAN was ranked as a smal l hub. The airline reasserts its argument that, because it is proposing service to a small

- hub airport, the bias favoring limited incumbents does not apply when considering Jackson because Vision 100 removed the new entrant/limited incumbent criterion in Section 41718(c)(3)(A). Thus , US Airways maintains that its proposal would provide service to a

10 Consolidated Answer of US Airways, Inc., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1884, March 20, 2012.- 9

-

small community on a route with no existing DCA nonstop service that provides the maximum competitive benefits.
US Airways asserts that Jackson, a small commun ity, has supported its nonstop DCA service for seven years, and it would be a major blow to job creation, the business climate, and the economic stability and competitiveness of Jackson and the S tate of Mississippi if the service ceased. The airline conte nds that the benefits of the US Airways service to the Jackson passenger would include larger, two

- class regional jet service, a second nonstop US Airways destination, and more choices for connecting service to 27 destinations in the Ohio Valley and Northe ast United States.
US Airways also argues that JAN has less service to the Washington, DC area airports (DCA, IAD, and BWI) than either SDF or OKC . The airline argues that its proposed service, which would include an early morning flight from JAN and an evening departure back from DCA, would not require an overnight stay, thus providing greater convenience for the Jackson passenger.
As to Southwest’s application, US Airways disputes Southwest’s claims of OKC connecting benefits. US Airways maintains that only Dallas and Houston passengers can reasonably connect via the OKC service, while Denver, Las Vegas, and Phoenix connection times are excessive. US Airways also argues that Southwest overstates the effect of both stimulation and fares and that a more reasonable forecast suggests that Southwest’s DCA

- OKC flights would be half

- full and the route would be unsustainable.
With regard to Frontier’s proposal for DCA

- SDF service, US Airways states that SDF already ha s eight roundtrip flights provided by three airlines from the Washington area. US Airways also maintains that
, since load factors from DCA, IAD, and BWI to SDF are less than 70% for the year

- end November 2011, which is more than 12% below the average load factor for all Washington airports and more than 15% below the overall average domestic load factor across the industry, the demand for service between Louisville and Washington is already being met.
US Airways urges us to be skeptical of Frontier’s proposal, contending that Frontier is reducing its DCA

- Kansas City and DCA

- Milwaukee service in April, it lacks available connecting opportunities at SDF, and its reliance on stimulation based on Independence Air’s pricing model is flawed.

Additional Comments of Frontier Airlines 11

Frontier states that , contrary to Southwest’s assertion, it vigorously competes with US Airways and similarly competes with the other legacy carriers that utilize one of Republic

11 Motion For Leave and Reply of Frontier Airlines, Inc., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1894, March 23, 2012.- 10

-

Holdings’ fee

- for

- service carriers (whereby the legacy carrier partners set the schedules,
routes , and fares of the fee

- for

- service carriers). Frontier further states that it operates under an independent commercial management team.
Additional Comments of US Airways 12
US Airways filed additional comments to counter Southwest’s arguments about an

asse rted lack of competition between itself and Frontier, maintaining that its commercial relationships with Republic are conducted at arm’s length and are the result of independent bargaining on both sides. In addition, US Airways points out that commuter sl ots, which are restricted to aircraft with 76 seats or less, make up a substantial portion of its DCA slot portfolio.
Consolidated Reply of Southwest 13

Southwest filed additional comments to counter US Airways’ argument that it overstated the effect of its proposed service on stimulation and fares. In asserting that its forecast traffic stimulation of 137 percent for DCA

- OKC is reasonable, Southwest analyzes eight markets that it entered since 2009 with fare reductions of 40 percent or more and argues that traffic stimulation occurred in all eight markets as a result of Southwest’s low fares. The airline also refutes US Airways’ claim that commuter slots, which are restricted to aircraft with 76 seats or less, make up a substantial portion of its DCA slot p ortfolio. Instead, Southwest argues, 71 percent of US Airways’ slots at DCA are unrestricted air carrier slots and US Airways operates only 27% of its DCA flights with mainline jet aircraft.

Southwest further contends that , contrary to US Airways ’ content ions, the slot exemptions at issue in this case are authorized for service to medium hub and smaller airports under Section 41718(c)(3)(B), which, unlike Section 41718(c)(3)(A), does not eliminate consideration of the new entrant/limited incumbent criterio n. With respect to the size of OKC, Southwest contends that OKC is classified as a small hub in the FAA’s most current Terminal Area Forecasts, and therefore must be considered as such for the purposes of this case. Southwest further argues that the 1997 classification is irrelevant since the slot exemptions in this case may be used for service to medium hub or smaller airports.
With respect to Frontier’s proposal, Southwest challenges the economic impact and benefits analysis Frontier provided in its Ans wer. Southwest argues that, by redoing

12 Motion For Leave to File an Otherwise Unauthori zed Document and Additional Comments of US Airways, Inc., DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1993, March 22, 2012.

13 Consolidated Reply of Southwest Airlines Co. and Motion for Leave to File, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182, March 29, 2012.- 11

-

Southwest’s fare savings model using Frontier’s methodology, Southwest’s DCA

- OKC savings would increase to $11.1 million annually. In addition, Southwest contends that, if Frontier’s and Southwest’s fares are compar ed on a per

- mile bas i s, Frontier’s yield would be 54 percent higher than Southwest’s. Southwest also counters Frontier’s argument that consideration of the services available at BWI and IAD should be used in weighing the applications in this case by asser ting that the Department has not found that airlines or passengers consider the three Washington/Baltimore area airports to be economic substitutes for one another. Southwest also reasserts that the commercial and contractual relationships among Frontier, Republic, and US Airways continue to be relevant to this case.
Comments (Additional and Second Additional Comments) of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority 14
The Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA) supports US Airways’ application for nonstop DCA

- JAN service. JMAA states that JAN serves 58% of airline passengers originating in Mississippi, and that Jackson is the economic, business, and government center of Mississippi. The airport authority lists Nissan, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Enter gy, AT&T, C Spire Wireless, and L

- 3 Communications as among its major corporate employers, and notes that the city also has the largest concentration of Federal, S tate , and local agencies in Mississippi.
Noting that the pendent e lite exemption granted to US Airways when Delta ceased service is the only nonstop service in the market, JMAA argues that awarding US Airways the slot exemptions would prevent the loss of this nonstop service for the small community, satisfying Sections 41718(b)(2) and (3). JMAA also asserts that the US Airways proposal satisfies Section 41718(b)(5) by offering passengers access to about 14 US Airways East Coast destinations. The airport authority further claims that the US Airways DCA

- JAN service allows for significantly less travel time and the ability of one

day business trips between Washington, D.C. and Jackson.
In comparing the applications from Frontier and Southwest, JMAA argues that the US Airways proposal to serve JAN would best promote air transportation under Secti ons 41718(b)(2) and (3) by ensuring that JAN, a small hub airport in a small community, maintains nonstop service to the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. JMAA asserts that, unlike Louisville that currently has nonstop service to DCA and IAD, and Oklaho ma City that currently has nonstop service to IAD, Mississippi has no other nonstop service

14 Additional Comments of the Jackson Municipa l Airport Authority in Support of the Application by US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1865/6, March 5, 2012; and Second Additional Comments of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority in Support of the Application by US Airways, Inc. for an Exemption to Provide Nonstop Service Between Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Jackson

- Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport, DOT

- OST

- 200

- 7182

- 1892, March 20, 2012.- 12

-

to Washington, D.C. The airport authority contends that not having this nonstop service would be devastating economically for both the city and the S tate . JMAA fu rther emphasizes that Jackson is the smallest of the communities in terms of Metropolitan Statistical Area populations and airport size.
Comments of the Louisville Regional Airport Authority (LRAA) 15
The Louisville Regional Airport Authority (LRAA) suppor ts Frontier’ s application for service between DCA and SDF, arguing that the application best fits the statutory criteria. LRAA contends that SDF is a small community with a small hub airport, satisfying Section 41718(b)(3). The airport authority further states that DCA

- SDF is a monopoly market served only by US Airways Express with regional jets, and it argues that Frontier’s proposal will introduce competition and offer public benefits
, such as lower fares and additional capacity on a route with demonstr ated market demand, satisfying Sections 41718(b)(4) and (5). The airport authority further contends that awarding the slot exemptions to Frontier for the DCA

- SDF service would stimulate traffic by other carriers in the SDF

- Washington, D.C. market.

LRAA asserts that, while the Louisville area is properly viewed as a small community served by a small hub airport, the area also has many businesses, military facilities, and government offices with interests in and ties to the Washington, D.C. area, including the U.S. Army installation at Fort Knox. The airport authority claims that the Louisville area is headquarters for seven companies with annual revenues above $1 billion, naming Humana Inc. the largest company in the area with revenues of more than $33 bi llion per year. Finally, LRAA believes that Frontier’s large

- jet, low

- fare service to DCA would encourage tourism, convention, and leisure traffic on a route that currently predominantly serves business travelers.
Answer of Oklahoma City Department of Air ports 16
Arguing that its economy can take the maximum advantage of new nonstop service to DCA, the City of Oklahoma City Department of Airports supports Southwest’s application for DCA

- OKC service and satisfies the applicable statutory criteria because it

w ould: 1) under 41718(b)(1), provide service by a limited incumbent airline at DCA; 2) under 41718(b)(2), offer nonstop service to a community without such service; 3) under

15 Comments of the Louisville Regional Airport Authority in Support of th e Application of Frontier Airlines, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1886, March 20, 2012.

16 Answer of Oklahoma City Department of Airports in Support of the Application of Southwest Airlines to Serve Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport from Will Rogers World Airp ort, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1887, March 20, 2012.- 13

-

41718(b)(3), provide DCA service to a small community; and 4) under 41718(b)(5), p roduce the maximum competitive service, including low fares.
The airport authority states that Oklahoma City has a population of almost 1.3 million people, a number that grew more than 14% from 2000 to 2010, above average for the top 50 metropolitan region s. The airport authority also states that Oklahoma City is the State C apita l and, with low unemployment and high GDP growth
, is the primary economic engine for the region. Noting ties to the Washington, D.C. area, the authority lists major employers such as Tinker Air Force Base and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center. The authority also claims that OKC generates more traffic to DCA than any other market within the 1,250

- mile perimeter lacking nonstop service, despite the daily nonstop service from OKC to BWI and IAD, and that its fares are the highest among the top ten inside

- the

- perimeter markets from DCA without nonstop service.
Comments of the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association (SWAPA) 17

The Southwest Airlines Pi lots’ Association (SWAPA) supports Southwest’s application for nonstop service between DCA and OKC, arguing that Southwest is a limited incumbent proposing service to a small community without current nonstop service to DCA, the proposed service would intr oduce competitive benefits, including low fares, and Southwest would use a larger aircraft

– the 137

- seat Boeing 737

- 700

– than the other applicants. SWAPA also noted that DCA

- OKC is the largest inside

- the

- perimeter market without nonstop service.
In comp aring the competing service proposal by US Airways, SWAPA asserts that, since 2005, load factors on Delta’s DCA

- JAN flights were generally at or below 50% on regional jet aircraft ranging from 50 to 75 seats, and SWAPA notes that US Airways proposes to use similarly sized aircraft. The association also contends that US Airways does not require the slot exemptions to serve JAN because of the large number of DCA slots it currently holds

. SWAPA further contends that Southwest’s proposal offers more competiti ve benefits than Frontier’s proposed service to SDF when considering that Southwest operates, from OKC, 21 daily flights on Boeing 737 aircraft to eight cities on a nonstop basis and 64 cities on a one

- stop or connecting basis.

DECISION

W e have carefully considered the relevant statute and our previous slot exemption decisions, and reviewed the applications and responsive pleadings

. We have determined
to award US Airways these two slot exemptions for service to Jackson, Mississippi

17 Comments of the Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association, DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

- 1888, March 20, 2012.- 14

-

because , based on our analysis and judgment in this proceeding, its application best meets the objectives of the slot exemption statute

. Our reasoning to support th i s decision is set out below.

As a preliminary matter grounding our analysis , it is important to understand fo undational language in the Department’s very first decision awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions following enactment of AIR

- 21

.

In this initial decision , the Department set forth its construction of Section 41718(b)
, in addressing whether an applic ation must meet each of the applicable criteria that were specified in that section. One of the carriers applying for exemptions in that case argued that unless a carrier can qualify for an inside the perimeter slot under all applicable criteria and proce dures as required by statute, the application must be dismissed by the Department as being legally insufficient.
In rejecting that interpretation, the Department reasoned as follows:

49 U.S.C. §41718(b) directs the Secretary to develop criteria for dis tributing slot exemptions for flights within the perimeter of DCA to medium hub or smaller airports in a manner that promotes air transportation:

(1) by new entrant air carriers and limited incumbent air carriers; (2) to communities without existing nonst op air transportation to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; (3) to small communities; (4) that will provide competitive nonstop air transportation on a monopoly nonstop route to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport; or (e mphasis added) (5) that will produce the maximum competitive benefits, including low fares.

The statutory requirements for the awarding of within

- perimeter slot exemptions in §41718(b) are in the disjunctive. This reading of the statute is eviden t since the five criterion [sic] are separated by the term “or” as opposed to the term “and.” While the statute provides the Department with specific criteria that it must use in evaluating these applications, the statute also provides the Department with the essential flexibility it needs in comparing these applications, ensuring that its determinations in these matters will maximize public benefits.- 15

-

See Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan

- Washington National Airport , Order 2 000

- 7

- 2, 14

- 15 (DOT July 5, 2000). 18

We recognize that there have been a number of decisions subsequent to Order 2000

- 7

- 2 awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to applicants that met more than one, if not several or the most, of the Section 41718(b) criteria

. W e also recognize that our within

perimeter slot exemption award decisions subsequent to Order 2000

- 7

- 2 may have appeared inconsistent with our previously stated interpretation of Section 41718(b). In some instances, those orders characterized such applications as those that “best” meet the criteria in the statute. 19 A t least one of our within

- perimeter slot exemption orders premised the award on the application satisfying numerically “more” of the Section

18 See also Final Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
, Order 2008

- 12

- 22, at 4 (DOT December 29, 2008) (making final a tentative allocation of two within

- perimeter slot exemptions to US Airways for service to Akron

- Canton; “what cannot be argued is the express language Congress used in establishing the selecti on criteria that govern these proceedings, as well as our obligation to first look to that express language in implementing the statute. Accordingly . . . the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal were analyzed by applying the statutory criteria set out at 49 U.S.C. § 41718.”); Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2003

- 1

- 16, at 2, 8 (DOT Jan. 22, 2003) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Corporate Airlines for service to Wilmingt on, North Carolina or Jacksonville, North Carolina and AirTran for service to Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers or West Palm Beach, Florida; emphasis added to the word “or” in Section 41718(b) criteria).

19 See, e.g., Order Reallocating Within

- Perimeter Slot Ex emptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2010

- 12

- 16, at 10 (DOT December 10, 2010), vacated on other grounds
, Republic Airline, Inc. v. Dep’t of Trans ., 669 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (reallocating two within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Sun Country Airlines for service to Lansing Michigan; “[t]he statutory criteria for assessing the proposals in this docket are set out at 49 U.S.C. § 41718. As discussed in detail below, Sun Country’s proposal meets four out of five selection criteria, t he maximum number possible.”); Order Tentatively Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2008

- 11

- 19, at 2, 5 (DOT November 25, 2008) (tentative allocation of two within

- perimeter slot exemptions to US A irways for service to Akron

- Canton); Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2008

- 2

- 28, at 2, 9, 11 (DOT Feb. 27, 2008) (awarding within

perimeter slot exemptions to Spirit Airlines for service to Fort Lauderdale, Florida and to AirTran Airways for service to either Jacksonville, Florida or Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with a backup selection of Midwest Airlines for service to Milwaukee or Kansas City, Missouri); Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemp tions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2007

- 5

- 12, at 2, 13 (DOT May 23, 2007) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to AirTran for service to Atlanta); Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington Nati onal Airport , Order 2006

- 6

- 17, at 7 (DOT June 12, 2006) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to US Airways for service to Sarasota/Bradenton, Florida); Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Ord er 2004

- 12

- 6, at 6

- 8 (DOT Dec. 6, 2004) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Atlantic Southeast Airlines for service to Jackson, Mississippi); Order Granting Within

Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2004

- 4

- 2, at 15, 17, 18

- 19 (DOT April 1, 2004) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to AirTran for service to Atlanta; Comair for service to Jackson, Mississippi or Lexington, Kentucky; Midwest Airlines for service to Kansas City, Missouri; Spirit Airlin es for service to Detroit, Michigan; and US Airways for service to Asheville, North Carolina, Chattanooga, Tennessee, or Wilmington, North Carolina).- 16

-

41718(b) criteria. See Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2004

- 8

- 3, at 9 (DOT Aug. 9, 2004) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Spirit Airlines for service to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
, and finding that “Spirit’s pr oposal meets more of the statutory criteria than either Comair’s or Northwest’s”). N one of these decisions stated that we were adopting a new standard or modifying our original construction of Section 41718(b) as set forth in Order 2000

- 7

- 2

. W e neverthel ess recognize that s ome of these precedents might be construed as setting forth the principle that the applicable criteria must be evaluated as having equivalent weight and that a slot exemption must always be awarded to the application that appears to sat isfy the greatest number of Section 41718(b) criteria. 20 That is not the case.

Therefore, the Department reaffirms its interpretation of Section 41718(b) as set forth in Order 2000

- 7

- 2, which has not changed, and will apply that interpretation in this pro ceeding and in future proceedings under Section 41718(b). 21 That construction comports with the language of the statute. By its use of the disjunctive “or” in separating the award criteria, the statute “provides the Department with the essential flexibili ty it needs in comparing these applications, ensuring that its determinations in these matters will maximize public benefits.” Order 2000

- 7

- 2 at 15. Accordingly , the Department has the discretion to premise an award based upon satisfaction of less than t he greatest number of criteria, or even one criteria, listed in Section 41718(b), based upon the Department’s analysis of the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal when evaluated under the Section 41718(b) criteria. Congress plainly vested the Depart ment with that discretion by enumerating the five criteria and then separating them by the term “or” as opposed to the term “and.” In doing so, the statute provides the Department with specific

20 For example, in a prior proceeding, slot exemptions for a small

- hub airport were returned, another air line proposed to serve the same small

- hub airport, and the Department selected another destination rather than restoring service to the same small

- hub airport. The decision in that proceeding is among those that may have given the impression that the prop osal meeting the greatest number of criteria would prevail; however, that decision was based on the relative merits of the particular proposals submitted and, in that proceeding, the Department’s decision hinged on its findings that the new destination had comparably fewer connecting opportunities to DCA and a greater need for competitive low

- fare service on a low

- fare carrier. See Order Granting Within

- Perimeter Slot Exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport , Order 2004

- 8

- 3 (DOT Aug. 9, 2004 ) (awarding within

- perimeter slot exemptions to Spirit Airlines for service to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina).

21 To the extent our decision today might be construed as a change in statutory interpretation, it is well

- established that “an agency’s interpre tation of an ambiguous statute is entitled to judicial deference” under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc ., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), and the agency may change “a prior statutory interpretation . . . without notice and comment.” Sy ncor Int’l Corp. v. Shalala , 127 F.3d 90, 94 (D.C. Cir. 1997). See also, e.g., Firearms Import/Export Roundtable Trade Group v. Jones , No. 11

- 547, 2012 WL 1288476, at *5 (D.D.C. March 12, 2012) (“[W]ithout notice and comment an agency may issue an interp retation that changes a prior statutory interpretation.”) (quoting Syncor , 127 F.3d at 94) (internal citations omitted).- 17

-

criteria that it must use in evaluating these applications, b ut also provides the Department with the essential flexibility it needs in comparing these applications, ensuring that its determinations in these matters will maximize public benefits. 22

To the extent our prior decisions could be interpreted to require the Department to award within

- perimeter slot exemptions to an application satisfying “more” of the Section 41718(b) criteria, we now expressly clarify that, consistent with our first interpretation of Section 41718 in Order 2000

- 7

- 2, the Department has t he discretion to award slot exemptions to applicants with proposals satisfying fewer than the maximum number of criteria

– or fewer than other applicants

– and, in given circumstances, one criterion may be more material to a decision than other criteria.

While e ach of the three applications in this proceeding has merit , b ased upon the applications received, and under our analysis of the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal when evaluated under the Section 41718(b) criteria, we are persuaded that th ese slot exemptions should be allocated to US Airways for service to Jackson

. W e have concluded that the criterion set forth in Section 41718(b)(2)

– promoting service to communities without existing nonstop air transportation to DCA

– is most material to this decision . And as between the two communities without this nonstop service

– Jackson and Oklahoma City

- we have concluded that public benefits , in our judgment, are best maximized with an award to Jackson

. First, as convincingly argued by both U S Airways and JMAA, we conclude that Jackson is a small community that substantially benefitted from nonstop service to DCA for seven years, which service it stands to lose if US Airways’ application is not selected to the detriment of the city and the Sta te of Mississippi. While Oklahoma City could reasonably expect economic benefits from a grant of the competing Southwest application, in our judgment, we conclude on this record that Jackson would face significant adverse economic consequences if nonstop DCA service were not maintained, with adverse effects felt throughout the S tate of Mississippi.

22 We note that Congress recently amended the statute governing the award of slot exemptions for certain nonstop service between DCA a nd airports beyond the 1,250

- mile perimeter, making 8 new slot exemptions available to new entrants and limited incumbents. See FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FAA 2012), Section 414, P. L. 112

- 95 (Feb. 14, 2012), amending 49 U.S.C. § 41718. F or these 8 new slot exemptions, the amended statute contains a new Section 41718(g)(2) that sets forth seven criteria for selection in the disjunctive. Id . On May 14, 2012, the Department issued its first order under the amended statute, awarding two bey ond

- perimeter slot exemptions to each of Alaska Airlines, Inc., Jet Blue Airways Corporation, Southwest Airlines Co., and Virgin America Inc. See Order 2012

- 5

- 12 (DOT May 14, 2012), at 3

- 4.- 18

-

JMAA has represented that JAN serves 58% of airline passengers originating in Mississippi
, that Jackson is the economic, business, and go vernment center of Miss issippi, and that Jackson has the largest concentration of Federal, S tate, and local agencies in Mississippi. We have concluded that t hose agencies, together with such major corporate employers as Nissan, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Entergy, AT&T, C Spire Wireless, and L

- 3 Communications , which have been reliant on convenient nonstop service to DCA, would all be adversely impacted if that nonstop service to DC A were lost.
US Airways contends that the DCA

- JAN service is viable under its business pl an, and we note that US Airways’ application received strong airport and community endorsements, as is reflected in the numerous comments of support set forth in the record of this proceeding from business, political and community leaders and regular DCA

- J AN travelers, all expressing support for the US Airways a pplication and further describing the negative impact that would follow a loss of service to DCA.
The carriers have also raised as an issue the nonstop travel alternatives available from each compe ting community to the other major airports serving the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, BWI and IAD. While BWI and IAD are not economically interchangeable with DCA, 23 they do provide the nearest alternative access to the Washington area for many travel ers. Absent the pendente lite authority in place, JAN has only one daily nonstop roundtrip into the Washington area, that being into BWI. That roundtrip from Jackson, arriving midday in both directions, offers JAN fewer nonstop options than the three dai ly nonstops from Louisville to DCA, 24 the four weekday nonstops from Louisville to BWI, and the once daily weekday nonstop from Louisville to IAD. Oklahoma City has two nonstop options available to other WAS airports with its once daily nonstop roundtrip i nto each of BWI and IAD.
In evaluating the relative merits of the applications submitted in this proceeding under the Section 41718(b) criteria, we also conclude that all three proposals m e et the criterion set forth in Section 41718(b)(3) as each proposa l would provide air transportation to small communities. Frontier, a limited incumbent carrier at DCA, proposes low

- fare service to compete directly with the US Airways nonstop roundtrips to Louisville, Kentucky, a proposal that satisfies the criterion se t forth in Section 41718(b)(4). Southwest, a limited incumbent at DCA, seeks to provide low

- fare, first nonstop service to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. US Airways, an incumbent carrier at DCA, plans to restore Jackson, Mississippi’s only nonstop service to D CA.

23 See , Notice on Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order L imiting Scheduled Operations at LaGuardia Airport, 75 Fed. Reg. 26,332 (May 11, 2010). 24 Effective, on July 11, 2012, nonstop access on US Airways increases to four each weekday.- 19

-

But u nder our analysis of the relative merits of each carrier’s proposal when evaluated under the Section 41718(b) criteria, we are persuaded that the criterion se t forth in Section 41718(b)(2) is most material to this decision because, as explain ed above
, the public benefits are best maximized with an award to JAN as opposed to OKC

. Jackson is a small community that significantly benefitted from nonstop service to DCA for seven years . Jackson would face significant adverse economic consequences if the service that formerly existed to JAN were not restored, with adverse effects felt throughout the S tate of Mississippi. Given that situation, the benefits of providing nonstop service between DCA and JAN are more compelling on this record in this pr oceeding as weighed against the particulars of the other applications. And we are persuaded that the criterion set forth in Section 41718(b)(2) should be accorded the greatest weight in this proceeding, and w e therefore award US Airways these two slot exe mptions for service to Jackson, Mississippi

.

CONDITIONS

Start

- up
We will require US Airways to inaugurate full service by no later than September 8
, 2012. If, for any reason, US Airways is not able to use the slot exemptions awarded, we request that i t notify the Department as soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after the date of service of this Order.

Assignment of Slot Times

We are directing US Airways to file in the Docket, no later than 10 business days from the date of this Order, thei r proposed flight schedule

. Section 414 (b) of FAA 2012 allows the Department to assign two additional slot exemptions per one hour period (for a total of five), an increase from the three per hour authorized in Vision 100. There are 15 hourly periods beginning at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 9:59 p.m., and all slot exemptions must fit into those 75 slot times. Applicants were advised of these slot

- time constraints. In coordination with FAA’s Slot Administration Office, we shall assign slot times correspon ding with the authority granted in th i s proceeding, and in accordance with the requirements of FAA 2012, in a notice subsequent to our decision.- 20

-

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Although 49 U.S.C. Section 41718(e) specifically exempts our action here from revie w under the National Environmental Policy Act
, 25 we remain sensitive to the environmental impact of increased operations at DCA. Consistent with the statute,

we will require that all operations authorized by this O rder be conducted with Stage 3 aircraft.

Also, under 49 U.S.C. § 47117(e), the Department will give DCA priority in making grants for airport noise compatibility planning and programs.

ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS

Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 41714(j), an awardee may not sell, trade,
tr ansfer, or convey the operating authorities granted by the subject exemptions , except through an air carrier merger or acquisition.

Further, granting of these exemptions in no way is to be construed as allowing a carrier to operate services that it coul d not otherwise operate. An awardee must still meet all the requirements of the Department and FAA
, including but not limited to
, use

- or

- lose provisions, and all other statutes and regulations governing air transportation.

This O rder is issued under auth ority delegated in 49 C.F.R. Section 1

. 56 ( a ).

25 Section 41718 ( e) states, "Neither the request for, nor the granting of an exemption, under this section shall be considered for purposes of any Federal law a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."- 21

-

ACCORDINGLY,

1. The Department reallocates the two slot exemptions to US Airways , Inc. to serve Jackson

- Evers International Airport;

2. The Department directs US Airways , Inc., to file in Docket OST

- 20 00

- 71 82 no later than ten business days after the service date of this Order their proposed flight schedules and effective date for operations authorized by this Order. The slot exemptions granted must be conducted with single

- aisle Stage 3 aircraft, may not b e used for operations between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and may not increase the number of operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in any one

- hour period during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. by more than five operations. The slot times currently allocated for nonstop DCA

- JAN service are both in the 1300 hour period. The air carrier is advised to exercise maximum flexibility in proposed operating times to ensure compliance with these limits;

3. In coordination with the F AA Slot Administration Office, the Department will make the final assignment of operating times for these within

- perimeter slot exemptions in a separate notice, as soon as possible. The Department directs the awardee to contact the FAA Slot Administration Office regarding their proposed schedule s associated with the slot exemptions. FAA will assign slot exemption numbers, effective dates, and operating times consistent with statutory limitations;

4. The Department prohibits US Airways, Inc., from selling , trading, transferring, or conveying the operating authorities granted by the subject exemptions, except through an air carrier merger or acquisition;

5. The Department grants all motions to file otherwise unauthorized documents and denies motions to stri ke such documents;

6. Except as otherwise granted, we deny all other applications for exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts K and S, filed in this docket;

7. The authorities granted under these exemptions are subject to all of the other requirements delineated in 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts K and S, including, but not limited to, the reporting provisions and use

- or

- lose requirements;

8. This docket will remain open until further order of the Department; and- 22

-

9. We will serve this O rder on all intereste d parties including MWAA and the FAA Slot Administration Office.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
(SEAL)
An electronic version of this document will be made available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.gov/