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 24th day of July, 2012

Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

ORDER REALLOCATING WITHIN-PERIMETER SLOT EXEMPTIONS AT

RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT

SUMMARY

By this Order, the Department is reallocating two within-perimeter slot exemptions 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 Transportation 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 the 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 (within-perimeter slot 

exemptions)
- 2 -

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 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. informed 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 Airways Inc. 

temporary authority to operate the slot exemptions for DCA-JAN service until such time 

as the Department granted long-term authority to operate the two slot exemptions 

pursuant to a reallocation proceeding and the selected air carrier initiated service. As we 

stated in Order 2012-1-19, this grant of temporary authority was 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 Stage 3 aircraft to provide service to DCA from 

airports that were designated as medium hub, small hub or nonhub airports in 19972

within the 1,250-mile perimeter established for civil operations at DCA under Title 49 

U.S.C. § 49109. 

The selection criteria 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 

incumbent 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 competitive 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 classifications 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 transportation 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 categorized 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 number DOT-OST-2000-7182. 

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 states 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. 

Frontier 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. Frontier 

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 

competitive 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 capacity 

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 without 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 highest 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: Washington 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 continues. 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 affect the entire State 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 exception 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 believed service to small 

communities such as Jackson is an 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 exemptions 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 language 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 would 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 returned, 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 the 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 DCAJAN 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 Airways to 

cancel service to one of these other small communities. The airline argues that its DCAJAN service would offer connecting service to 27 additional destinations in the Ohio 

Valley and Northeastern United States, and it proposes to use either 69-seat Embraer E170 or 80-seat Embraer E-175 aircraft with two classes of service.

Summary of the Comments

Answer of Frontier Airlines8

Frontier contends it should be chosen over both US Airways and Southwest. 

Frontier maintains that US Airways’ application improperly emphasizes that its withinperimeter service proposal is to a small community and ignores 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 August 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 award the within-perimeter slot 

exemptions to US Airways, because US 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 acknowledged 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 largest 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 could 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 service 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 mainline 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 

Frontier 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 for 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 Southwest’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 daily 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 eight 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 McCarran 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 annual 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 expensive under US 

Airways’ monopoly, as DCA-Oklahoma City travel costs 21 cents per mile, whereas 

DCA-Louisville costs 40 cents per mile.

Response of Southwest Airlines9

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

nonstop 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 

stimulating 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 holdings 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 all 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% for 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 DCAJAN 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 three 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 Southwest 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 carriers 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 (along 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 twice the size of Republic’s next 

largest customer. 

Consolidated Answer of US Airways10

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 small 

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 community, 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 State of 

Mississippi if the service ceased. The airline contends 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 Northeast 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 has 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 Airlines11

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 Airways12

US Airways filed additional comments to counter Southwest’s arguments about an 

asserted 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 

slots, which are restricted to aircraft with 76 seats or less, make up a substantial portion 

of its DCA slot portfolio.

Consolidated Reply of Southwest13

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 portfolio. 

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’ contentions, 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 criterion. 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 Answer. Southwest argues that, by redoing 

 12 Motion For Leave to File an Otherwise Unauthorized 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 compared on a per-mile basis, 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 asserting 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 Authority14

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, Entergy, 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, 

State, and local agencies in Mississippi. 

Noting that the pendente 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 oneday 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 Sections 

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 Oklahoma 

City that currently has nonstop service to IAD, Mississippi has no other nonstop service 

 14 Additional Comments of the Jackson Municipal 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 State. JMAA further 

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) supports 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 demonstrated 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 billion 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 Airports16

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 

would: 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 the 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 Airport, 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), 

produce 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 regions. The airport authority also states that Oklahoma City is the State 

Capital 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 Pilots’ 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 introduce 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 comparing 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 

competitive 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

We 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 this decision is set 

out below. 

As a preliminary matter grounding our analysis, it is important to understand 

foundational 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 application 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 procedures 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 

distributing 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 nonstop 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 (emphasis 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 evident 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 2000-7-2, 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. We also recognize that our withinperimeter 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 At 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 selection 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 Wilmington, 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 Exemptions 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, the 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 Airways 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 withinperimeter 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 

Exemptions 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 National 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, Order 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 WithinPerimeter 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 Airlines 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 proposal meets more of the statutory 

criteria than either Comair’s or Northwest’s”). None 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. We nevertheless recognize that some 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 satisfy 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 

proceeding 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 flexibility 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 the 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 Department 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 

airline 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 proposal 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 interpretation 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.” Syncor 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 interpretation 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, but 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 the 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 each of the three applications in this proceeding has merit, based 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 these 

slot exemptions should be allocated to US Airways for service to Jackson. We 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 US 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 State 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 State of Mississippi.

 22 We note that Congress recently amended the statute governing the award of slot exemptions for 

certain nonstop service between DCA and 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. For 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 beyond-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 government center of 

Mississippi, and that Jackson has the largest concentration of Federal, State, and local 

agencies in Mississippi. We have concluded that those 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 DCA were lost. 

US Airways contends that the DCA-JAN service is viable under its business plan, 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-JAN 

travelers, all expressing support for the US Airways application 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 competing 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 travelers. 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 daily 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 into 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 meet the criterion set 

forth in Section 41718(b)(3) as each proposal 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 set 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 DCA. 

 23 See, Notice on Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order Limiting 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 under 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 set forth in 

Section 41718(b)(2) is most material to this decision because, as explained 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 State 

of Mississippi. Given that situation, the benefits of providing nonstop service between 

DCA and JAN are more compelling on this record in this proceeding 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 we 

therefore award US Airways these two slot exemptions 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 it 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, their 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 corresponding with the 

authority granted in this 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

review 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 Order 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, 

transfer, 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 could 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 Order is issued under authority 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-2000-7182 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 be 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 FAA 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 schedules 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 strike 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 Order on all interested 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/