### BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the matter of NORWEGIAN AIRINTERNATIONAL LIMITED for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 

### 40109 and a foreign air carrierpermitpursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

### § 41301 (US-EU Open Skies) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

# _______________________________ ) Docket OST-2013-0204

RESPONSE OF AIR FRANCE TO AUGUST 4NOTICE

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Laurent Timsit SVP International & Regulatory Affairs AIR FRANCE 45 rue de Paris 95747 Roissy CDG Paris, France Email: latimsit@airfrance.tr

August 18,2014

### BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the matter of NORWEGIAN AIRINTERNATIONAL LIMITED for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 and a foreign air carrier permitpursuantto 49 U.S.C. 

### § 41301 (US-EU Open Skies) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )


# ____________________________ ) Docket OST-2013-0204

RESPONSE OF AIR FRANCE TO AUGUST 4 NOTICE

Air France files this response to the Department's August 4, 2014 Notice that seeks the views ofinterested parties on the Department's summary ofthe July 14, 2014 meeting with DGMOVE regarding the interpretation ofArticle 17bis ofthe U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement. As explainedbelow, Air France's position is that (a) the position ofthe European Party to the Agreement has not been determined yet; (b) Article 17bis should guide the Parties in their implementation ofthe Agreement; (c) accordingly it should not bar the Department from denying Norwegian International Airlines (NAI)'s application for U.S.-EU scheduled authority under U.S. aviation law ifit reaches the conclusion the application is not inthe public interest. Air France filed comments in opposition to NAI's application in this Docket on February 21, 2014 based on their view that NAI's labor practices appeared questionable in light ofthe "high labor standards" referred to in A1iicle 17bis ofthe EU-US Agreement as well as the U.S.Air France Response August 18,2014 Page 2 statutory policy goals under Sec, 40101(a) ofTitle 49, Use ofThai-based cabin crews and European pilots employed by Singapore-based subsidiaries raise important issues interms of laborprotections. Such employment practices also seem to Air France not to be coherent with the European objectives ofdeveloping growth andjobs. In addition, AirFrance believesthat EU Authorities should inparticulrn· take time to investigate thoroughly the potential consequences of schemes ofoperations in which there is a loose contractual linkbetween crews and the operating airline.
The Department now seeks cormnents on DG-MOVE's viewthat Article l7bis cmmot be invoked bythe Department or m1y other Party to the Open Skies Agreement alone to deny the application ofa cmTier ofthe other Party for a license under Article 4,
AirFrance frrst wishes to highlight that Department otiicials at this stage only heard the views ofofficials ofDG-MOVE. The Parties to the Agreement onthe European side are the Commission and its Member States. Ifthe Department seeks the views ofthe EuropeanUnion on Article 17bis, it should seek that in an official statement ofthe EC a11d the Member States as welL Secondly, Air France strongly believes thatthe provisions ofArticle 17bis should guide the Parties in their implementation ofthe Agreement The fact that Article 4 makes no reference to Article 17bis is not compelling at all as there is no language in Article 4 stating thatArticle 17bis does not apply. In our view, Article 17bis does formulate legal principles that ought to be taken into account in a11 Article 4(c) application; accordingly we believe that the implementation ofthe Agreement's provisions including Article 4 should not "undermine labor standal'ds or the labor-related rights and principles inthe Parties' respective laws."Air France Response August 18, 2014 Page 3 Thirdly, Air France reads Article 4(c) ofthe Agreement as imposing onthe Department
an obligation to grant appropriate authorization to an applicant if"the airline is qualified to meet the conditions prescribed under the laws and regulations normally applied
..." Those "laws and regulations" should include in our viewthe protection ofthe "high labor standards" secured by Article 17bis as well as the policy objectives provided for by U.S. statutory law (49U.S.C. §§ 4010l(a)(5), 40101(a)(l5) and (e)(!)). Atiicle 6bis onreciprocal recognition ofcitizenship and fitness determinations does not
seem to prevent the Department from applying "public interest" considerations indeciding whether to grant or deny NAI's exemption application. Thus, to the extent that the Department needs to act onNAI's exemption applicationto meet a statutory deadline (e.g., 49 U.S.C. Sec. 41710), the Depmiment is entitled to examine the exemption application based onthe applicable "public interest" standard that governs actions under 49 U.S.C. Section40109. Consideration ofthe "public interest" including the fact thatthe position ofthe European Pmyhas not been determined yet would require, in ourview, that the Department denies NAI's exemption application atthis stage. To the extentAriicle 6bis applies, the Depalimentmay then notify the European Party that it has questions whether the requirements ofAliicle 4(c) have beenmetbyNAI's application.
The Department will remain in a positionto continue to considerNAI's application for permanent authority. Inthat context, the Department will be able to determine, onthe record,Air France Response August 18,2014 Page 4 after consultations with the EC and its Member States which position to take onNAI's foreign air carrier application.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Laurent Timsit

SVP Intemational & Regulatory Affairs AIRFRANCE 45 rue de Paris 95747 Roissy CDG Paris, France

August 18, 2014

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing reply ofAir France has been served this 18'11 day of August 2014 upon the following persons:

/s/ Joan Gabel Joan Gabel Date: August 18,2014