BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_________________________________________ Applications of )

)

NATIONAL AIR CARGO GROUP, INC. )

d/b/a NATIONAL AIRLINES )

) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2 012

- 0204

for amended certificates of public convenience ) and

and necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41102 ) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0205

to engage in interstate and foreign scheduled )

air transportation of persons, property and mail )

)

ANSWER OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA TO

OBJECTIONS OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

David A. Berg

Senior Vice President & General Counsel

Airlines for America

1301 Penn sylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2000 4

202

- 626

- 4234

dberg@airlines.org

September 5, 2013BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

_________________________ ________________ Applications of )

)

NATIONAL AIR CARGO GROUP, INC. )

d/b/a NATIONAL AIRLINES )

) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0204

for amended certificates of public convenience ) and

and necessity pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 411 02 ) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0205

to engage in interstate and foreign scheduled )

air transportation of persons, property and mail )

_________________________________________ )

ANSWER OF AIRLINES FOR AMERICA TO

OBJECTIONS OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

A irlines for America (“A4A”) 1 submits this answer in support of United Airlines’ (“United”)

objection s to Order 2013

- 4

- 12 and request s that the Department set aside its tentative decision

and reopen this proceeding to review National Airlines’ (“National”) fitness to provide scheduled

passenger service

. As the Department likely is aware, A4A normally does not participate in

carrier proceedings because they are commercial in nature. However, United’s objections raise

serious and legitimate questions about the integrity of the application process in this case that

the Department can and should address. As a general process principle, the Department

should ensure that all applicants fully and fairly describe the service proposals for which they

seek approval from the Department. The public, and in particular airlines such as A4A’s

members who have an i nterest in participating in proceedings such as this one, rely on the

Department to ensure that information submitted for review is complete and put s them (and the

1 Air Transport Association of America, Inc. d/b/a Airlines for America (“A4A”). A4A is the prin cipal trade and

service organization of the U.S. scheduled airline industry. A4A members and affiliates transport more than 90% of

U.S. airline passenger and cargo traffic. The members of the association are: Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American

Airlines, Inc .; Atlas Air, Inc.; Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation.; Hawaiian Airlines; JetBlue Airways

Corp.; Southwest Airlines Co.; United Continental Holdings, Inc.; United Parcel Service Co ; and US Airways, Inc.2

Department) on notice of planned service proposals so that interested parties can respond

wh en in their interests . That did not occur in this case.

National’s December 11, 2012 Application, when viewed in its entirety and in the context

of its existing passenger operation s as described in the Application

, indicates a modest service

increase by adding a single scheduled route

, Dubai

- Kabul

- Bagram

- Kandahar

, using one new

aircraft. 2 Nothing in the Application put the public on notice that National intended to provide

extensive international service from seven U.S. gateways in 31 city

- pairs. Th at information was

not disclosed through the DOT application process in this docket; it only became known after

the General Services Administration awarded the 31 city

- pairs to National o n August 1 6 , 2013.

Consequently, the nature and extent of National’s proposed service remained hidden from the

public and the Department, which lacked the necessary information and public record on which

to make a proper fitness determination for National’s expansive scheduled service

.

The failure to disclose this material information prevented interested parties from being

able to identify that they had an interest in responding to National’s Application and to determine

what information and argument would be useful for the Department to assess the Application

and make an informed and reasoned decision. T hat failure undermines the integrity of the

process in this case and should alarm the Department.

Finally, the Department should not accept the argument that the Application generally

described National’s plan to engage in code

- share operations in the U.S . (Dulles)

- Dubai

scheduled passenger market. First, as discussed above, that description, in the context of

National’s existing operation, is not fair notice of a plan to engage in extensive scheduled

international service. Second, if the Department wer e to accept such a vague description as

acceptable notice to the public and for its own review purposes, then the application process

2 Application, par. 5 (National conducts passenger charters for the Flour Corporation daily on the Dubai

- Bagram

Kandahar route using its sole passenger aircraft, a Boeing 757 aircraft); and par. 8 (National plans to purchase one

additional aircraft and w ill add to its existing charter service scheduled service on the Dubai

- Kabul

- Bagram

Kandahar route).3

would be rendered essentially meaningless. There would be nothing to prevent applicants from

submitting virtually empty, pro

- forma applications regardless of the nature and extent of planned

operations.

For the foregoing reasons, Airlines for America urges the Department to accept United’s

objections , set aside the April 15 tentative decision (Order 2013

- 4

- 12), require Nati onal to

submit complete information about its intended service proposal, and reopen this proceeding for

further public comment on review of National’s fitness to conduct the scheduled service it

intends to provide

.

Respectfully submitted,

David A. Berg

Senior Vice Presi dent & General Counsel

Airlines for America

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

202

- 626

- 4234

dberg@airlines.org

September 5, 20134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date s erved the foregoing document on the following

persons in accordance with the Department’s Rules of Practice

Francis.heil@aa.com agoerlich@ggh

- airlaw.com

Robert.wirick@aa.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com Jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

Russell.pommer@atlasair.com howard.kass@usairways.com

Sasch a.vanderbellen@delta.com Benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

Chris.walker@delta.com mbenge@zsrlaw.com

esauer@ssd.com psanderlin@kalittaair.com

sam.white@evergreenairlines.com john. allen@faa.gov

kevin.montgomery@polarair.com lhalloway@crowell.com

gmurphy@crowell.com matwood@cozen.com

ewadsworth@cozen.com Karine

. faden@united.com

doug .kelley@united.com steve.morrissey@united.com

dan.weiss@united.com tom .bolling@united.com

________________________________ David A. Berg