Order 2010-4-9

Served: April 16, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 16th Day of April, 2010

U.S. – Japan Alliance Case Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SUMMARY

By this Order, the Department requests additional information, from oneworld alliance members 

American Airlines, Inc. and Japan Airlines International Co. Ltd., (―AA/JL‖ or ―oneworld 

carriers‖), and Star Alliance members All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., Continental Airlines, Inc., 

and United Air Lines, Inc. (―NH/CO/UA‖ or ―Star carriers‖), together (―ATI Applicants‖). We 

find that the additional information is necessary to analyze the applications. With the 

satisfactory submission of the information requested, the evidence of record should be sufficient 

for us to establish a procedural schedule and act on these applications. 

BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2009, the Star carriers filed an application for antitrust immunity (―ATI‖) in 

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0350. On February 12, 2010, the oneworld carriers filed a similar 

application in Docket DOT-OST-2010-0034. Both applications described plans to form 

integrated joint ventures for the conveyance of transpacific air traffic, focusing on the U.S.-Japan 

market. We consolidated the two applications into one proceeding, under Docket DOT-OST2010-0059, by Order 2010-3-10 on March 31, 2010. 

On April 1, 2010, the Star carriers filed a motion to strike four confidentiality affidavits, 

including one for Mr. Hubert Horan, which they had previously moved to strike. Mr. Horan 

replied to that motion, and the Star carriers have also requested leave to reply to his motion. The 

Department will rule on these motions regarding affidavits in a separate order.1

DECISION

We recognize and appreciate the efforts made by the ATI Applicants to identify and submit, in 

conjunction with their respective applications, information and supporting documentation based 

on evidence requests issued by the Department in past antitrust immunity cases. As we have 

 

1 See Dockets OST-2010-0059-0010, OST-2009-0350-0016.1, and OST-2009-0350-0018.1.
2

stated before, however, we retain the option of seeking additional, relevant information on a 

case-by-case basis.2

Our review of the record indicates that additional information is required to ensure that the 

record in this case is substantially complete, pursuant to the Department‘s regulations.3 We are 

therefore requiring the ATI Applicants to submit updated documents, as well as to answer a 

limited number of questions to clarify relevant issues. Without the additional information 

requested, the Department will not have sufficiently detailed evidence to make an informed 

decision on issues raised by this case.

Accordingly, we hereby require the oneworld carriers and Star carriers to submit updated 

documents and answer clarification questions, as set forth in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively,

as well as to submit data as set forth in Attachment 3. The additional evidence should be filed in 

Docket OST-2010-0059, in accordance with Department rules. We emphasize that we do not 

seek duplicative filings; to the extent that the ATI Applicants affirm that information sought in 

the attachment has already been filed in the docket, they need only identify which documents 

satisfy the request. 

We remind the applicants of the importance of discussing the merits of the case on the public 

record to the maximum extent possible. Unnecessarily broad redactions are contrary to the 

public interest and result in delay in reviewing the applications. To the extent necessary, the 

applicants may seek confidential treatment of the information in accordance with the 

Department‘s regulations.4 

With the satisfactory submission of the information requested in the attachment, the evidence of 

record should be sufficient for us to establish a procedural schedule for comments and other such 

responsive pleadings necessary to act on the applications. 

We note that both ATI Applicants have submitted MIDT data. Given that the American/JAL 

data is more recent, DOT proposes to use the AA/JL data as a primary source for our evaluation.

We will serve this order on all parties on the service list in this docket.

Subject to review of the information requested herein, we will establish a procedural schedule for 

comments and such other responsive pleadings as may be necessary to act on these applications.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. We direct American Airlines, Inc. and Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd. and the 

affiliates of the above carriers to file the additional information and evidence 

described in Attachment 1 to this Order in the docket.

 

2 See, e.g., American/ British Airways/ Iberia/ Finnair/ Royal Jordanian Case, Order 2008-12-11 at 5 (Docket 

DOT-OST-2008-0252).

3 14 C.F.R. § 303.

4 14 C.F.R § 302.12 (Rule 12).
3

2. We direct All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., Continental Airlines, Inc., and United Air 

Lines, Inc. and the affiliates of the above carriers to file the additional information 

and evidence described in Attachment 2 to this Order in the docket. 

3. We direct all ATI Applicants to file the additional information and evidence 

described in Attachment 3 to this Order in the docket. 

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at: http://www.regulations.gov
Attachment 1-1

ATTACHMENT 1

Japan Airlines and American Airlines Evidence Request

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059

General Instructions

1. The following definitions of terms used in this request apply:

A. ―You,‖ ―Your,‖ ―Your Company,‖ ―Joint Applicants,‖ ―Partner(s),‖ ―Party,‖ or ―Parties‖ means 

American Airlines, Inc. or AA; and Japan Airlines, Co., LTD or JL; as well as each of their 

regional affiliates, individually and collectively, as part of either the existing oneworld alliance or 

the Joint Business Agreement. These definitions also include your domestic and foreign parents, 

predecessors, divisions, and all officers and directors who work at your corporate headquarters 

(the site where your chief executives and senior operating, marketing, and financial officers are 

located).

B. ―Application for Antitrust Immunity‖ or ―Application‖ means the Parties‘ Application for 

Approval of and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements, submitted to DOT on February 12, 

2010. 

C. ―Alliance Agreement(s)‖ means the commercial agreements submitted by the Parties in Exhibit 

JA-1 of the Application for Antitrust Immunity.

D. ―Joint Business Agreement‖ or ―JBA‖ means the planned joint venture/commercial arrangement 

between and among AA and JL submitted in Exhibit JA-2 of the application.

E. ―ATI‖ refers to antitrust immunity.

F. ―Document(s)‖ means (1) all written, recorded, transcribed, electronic, or graphic material, 

including letters, electronic mail, memoranda, reports, studies, forecasts, lists, presentation 

materials, agendas, records, notes, and directives, as well as minutes and records of meetings, 

conferences, telephone or other conversations or communications; and (2) all information 

contained in data processing equipment. Except where otherwise specified, a request for 

Documents is limited to documents created or revised for and/or by the Parties between January 

1, 2008 and the date of issuance of the attached order. Copies of Documents requested herein 

shall be full, complete and unredacted. For each Document, if not contained in the Document 

itself, include the date of preparation and the name and title of each individual who prepared the 

Document.

G. ―Discuss‖ means analyze, constitute, summarize, report on, consider, recommend, set forth, or 

describe a subject, regardless of the length of the discussion. Documents that merely mention or 

refer to a subject without further elaboration do not discuss that subject. Documents that discuss 

a particular subject include all Documents that contain reports, studies, forecasts, analyses, plans, 

proposals, evaluations, recommendations, directives, procedures, policies, guidelines, or any 

other comments that address or concern the subject, or that constitute a discussion of the subject.

H. ―And‖ and ―or‖ shall be construed disjunctively and conjunctively as necessary in order to bring 

within the scope of each information directive all responses that might otherwise be construed to 

be outside its scope.
Attachment 1-2

I. ―Plans‖ means tentative and preliminary proposals, recommendations, analyses, forecasts, or 

considerations, whether or not finalized or authorized, as well as those that have been adopted.

2. All responses to these information directives shall reflect the cumulative knowledge of the responding 

Parties and shall be accompanied by a sworn statement or statement under penalty of perjury, 

executed by a responsible officer of the responding Party, that the responses are full, complete, and 

accurate. All responses shall identify clearly the information directives to which they respond, as 

well as the person(s) who is (are) the source(s) of the information. Supplemental responses shall be 

submitted in the event that information is discovered after submission of the initial responses. 

3. Documents produced in response to any request shall be consecutively numbered, and shall be 

marked with the number of the request to which they respond. Responding carriers shall prepare an 

index of the documents produced, setting forth the document number, date, preparer, addressee, and 

subject of each document, and the information directive to which it responds. 

4. These information directives are requesting only material and documents now or previously located at 

corporate headquarters of any of the Parties (the site where the Parties‘ chief executives and senior 

operating, marketing, and financial officers are located) and only those documents, material, and 

messages prepared by or for the Board of Directors, senior management, or middle management 

responsible for strategic planning, marketing, alliance relations, pricing, revenue management, or 

schedule and route planning. 

5. Please provide an original and three copies of all Documents. The original filing should be on 8.5" x 

11" paper using dark ink and be unbound without tabs which will expedite use of our docket imaging 

system. To the extent that the carriers deem it necessary, they may seek confidential treatment of the 

information as set forth in the Department‘s regulations.

Documents to Be Provided

Please provide all documents requested below. Do not resubmit documents that were already submitted 

to DOT in response to the information request drafted by the Joint Applicants and presented with your 

Application. Whether previously or newly submitted, you should identify the reference number(s) of the 

documents responsive to the requests below:

1. Privilege log identifying and describing all withheld documents, including previously submitted 

documents, as required by 14 C.F.R. § 303.04(h). 

2. All updated and unredacted documents, including appendices and meeting minutes, regarding the 

following topics:

Alliance meetings and board or individual carrier meetings between February 12, 2010 and 

the date of issuance of the attached order. 

Individual carriers‘ U.S. – Asia route forecasts and analyses.

Forecasts for Haneda and Narita transpacific service, including those forecasts focused on 

decisions to serve one airport over the other.

Clarification Questions

Please provide responses to the following questions and all Documents that discuss the issues addressed 

in each of the following questions. Do not resubmit Documents that were already submitted to DOT in 

response to the information request drafted by the Joint Applicants and presented with your Application. 
Attachment 1-3

Whether previously or newly submitted, you should identify the reference number(s) of the Documents 

responsive to the requests below:

1. Please provide a thorough discussion of the public benefits that will result if ATI is granted to the 

Parties, addressing the following:

a. Describe and quantify the specific benefits that ATI will provide consumers, and explain why 

immunity is necessary for consumers to realize these benefits. 

b. Please discuss the formulae and methodologies that the Parties will use to calculate benefits 

accruing to both internal stakeholders and external stakeholders (including, but not limited to, 

communities, airports, and consumers). 

c. Please discuss how the Parties will ensure that they are quantifying benefits uniquely 

attributed to ATI and not arising from an arms-length codesharing agreement.

d. Provide any relevant data and analysis from customer preference surveys, focus group results, 

and outside studies or materials conducted for the airline regarding frequent flyer plans, 

airport experience, ―seamlessness‖ of travel, reservations, complaints, carrier preference, and 

fares as they relate to providing increased consumer benefits through an alliance.

2. Please discuss, in detail, the relevant commercial issues, metrics, and considerations used in 

calculating the revenue sharing provisions of the JBA and the considerations that will be used to 

finalize the revenue sharing agreement.

3. Please provide specific plans for capacity growth as referenced in Section 3.3.3. of the JBA. Discuss 

the factors and considerations that will affect the Parties‘ growth planning in ensuring their goal of 

proportionality in growth and metal neutrality.

4. Describe your plans for joint international product development as well as expectations for the 

improvement of each Party‘s product. 

a. How do the Parties plan to reconcile the unique product class offerings of AA and JL, 

especially in light of metal neutrality requirements and customer preference? 

b. Please discuss the parties‘ current and future plans to meet the stated objective of providing 

equivalent premium customer handling programs with the goal of creating consistency of 

customer experience.

c. Please discuss how the Parties will coordinate their customer service policies and 

accountability procedures to ensure that passengers ticketed by (or traveling under the 

designator code of) an alliance Partner receive appropriate responsiveness, particularly as a 

result of a grant of ATI.

d. Please provide examples of the Partners‘ existing technological capabilities to promote metal 

neutrality in consumer-facing areas such as company websites, frequent flyer programs, and 

airport experience, and any effect(s) of a grant of ATI on these capabilities.

5. Please discuss how the Parties will ensure metal neutrality in managing sales, pricing, marketing, 

distribution, revenue management, and other functions.
Attachment 1-4

6. Please elaborate on how pricing decisions will be managed by the Parties. For example, such 

decisions may be based on a Party‘s geographical expertise, passenger point of sale, passenger point 

of origin, fare class, etc.

7. What role will the Functional Committee responsible for the Joint Business sales function fulfill, and 

will that role depend on circumstances? For example, this committee may be advisory, decisionmaking, or somewhere in between depending on the case. How will the committee be structured in 

order to promote and ensure metal neutral selling?

8. Please discuss how the consolidator market is structured today, and how the immunized JBA will 

impact how each air carrier handles consolidator fares in terms of distribution, marketing, and 

revenue sharing benefits. Please also discuss the nature of each Party‘s current participation in the 

consolidator fare market:

a. Please show what percentage of RPKs and total passengers in both U.S.-Asia and Asia-U.S. 

markets are distributed through consolidators. 

b. Please discuss how ATI will affect current consolidator fare arrangements and how the 

Parties intend to handle selling of, and revenues from, consolidator fares.

c. Please discuss benefits that will accrue to consumers using consolidator fares as a result of 

ATI.

9. Please discuss what considerations will go into expanding the revenue sharing agreement and the 

criteria the Parties will use to select new members 

10. Provide each applicant‘s estimated percentage of total revenue and total premium revenue in 

transpacific markets and, specifically, in individual U.S.-Japan airport-pairs for the calendar year 

2009. Also provide an assessment of the industry‘s overall total revenues and total premium revenue 

in transpacific markets.

11. Please elaborate on the purpose and mission of the dealing strategy outlined in Section 5.9 of the JBA 

and how it will interact with other components of the JV, namely pricing and revenue management.

12. Please discuss any specific guidelines for adding new corporate customers and whether each Party 

will be responsible for pursuing certain new corporate contracts (based on factors such as 

geographical location, past experience with a certain type of customer, etc.).

13. Please discuss the specific role of Hawaii in the alliance and how it is defined as part of the AA/JL 

application. Please describe commercial considerations used in determining the future role of Hawaii 

in the alliance. Also, please describe the consumer benefits attributable to ATI that will be created on 

Hawaii- Japan routes.

14. Please discuss any major changes in capacity caused by JAL‘s bankruptcy and restructuring. How 

would these capacity changes affect the alliance and the proposed consumer benefits attributed to the 

alliance?

15. Discuss what you foresee as major barriers to, and/or enablers of, competitive entry in the transpacific 

market, especially in markets where the Parties have overlapping non-stop service.
Attachment 1-5

16. Please discuss the nature of slot allocations at Narita and Haneda. (Provide counts as of December 

31, 2009).

a. What is the total number of slots available at each airport to all carriers?

b. How many of the total slots at each airport are owned by the JBA Partners?

c. How many of the total slots at each airport are covered for non-JBA air carriers by JBA 

Partners?

d. How many total slots at each airport that are owned by the JBA Partners are covered by air 

carriers outside of the JBA?

e. How would these allocations change if the Partners are granted ATI? 

17. Please provide the implementation timeline of the planned joint venture, including the realization of 

any public benefits associated with the JBA.

18. Please provide a copy in English of the ATI application and timeline filed with MLIT and any other 

Japanese government agencies. 
Attachment 2-1

ATTACHMENT 2

All Nippon Airways, Continental Airlines, and United Air Lines Evidence Request

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059

General Instructions

1. The following definitions of terms used in this request apply:

A. ―You,‖ ―Your,‖ ―Your Company,‖ ―Joint Applicants,‖ ―Partner(s),‖ ―Party,‖ or ―Parties‖ means 

All Nippon Airways, Co., LTD. or NH; Continental Airlines Inc. or CO; and United Air Lines, 

Inc. or UA; as well as each of their regional affiliates, individually and collectively, as part of 

either the existing Star alliance or the Joint Venture Agreement. These definitions also include 

your domestic and foreign parents, predecessors, divisions, and all officers and directors who 

work at your corporate headquarters (the site where your chief executives and senior operating, 

marketing, and financial officers are located).

B. ―Application for Antitrust Immunity‖ or ―Application‖ means the Parties‘ Application for 

Approval and Antitrust Immunity for Alliance Agreements, submitted to DOT on December 23, 

2009.

C. ―Alliance Agreement(s)‖ means the commercial agreements as defined in Appendix A of the 

Application for Antitrust Immunity.

D. ―Joint Venture Agreement‖ or ―JVA‖ means the planned joint venture/commercial arrangement 

between and among NH, CO, and UA, described in Exhibit JA-1 and submitted as part of the 

Joint Applicants‘ Alliance Agreements of their Application for Antitrust Immunity.

E. ―ATI‖ refers to antitrust immunity.

F. ―Document(s)‖ means (1) all written, recorded, transcribed, electronic, or graphic material, 

including letters, electronic mail, memoranda, reports, studies, forecasts, lists, presentation 

materials, agendas, records, notes, and directives, as well as minutes and records of meetings, 

conferences, telephone or other conversations or communications; and (2) all information 

contained in data processing equipment. Except where otherwise specified, a request for 

Documents is limited to documents created or revised for and/or by the Parties between January 

1, 2008 and the date of issuance of the attached order. Copies of Documents requested herein 

shall be full, complete and unredacted. For each Document, if not contained in the Document 

itself, include the date of preparation and the name and title of each individual who prepared the 

Document.

G. ―Discuss‖ means analyze, constitute, summarize, report on, consider, recommend, set forth, or 

describe a subject, regardless of the length of the discussion. Documents that merely mention or 

refer to a subject without further elaboration do not discuss that subject. Documents that discuss 

a particular subject include all Documents that contain reports, studies, forecasts, analyses, plans, 

proposals, evaluations, recommendations, directives, procedures, policies, guidelines, or any 

other comments that address or concern the subject, or that constitute a discussion of the subject.
Attachment 2-2

H. ―And‖ and ―or‖ shall be construed disjunctively and conjunctively as necessary in order to bring 

within the scope of each information directive all responses that might otherwise be construed to 

be outside its scope.

I. ―Plans‖ means tentative and preliminary proposals, recommendations, analyses, forecasts, or 

considerations, whether or not finalized or authorized, as well as those that have been adopted.

2. All responses to these information directives shall reflect the cumulative knowledge of the responding 

Parties and shall be accompanied by a sworn statement or statement under penalty of perjury, 

executed by a responsible officer of the responding Party, that the responses are full, complete, and 

accurate. All responses shall identify clearly the information directives to which they respond, as 

well as the person(s) who is (are) the source(s) of the information. Supplemental responses shall be 

submitted in the event that information is discovered after submission of the initial responses. 

3. Documents produced in response to any request shall be consecutively numbered, and shall be 

marked with the number of the request to which they respond. Responding carriers shall prepare an 

index of the documents produced, setting forth the document number, date, preparer, addressee, and 

subject of each document, and the information directive to which it responds. 

4. These information directives are requesting only material and documents now or previously located at 

corporate headquarters of any of the Parties (the site where the Parties‘ chief executives and senior 

operating, marketing, and financial officers are located) and only those documents, material, and 

messages prepared by or for the Board of Directors, senior management, or middle management 

responsible for strategic planning, marketing, alliance relations, pricing, revenue management, or 

schedule and route planning. 

5. Please provide an original and three copies of all Documents. The original filing should be on 8.5" x 

11" paper using dark ink and be unbound without tabs which will expedite use of our docket imaging 

system. To the extent that the carriers deem it necessary, they may seek confidential treatment of the 

information as set forth in the Department‘s regulations.

Documents to Be Provided

Please provide all documents requested below. Do not resubmit documents that were already submitted 

to DOT in response to the information request drafted by the Joint Applicants and presented with your 

Application. Whether previously or newly submitted, you should identify the reference number(s) of the 

documents responsive to the requests below:

1. An updated privilege log identifying and describing all withheld documents, including previously 

submitted documents, as required by 14 C.F.R. § 303.04(h). 

2. All updated and unredacted documents, including appendices and meeting minutes, regarding the 

following topics:

Alliance meetings and board or individual carrier meetings since December 23, 2009 and 

the date of issuance of the attached order. 

Individual carriers‘ U.S. – Asia route forecasts and analyses.

Clarification Questions
Attachment 2-3

Please provide responses to the following questions and all Documents that discuss the issues addressed 

in each of the following questions. Do not resubmit Documents that were already submitted to DOT in 

response to the information request drafted by the applicants and presented with your Application. 

Whether previously or newly submitted, you should identify the reference number(s) of the Documents 

responsive to the requests below:

1. Please provide a thorough discussion of the public benefits that will result if ATI is granted to the 

Parties, addressing the following: 

a. Describe and quantify the specific benefits that ATI will provide consumers, and explain why 

immunity is necessary for consumers to realize these benefits. 

b. Please discuss the formulae and methodologies that the Parties will use to calculate benefits 

accruing to both internal stakeholders and external stakeholders (including, but not limited to, 

communities, airports, and consumers). 

c. Please discuss how the Parties will ensure that they are quantifying benefits uniquely 

attributed to ATI and not arising from an arms-length codesharing agreement.

d. Please provide any relevant data and analysis from customer preference surveys, focus group 

results, and outside studies or materials conducted for or by the airline regarding frequent 

flyer plans, airport experience, ―seamlessness‖ of travel, reservations, complaints, carrier 

preference, and fares as they relate to providing increased consumer benefits through an 

alliance.

2. Please discuss the specific role of Micronesia in the alliance and how it is defined as part of the 

NH/CO/UA application. Please describe commercial considerations used in determining the future 

role of Micronesia in the alliance. Also, please describe the consumer benefits attributable to ATI 

that will be created on Micronesia - Japan routes.

3. Please specifically define the terms found in Section I, p. 4 of the JVA. For avoidance of doubt 

please provide a description/list of city pairs of all routes that will qualify for revenue sharing under 

the JVA, including the effective date. Please provide any instances where more than one definition

could be applied to certain city pairs. Please clarify Section V.A of the JVA regarding instances of

allocating ―some‖ or ―all‖ of the revenue on certain city pairs.

4. Describe your plans for joint international product development as well as expectations for the 

improvement of each party‘s product. 

a. How do the Parties plan to reconcile the 3-class and Premium Economy product offerings of 

UA and NH with CO‘s 2-class product, especially in light of metal neutrality requirements 

and customer preferences.

b. Please discuss the Parties‘ current and future plans to provide equivalent premium customer 

handling programs with the goal of creating consistency of customer experience.

c. Please discuss how the Parties will create ―better coordination of customer service policies 

and enhanced responsiveness and accountability to passengers ticketed by (or traveling under 

the designator code of) an alliance Partner‖ as a result of a grant of ATI, per Section IV.A.5 

of the Application
Attachment 2-4

d. Please provide examples of the Partners‘ existing technological capabilities to promote metal 

neutrality in consumer-facing areas such as company websites, frequent flyer programs, and 

airport experience, and any effect(s) of a grant of ATI on these capabilities.

5. Please discuss existing arrangements that allow for seamless travel at shared airports and the Joint 

Applicants‘ plans to enable seamless travel at shared airports as a result of a grant of ATI.

6. Exhibit JA-1 provides information on the scope and objectives of the JVA. Please discuss how the 

Partners plan to account for ancillary revenue and any costs in their revenue reallocation. 

7. Describe the steps the Partners plan to take to achieve fare combinability under the JVA, and the 

estimated timeframe to complete the task. Explain your plan to harmonize or map your CRS fare 

classes and revenue management buckets. Please provide documentation on the harmonized fare and 

revenue management buckets, as well as proposed mapping of selling and booking classes based on 

their dollar value and restrictions.

8. Please discuss how the consolidator market is structured today, and how the immunized JVA will 

impact how each air carrier handles consolidator fares in terms of distribution, marketing, and 

revenue sharing benefits. Please also discuss the nature of each Party‘s current participation in the 

consolidator fare market.

a. Please show what percentage of RPKs and total passengers in both U.S.-Asia and Asia-U.S. 

markets are distributed through consolidators. 

b. Please discuss how ATI will affect current consolidator fare arrangements and how the 

Parties intend to handle selling of, and revenues from, consolidator fares.

c. Please discuss benefits that will accrue to consumers using consolidator fares as a result of 

ATI.

9. Given the existing cargo cooperation among the JVA Partners, please discuss benefits to shippers, 

freight forwarders, and other supply chain stakeholders that would not exist but for ATI. Describe the 

parties‘ current and future plans to utilize ATI in the transportation of cargo, including joint 

cooperation in Cargo Sales. 

10. Please explain the provision in JVA Appendix A, item 17, regarding hub definition as it relates to 

Haneda and the amount of service allowed by the Japanese government.

11. Please explain Interrogatory 16 and CO0970-0974 to provide detail on Brazil and other countries‘ 

regulatory processes that may limit codesharing opportunities and benefits of ATI. Please discuss the 

effect this has, if any, on the timing or benefits of the JVA.

12. Section VII of the Application states that ―On transpacific routes within the Pacific JV, the Joint 

Applicants will treat Air New Zealand and Asiana as competitors‖ and ―United will take such steps as 

may be necessary to ensure that there will be no spillover effects from its separate immunized 

agreements with Air New Zealand and Asiana.‖ The Applicants note that CO will take similar steps 

with respect to COPA. Please further discuss how commercial inconsistencies will be reconciled if 

any ATI is awarded, especially as they related to connecting traffic, network, and revenue benefits. 

Please provide documentation of ATI Protocols for UA-OZ, UA-NZ, and CO-COPA. 
Attachment 2-5

13. Please provide any surveys of corporate customers that address preferences for alliances, ATI, sales 

product offerings, and incentives.

14. Discuss what you foresee as major barriers to, and/or enablers of, competitive entry in the transpacific 

market, especially in markets where the Parties have overlapping non-stop service.

15. Please discuss the nature of slot allocations at Narita and Haneda. (Provide counts as of December 

31, 2009). 

a. What is the total number of slots available at each airport to all carriers?

b. How many of the total slots at each airport are owned by the JVA Partners?

c. How many of the total slots at each airport are covered for non-JVA air carriers by JVA 

Partners?

d. How many total slots at each airport that are owned by the JVA Partners are covered by air 

carriers outside of the JVA?

e. How would these allocations change if the Partners are granted ATI? 

16. Please provide the implementation timeline of the planned joint venture, including the realization of 

any public benefits associated with the JVA.

17. Please provide a copy in English of the ATI application and timeline filed with MLIT and any other 

Japanese government agencies.
Attachment 3-1

ATTACHMENT 3 – Evidence Request

ATI APPLICANTS

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0059

Due to the limited data available to make price comparisons, the applicants are requested to submit 

any O&D itinerary data that contains a market involving U.S. - Japan travel (including Guam and 

Saipan). The O&D data must represent internal 100% itineraries that involve the requested markets. 

Data should be submitted for the period January 2009 through December 2009. Provide all

information for any itinerary that was begun during the periods described above irrespective of when 

the full itinerary was completed.

Non-revenue and industry discount (travel agency) itineraries should be excluded from the 

submission. Frequent flyer itineraries should be included and flagged as frequent flyer. This may be 

accomplished by assigning a purchase class variable to a frequent flyer category, providing a separate 

column denoting if the itinerary was a frequent flyer, or providing an alternative that allows for the 

identification of frequent flyer itineraries. 

Based on past requests, we propose a ―first reporter‖ rule that is based on the ticket issuing carrier and 

the operator of the first transpacific segment. We will accept an alternative methodology provided 

that it captures all itineraries in the requested market directionals and excludes double counting. 

Provide the itinerary information in an origin-destination (by direction of travel) format, referred to as 

―market directional.‖ 

Provide the number of passengers, market fare, purchase class, period, airport sequence, operating 

carrier code sequence, change in operating carrier flag, ticketing/marketing carrier code sequence, 

change in ticketing/marketing carrier flag, origin, destination, number of market coupons, sequence 

number of each market directional that makes a full itinerary, total distance flown (all kilometers 

converted to miles), distance between the origin and destination (all kilometers converted to miles), 

U.S. gateway airport, foreign gateway airport, unique itinerary identifier, one-way/round-trip itinerary 

identifier, reporting carrier, and a full itinerary online identifier. Fares must include all taxes, fees, 

and applicable surcharges (particularly any fuel surcharges) paid.

For itineraries that include a segment provided by ground transportation, note the ground segment as 

 ̳— ̳ in the tkcarriergroup and opcarriergroup variables.

Provide a description of the methodologies used to determine market directional trip breaks within 

itineraries and the prorate for assigning the market directional fare from the full itinerary fare. DOT 

proposes using the industry standard ―four hour rule‖ for intra-U.S. travel and the ―24-hour rule‖ for 

all other travel to determine market directional trip breaks. DOT prefers the use of the square root of 

the miles methodology for market directional fare proration. Square root of the miles methodology 

distributes the itinerary revenue by dividing the itinerary fare by the square root of the number of 

miles distance between airports in the itinerary. To the extent the applicants prefer to use alternative 

methodologies for determining market directional trip breaks or prorates, they are required to provide 

appropriate methodological descriptions and validation.

The purchase class values should provide detail that allows for the evaluation of a given itinerary‘s 

level of service purchased. The classes should be broken down by both Restricted and Unrestricted 

fares, as well as Consolidator fares (Japan point-of-origin only) sold in First Class, Business Class, 

Premium Economy, and Economy cabins, where applicable. DOT is open to alternative mappings 

and levels of detail that the applicants may suggest. When multiple fare classes are used for a given 
Attachment 3-2

itinerary, only the purchase class for the transpacific segment of each market directional should be 

provided.

Figure 1 provides a detailed listing of the variables required and Figure 2 provides a sample of the 

final format.

Provide the data electronically as a comma separated value (CSV) or other delimited text file format. 

If a format other then CSV is selected, provide the meta-data detail necessary to allow for the loading 

of the data into a relational database environment.
Attachment 3-3

Figure 1 - Technical description of the dataset to be provided

Market (Directional)

1 AirportGroup Sequential order of airport routing in the market directional, ―:‖ separated, 3 digit IATA airport code 

designator

2 Dest Market of travel destination for the passenger(s), 3 digit IATA airport code designator

3 Foreign_Gateway First airport outside of North America after the transpacific segment for outbound U.S. directional travel, 

last airport outside of North America before the transpacific segment for inbound U.S. directional travel.

4 Itin_Online Indicates if for entire itinerary the passengers stayed on the same carrier for all segments ticketed and 

operated; 1= YES, 0 = No

5 Itin_RoundTrip Indicates if passengers flew one way or round trip for the itinerary, 0=One-way, 1=Round Trip

6 ItinID Identifies all market directionals for a single itinerary with the same index value

7 MktCoupons Total number of segments traveled for the directional market

8 MktFare Fare paid by passengers for the market directional

9 MktMilesFlown Total track miles minus ground miles

10 MktSeq Identifies the order the market directionals are traveled

11 NonStopMiles Market origin to destination distance, excludes ground segments (radian miles, point to point computation)

12 OpCarrierChange Identifies if there is a change to the operating carrier in the segments within the directional, 1=Yes, 0=No

13 OpCarrierGroup Sequentially identifies the operating carriers for each segment of the directional, ―:‖ separated

14 Origin Market of travel origination for the passenger(s), 3 digit IATA airport code designator

15 Passengers Number of passengers flying for the market directional record

16 Period Period first segment of the itinerary was flown, 4 digit year and two digit month (YYYYMM)

17 PurchaseClass Broken down by both Restricted and Unrestricted sales of First Class, Business Class, Premium Economy, 

and Economy and for Japan point-of-origin only First-Consolidator, Business-Consolidator, Premium 

Economy-Consolidator, and Economy-Consolidator

18 RpCarrier Code for the carrier that reports the data to DOT

19 TkCarrierChange Identifies if there is a change to the ticketing/marketing carrier in the segments within the directional, 

1=Yes, 0=No

20 TkCarrierGroup Sequentially identifies the ticketing/marketing carriers for each segment of the market directional, ―:‖ 

separated

21 U.S._Gateway Last airport in North America prior to transpacific segment for outbound U.S. directional travel, first 

airport in North America after transpacific segment for inbound U.S. directional travel.
Attachment 3-4

Figure 2 – Sample of the final format of the dataset to be provided (values and inputs are hypothetical)

ItinIDMktSeqMktcouponsPeriodOriginDestAirportgroupTkcarrierchangeTkcarriergroupOpcarrierchangeOpcarriergroupRpcarrierPassengersMktfareMktmilesflownNonstopmilesus_gatewayforeign_gatewayitin_roundtripitin_onlinepurchase_class

1 1 3 YYYYMM SBA OKA SBA:LAX:OSA:OKA 1 UA:UA:JL 1 OO:UA:JL UA 20 665 6560 6364 LAX OSA 0 0 ?

1 2 1 YYYYMM OKA LAX OKA:LAX 0 NW 0 NW UA 20 654 6451 6451 LAX OKA 0 0 ?

2 1 3 YYYYMM TOY IAD TOY:HND:NRT:IAD 1 NH:--:NH 1 NH:--:NH UA 15 1239 6916 6783 IAD NRT 1 0 ?

2 2 5 YYYYMM IAD TOY IAD:CLE:ORD:NRT:HND:TOY 1 NH:NH:NH:--:NH 1 UA:NH:NH:--:NH UA 15 1261 7041 6783 ORD NRT 1 0 ?

3 1 2 YYYYMM ITM ORD ITM:NRT:ORD 1 JL:AA 1 JL:AA AA 8 599 6562 6480 ORD NRT 0 0 ?

3 2 1 YYYYMM ORD NRT ORD:NRT 0 AA 0 AA AA 8 573 6274 6274 ORD NRT 0 0 ?

4 1 1 YYYYMM KIX SFO KIX:SFO 0 UA 0 UA UA 10 1988 5413 5413 SFO KIX 0 1 ?

Note - If adding a column for frequent flyer designation, place it as the last column.