BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANIA 

DE AVIACION, S.A.P.I. DE C.V. 

d/b/a VOLARIS 

for an exemption Docket DOT-OST-2014-0137 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41301 

ANSWER OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

IN OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Howard Kass 

Vice President — Regulatory Affairs 

Robert A. Wirick, 

Managing Director, Regulatory and International Affairs 

Abigail Donovan 

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 326-5153 

howard.kass@aa.com 

robert.wirick@aa.com 

abigail.donovan @aa.com 

August 13, 2014 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Application of 

CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPAIVIA 

DE AVIACION, S.A.P.I. DE C.V. 

d/b/a VOLARIS 

Docket DOT-OST-2014-0137 

for an exemption August 13, 2014 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41301 

ANSWER OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

IN OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION FOR AN EXEMPTION 

On July 31, 2014, Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V. 

d/b/a Volaris ("Volaris") filed an application (the "Volaris Application") seeking an 

exemption "from 49 U.S.C. 410301 and from any other provisions of Title 49 and the 

Economic Regulations of the Department to the extent necessary to permit Volaris to 

engage in the scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail 

between the coterminal points Guadalajara, Cancun, and Mexico City, Mexico, on the 

one hand, and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on the other hand."' American Airlines, Inc. 

("American") opposes the Volaris Application as Volaris does not have the proper 

authority from its government to operate the Mexico City, Mexico—Ft. Lauderdale, 

Florida route. For this reason, and as set forth below, American answers to oppose 

Volaris' request for an exemption. 

In opposition to this application, American respectfully states as follows: 

1. Volaris does not have final approval from the Direccion General de 

- Aeronautica Civil ("DGAC") to operate the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ("FLL")—Mexico City, 

1 See Application of Volaris, July 31, 2014, Docket DOT-OST-2014-0137, at p. 1. 

1 
Answer of American Airlines 

DOT-OST-2014-0137 

Mexico ("MEX") route. The DGAC states Volaris is "appointed" to operate the route. 2 

However, the route is not listed on the operating permit document(s) to "perform regular 

operations" in the FLL-MEX market. Furthermore, Volaris states that it "...has been 

authorized and is, or shortly will be, designated to serve these routes." 3 The 

Department should not approve the Volaris Application until such time that Volaris has 

met all the necessary requirements for U.S. authority, which most certainly includes 

designation. American would not normally object to such a paperwork oversight by 

Volaris; however, the Mexican government requires that U.S. carriers go through a 

cumbersome and extensive paperwork process when seeking standard approvals from 

the DGAC. These paperwork delays are costly and time consuming. American urges 

the Department to underscore the need for a well-defined, fully transparent evaluation 

and approval process for U.S. carriers at the DGAC. 

2. The Volaris Application also highlights inequities for U.S. carriers serving 

Mexico that American hopes will be addressed in future negotiations between the U.S. 

Government and the Government of Mexico. Specifically, American is frustrated that 

the U.S.-Mexico bilateral regime imposes anomalous and anticompetitive barriers. 

Under the amended U.S.-Mexico Air Transport Agreement of 1960, the New York 

metropolitan area international airports — John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK") 

and Newark Liberty International Airport ("EWR") — are treated as one market despite 

2Id., at Exhibit A. 

3Id., at p. 3. 

2 
Answer of American Airlines 

DOT-OST-2014-0137 

being 29 miles apart. 4As a result, American cannot serve Aeropuerto Internacional 

Benito Juarez ("MEX") from its hub in JFK because the New York market is fully 

subscribed. 5Conversely, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport ("FLL") and 

Miami International Airport ("MIA") are 26 miles apart and are treated as two separate 

markets. 6To highlight the anomaly that exists in the New York catchment area, if FLL 

and MIA were treated as one market, Volaris would not be able to apply for an 

exemption from FLL- MEX because the MIA market is fully subscribed to MEX. 

American believes that airports in the same catchment area should be treated 

separately to ensure fairness and uniformity in U.S.-Mexico aviation policy. Therefore, 

American urges the Department to reevaluate this inequity in future U.S.-Mexico talks. 

3. The Volaris Application also raises the larger issue of the scope of a new 

aviation agreement between the U.S. Government and the Government of Mexico. 

American strongly supports the inclusion of unlimited 3 rd and 4th freedom rights in any 

new agreement that the U.S. Government negotiates with the Government of Mexico. 

Moreover, U.S. carriers should be authorized to operate the 3 rdand 4t" freedom rights 

that are granted in any new agreement without delay or restriction. 

4Source: Google Maps 

5United Airlines, Inc. serves MEX-EWR and Delta Air Lines, Inc. serves JFK-MEX. 

6Source: Google Maps 

~3 
Answer of American Airlines 

DOT-OST-2014-0137 

Accordingly, for the reason stated above, American objects to Volaris' application 

for an exemption to engage in the scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, 

property, and mail between the coterminal points Guadalajara, Cancun and Mexico City, 

Mexico, on the one hand, and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on the other hand. 

Respectfully subrnitted, 

~ A 

HowardK ss 

Vice President — Regulatory Affairs 

Robert A. Wirick 

Managing Director, Regulatory and 

International Affairs 

Abigail Donovan 

Director, Congressional and Federal Affairs 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17thSt., NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 326-5153 

howard.kass@aa.com 

robert.wirick@aa.com 

abigail, donovan @aa. com 

August 13, 2014 

V. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, on August 13, 2014, 1 caused to be served a copy of the foregoing 

Answer of American Airlines, Inc., by email upon those addressees listed below: 

englets@state.gov (Department of State) 

cristinasa@state.gov (Department of State) 

brian.hedberg@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

todd.homan@dot.gov (Departmentof Transportation) 

peter.irvine@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

laura.remo@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

brett.kruger@dot.gov (Department of Transportation) 

john.allen@faa.gov (Federal Aviation Administration) 

dan.weiss@united.com (United) 

steve.morrissey@united.com (United) 

karine.faden@united.com (United) 

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United) 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com (Delta) 

jhill@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) 

perkmann@dowlohnes.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) 

robert.land@jetbiue.com (JetB/ue) 

msinick@ssd.com (Counsel forAlaska) 

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) 

d ki rste i n@ yklaw. co m (Counsel for Spirit) 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest) 

leslie.abbott@wnco.com (Southwest) 

ethan.blank@ rjet.com (Republic) 

robert.cohn @ hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic) 

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Counsel for Republic) 

john.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

rpommer@atlasair.com (Atlas) 

anita.mosner@hkiaw.com (Counsel for UPS) 

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for UPS) 

cefelts@fedex.com (FedEx) 

nssparks@fedex.com (FedEx) 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com (Polar) 

l _ ~ 

Abigail Do ovan