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 17 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 (202) 326-5153 howard.kass@aa.com robert.wirick@aa.com abigail.donovan @aa.com August 13, 2014BEFORE 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.

1Answer 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

2 Id., at Exhibit A.
3 Id., at p. 3.

2Answer of American Airlines DOT-OST-2014-0137 

### being 29 miles apart. 4 As a result, American cannot serve Aeropuerto Internacional Benito Juarez ("MEX") from its hub in JFK because the New York market is fully 

### subscribed. 5 Conversely, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport ("FLL") and Miami International Airport ("MIA") are 26 miles apart and are treated as two separate markets. 6 To 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 4 th 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 rd and 4 t " freedom rights that are granted in any new agreement without delay or restriction.

4 Source: Google Maps
5 United Airlines, Inc. serves MEX-EWR and Delta Air Lines, Inc. serves JFK-MEX.
6 Source: Google Maps

~ 3Answer 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 17 th St., 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