Order 2012-8-20

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

 Issued by the Department of Transportation

 on the 17th day of August, 2012

 

 Served: August 17, 2012

 

 

ORDER 

Summary

By this order, we institute a proceeding to determine if it is in the public interest to grant the 

motion of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) to move its Detroit-Haneda slot pair for scheduled 

combination services to the Seattle-Haneda route, or whether the public interest instead calls for 

an alternative use of that slot pair.

Background

Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Japan, signed on 

October 25, 2010, four daily slot pairs are available to carriers from each country to provide 

scheduled combination services between the United States and Tokyo’s Haneda Airport.1 By 

Order 2010-7-2, issued July 6, 2010, we allocated the four slot pairs as follows: 1) one slot pair 

to Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (Hawaiian) for Honolulu-Haneda service; 2) two slot pairs to Delta, 

one for Los Angeles-Haneda and one for Detroit-Haneda services; and 3) one slot pair to 

American Airlines, Inc. (American) for New York (JFK)-Haneda service.2

 1 The scheduled operations are subject to the following conditions: 1) U.S. operations at Haneda are 

permitted between 2200 and 0700 hours local time; 2) departures from Haneda to a point in the 48 

contiguous U.S. states are not permitted prior to midnight; and 3) extra sections are not permitted.

2 Not selected in that proceeding were American for one slot pair for Los Angeles-Haneda service; 

Continental Airlines, Inc., for one slot pair for Newark-Haneda service; Continental Micronesia, Inc., for 

one slot pair for Guam-Haneda service; Delta for one slot pair for Seattle-Haneda and one slot pair for 

Honolulu-Haneda services; Hawaiian for a second Honolulu-Haneda service; and United Air Lines, Inc. 

(United) for one slot pair for San Francisco-Haneda service.

Motion of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

in the matter of 2010 U.S.-Haneda 

Combination Services Allocation Proceeding

 Docket DOT-OST-2010-0018
2

Motion of Delta

On July 30, 2012, Delta filed a motion requesting authority to move its Detroit-Haneda slot pair

to the Seattle-Haneda route. Delta states that Eastern U.S.-Haneda service is underperforming 

relative to West Coast-Haneda service, and that Seattle allows for a more attractive and 

consumer friendly schedule to better fit with the Haneda operating window. Delta further states 

that Seattle is the largest U.S.-Tokyo market without nonstop Haneda service, and that this 

proposal would be supported by convenient connections with Delta’s own network and through 

its code-share arrangement with Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska). Delta asks the Department to 

institute any necessary proceedings as quickly as possible to enable Delta to change gateways.

Responsive Pleadings

We received answers from Alaska, American, Hawaiian, United, the Delta Master Executive 

Council of the Air Line Pilots Association (Delta MEC), and the Port of Seattle. Delta filed a 

consolidated response to the answers filed by American, Hawaiian, and United.3

The Delta MEC, the Port of Seattle, and Alaska all support Delta’s motion, each stating that 

Delta’s proposal would benefit the traveling and shipping public in Seattle and the entire Pacific 

Northwest region.

United asserts that the Department selected Delta’s Detroit-Haneda service proposal in the 2010 

U.S.-Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding, specifically because of Delta’s 

proposal to offer daily Detroit-Haneda service. United argues that Delta has failed to deliver the 

Detroit-Haneda service that it proposed, and urges the Department to withdraw Delta’s DetroitHaneda slots and reallocate them to United for the San Francisco-Haneda service it proposed, but 

was not selected for, in 2010.

Hawaiian also opposes Delta’s request and asserts that the Department should initiate a 

proceeding to reallocate the slot pair. Hawaiian states that it would actively participate in a 

proceeding to seek new Haneda slots so that it could institute a second daily Honolulu-Haneda 

flight.

American states that it has no objection to Delta’s request, provided that all carriers holding 

Haneda slots are granted equivalent relief. United and Hawaiian both oppose American’s 

alternative.

In its response, Delta takes issue with the objections and alternative proposals of Hawaiian and 

United, and asserts that that it stands ready to demonstrate the merits of its Seattle proposal in 

any further carrier selection proceeding that the Department deems necessary. Delta further 

states that it has no objection to the approach proposed by American.

 3 Delta’s response was accompanied by a motion for leave to file an otherwise unauthorized document. 

We will grant the motion.
3

Decision

Delta was awarded the slot pair at issue here based upon a complete evidentiary record in a 

carrier selection proceeding in which we considered competing applications and submissions 

from a number of interested parties. The decisions we reached in that earlier proceeding 

reflected specific public interest determinations as to each of the carrier proposals and gateways 

selected. In evaluating Delta’s current request, we believe that the public interest again calls for 

our proceeding only on the basis of a complete evidentiary record. In light of the answers

received in response to Delta’s motion, we have determined that this record should reflect not 

only the arguments and evidence Delta might present in support of its proposed shift to the 

Seattle gateway, but also the arguments and evidence of other carriers in favor of transferring 

Delta’s Detroit-Haneda authority to a different U.S. carrier and U.S. gateway. We have therefore 

decided to institute a proceeding to develop the necessary record and to determine the disposition 

of the Detroit-Haneda slot pair that would best serve the public interest.

Proceeding and Evidentiary Requirements

We are instituting this proceeding to determine, based on a fresh evidentiary record, whether the 

public interest would be best served by allowing Delta to transfer its currently-allocated DetroitHaneda slot pair to Seattle-Haneda or, instead, by an alternative disposition of the DetroitHaneda slot pair.

Our principal objective in this proceeding will be to maximize public benefits. In this regard, we 

will consider which proposal will most likely result in service that best meets the needs of the 

traveling and shipping public. We will also consider the effects of Delta’s Seattle-Haneda 

proposal, and each alternative service proposal, on the overall competitive environment, 

including effects on the market structure and on competition in the U.S.-Japan market. In 

addition, we will consider other factors historically used for carrier selection, where relevant.

Should we be favorably disposed towards selecting an alternative gateway for Haneda, whether 

Seattle or otherwise, we would expect to allocate the slot pair for an indefinite term, subject to a 

start-up condition and our standard 90-day dormancy condition. For any slot pair not used for a 

period of 90 days, the allocation with respect to that slot pair would expire automatically and 

revert to the Department for reallocation.

We have decided to use written, non-oral show-cause procedures under Rule 210 of our 

regulations (14 CFR 302.210) in deciding this case. We find no material issues of fact that 

would warrant an oral evidentiary hearing in this case. We are also simplifying our procedures 

and evidentiary requirements, consistent with securing an adequate decisional record with the 

least possible delay and without unnecessary cost to the interested parties. 

Except for procedural dates, all responsive pleadings should conform to Part 302, Subpart C of 

the Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 302). All submissions should be filed with the 

Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590, in the captioned Docket, and we would expect to see
4

the following information for the forecast year, defined as the 12 months ending December 31, 

2013.4

1. Complete service proposals including proposed routing, date for instituting service, 

and single-plane schedules. If a carrier is relying upon connecting traffic, it should 

provide proposed nonstop-to-nonstop connecting schedules. If a carrier intends to 

offer seasonal service, it must so state and specify the period during which the 

seasonal services would be offered. 

Proposed schedules should contain flight numbers, complete routings from origin to 

destination (including behind-gateway and beyond-gateway points, if the carrier is 

relying upon connecting traffic, and elapsed time for services), departure and arrival 

times in local time, equipment types (including seat configuration by class of service 

and the cargo capacity available), days scheduled, classes of service offered, and the 

limitations, if any, on the number of seats available for each class of service;

2. A brief description of the types of scheduled service the carrier currently provides, if 

any, between the United States and Tokyo, Japan, including whether the services are 

direct or code-share operations and whether they are seasonal or year-round;

3. A statement describing the benefits of the carrier’s proposed service to the public 

interest; 

4. A statement as to whether or not the aircraft to be used in the proposed schedules are 

on hand or on order. If on hand, indicate where and the extent to which those aircraft 

are currently being used. If on order by purchase or lease, indicate when they will be 

delivered and how the aircraft will be financed. Indicate whether the aircraft to be 

used comply with FAR-36. If not, indicate plans for achieving compliance;

5. Estimated number of gallons of fuel to be consumed by aircraft type on an annual 

basis as a result of the proposed service, and indicate the availability and method of 

obtaining the necessary fuel; 

6. A statement as to whether the carrier would accept a condition requiring institution of 

service by a date specified by the Department, and, if so, what date the Department 

should specify.

To the extent that any of the requested information has already been provided on the record,

carriers may refer to that information in supplemental pleadings. Carriers may, of course, also 

 4 The original filing should be on 81⁄2" x 11" white paper using dark ink (not green) and be unbound 

without tabs, which will expedite use of our docket imaging system. In the alternative, parties are 

encouraged to use the electronic submission capability available through the Regulations.gov Internet site

(http://www.regulations.gov) by following the instructions on the web site. Additionally, service by 

facsimile or electronic mail is authorized. Parties should include their fax numbers and email addresses 

on their submissions and should indicate the method(s) of service used on their certificates of service.
5

submit any additional information beyond that requested if they believe it would be useful to us 

in reaching a decision.

Procedural Timetable

In light of our goal of reaching a prompt final decision, we intend to process this case on an 

accelerated procedural schedule. Therefore, we are establishing the following procedural 

schedule for submissions:

Petitions for Reconsideration: August 24, 2012

Answers to Petitions: August 29, 2012

Applications/Supplements/Amendments: August 27, 2012

Answers: September 6, 2012

Replies: September 13, 2012

In consideration of the accelerated schedule, as discussed above, we authorize service by 

facsimile or electronic mail. Parties should include their fax numbers and/or e-mail addresses on 

their submissions and should indicate on their certificates of service the methods of service used. 

Applicants not using facsimile or electronic mail must provide an original and five copies of all 

submissions to the Department of Transportation, Dockets, no later than the dates indicated. 

Please also provide an electronic copy of all responsive pleadings to: Esta.Rosenberg@dot.gov

and Brett.Kruger@dot.gov.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We institute a comparative carrier selection proceeding in Docket DOT-OST-2010-0018, to 

be decided by written, non-oral procedures under Part 302 of our regulations (14 CFR Part 

302.210);

2. This proceeding will consider whether the public interest calls for permitting Delta Air Lines, 

Inc. to transfer its currently allocated Detroit-Haneda slot pair for scheduled combination 

services to the Seattle-Haneda route, or whether the public interest calls for an alternative use of 

that slot pair;

3. We defer action on the motion of Delta Air Lines, Inc., until the completion of the proceeding 

instituted in paragraph 1;

4. Applications and other responsive pleadings should be filed in accordance with the procedural 

schedule set forth in this order; and
6

5. We will serve this order on Delta Air Lines, Inc.; Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines, 

Inc.; Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; United Air Lines, Inc.; the Delta Master Executive Council of the 

Air Line Pilots Association; the Port of Seattle; all certificated U.S. combination carriers 

operating large aircraft; the U.S. Department of State (Office of Aviation Negotiations); the 

Federal Aviation Administration; and the Ambassador of Japan in Washington, D.C.

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov