BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

____________________________________ _ ______ )

Application s of )

)

AIR CANADA )

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. )

F RONTIER AIRLINES, IN C. )

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP ORATION )

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES C O. ) Docket No. OST

- 20 12

- 0029

SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES )

VIRGIN AMERICA INC. )

)

For exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts )

K and S, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718 )

(BEYOND

- PERIMETER SLOT EXEMPTIONS) )

___________________________________________ )

LIMITED RESPONSE OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

Communication with respect to this

document should be addressed to:

Ron Ricks Robert W. Kneisley

Executive Vice President

-- Associate General Counsel

C hief Legal and Regulatory Officer Leslie C. Abbott

Madeleine Johnson Senior Attorney

Vice President General Counsel SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. 1901 L Street, NW

2702 Love Field Drive Suite 640

Dallas, TX 75235

- 1611 Washington, DC 20036

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

(202) 263

- 6284

April 3 , 20121 BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

__ ________ _________________________________ )

Applications of )

)

AIR CANADA )

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC. )

F RONTIER AIRLINES, IN C. )

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP ORATION )

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES C O. ) Docket No. OST

- 20 12

- 0029

SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES )

VIRGIN AMERICA INC. )

)

For exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 93, Subparts )

K and S, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718 )

(BEYOND

- PERIMETER SLOT EXEMPTIONS) )

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )

LIMITED RESPONSE OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

Southwest Airlines 1 files this Limited Response to briefly address certain

incorrect statements and factual errors contained in the answers filed by participating

carriers in this proceeding on March 27, 2012 . Southwest seeks leave to file this

document pursuant to Rule 6 o f the Department’s Rules of Practice (14 CFR §302.6).

Good cause exists because this Response will correct the record in important respects

and thereby contribute to a more accurate and informed basis for the Department ’s

decision. This by no means respo nds to everything that Southwest finds objectionable

or unfounded in the other parties’ answers

, but in consideration of the Department’ s

expedited schedule for this proceeding this response is limited to only a few matters that

concern factual errors or data inaccuracies

.

1 Common names of airlines are used herein

.2

1. JetBlue’s Claim that Southwest “Double

- Counted”

Its F orecast DCA

- AUS P assengers is Incorrect

.

P age 20 of JetBlue’s Consolidated Response states that “ S outhwest counted

each passenger twice (once in each direction), while JetBlue ’s projection is an estimate

of one

- way passengers. On an apple to apples basis, Southwest’s projections are cut

in half to 45,903, compared to JetBlue’s 36,500.” This is incorrect. Southwest did not

double count any passengers. Southwest’s 91,806 forecast DCA

- AUS passengers

(after stimulation) represent the traditional definition of an O&D passenger, which is a

one

- way passenger. In fact, Southwest’s forecast O&D numbers exclude frequent flyer

(zero fare) passengers so its numbers are actually lo wer than the reported totals of

some other applicants . Southwest will produce greater stimulation in the DCA

- AUS

market than JetBlue because it will operate a significantly larger aircraft, has a much

larger AUS presence, and will offer lower fares.

2. The Claim that BWI and DCA Are Part of the Same Washington DC

Market is Erroneous and Contrary to the DOT’s Own Findings

.

Frontier, and to a lesser extent some other a pplicants

, ha ve attempt ed to

discredit Southwest’s DCA

- AUS

- SAN proposal by claiming that BWI airport

, along with

DCA, is part of a combined “WAS” market that should be used to evaluate applicants’

proposals in this case ( see Frontier ’s Consolidated Answer at 13

- 14 and Exhibit F9

- A

1). This, Frontier hopes, would mak e Southwest an incumbent in its own proposed

market. Frontier raised a virtually identical argument in the pending Department

proceeding for allocation of inside perimeter slot exemptions ( Docket DOS

- OST

- 2000

-

7182) , to which Southwest responded in detail in its Consolidated Reply filed on March

29, 2012 . Southwest ’s Reply d emonstrated that Frontier’s argument rests on an3

incorrect factual premise and is contrary to the Department’s own extensive analysis of

the Washington DC aviation market in the recent Delta

- US Airways “ S lot S wap”

proceeding

, which concluded that BWI and DCA are not effective substitutes for one

another. That discussion is equally applicable to the instant case. To avoid burdening

the record of th is proceeding, Southwest incorporates b y reference the relevant portion

(pages 8

- 10) of its March 29 Consolidated Reply in Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182

.

3. Frontier’s Attack on Southwest’s Forecast Traffic Stimulation

is Premised on Incorrect and Inaccurate Data

.

Frontier ’s Consolidated Answer ( at 14 ) repeats without any independent analysis

an argument made by US Airways in the pending inside

- perimeter slot exemption

proceeding (Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182) that question s Southwest’s traffic forecast.

Southwest ’s March 29 Consolidated Reply in that proceeding demonstrated in detail

that this argument is premised on incorrect and/ or inapplicable data for the four markets

that US Airways selected and thus has no validity. In brief, Southwest’s Reply showed

that (a) two of the markets selected by US Airways were already served by Southwest

with low connecting and through fares so additional price stimulation was not expected

from the inauguration of nonstop service; (b) the traffic stimulation asserted by US

Airways in the other two markets was incorrect because it was measured at least 14

years after Southwest had initiated service ; and (c) a more representative analysis of

markets entered by Southwest on a nonstop basis since January 2009 showed an

average of 214% traffic stimulation

. Since Frontier has repeated the same US Airways’

argument in this proceeding, Southwest’s response is equally applicable . Therefore

Southwest incorporates by reference th e relevant portion of its Consolidated Answer in

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182 (pages 2

- 3 and associated exhibits).4

4. Frontier’s Claim That It Would Provide

More Capacity than Southwest is Incorrect.

Frontier’s claim it “would provide more capacity” than Southwest (Consolidated

Answer at 15) is plainly incorrect

. As Southwest ’s A pplication state d, Southwest “ may

begin ” DCA

- AUS

- SAN service with B737

- 700 aircraft having 137 seats, but it “ will

convert to B737

- 800 aircraft with 175 seats by November 2012 ” (Southwest Application

at 3, n . 1)

. Nevertheless, Frontier ’s Exhibit F9

- A

- 5 states without qualification that

“Frontier’s Proposed DCA

- COS Service Would Provide 23% More Annual Seats Than

Southwest’s DCA

- AUS Service”. This exhibit is premised on the unstated assumption

that Sou thwest would operate 137

- seat aircr aft throughout the year

. But since

Southwest will operate 175 seat aircraft on the DCA

- AUS

- SAN route no later than

November 2012, Frontier’s exhibit and the corresponding text are simply incorrect.

C ONCLUSION

For the reasons given above and in its prior pleadings

, Southwest urges the

Department to grant it two beyond

- perimeter DCA slot exemption s to provide nonstop

service between DCA and AUS

, with single

- plane beyond service to SAN.

Respectfully submitted

,

__________________________ Robert W. Kneis ley

April 3 , 20125 C ERTIFICATE OF SERVIC E

I hereby certify that on April 3 , 2012 , a copy of the foregoing was served via e

mail on the following persons:

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Air Canada)

megan.lawrence@alaskaair.com (Alaska Airlines)

Marshall.Sinick@squiresanders.com (Alaska Airlines)

Edward.Saucer@squiresanders.com (Alaska Airlines

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com (Frontier Airlines)

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com (Frontier Airlines

robert.land@jetblue.com (JetBlue Airways)

jhill@dowlohnes.com (JetBlue Airways)

perkmann@dowlohnes.com (JetBlue Airw ays)

John.Fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country Airlines)

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com (Virgin America)

john.varley@virginamerica.com (Virgin America)

jegillick@zsrlaw.com (Virgin America)

susan.kurland@dot.gov

todd.homan@dot.gov

brian.ctr.meehan@faa.gov

Jim Smith

Director of Aviation

Austin

- Bergstrom International Airport

jimsmith@ci.austin.tx.us

John E. Potter

President and Chief Executive Officer

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

john.potter@mwaa.com

info@airlineinfo.com

__________________________ Leslie C. Abbott