1

June 9, 2015

The Honorable Anthony Foxx

Secretary

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Norwegian Air International Application; DOT Docket 2013-0204

Dear Secretary Foxx,

On behalf of OpenSkies.travel members from the U.S. and countries around the 

world, I write to support Norwegian Air International’s (NAI) motion for expedited 

treatment and urge the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to approve 

NAI’s application to provide air service to the U.S. That application was 

completed in February 2014, well over a year ago. Indeed, so much time has

elapsed that Norwegian, according to its June 1, 2015 filing with DOT, has been 

able to advance its existing business plans through the growth of bases in the EU 

and the U.S. to volunteer to use only U.S. and European crews on NAI’s 

transatlantic flights. This very significant voluntary step should enable immediate 

approval of the NAI application.

Hopefully, Norwegian’s recent commitment will end this unprecedented and 

embarrassing delay in contravention of the U.S. - EU Open Skies agreement that 

has led the EC to declare the U.S. in breach of its international legal obligations.

It is one thing to thoroughly review an application but quite another to effectively 

deny it through unjustified inaction. It is imperative that DOT now act immediately 

to fulfill the U.S. obligation under the agreement to grant authorization to a fully 

licensed EU airline “with minimum procedural delay,” an obligation that is also 

statutorily mandated by 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1) (“The Secretary of 

Transportation... shall act consistently with the obligations of the United States 

Government under an international agreement.”)

As the domestic U.S. airline industry has consolidated from 11 carriers controlling 

80 percent of the U.S. domestic market in 2005 to just four today, domestic and 

foreign new entry and expansion by airlines is vital to resurrecting price 

competition, guaranteeing consumers better choices and encouraging the return 

of adequate levels of air service for U.S. communities, especially to U.S. cities 

that are not, or are no longer, U.S. carrier hubs. Hardly a week goes by without 

the national media reporting on the profound and widespread frustration and 
2

anger of air travelers with high airfares and the inferior levels and quality of air 

services in the U.S.

Moreover, now that the U.S. major network airlines have secured antitrust 

immunity with the largest European carriers, they appear to want to close down 

the U.S. market to competition and divvy up the spoils of their alliances. 

European carriers like Norwegian that belong to none of the mega alliances 

provide access for U.S. businesses under Open Skies agreements to markets 

that the alliance airlines simply refuse to serve. 

It must not be forgotten that the promise of new and expanded air services by 

non-aligned U.S. and foreign airlines such as NAI in an Open Skies environment 

was the very premise upon which antitrust immunity was accorded to each of the 

three alliances. In short, new entry by airlines such as NAI was to be the antidote 

for the competition lost when major U.S. airlines were allowed to team up with 

major foreign carriers with which they had previously competed. And it should not 

go unnoticed that the arguments against Open Skies are shifting, self-serving 

and ad hoc. In the case of the gulf carriers, they seize on alleged government 

subsidies as the basis to argue some foreign carriers should be blocked from 

exercising rights under Open Skies agreements and in other cases, such as that 

of NAI, broadly assail the carrier’s low-fair business model as somehow unfair to 

them.

Importantly, to achieve President Obama’s stated goal of 100 million annual 

tourists by 2021, and the jobs they would generate, the Administration cannot 

count on U.S airlines and their chosen alliance partners that are sheltered from 

competition by their “Fortress Hubs” and are overtly pursuing anti-consumer 

“capacity discipline.” New foreign carrier entry and expansion is the necessary, 

indeed only, path to the President’s goal. The U.S. airlines are financially the 

strongest they have ever been and should not be so paranoid about healthy 

competition and consumer choice, which is the central principle of the U.S. free 

market system.

Unfortunately, some U.S. carriers are following a well-worn anticompetitive route

in which powerful incumbents seek to lock out independent airlines that offer 

lower fares, newer airplanes, faster connections, more destinations and superior 

customer service. When Southwest, for example, began to grow from a small 

airline in Texas to the national powerhouse it is today, the established U.S. 

network airlines sought to beat it through regulatory restrictions. Fortunately for 

U.S. consumers and businesses, they failed.

Today, the NAI business model is perceived by some in the same threatening 

way. The Play Book page is as identical as it is predictable. They seek to prevent 

NAI from proving that its low-fare business plan will stimulate bi-directional 

international demand and be embraced by U.S. consumers. They desperately 

want to prevent NAI from establishing a U.S. foothold with the fear that other 
3

carriers such as JetBlue, Ryanair or Tiger Airways will seek to emulate the 

success of NAI’s low-fare international, long haul model. 

Although U.S. airlines preach that their interests are paramount, and trumpet 

demands for a “National AIRLINE Policy,” they are just one among many 

stakeholders whose interests are reflected in the Federal Deregulation Act of 

1978 and U.S. Open Skies policy. These other stakeholders include consumers, 

airports, mid-size communities, tourism destinations, travel distributors, travel 

agents, global Open Skies partners, cargo airlines and their customers, other 

commercial airlines, plane manufacturers and their suppliers, managed-travel 

operations and American job seekers. Contrary to the self-absorbed perspective 

of U.S. major network carriers - it is the legitimate interests of these many other 

stakeholders collectively in the introduction of new air services that should be 

dispositive in the NAI proceeding.

Secretary Foxx, with the pilot and cabin crew issues settled with Norwegian’s 

voluntary commitment, we are hopeful and confident that you will uphold the U.S. 

commitment to Open Skies by approving the NAI application promptly.

Sincerely,

Kevin Mitchell

Chairman, Business Travel Coalition

Founder, OpenSkies.travel

OPENSKIES.TRAVEL FOUNDING MEMBERS

Southern Africa Tourism Services Association (South Africa)

FedEx (U.S.)

Washington Airports Task Force (U.S.)

Air Passengers Association of India (India)

ABB, Inc. (Switzerland)

International Foundation For Aviation And Development (Canada) 

Greater Atlanta Malayalee Association (U.S.) 

FlyersRights.org (U.S.)

Association for Airline Passenger Rights (U.S.)

Business Travel Coalition (U.S.)

Travelers United (U.S.)

Ed Perkins, Consumer Advocate (U.S.)

Dubai Travel & Tour Agents Group (United Arab Emirates)

ABC Holiday (Malaysia)

Hotel Villa Deux Rivieres (Laos)

The Travel Company Edinburgh (UK)

Lockheed Martin Corporation (U.S.)
4

Visit USA Committee Ireland (Ireland)

DreamJet SAS d/b/a La Compagnie (France)

Orlando International Airport (U.S.)

Petroleum Geo-Services (Norway)

Go Travel (Australia)

Orbital Sciences Corporation (U.S.)

nuTravel Technology Solutions (U.S.)

Contract Travel (U.S.)

Group Travel Partners (U.S.)

Hickory Global Partners (U.S.)

BCD Travel (U.S.)

Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau (U.S.)

John S Stow Consulting, LLC (U.S.)

Bookabed (Ireland)

Cutty Sark Tours, Travel and Car Hire Limited (Zambia)

World Travel, Inc. (U.S.)

Corporate Travel Partners Limited (UK)

Redfern Travel (UK)

Chicago Rockford International Airport (U.S.)

Zenith Travel & Consultants (Nigeria)

CI Travel (U.S.)

Tekla Corporation (Finland)

U.S.-U.A.E. Business Council (U.S.)

TravelStore (U.S.)

TRS Consulting (United Arab Emirates) 

APOLLO TRAVEL (U.S.)

Turon Travel, Inc. (U.S.)

Geraci Travel (U.S.)

Barjac, Inc. (U.S.)

Beyond Boundaries Travel/Bike Beyond Boundaries (U.S.)

RTI International (U.S.)

CX-Analytics (U.S.)

SYKES Enterprises (U.S.)

Marine Services, Inc. (U.S.)

Travel Management Partners, Inc. (U.S.)

GlobalPoint Travel Solutions (U.S.)

Anthony Travel, Inc. (U.S.)

CFA Institute (U.S.)

David Brudney & Associates (U.S.)

LXR Travel LLC (U.S.)

The Data Exchange (UK)

Central Texas Doula Association (U.S.)