![]() |
§ 93.221 Transfer of slots.
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14....1.3.11.13.9.7 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, effective April 1, 1986, slots may be bought, sold or leased for any consideration and any time period and they may be traded in any combination for slots at the same airport or any other high density traffic airport. Transfers, including leases, shall comply with the following conditions: (1) Requests for confirmation must be submitted in writing to Slot Administration Office, AGC–230, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, in a format to be prescribed by the Administrator..... (2) The slot transferred must come from the transferor's then-current FAA-approved base. (3) Written evidence of each transferor's consent to the transfer must be provided to the FAA. (4) The recipient of a transferred slot may not use the slot until written confirmation has been received from the FAA. (5)(i) Until a slot obtained by a new entrant or limited incumbent carrier in a lottery held under §93.225 after June 1, 1991, has been used by the carrier that obtained it for a continuous 24-month period after the lottery in accordance with §93.227(a), that slot may be transferred only by trade for one or more slots at the same airport or to other new entrant or limited incumbent carriers under §93.221(a)(5)(iii). This transfer restriction shall apply to the same extent to any slot or slots acquired by trading the slot obtained in a lottery. To remove the transfer restriction, documentation of 24 months' continuous use must be submitted to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel. (6) The Office of the Secretary of Transportation must determine that the transfer will not be injurious to the essential air service program. Injurious= harmful, hurtful, or detrimental. I hardly see where the DOT/FAA will be able to justify their ruling. Allowing the CAL/AirTran trade eliminated a LCC at the Newark Airport and gave the dominate carrier even more power. Tell me how that wasn't "Injurious"? We have met all of the requirements from what I've seen. They are clearly in the wrong. |
The out is number 6 in your post. The possibilty of rising ticket prices is "injurious" to the consumer.
Denny |
Deleted....
|
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 806624)
The out is number 6 in your post. The possibilty of rising ticket prices is "injurious" to the consumer.
Denny It says injurious to the EAS, not the general consumer. No EAS routes were going to be affected. |
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
(Post 806624)
The out is number 6 in your post. The possibilty of rising ticket prices is "injurious" to the consumer.
Denny There is the "possibility" of a lot of things. If Southwest (or any other airline) moves in there isn't a route out there that they will operate that isn't already being served. Maybe the fares might go down, maybe not...either way the only requirement is that the deal not "hurt" the consumer like you've stated. In that case you have to look at the deal as a whole and decide is it truly "hurtful"? Is is more or less "hurtful" than what is already in place. Is their really a reason to think ticket prices will go up? Is that "guess" good enough to disregard all of the plusses and "harmless" things in this deal? Not to mention the whole "pick in choose" game they are trying to play in approving the AirTran/CAL deal. That gave a LCC more market share in LGA, but made an already dominate carrier even more dominate in EWR. Sounds much like our deal...but I think ours actually smells better overall, so how is it denied? I'd love to see our lawyers argue this one out. I think it'll be a good show. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 806558)
The volcano is shutting down Ireland and UK airspace again.
|
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
(Post 806628)
I think what the delta/usairways lawyers would argue is:
It says injurious to the EAS, not the general consumer. No EAS routes were going to be affected. Denny |
Going to ACC for the first time at the end of MAY. Anybody have any "need to know" stuff for me. Thanks
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 806514)
Hush kits on a 757? really?? uh, no, I think that rumor can safely be shot in the head and put away except that the desert airframes do need heavy maintenance, but other than that, they are lots cheaper than new ones...
|
Originally Posted by maddogmax
(Post 806638)
Going to ACC for the first time at the end of MAY. Anybody have any "need to know" stuff for me. Thanks
Denny |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:09 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands