HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.usfed/dotod0554 and id is 1 raw text is:
Order 82-3-1
UNI TAS OF AERICA
CIVILAlaTICS BOWARD
MSHEN7TON, D. C.
Adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board
at its office in Washingtcn, D.C.
on the 19th day of February, 1982
U.S.-Franoe/Mexico/Pelgium fares Docket 40466
proposed by
CHPAGIE NATIONALE AIR FRANCE
ON)ER OF SUSPENSION .AND I GACTICN
In a series of recent tariff rev.si ns, Caopagnie Nat+ionale Air France (Air
France) has proposed eypanding availability of its Neu- York-Paris -acances service
to Saturdays during the period fra March 27 to June 14, 1982; 1/ introduction of
a New York-Mexico city suspersonic fare at $440 one way, effectave March 6, 1982;
and introduction of ne%. special excursion, special group excursion, advance-
purchase excuarsion (APEX) and group APEX fares between Chicago and New York, on
the one hand, and Brussels, on the other, effective April 6, 1982.
We have decided to suspend Air France's proposals. The French aviation
authorities have repeatedly denied U.S. carrier attsmpts to introduce new fares in
the U.S.-France market, have disapproved the fare proposaLs of U.S. carriers seeking
entry into the market whenever the proposals had indercut the prev ailing fares of
Air France, and have even refused U.S. carriers the right to match Air France's
fares at the latter's U.S. gateways if the former did not provide single-plane
service. Most recently, the French authorities have disapproved to attempts by
Pan American World Airwals, Inc. (Pan American), to match Air France's Houston-Paris
winter group excursion fare. Thus, the Gmrernment of France continues its policy
of denying U.S. carrier fare initiatives in order to protect Air France, to the
detriment of the traveling public. Such circumstances compel us to review Air
France's fare proposals with greater scrutiny than we iild otherwise prefer.
The proposed eypansion of New York-Paris vacances service and introduction
of new Chicago/New York-Brussels fares are clearly intended to erharce Air France's
participation in these markets. In particular, we note that Air France's proposed
praootionAl fares to/fran Brussels are designed to match those now offered by
Belgium's national carrier, Societe Anonyme Belge d'Exploitation de la Navigation
Aerienne (Sabena). Sabena, however, provides single-plane service in the markets
at issue, whereas Air France' s service entails an intra].ine cornection at Paris--
precisely the situation at Houston, where the French authorities have blocked
Pan American's efforts to compete for low-fare traffic because the carrier's service
involves an intraline connection. Indeed, we find the French authorities' action
harsher, because it restricts Pan American's ability to compete for traffic to/fram
its own country, rather than between two foreign countries.
1/ The pertinent triff provisions are scheduled for effectiveness March 3, 1982.
Under current provisions, Air France's vacances service during the above
period would be linited to WMndays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.usfed/dotod0554&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)