FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5938 posts, RR: 27 Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3329 times:
UA originally applied for DEN-CUN service. Then both Allegiant and Champion filed alternative proposals to offer the service. Champion also filed for DEN-PVR. UA replied by filing to operate DEN-PVR as TED and asked the government to consolidate all the apps into a single case, then choosing the best proposal(s).
Frontier yesterday responded to UA's request to consolidate the cases in an interesting way.
In its response, Frontier points out the UA applied for DEN-CUN for itself but applied for DEN-PVR authority to be operated by TED. Frontier points out that "In order to consolidate multiple cases before the Department of Transportation (“Department”), a finding must be made that the carrier seeking the consolidation is identical in every respect."
F9 then points out that UA works through ads and news articles to make TED a separate entity.
The question Frontier asks:
"Before the Department grants United’s motion to consolidate, United should agree that there is no difference between United and “Ted” and that no “Ted” entity exists. It is United that is seeking both Mexico authorities."