36. American’s special relationship with British Airways makes it particularly unconvincing for American to argue that the surcharges at issue are “imposed by British Airways” and “within the discretion of that airline,” or to argue that that “American merely collects” the fees at issue (Answer at p.9). Just five years ago, American and British Airways sought and received DOT permission to coordinate pricing for their joint services. See Joint Application for Antitrust Immunity, DOT-OST-2008-0252-0001 at p.14 (“The Joint Applicants will cooperate in establishing fares, rates and pricing strategies for services provided under their alliance agreements and the JBA”). American and British also indicated that they would “broadly shar[e] revenue on a metal neutral foundation” (Id. at p.11). There can be no serious dispute that carrier-imposed surcharges and fuel surcharges are “revenue” and “fares, rates and pricing” within the meaning of these statements. Thanks to the full antitrust immunity DOT provided to American and British Airways based on their representations in the 2008-0252 docket, American both influences and benefits from British Airways surcharges. Having sought these privileges from DOT and represented to DOT that it would use them, American cannot now disavow them by pushing all responsibility to British Airways.