thanks for that link -- it's interesting reading. They are certainly lawyer type documents.

I find all of the points very convincing arguments, but would be curious to know how the other side responds. Obviously we only see the one sided advocate here -- but the points raised seem actually very valid, and at times, even funny and humorously presented.

The other thing that they relied on a lot was the argument that new-entrant status should not alone give competitors a strong case -- it should be justified by strong existing networks and infrastructure and reputation. That's true, but how then is any new competitor to enter the market if they cannot get the first flight going?