B. Background
1. Applicants
RPM and AMRAT are two distinct but closely related applicants. RPM provides the transportation services. AMRAT is a corporation that oversees the operations of RPM and provides certain management functions. AMRAT is also the majority owner of RPM.
Because of the close relationship and shared responsibility for jointly conducting the total operation, each of the applicants has previously been granted authority from this Commission to conduct operations as a Passenger Stage Corporation (AMRAT- PSC 11415 and RPM- PSC 10811). Applicants jointly do business as Prime Time Shuttle.
Currently applicants conduct operations between San Bernardino and Riverside counties on the one hand and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on the other hand. RPM is one of three competing entities holding a concessionaire agreement with the LAX Board of Airport Commissioners. Applicants state that RPM is in good standing with the Los Angeles Department of Airports.
2. Application
By this application applicants seek authority to expand their current operations to serve points in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties from Pasadena-Glendale-Burbank Airport (BUR), John Wayne Airport (SNA), Ontario Airport (ONT), Long Beach Airport (LGB), Los Angeles AMTRAK Station, and the Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors.
Applicants state that airport shuttle service is a very competitive enterprise and that in order to remain competitive with the other two concessionaire holders at LAX, they must be able to offer service to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties from other than LAX. Applicants' competitors currently hold this authority. Applicants state that although AMRAT has authority to serve the points in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties under PSC-11415, it is necessary to possess the authority sought herein as well for RPM as noted above. In addition to Commission requirements, LAX also requires that the operating authority for AMRAT and RPM be co-extensive.
Decision 99-05-033 authorized AMRAT to change rates within a Zone Of Rate Freedom (ZORF). This application requests that a ZORF be approved for the extended authority sought by this application.
Applicants attached a copy of the proposed fare schedule to this application as Exhibit A. Applicants state that these proposed rates are competitive for this requested authority and should be approved.
3. Procedural Background
Notice of the application appeared in the Commission's Daily Calendar on May 31, 2001, and notice of the amended application appeared on June 14, 2001, noting "The Amendment consists of clarifying that Rideshare Port Management, L.L.C., and AMRAT, Inc. are in fact two different companies." On June 14, 2001, the Commission issued ALJ Resolution 176-3065 in which it preliminarily categorized the proceeding as ratesetting and found no hearing was necessary. MotorSTATION CORP. filed a protest on July 16, 2001. Applicants filed their response on July 23, 2001.
4. Route Descriptions
Applicants state that because of the on-call and ride-share nature of the airport shuttle business, there will not be regular routes between terminal points, as usually provided by scheduled carriers. Applicants and their drivers will select the most direct route available under conditions at the time of service.
5. Service
Applicants will provide service in modern, well-maintained 11 passenger Dodge/Ford/Chevrolet vans via independent owner-operators having their own Charter Party Carrier Permits, which is consistent with applicants' current operations into Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange Counties.
Applicants' service would include loading and unloading passengers' baggage to and from cargo compartments in the vans. It is anticipated that approximately 70-90% of the transportation service will be paid for on a pre-arranged basis through credit card purchases as well as tour operators and travel agents. Those passengers riding on such pre-arranged basis would present drivers with a trip confirmation number and board without further ado. Riders may also pay the fare in cash or by credit card upon boarding the van.
6. Insurance
Applicants state that they carry liability insurance in excess of the requirements of the Commission's General Order 101-E. In addition, Applicants carry Workmen's Compensation insurance covering all employees as required by the Pub. Util. Code §§ 460.7 & 1043.
7. Applicants' Financial Statement
Applicants attached as Exhibit B to the application the most recent financial statement available for AMRAT. The application shows that the applicants have annual gross operating revenues of $1,502,211 and net assets of $2,392,296. The application shows that the applicants have the necessary resources to enlarge and maintain the operation within the expanded area sought. Applicants also state that they are current in the payment of tax obligations to the Commission as shown in Exhibit C to the application.
8. Protest
On July 16, 2001, MotorSTATION CORP. filed a late protest. MotorSTATION CORP. states that it is not a passenger stage corporation licensed by this Commission. Rather, MotorSTATION offers consultation services and describes itself as a "potential" competitor.
No other protests have been filed.
Applicants responded to the protest July 23, 2001.
