DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,483

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TA-W-71,483A
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
TAMPA, FLORIDA

TA-W-71,483B
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated May 10, 2010, the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The determination was signed on
April 16, 2010. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75 FR 28301).
Workers of Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division are
engaged in employment related to the supply of airline travel
arrangement and reservation services.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The negative determination applicable to workers and former
workers at Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division,
Houston, Texas, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
Division, Tampa, Florida, and Continental Airlines, Inc.,
Reservations Division, Salt Lake City, Utah, was based on the
findings that the subject firm did not, during the period under
investigation, shift to a foreign country the supply of airline
travel arrangement and reservation services (or like or directly
competitive services) or acquire from a foreign country the
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services
(or like or directly competitive services); that the workers’
separation, or threat of separation, was not related to any
increase in imports of the supply of airline travel arrangement
and reservation services (or like or directly competitive
services) or the shift/acquisition of the supply of airline
travel arrangement and reservation services (or like or directly
competitive services); and that the workers did not supply a
service that was directly used in the production of an article
or the supply of service by a firm that employed a worker group
that is eligible to apply for TAA based on the afore-mentioned
article or service.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states
that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA
because the subject firm has shifted abroad the airline travel
arrangement and reservation services provided by the workers.
The petitioner also asserts that the subject firm has separated
additional workers and more separations are anticipated at
various locations throughout the Unite States. Additionally,
the petitioner states that the subject firm facility in Denver,
Colorado was not considered in the investigation.
During the initial investigation, the Department obtained
information that shows that the subject firm did not shift the
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services to
a foreign country and that the worker separations were due to
the diminished need for such services due to increased use of
technology (on-line self-service reservations systems and
electronic ticketing).
Because workers are not eligible to file a petition for
locations other than the one at which they are or were employed,
the petitioner’s assertion that the Department should have
included the Denver, Colorado location in the determination is
not a basis for reconsideration.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration,
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 15th day of July, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,483
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
HOUSTON, TEXAS

TA-W-71,483A
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
TAMPA, FLORIDA

TA-W-71,483B
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
RESERVATIONS DIVISION
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c)
or (f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f).
For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the
following three criteria must be met:


I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm
must have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers’ firm was
directly Inc. have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers’ firm was directly Inc. have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers’ firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports
or shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation. See
Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. §§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department
to issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a
Downstream Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on June 30, 2009 on behalf of workers of Continental
Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, with facilities in
Houston, Texas (TA-W-71,483); Tampa, Florida (TA-W-71,483A);
and Salt Lake City, Utah (TA-W-71,483B) (hereinafter referred
to as Continental Airlines, Reservations Division). The
workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of
airline travel arrangement and reservation services.
The petitioners allege that airline travel arrangement
and reservation services have been shifted abroad by
Continental Airlines, Reservations Division.
The investigation included a review of company data, phone
conversations with company officials, petitioners and email
correspondence.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criteria (2)(A) and (2)(B) have not
been met.
The subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of airline
travel arrangement and reservations services during the relevant
period. The investigation revealed that foreign call centers
only field calls originating from foreign countries.
Separations at the subject firm can be attributed in part
to a decreased need for personal contact for airline reservation
and ticket sales due to web-based, self-service reservation
systems and electronic ticketing.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Criterion 2 has not been met. The
workers did not supply a service that was used by a firm with
Trade Adjustment Assistance-certified workers in the production
of an article or supply of a service that was the basis for TAA-
certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers' firm has not been identified in an
affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade
Commission
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
Division with facilities in Houston, Texas (TA-W-71,483);
Tampa, Florida (TA-W-71,483A); and Salt Lake City, Utah (TA-W-
71,483B) are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of April, 2010


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 9 -