Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office
|
OST-2001-9325 - Airline Customer Service Improvements |
Subcommittee on Aviation - Aviation and Airport Holiday Travel Preparations - November 15, 2007
House Subcommittee on Aviation - Aviation Consumer Issues Hearing - April 20, 2007
Senate Hearing on Airline Service Improvements - April 11, 2007
HR 1303 - Passenger Bill of Rights as Introduced by Congressman Mike Thompson
S 678 - Passenger Bill of Rights as Introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer
H.R. 2662 - Collect Certain Data Pertaining to Cancelled and Diverted Flights of Air Carriers
2007 Air Travel Tolerance - October 2007 Poll by Travelocity - strandedpassengers.blogspot.com
OST-2007-28522 - Public Comments on Reporting Requirements for Aircraft Returning to Departure Gate
OST-2007-0022 - Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections
OST-2007-0108 - National Task Force - Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays
FAA-2007-29320 - Operating Limitations at JFK
FAA-2008-0036 - Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges
| OST-2001-9325 | April 3, 2001 | Petition for Rulemaking of the Air Transport Association of America | Consumer-Related Rulemaking Proceedings |
By: James Casey
July 3, 2007
Executive Order 12866 and Congressional Review
By: Nicki Bell
On File at Federal Register July 9, 2007
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | As Published in Federal Register July 10, 2007
The Department of Transportation is seeking comment on whether it should amend its rules relating to oversales and denied boarding compensation to cover flights operated with aircraft seating 30 through 60 passengers, which are currently exempt from the rule, to increase the maximum required compensation, and to make other changes. Such changes in the rule, if undertaken, would be intended to maintain consumer protection commensurate with developments in the aviation industry.
Comments are requested by September 10, 2007 Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
By: Andrew Steinberg
September 4, 2007
Comments of Coalition for an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights
Allowing airlines to overbook with high fare passengers and then to give those late confirmed passengers boarding priority over customers who had earlier contracted for confirmed reserved space (albeit at a lower fare) is an undue and unreasonable preference. It says, for example, to the early purchaser of seats that "We agree to take your money for seats on that flight but we reserve the right to try to re-sell your seats to others at higher fares up until flight check-in time. ... And if we oversell, the later-confirmed higher-fare passengers get your seats!" This seems to be the thrust of Delta Airlines' boarding priority policy.
We tentatively believe that special needs passengers (such as those with disabilities or unaccompanied minors) should be given first priority, followed by passengers in the order in which they contracted for confirmed reserved space on that flight.
By: Kate Hanni
September 6, 2007
Agreed the amount needs review and supports the option increasing the amount for International journeys to USD 580 (USD 600 rounded up). This increase exceeds the average increase in Qantas’ fares on the Australia USA route over the past 12 years.
By: Qantas, David Fleming, 61-2-69614195, dfleming@qantas.com.au
September 7, 2007
Reply of Airports Council International-North America
Regarding the issue of how the airlines should apply the denied boarding compensation rule, ACI-NA recommends that responsibility for establishment of boarding priority rules for oversold flights be determined by individual airlines. Other than ensuring compliance with Part 250, the Department should not interfere with an airline's boarding priority criteria. However, it would be helpful for airlines in ensuring compliance and consumers for understanding the regulations if DOT provided examples of permissible criteria in the Final Rule. We also support the proposal to establish a special priority to prevent airlines from bumping unaccompanied minors. Special priorities also should be considered for other passenger categories, such as mobility-impaired passengers or passengers with severe disabilities. Finally, we recommend that passengers have access to each airline's rules and policies, for example, by requiring that they be published on airline websites. This would ensure that passengers are able to easily obtain information to assist in making travel decisions or resolving disputes.
ACI-NA also requests that DOT move expeditiously to issue a Final Rule on this issue. More than 55,000 passengers were involuntarily denied boarding in 2006 and that number is expected to increase in 2007. DOT acknowledges that numerous requests to reexamine the compensation have been received, including a "sense of the Senate amendment" in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, as well as two recommendations from the DOT Inspector General. Updating this important consumer protection regulation is long overdue.
By: President, Greg Principato
September 7, 2007
Comments of The American Society of Travel Agents
The present system has an element of elitism in it that seems inappropriate to the spine of the national transportation system. As presently practiced, a consumer may buy a ticket and find that the airline refuses to give a seat assignment until check in. At check in the consumer learns that the flight is oversold and because he has no seat assignment, he may be bumped. He is then displaced by a “higher ranking” purchaser who arrives at the last minute with a frequent flyer premium level card who is moved to the top of the wait list and then is given the last remaining seat. This type of practice should be stopped.
ASTA also recommends that the rules abolish the use of vouchers in favor of cash payments. Only cash payments will create a full incentive for airlines to closely manage DBC. Vouchers are offered in lieu of cash in circumstances in which it is often hard for the consumer to make an informed decision. Vouchers typically can be redeemed only in person at an airport and they usually have no residual cash value if the ticket purchased with them is less than the value of the voucher. Two vouchers may not normally be applied to a single ticket. There are, therefore, many disincentives to the redemption of the vouchers and, as the ANPRM notes, many are not redeemed. Pressure to accept vouchers may increase as the DBC maximums are increased, which is a further reason to require cash offers to passengers prior to involuntary removal. Cash offers would likely find more takers, thereby reducing the likelihood of involuntary removal.
Counsel: ASTA, Paul Ruden, 703-739-6854
September 7, 2007
Comments of National Air Carrier Association
As noted in the ANPRM, Part 250 already requires carriers accurately notify passengers of their rights in oversale situations. There seems to he some concern by the Department that passengers who are asked to volunteer are not provided information about the danger of being denied boarding involuntarily and the amount of compensation that would apply if that occurred. To our knowledge none of NACA's scheduled carriers have found this to be the case. Passengers have always been informed of their options when it comes to possibly being denied boarding. We believe how this is handled should be left up to each carrier to provide the necessary flexibility in running its business while still meeting federal requirements in this area. Since carriers are required to provide written notification, it would be redundant to require verbal notification.
NACA scheduled carriers are not required to report on-time performance or baggage mishandlings. Since they are relieved of this requirement, it does not make sense to require them to file oversale data, especially when the Department does not utilize it. The NACA scheduled service members' operations are statistically minute compared to the major carriers and have little impact on the larger number of passengers impacted by oversales. To the extent that the DOT would move forward with such a requirement, NACA strongly encourages the Department to waive this requirement for any carrier that is not obligated to report on-time performance or baggage mishandling.
By: President, Thomas Zoeller
September 10, 2007
Comments of the Air Carrier Association of America
The ACAA recognizes that overbooking is frustrating for passengers and understands that the DOT cannot let it get out of hand. Restrictions or fines are appropriate for carriers who excessively or routinely deny boarding. However, the DOT must keep in mind that requirements and restrictions do not have the same effects on all carriers. Smaller low-fare carriers have few overbookings and a number of low-fare carriers already restrict oversales of flights. Forcing these small carriers - who only operate a small number of flights per day - to leave empty seats for fear of the repercussions of oversales will have a tremendous impact on the airline's bottom line. These carriers also have a more difficult time accommodating passengers onto other flights than do larger carriers, as they are very limited in total flights. This means they have fewer flight options for rebooking passengers within the time required under the oversales and denied boarding rules. This disparity in options could lead to smaller carriers being subjected to the denied boarding rules more frequently and more severely.
The ACAA understands consumer concerns about delays and overscheduling. With this ANPRM, the Department is taking important steps towards enhancing the dialogue to improve the current rule and create a better system that works for both travelers and air carriers. The first and most important change should be to exclude only carriers with fewer than 30 seats from the rule, thereby including regional jet oversales in the denied boarding compensation requirements. Allowing carriers to avoid this rule by using small regional jets is unfair and will worsen other problems in the industry.
Counsel: Wiley Rein, Nancy McGrath
September 10, 2007
Air Pacific requests that DOT leave in place the current 14 CFR Part 250 denied boarding compensation levels of $200 and $400. Air Pacific agrees with DOT that those carriers not subject to the reporting requirements of 14 CFR Part 234 should no longer be required under 14 CFR Part 250 to report oversales activities to the Department.
Counsel: Eckert Seamans, Evelyn Sahr, 202-659-6622, esahr@eckertseamans.com
September 10, 2007
Air Tahiti Nui requests that DOT leave in place the current 14 CFR Part 250 denied boarding compensation levels of $200 and $400. Air Pacific agrees with DOT that those carriers not subject to the reporting requirements of 14 CFR Part 234 should no longer be required under 14 CFR Part 250 to report oversales activities to the Department.
Counsel: Eckert Seamans, Evelyn Sahr, 202-659-6622, esahr@eckertseamans.com
September 10, 2007
Comments of the Air Transport Association of America
Any proposal to change the current regulatory framework dealing with oversales situations must be evaluated with the following two principles in mind: First, the practice of overbooking provides tangible benefits to the customer-directly in the form of flexibility in the use of tickets and indirectly by reducing pressure on fares. Second, involuntary denied boardings are exceedingly rare, thanks in part to the wellcalibrated balance struck by the current regulatory system. The Department should act with caution in promulgating any changes to its time-tested regulatory framework that could undermine the widespread consumer benefits responsible overbooking makes possible. ATA respectfully submits that the current regulatory arrangement is accomplishing its purpose and there is no compelling need for the overhaul of Part 250.
By: ATA, James Casey, 202-626-4000, jcasey@airlines.org
September 10, 2007
Comments of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines
AAPA submits that in the interest of improving customer service levels, some adjustments to DB compensation levels may be appropriate at this time. If adjustments are to be made, AAPA favours an adjustment based on changes in industry yields. In addition, we would urge DOT to recognise the benefits of maintaining a system of DB compensation which is both stable and easily understood.
By: AAPA, Andrew Herdman, 60-3-2145-5600
September 10, 2007
Island Air understands that the reason for the proposal to reduce the scope of the small aircraft exclusion is the growth in the number of regional jets which are generally owned and/or operated (directly, under a guaranteed revenue and /or capacity purchase agreement) by major carriers. Island Air submits that compliance with DBC regulations would be substantially less burdensome for small carriers so affiliated with larger carriers that are already bound by the DBC regulations.
Island Air therefore proposes that, if the DBC regulations are extended to smaller aircraft, that extension should be applied only to airlines that also operate larger aircraft, or that are affiliated under a guaranteed revenue and /or capacity purchase agreement with a carrier operating larger aircraft. This proposal would strike a successful balance between protecting the vast majority of passengers while also protecting small, independent regional airlines such as Island Air. Extending DBC rules to Island Air would impose a regulatory burden on a company that clearly has no need of Department regulation or oversight in the area of DBC.
Counsel: Sher & Blackwell, Allan Mendelsohn, 202-463-2508
September 10, 2007
Comments of International Airline Passengers Association
lAPA supports the need to increase the current limits and would recommend that Option 3, doubling the maximum amounts of denied boarding compensation from $200 to $400 and from $400 to $800, be considered. We do not believe that it is necessary to tie this amount to inflation as airlines do not generally appear to be tied to inflation, however we do believe that any amount in a Filial Rule should be tied to a periodic review process to enable adjustments if necessary.
As stated in the ANPRM, the use of smaller aircraft and regional carriers has increased significantly in the last twenty years. A passenger on a small jet is no less affected by a flight disruption than a passenger on a large jet. In tact, often these passengers depend on their flight to make a connection and will have fewer options when a disruption does occur. Therefore, IAPA supports reducing the exception for small aircraft from "60 seats or less" to "less than 30 seats" to account for this trend.
Carriers should continue to be able to maintain their own system as DOT has suggested that there are no known problems resulting from this rule as it is written. More important to passengers would be the ability to have access to these policies to better assist them in choosing an airline for their travel plans or in resolving any disputes that may occur.
By: IAPA, Nancy McKinley
September 10, 2007
Comments of jetBlue Airways | Word
JetBlue believes the existing rule works well and affords passengers protection from oversales. As explained in greater detail below, the only amendment that JetBlue supports is expanding application of the rule to include flights that are operated with aircraft that have between 30 and 60 seats. By doing so, DOT will ensure that these customers have the same level of protection as those who happen to travel on a larger aircraft. JetBlue does not feel that DOT should mandate any increase to the amount of compensation, revisions to the notice, or reporting requirements. Ultimately, JetBlue feels strongly that many of these issues should be managed through the competitive marketplace where passengers can choose between flying an airline that has a prevalent practice of oversales and one that does not.
The ANPRM erroneously assumes that Carriers always know in advance whether a passenger is in danger of being involuntarily bumped. The ANPRM also erroneously assumes that a request for volunteers is done on a case-by-case basis, rather than a general call for volunteers. As explained in greater detail in the Air Transport Association’s Comments, the proposals in the ANPRM are unrealistic because airlines do not make a passenger-specific assessment. As such, we see no reason why there should be mandated changes to the existing notices.
By: jetBlue, Joanna Geraghty
September 10, 2007
Comments of Regional Airline Association - Bookmarked
As the Department analyzes its ANPRM and comments submitted in response to it and considers preparation of a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise Part 250, RAA urges the Department to retain the current involuntary denied boarding compensation levels or to raise them, at most, by the percentage increase in unadjusted airline yields since the current levels were established; to continue the exemption of aircraft with 60 or fewer seats from Part 250; to retain the current requirements for informing passengers when soliciting volunteers to defer travel for compensation; and to discontinue reporting requirements imposed on airlines whose reports are not analyzed or utilized.
By: RAA, Roger Cohen, cohen@raa.org
September 11, 2007
The Department's focus of discussion for the elimination of the small aircraft exclusion seems to be on the changed operating environment in the Lower 48 States among the larger regional carriers and their alliances with major carriers as 'Express" regional carriers. Those considerations simply do not apply to the Alaska commuter environment.
PenAir respectfully suggests that the Department should not pursue any amendment to Part 250 which would subject airline operations using aircraft with seats for 30-60 passengers to the denied boarding compensation/oversales rules. If the Department nonetheless feels compelled to make changes in this area and expand the applicability of these rules, any such expansion should exclude non-jet operations within the State of Alaska, and/or exclude aircraft with less than 35 passenger seats.
Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com
September 14, 2007
Comments of International Air Transport Association
IATA has closely reviewed the submission of the Air Transport Association and supports their position that the Regulation should remain unchanged. In particular, compensation levels, which have always been linked to fares, should not be increased while the real costs of traveling by air are falling. The Department’s own observations in the ANPRM that none of its proposals would necessarily result in increased payments to consumers supports this view.
IATA also agrees with ATA that the process of soliciting volunteers to relinquish their seats should not be amended. We do not see the benefit of imposing additional disclosure requirements when there are others who may be prepared to volunteer. The suggested change could have the unforeseen consequences of causing unnecessary delays that would be in no one’s interest.
Counsel: IATA, Douglas Lavin, 202-628-9292, lavind@iata.org
September 24, 2007
Comments of Air Crash Victims Families Group | Word
The present regulation allowing deliberate prepaid confirmed oversales by carriers without prior knowledge by the prospective passenger that he may be denied boarding is a most objectionable procedure which a Government Agency like the Department of Transportation should neither continue to sanctify, nor tolerate any more.
For the innocent traveler this procedure creates real hardships – regardless what the carriers are doing in a material way to remedy the situation: missed connections, loss of prepaid hotel reservations, tours, cruises, business meetings, paid engagements, inconvenience to families, friends, business contacts, etc. It also exposes affected passengers to emotional health impairing stresses.
The cost concerns advanced by carriers are questionable since airlines are essentially service organizations whose expenses from whatever source are folded into the cost of doing business -ultimately passed on and recouped through the ticket prices, charged to future travelers.By: ACVFG, Hans Ephraimson-Abt
November 15, 2007
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Bookmarked | Word
As Published in Federal Register November 20, 2007
Draft Regulatory Evaluation - Bookmarked | Word
The Department of Transportation is proposing to amend its rules relating to oversales and denied boarding compensation to increase the limits on the compensation paid to “bumped” passengers, to cover flights by certain U.S. and foreign air carriers operated with aircraft seating 30 to 60 passengers, which are currently exempt from the rule, and to make other changes. Such changes in the rule, if adopted, would be intended to maintain consumer protection commensurate with developments in the aviation industry.
By: Michael Reynolds
November 15, 2007
A substantive change was made to the DEC notice of proposed rulemaking at the request of OMB. The change consisted of the automatic periodic adjustment of the maximum amount of denied boarding compensation being revised so that the Department would periodically review the cap on compensation, and if necessary would adjust through rulemaking (notice and comment) rather than through an automatic procedure.
By: Blane Workie
January 22, 2008
Comments of the Air Carrier Association of America
The ACAA recognizes that oversales and denied boardings are frustrating for passengers and restrictions or fines are appropriate for carriers who excessively or routinely deny boarding. With this NPRM, the Department is taking important steps towards improving the current rule and creating a better system that works for both travelers and air carriers. The first and most important change should be to include carriers with 30 or more seats in the rule, thereby including regional jet oversales in the denied boarding compensation requirements. Allowing carriers to avoid this rule by using small regional jets is unfair and will worsen other problems in the industry. The Department must also keep in mind that requirements and restrictions do not have the same effects on all carriers. Small carriers have a more difficult time rerouting passengers than do larger carriers, as they are very limited in total flights. Special provision should be included in this rule to protect small carriers from being subjected to the denied boarding rules more frequently and more severely. Finally, the denied boarding compensation amounts should be increased by no more than 25%, and not by 100%, as proposed by the Department.
By: Edward Faberman, 202-719-7420, epfaberman@acaa1.com
January 25, 2008
Additional Comments of Air Carrier Association of America
The ACAA agreed with the Department that the rule should fully apply to aircraft with 30 or more seats, as proposed in the NPRM, because of the dramatic increase in the use of regional jets. The ACAA's support of this change from "60 seats or less" to include those aircraft with "30 or more seats" sought to create a fair procedure that best serves all travelers.
However, as pointed out in the comments of Peninsula Airways, Inc., such a change would subject propeller aircraft in Alaska with 30-34 seats to this rule. It is not ACAA's intention to include propeller aircraft operating in unique environments in this rule. Therefore, the ACAA does not object to PenAir's proposal that the rule be modified to exclude commuter operations with propeller aircraft with less than 35 seats within the State of Alaska. As noted by PenAir, this would retain the exclusion for smaller turbo-prop aircraft in the state of Alaska where these operations are essential in some markets.
By: ACAA, Edward Faberman, 202-719-7402, epfaberman@acaa1.com
January 22, 2008
Comments of Air Transport Association of America
The proposed doubling of compensation limits raises the important question of how they should be measured. We believe that the fare on which a limit is determined should exclude government-imposed taxes and fees. Such taxes and fees are numerous and add up to a substantial amount of the total cost of each passenger's air transportation. Given their amount and government origin, they are inappropriate for inclusion in the compensation calculation.
The proposal to require airlines to advise would-be volunteers of whether or not they are in danger of involuntary denied boarding is unrealistic and should not be adopted. That proposal would impede the processing of passengers at airports without providing any demonstrable consumer benefit. Tellingly, the NPRM states that in response to the ANPRM "[t]he consumer organizations did not comment on this issue."
Counsel: ATA, James Casey, 202-626-4211, jcasey@airlines.org
January 22, 2008
Comments of Airports Council International - North America
Regarding how airlines determine boarding priorities, ACI-NA agrees that DOT should continue to focus on the treatment of passengers whose boarding is involuntarily denied while avoiding the regulation of air carriers’ reservation practices. ACI-NA supports the Department’s proposal to provide examples of permissible boarding-priority criteria that would meet the requirements of Part 250. Such a listing is helpful to airlines in ensuring compliance and to consumers for understanding the regulations. However, ACI-NA recommends that the Department establish a special priority to prevent airlines from bumping unaccompanied minors and passengers with severe disabilities. Determining the identity of unaccompanied minors is easy; the more difficult matter is determining the identity of passengers with severe disabilities and what qualifies as a severe disability. The effect of involuntary bumping on these two classes of passengers is significantly more severe than with the average passenger and, thus, these passengers should have greater protections. Finally, ACI-NA approves the proposal set forth in the NPRM for giving passengers access to, and for posting, each airline’s rules and policies and for notifying passengers subject to involuntary bumping. The Department’s proposal ensures that passengers are able to easily obtain information to assist in making travel decisions or resolving disputes.
Counsel: ACI-NA, Greg Principato
January 22, 2008
Comments of the American Society of Travel Agents
ASTA believes the Boarding Priorities and Notice to Volunteers portion of the proposed rules is seriously flawed. The rule forbids priorities that “make, give or cause any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage,” then lists five non-exclusive criteria by which airlines will be permitted to discriminate among passengers in applying boarding priorities. These include the fare the passenger paid and what frequent-flyer status the passenger enjoys with the airline.
We do not understand what these factors have to do with the purposes of denied boarding compensation. Why, for example, should a person with a non-refundable discounted fare be presumed to face less inconvenience that a full fare passenger when the question of involuntary bumping arises on an oversold flight? Some passengers may have had no choice about the airline they flew and no real choice about the price they paid, yet the fact that they have no repeat flying miles accumulated with that airline will mean they are singled out for involuntary bumping ahead of other passengers who have both choice and resources.
By: ASTA, Paul Ruden, 703-739-6854, pruden@asta.org
January 22, 2008
Comments of China Eastern Airlines
China Eastern Airlines appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM, and respectfully urges the Department to: 1) leave Part 250's current denied boarding compensation limits intact, or alternatively employ the fare/yield index in setting increases; 2) evaluate proposed increases in these limits at five-year rather than two-year intervals, and employ a de novo rulemaking in evaluating the proposed increases; and 3) relieve those carriers not subject to reporting requirements under 14 CFR Part 234 from the Part 250 denied boarding reporting obligations.
Counsel: Eckert Seamans, Evelyn Sahr, 202-659-6622, esahr@eckertseamans.com
January 22, 2008
Comments of the Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights
If DOT truly favors giving passengers full information so that they may make informed choices - even about boarding priorities in an oversale situation, this information as to a carrier's boarding priority system should be available on that carrier's website. A passenger should be able to determine before committing to a carrier and a flight whether a later reserving passenger who pays a higher fare would have preference over an earlier lower-fare paying passenger in an oversale situation.
By: Kate Hanni, 707-337-0328, kate@flyersrights.com
January 22, 2008
Comments of Delta Air Lines on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Amending 14 CFR Part 250
With respect to the proposal to double the maximum compensation for passengers involuntarily denied boarding, Delta wishes to reemphasize the important issue raised by the ATA in response to the Department’s prior Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published last July. See 72 Fed. Reg. 37491. Part 250 has tied the maximum compensation for involuntary denied boarding to ticket prices for decades. As the Department acknowledged in the ANPRM, airline ticket prices have not doubled since the original rule was adopted. To the contrary, the average price of airline tickets has sharply declined in real terms. As ATA noted in its prior comments, taking inflation into account, system-wide yield for U.S. carriers in 2006 was 49.45 percent of what it was in 1978 (4.10 cents/mile versus 8.29 cents/mile). Despite this, as ATA also noted, involuntary denied boarding is extremely rare under the current regulatory scheme. Thus, there is no justification for doubling the current compensation caps.
Counsel: Delta, J. Scott McClain, 404-773-6514
January 17, 2008
Comments of Jet Airways (India)
The Department should make every effort to minimize reporting and other administrative burdens on airlines, particularly if a given reporting requirement serves no practical purpose. That is clearly the case with quarterly Form 251 reports filed by Jet Airways and other foreign airlines, and section 250.10 should be promptly amended as set forth in the NPRM.
With regard to the Department's proposal to increase the maximum amounts of mandatory denied boarding compensation to $400 for international passengers who are rerouted within four hours and to $800 for international passengers who are not rerouted within that timeframe, Jet Airways believes these are reasonable increases. Jet Airways also concurs with the Department's determination to subject subsequent increases to separate public rulemakings.
Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, George Carneal, 202-637-6546, gucarneal@hhlaw.com
January 22, 2008
Comments of the National Air Carrier Association | Word
When we submitted our comments for the ANPRM, we indicated that under option two -- the Department’s proposal to increase the $200/$400 limits to $290 and $580 respectively based on the increase in passenger yield – the proposed amounts were too high. Most situations are worked out on a voluntary basis with NACA scheduled carriers. However, in few cases where denied boarding does occur, this would be a significant penalty for NACA carriers. According to the NPRM, the Department has decided on a blanket increase for denied boarding and oversale situations. Specifically, the Department proposes to double the limits on involuntary denied boarding compensation from $200 to $400 for passengers who are rerouted within two hours (four hours internationally) and from $400 to $800 for passengers who are not rerouted within these time frames.
As mentioned in our ANPRM comments, we believe this increase is an excessively punitive measure against most air carriers. We urge the Department to consider applying this proposal to carriers that show a statistical longevity of oversales and denied boarding situations. It is our belief that a major reason this rulemaking has occurred is due to media reports driven by some air carriers who may abuse the process of oversales or denied boarding. The Department should hold carriers that consistently show a high level of this kind of activity accountable to a more severe penalty. Carriers that show a low statistical level of oversales and denied boarding should be rewarded for their behavior by keeping the current levels of compensation.
By: Thomas Zoeller
January 22, 2008
Comments of the National Business Travelers Association | Word
User fees should only be imposed on air travel when the service is actually being used. NBTA requests that DOT initiate a rule-making or other mechanism to require federal agencies to refund travel fees for tickets that are not actually utilized.
NBTA proposes that the regulations require that carriers compensate travelers the greater of $400 or half of their airfare for travelers involuntarily denied boarding and arriving at their destination within 2 hours of their scheduled arrival time. NBTA further proposes that carriers compensate travelers the greater of $800 or half of their airfare for travelers involuntarily denied boarding and arriving at their destination more than 2 hours after their scheduled arrival time.
By: NBTA, Shane Downey, 703-684-0836, sdowney@nbta.org
January 22, 2008
The Department should not make the denied boarding compensation provisions applicable to airline operations using aircraft with fewer than 35 passenger seats, because such a substantial change in longstanding regulations would impose undue burdens and substantial costs on small airlines, like PenAir, operating this smaller class of aircraft in unique operating environments. If the Department decides to proceed nonetheless to expand the applicability of the DBC regulations to smaller aircraft operations, it should, at a minimum, modify the rule (i) to exclude commuter operations with propeller aircraft solely within the State of Alaska and/or (ii) to limit the rule to aircraft with 35 passenger seats or more. Adopting either one of PenAir's proposed alternatives would result in the DBC rule covering the vast amount of commuter operations, including regional Nt operations in the Lower 48 states (which seems to be the underlying objective of the proposed expansion of the DBC rule's applicability), while appropriately retaining the exclusion for smaller turbo·prop aircraft used by operators such as PenAir.
If the Department nonetheless feels compelled to expand the reach of the DBC rule to aircraft with fewer than 60 seats, any such expansion should exclude non-jet operations within the State of Alaska, and/or exclude aircraft with fewer than 35 passenger seats.
Counsel: Hogan & Hartson, Robert Cohn, 202-637-4999, recohn@hhlaw.com
January 22, 2008
Comments of Philippine Airlines
A proposal on a periodic adjustment of the limits every two years, we believe, would sufficiently protect the Interest of the passengers and the airlines provided both parties will be given the facility to comment and submit its position on the proposed adjustment. An immediate doubling of the amount to $400-800 is not in accord with the concept of periodic review.
If there is really a need to increase the DBS rate, we can only support an incremental increase of 10% which is more in accord with the concept of periodic review.
Counsel: Philippine Airlines, Salvador Alcuino, 632-556-2253
January 22, 2008
Comments of the Regional Airline Association
As the Department analyzes its NPRM and comments submitted in response to it and considers preparation of a final rule to revise Part 250, RAA urges the Department to continue the exemption of aircraft with 60 or fewer seats from Part 250; to retain the current involuntary denied boarding compensation levels or to raise them, at most, by the percentage increase in unadjusted airline yields since the current levels were established if the requirements are extended to aircraft with 60 or fewer seats; to retain the current requirements for informing passengers when soliciting volunteers to defer travel for compensation; and to discontinue reporting requirements imposed on airlines whose reports are not analyzed or utilized.
Counsel: RAA, Roger Cohen, cohen@raa.org
January 22, 2008
In principle, Virgin Atlantic welcomes the decision to update the denied boarding compensation rules in order to update current levels of compensation. However, we are concerned that the proposal to calculate the amount of compensation based on the passenger’s one-way fare would be difficult to administer for the reasons described above, and therefore urge that the Department make it clear that carriers will be permitted to offer a flat rate of compensation in lieu of the calculated amount. We recommend that a flat rate system continue to be used for all airlines. This solution would give clarity to the consumer and relieve the complex administrative burden to airlines.
Counsel: Virgin, Barry Humphreys, 44-1293-747-064, barry.humphrey@fly.virgin.com
January 22, 2008
The Department's proposal to revise Section 250.10 of its regulations to relieve carriers from Form 251 reporting requirements except for those carriers whose data are actually reviewed and used by the Department is a sensible one and one that Zoom applauds. As a general proposition, and consistent with the federal Paperwork Reduction Act, the Department should strive to streamline and minimize reporting burdens on all carriers. Since the Department is not using the Form 251 data submitted by foreign carriers (see 72 Fed. Reg. at 65244), there is no reason to require foreign carriers to continue submitting the data.
Counsel: Zoom, Jonathan Hinkles
April 14, 2008
Executive Order 12866 and Congressional Review Requirements
By: Blane Workie
April 14, 2008
Final Rule (Copy) - Bookmarked | Original Signed Copy
As Published in Federal Register April 18, 2008
The Department of Transportation is amending its rules relating to oversales and denied boarding compensation to increase the limits on the compensation paid to “bumped” passengers, to cover flights by certain U.S. and foreign air carriers operated with aircraft seating 30 through 60 passengers, which are currently exempt from the rule, and to make other changes. These changes are intended to maintain consumer protection commensurate with developments in the aviation industry. This action is taken on the Department’s initiative and in response to a petition from the Air Transport Association.
By: Michael Reynolds
April 16, 2008
Final Rule - Regulatory Evaluation - Bookmarked
The regulatory approach adopted by the Civil Aeronautics Board and maintained by DOT has been successful in promoting efficient markets. Between 1987 and 1998, the number of passengers involuntarily denied boarding fell from 168,942 to 44,797, while the ratio of passengers voluntarily denied boarding to passengers involuntarily denied boarding rose from 4.17 to 24.14. The trend shown in the table below indicates that, with the exception of one year (2000), the reduction in IVDB passengers per 10,000 passengers was generally sustained through 2004. Since 2005, however, the trend has been reversed, with the rate climbing back above one IVDB passenger per 10,000 passengers. The number of passengers involuntarily denied boarding rose from 55,828 in 2006 and 63,878 in 2007. Moreover, the ratio of voluntary to involuntary denied boardings has fallen to 11.12 in 2006 and 9.73 in 2007. These figures suggest that the incentive to rely on voluntarily negotiated compensation has weakened.
Option 3 proposed a simple doubling of the existing compensation limits to $400 and $800. This approach represented a hybrid of the CPI-U and fare price index adjustments proposed in options 1 and 2, respectively. Given the dual nature of the ticket price as a basis for denied boarding compensation, Option 3 would appear to offer an acceptable compromise compensation limit adjustment. We have decided to adopt Option 3.
Home | Search | Help
OST by Number | OST by Order | OST by Carrier | OST by Subject | OST by Day
OIA by Carrier/Subject | OIA by Day | FAA by Number | FAA by Subject | FAA by Day
Carrier Financials | Charter Office