Order 02-3-12

Order 02-3-12

Orbitz, L.L.C.

Order 02-3-12
OST-01-11086

Issued March 15, 2002
Served March 15, 2002

Order

Unbundling Airfares and Fess

We deny Travelocity's Petition for Reconsideration in all particulars, and we decline to take the action requested by Radius.

First, we decline to revise our consistent and long-standing policy on the disclosure of airline fuel surcharges. Nothing in either Order 2001-12-7 or the Notice can legitimately be read as suggesting any willingness or intent on our part to stop requiring all sellers of air transportation to include any applicable fuel surcharge in any price advertised or quoted to consumers for air transportation.

Second, Travelocity's allegations that Orbitz is not complying with all of Order 2001-12-7 are not grounds for reconsideration of that order. If wel-lfounded, they may be grounds for enforcement action. We understand that the Enforcement Office is in the process of investigating these and other allegations against Orbitz. The allegations involving Comet Systems' software in particular and whether the Department should regulate this type of third-party software in general can be considered when we address travel agent service fees in a rulemaking proceeding.

Third, we will not adopt the additional conditions Travelocity requests. If we were to require Orbitz to disclose on the first page of its website that each airfare, including web-only specials, is available for less on the airline's website, we would have to require all Internet travel agents that impose service fees to make a similar disclosure. We do not believe this to be necessary to protect consumers as long as any Internet travel agent that charges service fees for any air transportation complies with the conditions in the Enforcement Office's Notice. We also will not require Orbitz to delete its reference to two pricing studies, because we do not find that it is likely to confuse consumers about Orbitz's service fees or about the total price they will pay if they buy air transportation from Orbitz.

Fourth, we will take no action regarding the revised enforcement policy, as we believe the concerns expressed by Radius to be unfounded. From the consumer's perspective, the disclosure requirements that Order 2001-12-7 and the Notice set for Internet and non-Internet travel agents are comparable. Radius's examples reflect a misreading of these requirements. Internet travel agents may not quote a one-way fare and a round-trip fare and then merely disclose that "there may be a fee with this," as Radius suggests. Rather, an Internet travel agent that wants to list its service fees separately has two choices. It may quote a fare and the service fee and the total ticket price, as i n Radius's example for non-Internet travel agents.

Finally, we deny Radius's request that we require that ticket stock have a separate line for travel agent service fees. This request exceeds the scope of Order 2001-12-7 and the Notice, and Radius has not supported it with any evidence that listing the agent's service fee on the ticket is necessary to prevent consumer deception. Neither our rules nor our revised enforcement policy require any travel agent to break out its service fees separately when quoting prices for air transportation; the revised policy merely permits separate disclosure under the enumerated conditions.

By: Read Van de Water