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 | Answer/Reply Calendar
Updated:
OST-2007-26781 - 2007 Consent Orders
|
Caribair, S.A. Order 2007-1-9 Issued and Served January 17, 2007 This consent order concerns unauthorized holding out and operation of air transportation by Caribair, SA, a foreign entity based in the Dominican Republic. The unauthorized holding out and operations by Caribair violate the economic licensing requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 41301 and constitute an unfair and deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. This order directs Caribair to cease and desist from future violations and assesses compromise civil penalties of $70,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Air Canada Order 2007-1-10 Issued and Served January 18, 2007 This consent order concerns certain fare displays on Air Canada's U.S. website (www.aircanada.com) and certain displays of Air Canada fares on Travelocity.com, a major travel vendor and agent of Air Canada, that failed to comply with the Department's rule on full fare advertising, 14 CFR 399.84. These fare displays, in addition, constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. Based on these violations, the order assesses a compromise civil penalty of $ 10,000 and directs the carrier to cease and desist from future similar violations. By: Rosalind Knapp IDM Corporate Aviation Services, LLC Issued and Served February 5, 2007 This consent order concerns violations of the Department’s aviation licensing statute, 49 U.S.C. 41101 by IDM Corporate Aviation Services, LLC. From May 2006 to August 2006, IDM operated a Boeing 737 aircraft in common carriage air service without having first obtained Departmental economic authority as required by section 41101. Moreover, IDM’s unauthorized air transportation violated 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits air carriers, such as IDM, and other entities from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition. This order directs IDM to cease and desist from such further unauthorized air transportation and assesses IDM a compromise civil penalty of $120,000. By: Rosalind Knapp United Air Lines, Inc. Order 2007-2-13 Issued and Served February 9, 2007 This consent order concerns certain fare advertisements on United Air Lines' website that failed to disclose adequately one of the significant restrictions applicable to a discount fare program available to US military personnel, referred to as the "United Thanks our Troops" program. These advertisements, consequently, constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of 49 USC 41712. Based on these violations, the order directs the carrier to cease and desist from future similar violations. By: Rosalind Knapp Flight-Ops International, Inc. d/b/a SkyXpress Airline Order 2007-2-20 Issued and Served February 21, 2007 Order to Show Cause Proposing to Revoke Canadian Charter Air Taxi Registration On May 10, 2006, for reasons unrelated to Flight-Ops’ failure to pay the civil the penalty assessed in Order 2003-6-24, the Canadian Transportation Agency suspended Flight-Ops’ license to operate international service between the United States and Canada. On June 10, 2006, the suspension was made permanent. On May 29, 2006, citing the suspension of its operating authority from the Canadian government, Flight-Ops surrendered its Part 129 operations specifications to the FAA’s Renton, Washington, Flight Standards District Office. By this order, we propose to revoke the Canadian charter air taxi authority, issued pursuant to 14 CFR Part 294, of Flight-Ops International, Inc., d/b/a SkyXpress Airline on the basis that the carrier 110 longer holds effective Federal Aviation Administration safety authority. We direct all interested persons to show cause as to why we should not issue an order making final the tentative findings and conclusions stated above and revoke the 14 CFR Part 294 registration of Flight-Ops International d/b/a SkyXpress Airline. By: Andrew Steinberg
Imperial Jets, Inc. Issued and Served April 6, 2007 This consent order concerns common carriage air service by Imperial Jets, Inc., without the requisite Departmental economic authority. Such conduct contravenes 49 U.S.C. 41101, the Department’s aviation licensing requirement, and 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits ticket agents and air carriers from engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition. This order also concerns Imperial Jets’ separate and distinct violations of 14 CFR 399.80(a), which details certain proscribed practices by ticket agents that constitute unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition. It directs Imperial Jets to cease and desist from such further violations and assesses Imperial Jets a compromise civil penalty. By: Rosalind Knapp Jet Choice I, LLC Order 2007-4-23 Issued and Served April 20, 2007 This consent order concerns unauthorized air transportation operations by Jet Choice I, LLC. The company, which represented itself as providing aircraft management services, engaged in unauthorized air transportation aboard aircraft belonging to various leasing companies that were either wholly owned or otherwise controlled by JC1's owner. This order directs JC1 to cease and desist from such future unlawful conduct and assesses JC1 a compromise civil penalty of $250,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Austrian Airlines Order 2007-5-8 Issued and Served May 21, 2007 This order concerns violations by Austrian Airlines of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382, with respect to filing annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar year 2004 and 2005. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 USC 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Austrian to cease and desist from future violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $20,000 in civil penalties. By: Rosalind Knapp LAN Airlines, S.A. Order 2007-5-15 Issued and Served May 30, 2007 This order concerns violations by LAN Airlines, S.A. of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382 (Part 382), limited to the filing of annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar years 2004 and 2005. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs LAN to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $30,000 in civil penalties. By: Rosalind Knapp OneSky Network, LLC Issued and Served June 4, 2007 This consent order concerns violations by OneSky Network, LLC of the Department’s avfiation licensing requirement, 49 U.S.C. 41101, and regulatory and statutory prohibitions against ticket agents engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition found in 14 CFR 399.80 and 49 U.S.C. 41712. These violations are the result of OneSky having held out common carriage air service as an airline without the requisite economic authority from the Department. This order directs OneSky to cease and desist from future violations and assesses the company compromise civil penalties of $50,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Northwest Airlines, Inc. Order 2007-6-12 Issued and Served June 18, 2007 This Consent Order concerns violations by Northwest Airlines, Inc. of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, stemming from the carrier’s failure to provide, upon request, a written explanation of its denied boarding policies. The order assesses Northwest a civil penalty of $40,000. During compliance inspections by the Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) and Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport (BWI), Northwest agents at various gates and ticket counters failed to produce Northwest's written denied boarding statement in response to specific requests by Enforcement Office staff. Instead, some agents provided Northwest's voucher guide, Customer Guide, and/or Contract of Carriage none of which contained the disclosures required by section 250.9, while another gate agent stated that he did not have any denied boarding forms stocked at his station and suggested that DOT representatives check at another gate. Only Northwest's supervisor-level employees (Customer Service Supervisors) were later able to provide the correct form. Northwest's failure to furnish its denied boarding statement upon request on the above-mentioned occasions violates the requirements of Part 250 and of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. In mitigation, Northwest states that it is firmly committed to ensuring that any passenger who relinquishes, either voluntarily or involuntarily, his or her seat on an oversold flight is treated fairly, properly advised, and compensated. Northwest further states that its agents do everything possible to avoid involuntarily denying boarding. In fact, Northwest's corporate goal is to avoid involuntarily denying boarding to any passenger. Accordingly, Northwest describes itself as having a well‑established program to train its employees and has adopted policies, procedures, and forms to address issues regarding potentially oversold flights, including soliciting volunteers and compliance with requirements of 14 CFR Part 250. By: Rosalind Knapp Arrowhead Express, Inc. Issued and Served August 2, 2007 This consent order concerns unlawful holding out of direct air transportation by Arrowhead Express, Inc. that constitutes violations of 49 U.S.C. 41101 and 41712 and 14 CFR Part 296. This consent order directs Arrowhead to cease and desist from further violations of these provisions and to pay a compromise civil penalty of $10,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Private Jet Services Group, Inc. Issued and Served August 10, 2007 This consent order concerns a violation by Private Jet Services Group, Inc., an air charter broker, of 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits air carriers and ticket agents from engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition. The violation arose from PJS’s marketing and sale of air transportation services ultimately operated by a company that did not hold proper authority from the Department. This order directs PJS to cease and desist from such conduct and assesses PJS a compromise civil penalty of $55,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Uniworld River Cruises, Inc. Order 2007-8-23 Issued and Served August 24, 2007 This consent order concerns advertisements by Uniworld River Cruises, Inc., that violate the Department’s advertising requirements specified in section 399.94 of the Department’s regulations and constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. This order directs Uniworld River Cruises to cease and desist from future violations and assesses the company compromise civil penalties of $50,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Trafalgar Tours West, Inc. d/b/a Trafalgar Tours Order 2007-8-24 Issued and Served August 24, 2007 This consent order concerns advertisements by Trafalgar Tours West, Inc., d/b/a Trafalgar Tours that violate the Department’s advertising requirements specified in section 399.84 of the Department’s By: Rosalind Knapp Viking River Cruises, Inc. Order 2007-8-25 Issued and Served August 29, 2007 This consent order concerns advertisements by Viking River Cruises that violate the Department's advertising requirements specified in section 399.84 of the Department's regulations (14 CFR 399.84), By: Rosalind Knapp Ryan International Airlines, Inc. Issued and Served September 7, 2007 This consent order concerns wet lease service provided by Ryan International Airlines, Inc., a U.S. carrier, on behalf of AeroSur, S.A., a Bolivian carrier, pursuant to a long-term agreement. During the initial stages of the wet lease, an application had not been submitted to the Department for prior approval as required by 14 CFR Part 212. The order directs the carrier to cease and desist from further similar conduct and assesses the carrier a civil penalty of $20,000. By: Rosalind Knapp Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S.A. Order 2007-9-11 Issued and Served September 12, 2007 This order concerns violations by Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S.A. of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382, with respect to filing annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Aereo Boliviano to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $10,000 in civil penalties. By: Rosalind Knapp Alia - Royal Jordanian Airlines Order 2007-9-19 Issued and Served September 19, 2007 This order concerns violations by Alia-Royal Jordanian Airlines of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382 with respect to filing annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Royal Jordanian to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $25,000 in civil penalties. Royal Jordanian is a Jordan-based foreign carrier operating limited service to and from the U.S. It operated on average 8 flights per week to the US. in 2004 and 2005, and 10 flights per week to the U.S in 2006 using at least one aircraft having a design seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats. Royal Jordanian’s operations into the U.S. clearly fall within the scope of the reporting rule. Therefore, Royal Jordanian violated section 382.70 and the ACAA when it submitted the required report detailing disability-related complaints it received on flights to or from the U.S. in calendar year 2004 more than 16 months late on June 13, 2006, when it submitted the required report for calendar year 2005 more than 4 months late on June 13, 2006, and when it submitted the required report for calendar year 2006 on March 8, 2007, more than 5 weeks after the date the report was due. Further, these reports were submitted only after the Enforcement Office contacted the carrier regarding its delinquencies. By: Samuel Podberesky Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A. Order 2007-9-21 Issued and Served September 20, 2007 This consent order concerns radio advertisements by Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana, S.A., that failed to comply with the Department’s rule on fare advertising, 14 CFR 399.84, and thereby violated the statutory proscription in 49 U.S.C. § 41712 against unfair and deceptive practices. This order directs Iberia Airlines to cease and desist from future violations and assesses the carrier a compromise civil penalty of $35,000. From April 9 until May 18, 2007, Iberia Airlines broadcast advertisements offering a fare of $699 roundtrip from Washington to Madrid on three radio stations in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. From April 9, until May 11, 2007, Iberia Airlines broadcast similar advertisements offering a fare of $549 roundtrip from Boston to Madrid on a number of radio stations that aired in 11 New England metropolitan areas. Both broadcast advertisements state, "We fly 5 times a week for as low as $699 $549 roundtrip, subject to availability. Terms and conditions apply. For more details go to www.iberia.com/ or call 1-800-772-4642." Neither applicable taxes nor fees as charges in addition to the base fare are explicitly disclosed to the listener, in contravention of the requirements of Part 399. By: Samuel Podberesky Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. Order 2007-10-5 Issued and Served October 3, 2007 This consent order is the result of an investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings which revealed the failure of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. to provide on-time performance information to consumers in violation of 14 CFR Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. This order directs Hawaiian to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 234 and section 41712, and assesses the carrier $50,000 in civil penalties. The Enforcement Office’s investigation revealed a lack of compliance with section 234.11 by Hawaiian. In a recent telephone survey conducted by this office, Hawaiian reservation agents failed to provide the requested on-time performance information in a number of calls. In those calls where answers were provided, Hawaiian reservations agents gave varying on-time performance information for the same flight. In mitigation, Hawaiian states that any non-compliance with the section 234.11 was purely unintentional. Hawaiian points out that its on-time performance is consistently among the best of all the airlines that report on-time performance information. Consequently, according to the carrier, it has every incentive to disclose the information to all customers reasonably requesting it. Hawaiian believes this compliance issue can be addressed through improved training and retraining of its reservation agents. Hawaiian states that it already has initiated a multi-pronged program designed to remedy any problem concerning the disclosure of on-time performance information. First, according to Hawaiian, it has implemented a special training program describing how to comply with Hawaiian’s obligation to report on-time performance information to all new and experienced call center reservation agents. Second, Hawaiian states that it has implemented a similar training program for customer service representatives at airports who interact with the public on matters concerning reservations and flight information. Third, Hawaiian states it will self-audit the performance of its call center reservation agents to determine the effectiveness of its training program. Fourth, Hawaiian points out that it has revised the manuals used by its customer service personnel at airports, the Passenger Service Manual, and by its call-center reservation agents, the Focus Manual, to provide more specific direction concerning Hawaiian’s obligation to provide on-time performance information. Fifth, Hawaiian states that it has developed a notice for its reservation agents explaining Hawaiian’s obligation to disclose on-time performance information and how to provide the information upon request that appears on reservation agents’ screens on a quarterly basis. Hawaiian also states that it plans to make on-time performance information more available to the public generally, including posting a link to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website on Hawaiian’s own website, informing callers to its Interactive Voice Response system about the availability of on-time performance information through Hawaiian’s website, and sending an email about the disclosure of on-time performance information to travel agents. Despite the existence of these mitigating factors, we view seriously Hawaiian’s failure to disclose on-time performance information as required by Part 234. Accordingly, after carefully considering all of the facts in this case, including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted. By this order, the Department finds that Hawaiian failed to disclose the on-time performance of its flights in violation of 14 CFR Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. In order to avoid litigation, and without admitting or denying the violations described above, Hawaiian agrees to settle these matters with the Enforcement Office through the issuance of this consent order directing it to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and assessing it $50,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties that are otherwise payable and due. Of this amount, $25,000 shall be due and payable with 15 days of the date of the issuance of this order. The remaining $25,000 shall be suspended for 12 months following the service date of this order and then forgiven unless Hawaiian violates this order’s cease and desist or payment provisions during this time period, in which case the suspended $25,000 will become due and payable immediately and the carrier will be subject to further enforcement action. We believe that this compromise assessment is appropriate and serves the public interest. It represents an adequate deterrence to future noncompliance with the Department’s on-time disclosure requirements by Hawaiian, as well as by other domestic air carriers. By: Rosalind Knapp jetBlue Airways Corp. Order 2007-10-4 Issued and Served October 3, 2007 This consent order is the result of an investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings which revealed the failure of JetBlue Airways Corp. to provide on-time performance information to consumers in violation of 14 CFR Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. This order directs JetBlue to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 234 and section 41712, and assesses the carrier $30,000 in civil penalties. The Enforcement Office’s investigation revealed a lack of compliance with section 234.11 by JetBlue employees. In a recent telephone survey conducted by that office, JetBlue failed to provide requested on-time performance information to callers on numerous occasions, and during several other calls in which on-time information was provided, different JetBlue reservations agents gave the callers varying information for the same flight. In mitigation, JetBlue states that any non-compliance with section 234.11 was purely unintentional, as JetBlue is committed to providing consumers with on-time performance information, as well as all other required information, so that consumers can make an educated decision to fly JetBlue. Indeed, JetBlue points out, it prides itself on providing superior customer service for which it has been recognized with numerous awards. JetBlue believes this compliance issue can be addressed through improved training and retraining of its reservation agents. JetBlue states that it already has initiated a multi-faceted program designed to remedy any problem concerning the disclosure of on-time performance information. First, JetBlue states it will increase the training new reservation agents will receive to include specific instruction on the location and interpretation of on-time performance information. Second, JetBlue states it will retrain current reservation agents by placing calls to its own customer service number to test reservation agents’ ability to provide the required information. For those agents who cannot provide the requested information, JetBlue states it will follow up with additional training. Third, JetBlue states that, during in-person meetings between reservation agents and their supervisors over the next month, it will provide additional training concerning the proper disclosure of on-time performance information. Fourth, JetBlue states it has sent to all reservation agents an update concerning the proper disclosure of on-time performance that will remind reservation agents of DOT’s requirements and re-instruct agents on how to locate, interpret and provide on-time performance information when customers request it. Despite the existence of these mitigating factors, we view seriously JetBlue’s failure to disclose on-time performance information as required by Part 234. Accordingly, after carefully considering all of the facts in this case, including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted. By this order, the Department finds that JetBlue failed to disclose the on-time performance of its flights in violation of 14 CFR Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. In order to avoid litigation, and without admitting or denying the violations described above, JetBlue agrees to settle these matters with the Enforcement Office through the issuance of this consent order directing it to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 234 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and assessing it $30,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable. We believe that this compromise assessment is appropriate and serves the public interest. It represents an adequate deterrence to future noncompliance with the Department's reporting requirements by JetBlue, as well as by other domestic air carriers. By: Rosalind Knapp Air New Zealand Order 2007-10-8 Issued and Served October 5, 2007 This order concerns violations by Air New Zealand, Limited of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382, with respect to filing an annual report detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar year 2005. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Air New Zealand to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $20,000 in civil penalties. Air New Zealand’s operations into the U.S. include passenger service with aircraft with more than 60 seats, and they clearly fall within the scope of the reporting rule. The carrier submitted the report for disability-related complaints received in calendar year 2005 on July 26, 2006, approximately six months after the report’s due date and only after the Enforcement Office had contacted the carrier regarding its delinquency. Therefore, Air New Zealand violated section 382.70 and the ACAA when it did not submit in a timely manner a report detailing the disability-related complaints that it received in calendar year 2005, on flights originating or terminating in the United States. In mitigation, as to the delay in filing the report covering 2005, Air New Zealand states that this was the result of extraordinary circumstances. The company explains that it underwent a massive reorganization and downsizing of its corporate staff in the winter of 2005-2006, which resulted in a large number of its corporate staff being laid off or reassigned, including the person who filed the 2004 report and would have been in charge of the 2005 report. Air New Zealand states that the carrier has since instituted various mechanisms to ensure that the report is generated automatically and submitted on time regardless of any change in personnel. We view seriously Air New Zealand’s failure to submit the report covering calendar year 2005 on time as required by section 382.70. Accordingly, after carefully considering all the facts in this case, including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted. By this order, the Department finds that Air New Zealand failed to timely submit a report detailing the disability-related complaints that it received in calendar year 2005 in violation of 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. § 41705. In order to avoid litigation, Air New Zealand has agreed to settle these matters with the Enforcement Office and enter into this consent order directing Air New Zealand to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and assessing $20,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable. We believe that this assessment is appropriate and serves the public interest. It represents an adequate deterrence to future noncompliance with the Department's reporting requirements by Air New Zealand, as well as by other domestic and foreign air carriers. By: Rosalind Knapp Cayman Airways Order 2007-10-19 Issued and Served October 16, 2007 This order concerns violations by Cayman Airways of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382 with respect to filing annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Cayman Airways to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $20,000 in civil penalties. Cayman Airways, based in the Cayman Islands, operates scheduled service to and from the United States with an average of five daily flights utilizing three Boeing 737-200 and two Boeing 737-300 aircraft. The carrier offers service to a number of US. cities, including Miami and New York. According to the Department's records, the carrier submitted its report detailing disability-related complaints for calendar year 2006 on February 8, 2007, but did not submit its reports for calendar years 2004 and 2005, until April 24, 2007. Therefore, Cayman Airways violated section 382.70 and the ACAA when it did not submit reports in a timely manner that detailed the disability-related complaints that it received in calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006 on flights originating or terminating in the United States. In mitigation and explanation, Cayman Airways submits that it takes seriously its obligations to accommodate passengers with disabilities while simultaneously ensuring a safe environment. Cayman states that the late-filed reports are not indicative of a willful disregard for the Department's regulations. The carrier explains that, unfortunately, significant operational difficulties and other business challenges directly resulting from Hurricane Ivan in 2004 hampered Cayman Airways' ability to timely transmit the underlying reports. Nevertheless, Cayman states as soon as the airline learned of the reporting requirements, it moved swiftly to collect the required data and transmit the reports to the Department. Additionally, the carrier explains that the manager of customer relations has been delegated responsibility for compiling data on a regular basis and transmitting timely annual reports to the Department. Moreover, Cayman Airways states that the station managers at all of the carriers' stations in the United States, as well as the station manager at Grand Cayman, have been advised of the reporting requirements under Part 382 and are instructed to report immediately any disability-related complaints to the manager of customer relations. By: Rosalind Knapp Eurofly S.p.A. Order 2007-10-25 Issued and Served October 22, 2007 Foreign air carriers are required to submit information only with respect to disability-related complaints associated with any flight segment originating or terminating in the United States. The first annual report covering calendar year 2004 was due on January 25, 2005. The second such report covering calendar year 2005 was due on January 30, 2006, and the third report covering calendar year 2006 was due on January 29, 2007. Eurofly asserts that it has always endeavored to comply with all applicable U.S. rules and regulations and that its failure to file the reports in question was wholly inadvertent. Eurofly states more specifically that it did not become aware of the reporting requirement because of its limited operations and lack of presence in the U.S. market at the time that the annual reporting requirement for 2004 became effective in early 2005. Eurofly explains that it only operated 12 charter flights to the U.S. from June through August 2004, with no U.S. staff, thus missing the notification from the Department to registered carriers in late 2004. Eurofly assures the Department that upon learning of this reporting requirement it immediately took steps to ensure that the company will submit future reports on time. Eurofly is assessed $20,000 in compromise of civil penalties that might otherwise be assessed for the violations found in ordering paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Of this amount, $5,000 shall be due and payable within 30 days of the service date of the order, and an additional $5,000 shall be due and payable within 60 days of the service date of the order. By: Rosalind Knapp Delta Air Lines, Inc. Order 2007-11-6 Issued and Served November 19, 2007 The Enforcement Office’s investigation revealed a significant lack of compliance with section 234.11 by Delta employees. In 2006 and 2007, staff in the Enforcement Office made a number of telephone calls to Delta’s reservations system to determine if Delta’s employees were providing passengers on-time performance information upon request. Delta failed to provide the requested on-time performance information to callers during a substantial number of those calls. During those calls, Delta reservations agents indicated they did not have on-time performance information to provide for some of the flights. In mitigation, Delta states that the failure of Delta reservations agents to disclose OTP data with respect to Delta Connection flights was caused by an unknown and unforeseen computer software problem, which Delta discovered and fixed prior to the receipt of any enforcement inquiry from the Department on this issue. Delta notes that the software problem only affected certain Delta Connection flights and only with respect to customers that used Delta’s internal reservations systems and that customers using global distribution systems or Delta’s website (which account for about 80% of Delta’s bookings) were not affected by the computer problem. By: Rosalind Knapp Group Voyagers, Inc. d/b/a Globus, Cosmos, Brennan Vacations, Monograms and Avalon Waterways Order 2007-11-13 Issued and Served November 20, 2007 This consent order concerns advertisements by Group Voyagers, Inc., d/b/a Globus, Cosmos, Brennan Vacations, Monograms and Avalon Waterways that violate th Department's advertising requirements specified in Part 399 of the Department's regulations and constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. This order directs Group Voyagers to cease and desist from future violations and assesses the company compromise civil penalties of $70,000. Group Voyagers has offered for many years comprehensive travel packages that include airfare, hotel, river cruises, guided tours and other amenities. During 2005 and 2006, Group Voyagers promoted air travel packages through printed brochures, mailers and by means of advertisements that were published on its web site and through direct e-mail advertising campaigns. The airfares and air tours promoted in Globus, Cosmos and Avalon Waterways brochures, e-mails and mailers and on Group Voyagers' web sites did not comply with Department requirements. Specifically, the listed prices for the complete air and cruise packages did not include airline fuel surcharges and they lacked an appropriate notice or hyperlink prominent and proximate to the price that disclosed to the viewer that taxes and fees that are permitted to be listed separately from the advertised price were not included. By: Rosalind Knapp Israir Airlines and Tourism Ltd. Order 2007-12-4 Issued and Served December 11, 2007 This order concerns violations by Israir Airlines and Tourism Ltd. of the requirements of 14 CFR Part 382, with respect to filing annual reports detailing disability-related complaints that the foreign air carrier received from passengers in calendar years 2004 and 2005. Part 382 implements the Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and violations of that part also violate the ACAA. This order directs Israir to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and the ACAA and assesses the carrier $18,000 in civil penalties. Israir is an Israel-based foreign carrier operating limited service to and from the U.S. It operated on average 2.5 roundtrip flights per week to the U.S. in 2004 and 3 roundtrip flights per week to the U.S in 2005 using at least one aircraft having a design seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats. Israir’s operations into the U.S. clearly fall within the scope of the reporting rule. Therefore, Israir violated section 382.70 and the ACAA when it submitted the required report detailing disability-related complaints it received on flights to or from the U.S. in calendar year 2004 more than 16 months late on May 31, 2006, and when it submitted the required report for calendar year 2005 on June 18, 2006, more than 5 months after the date the report was due. Further, these reports were submitted only after the Enforcement Office contacted the carrier regarding its delinquency. We view seriously Israir’s failure to submit its 2004 and 2005 reports in a timely manner. Accordingly, after carefully considering all the facts in this case, including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted. By this order, the Department finds that Israir violated 14 CFR Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. § 41705 by submitting late reports for disability-related complaints received in 2004 and 2005. In order to avoid litigation, Israir has agreed to settle this matter with the Enforcement Office and enter into this consent order directing Israir to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 382 and 49 U.S.C. § 41705, and assessing $18,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable. We believe this compromise assessment is appropriate and serves the public interest. It represents an adequate deterrence to future noncompliance with the Department’s reporting requirements by Israir, as well as by other domestic and foreign air carriers. By: Rosalind Knapp Vantage Travel Service, Inc. d/b/a Vantage Deluxe World Travel Order 2007-12-18 Issued and Served December 20, 2007 This order directs Vantage Deluxe to cease and desist from future violations and assesses the company compromise civil penalties of $65,000. Vantage Deluxe has specialized for over 20 years in offering comprehensive travel packages that include airfare, hotel, river cruises, guided tours and related amenities, particularly to Russia, other countries in Europe, and the Far East. During 2005, 2006 and virtually all of 2007, Vantage Deluxe promoted air fares and air travel packages through printed brochures and mailers, by means of advertisements that were published on its web site, www.vantagetravel.com, and through direct e-mail advertising campaigns. The airfares and air tours promoted in Vantage Deluxe's brochures, e‑mails and mailers and on its web site, including those touting "free" airfares, did not comply with Department requirements. More specifically, the listed prices for the complete air, land and cruise packages lacked an appropriate notice or hyperlink prominent and proximate to the price that disclosed to the viewer that taxes and fees that are permitted to be listed separately from the advertised price were not included. For example, the site included the words "From Only" appended to the tour price on the first page that announced the tour "Aboard the East Queen," with a statement of the "features" of the "Tibet, Shangri‑la and China's Yangtze River" tour, e.g., "From Only US $3299." It was not, however, until the reader reached the 2007 Departure Dates and Prices page that there was any notice that certain taxes and fees were not in fact included. Moreover, fuel surcharges, which must be included in the advertised price, were not included, nor were "port charges" or "other surcharges." By: Rosalind Knapp |
||