DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 255, 256, 257, 259, and 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2014-0056]

RIN 2105-AE11

Transparency of Airline Ancillary Fees and Other Consumer Protection Issues 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SUMMARY: The Department is seeking comment on a number of proposals to enhance 

protections for air travelers and to improve the air travel environment, including a proposal to 

clarify and codify the Department’s interpretation of the statutory definition of “ticket agent.” 

By codifying the Department’s interpretation, the Department intends to ensure that all entities 

that manipulate fare, schedule, and availability information in response to consumer inquiries 

and receive a form of compensation are adhering to all of the Department’s consumer protection 

requirements that are applicable to ticket agents such as the full-fare advertising rule and the 

code-share disclosure rule. 

This NPRM also proposes to require airlines and ticket agents to disclose at all points of 

sale the fees for certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers 

are buying or considering buying. Currently, some consumers may be unable to understand the 

true cost of travel while searching for airfares, due to insufficient information concerning fees for 

ancillary services. The Department is addressing this problem by proposing that carriers share 

real-time, accurate fee information for certain optional services with ticket agents. 
2

Other proposals in this NPRM to enhance airline passenger protections include: 

expanding the pool of “reporting” carriers; requiring enhanced reporting by mainline carriers for 

their domestic code-share partner operations; requiring large travel agents to adopt minimum 

customer service standards; codifying the statutory requirement that carriers and ticket agents 

disclose any airline code-share arrangements on their websites; and prohibiting unfair and 

deceptive practices such as undisclosed biasing in schedule and fare displays and post-purchase 

price increases. The Department is also considering whether to require ticket agents to disclose 

the carriers whose tickets they sell in order to avoid having consumers mistakenly believe they 

are searching all possible flight options for a particular city-pair market when in fact there may

be other options available. Additionally, this NPRM would correct drafting errors and make 

minor changes to the Department’s second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule to 

conform to guidance issued by the Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office) regarding its interpretation of the rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments received after this date will be considered to the 

extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-OST-2014-0056

by any of the following methods: 

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments.

 Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
3

 Hand Delivery or Courier: The Docket Management Facility is located on the West 

Building, Ground Floor, of the U.S. Department of Transportation,1200 New Jersey 

Ave., SE, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays.

 Fax: 202-493-2251. 

Instructions: You must include the agency name and the Docket Number DOT-OST-2014-0056

or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the rulemaking at the beginning of your 

comment. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information provided.

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received in any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment if 

submitted on behalf of an association, a business, a labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov or to the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions 

for accessing the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Graber or Blane A. Workie, 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202–366–

9342 (phone), 202–366–7152 (fax), kimberly.graber@dot.gov or blane.workie@dot.gov (email). 
4

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is issuing this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to improve the air travel environment of consumers based on its statutory 

authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in air transportation, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The 

Department is taking action to strengthen the rights of air travelers when purchasing airline 

tickets from ticket agents, ensure that passengers have adequate information about regional 

carriers’ operations to make informed decisions when selecting flights, increase notice to 

consumers of some of the fees carriers charge for optional or ancillary services, and prohibit 

unfair and deceptive practices such as post-purchase price increases and undisclosed biasing in 

fare and schedule displays.

2. Summary of Regulatory Provisions

Subject Proposed Rule

1. Codification 

of the 

Department’s 

Interpretation 

of “Ticket 

Agent”

Codifies the Department’s broad interpretation of the statutory 

definition of the term “ticket agent” to include Global Distribution 

Systems (GDS), websites with flight metasearch engines, and 

similar intermediaries in the sale of air transportation, if the 

intermediary is compensated in connection with the sale of air 

transportation.
5

2. Disclosure of 

Certain 

Ancillary Fee 

Information

to Consumers

(“GDS 

Issue”)

Two alternative proposals regarding disclosure of fee information 

for basic ancillary services. 

 Proposal #1: Requires carriers to disclose fee information 

for basic ancillary services to all ticket agents to which a 

carrier provides its fare information, including GDSs.

 Proposal #2: Requires carriers to disclose fee information 

for basic ancillary services to all ticket agents to which a 

carrier provides its fare information and which sell air 

transportation directly to consumers; this would exclude 

ticket agents that arrange but don’t sell air transportation, 

such as GDSs.

Both proposals would:

 Define basic ancillary services as first checked bag, second 

checked bag, one carry-on item, and advance seat 

selection, to the extent these options are offered by the 

carrier. 

 Not require a carrier to allow ticket agents to sell these 

services; or if a carrier permits ticket agents to sell those 

services, it would not require carriers to charge the same 

fee for the service as the agents. If a carrier is not selling 

the service through a ticket agent, the carrier and ticket 

agent are responsible for disclosing to consumers when and 

how fees should be paid, and for baggage fees, must honor 

the fee quoted at the time of purchase. 

 Require all ticket agents and airlines that provide fare 

information to consumers to also provide fee information 

for basic ancillary services to consumers. This information 

should be made available to the consumer at the point in 

which fares are being compared.

 Prohibit ticket agents with existing contractual agreements 

with a carrier for the distribution of the carrier’s fare and 

schedule information from charging additional or separate 

fees for distribution of information about basic ancillary 

services – i.e., a ticket agent cannot unilaterally change 

contract terms to require additional payments to upload and 

disseminate the required ancillary service fee information. 

Existing contracts should be honored until the contract 

expires unless mutually renegotiated by the parties. 
6

3. Expansion of 

Reporting 

Carriers for 

Service 

Quality Data

Expands the pool of reporting carriers from any carrier that 

accounts for at least 1% of domestic scheduled passenger revenue 

to any carrier that accounts for at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenue.

(This definition would cover carriers such as Spirit Airlines, 

Allegiant Airlines, and Republic Airlines.)

4. Data 

Reporting for 

Domestic 

Code-Share 

Partner 

Operations 

Requires reporting carriers to include data for their domestic 

scheduled flights operated by their code-share partners:

 On-time Performance

 Mishandled Baggage

 Oversales

5. Customer 

Service 

Commitments 

(Large Ticket 

Agents)

Requires large ticket agents (those with annual revenue of $100 

million or more) to adopt certain customer service commitments, 

including a commitment to:

 Provide prompt refunds where ticket refunds are due, 

including fees for optional services that consumers 

purchased from them but were not able to use due to flight 

cancellation or oversale situation;

 Provide an option to hold a reservation at the quoted fare 

without payment, or to cancel without penalty, for 24 

hours; 

 Disclose cancellation policies, seating configurations, and 

lavatory availability on flights;

 Notify customers in a timely manner of itinerary changes; 

and

 Respond promptly to customer complaints.

6. Transparency 

in Display of 

Code-Share 

Operations as 

Required by

49 U.S.C. 

§ 41712(c)

Amends the Department’s code-share disclosure regulation to 

codify the statutory requirement that carriers and ticket agents 

must disclose any code-share arrangements on their websites. 

Requires disclosure on the first display presented in response to a 

search of a requested itinerary for each itinerary involving a codeshare operation. Disclosure must be in a format that is easily 

visible to a viewer.
7

7. Disclosure of 

the Carriers 

Marketed 

(Applies to 

Large Travel 

Agents Only)

Seeks comments regarding whether:

 To require large ticket agents to maintain and display lists 

of carriers whose tickets they market and sell; and if 

required, how to disclose the carriers that are marketed and 

sold by the ticket agent.

8. Prohibition of 

Display Bias

Prohibits undisclosed biasing by carriers and ticket agents in any 

Internet displays of the fare and schedule information of multiple 

carriers.

9. Prohibition 

on PostPurchase 

Price 

Increases For 

Ancillary 

Services 

Revises the existing prohibition on post-purchase increases with 

respect to the price of ancillary services that are not purchased 

with the air transportation so carriers and other sellers of air 

transportation are only prohibited from increasing the price for the 

carriage of baggage. The price for other ancillary services not 

purchased at the time of ticket purchase may be increased until the 

consumer purchases the service itself. 

3. Summary of Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

Summary of Monetized Costs and Monetized Benefits Over 10 Years, Discounted at 7 Percent 

(Millions $)

Provisions Costs Benefits

1: Definition of ticket agent N/A N/A

2: Disclosure of certain ancillary fees

information to consumers

$ 46.15 $ 25.1

3 & 4: Reduce reporting threshold to 

0.50% and submit additional set of 

reports that includes code-share 

partners 

$ 29.75 N/A

5: Minimum customer service 

standards for ticket agents

$ 2.97 N/A

6: Display bias prohibition N/A N/A
8

7: Disclosure of code-share segments 

in schedules, advertisements and 

communications with consumers

N/A N/A

8: Disclosure of carriers marketed N/A N/A

9: Prohibition of post-purchase price 

increase for ancillary services

N/A N/A

TOTAL (Proposed Provisions) $ 80.51 $ 25.1

The quantifiable costs of this rulemaking exceed the quantifiable benefits. However, 

when unquantified costs and benefits are taken into account, we anticipate that the benefits of 

this rulemaking would justify the costs. It was not possible to measure the benefits of the 

proposals in this rulemaking, except for the benefits for provision 2. For example, there are a 

number of unquantified benefits for the proposals such as improved on time performance for 

newly reporting carriers and code-share flights of reporting carriers, improved customer goodwill 

towards ticket agents, and greater competition and lower overall prices for ancillary services and 

products. There are also some unquantified costs such as increased management costs to 

improve carrier performance, increased staff time to address consumer complaints, and 

decreased carrier flexibility to customize services, though we believe these costs would be 

minimal. If the value of the unquantified benefits, per passenger, is any amount greater than one 

cent and the unquantified costs are minimal as anticipated, then the entire rule is expected to be 

net beneficial.

Background

This NPRM addresses several recommendations to the Department regarding aviation 

consumer protection as well as two issues identified in the second Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections final rule. In that final rule, the Department instituted many passenger protections 
9

including expanding the rules regarding lengthy tarmac delays to non-U.S. carriers, requiring 

U.S. and non-U.S. carriers to adopt and adhere to minimum customer service standards, 

increasing the amounts of involuntarily denied boarding compensation, enhancing website 

disclosures for baggage fees and other ancillary service fees, and prohibiting post-purchase price 

increases. See 76 FR 23110 (April 25, 2011). However, the Department declined to impose a 

requirement on airlines to provide their fee information for ancillary services to Global 

Distribution Systems (GDSs), stating that the Department needed to learn more about the 

complexities of the issue. This NPRM addresses the issue of disclosure of ancillary services fee

information. Additionally, subsequent to the publication of the 2011 final rule, in response to 

questions received regarding the post-purchase price increase rule, the Department’s Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) issued Guidance on Price 

Increases of Ancillary Services and Products not Purchased with the Ticket on December 28, 

2011 available at http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer. In that guidance, the Enforcement Office 

noted the Department’s decision to revisit in this NPRM the rule as it relates to post-purchase 

price increases for certain ancillary services not purchased with the ticket.

This NPRM also addresses certain recommendations made by two Federal advisory 

committees—the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) and the Advisory Committee 

on Aviation Consumer Protection. The FAAC was established on April 16, 2010, with the 

mandate to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation 

on ensuring the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to address the 

evolving transportation needs, challenges, and opportunities of the global economy. On 

December 15, 2010, the FAAC delivered a report to the Secretary with 23 recommendations.
10

FAAC Recommendation 11 addressed disclosure of ancillary service fees, code-share operations, 

and air travel statistics. This NPRM incorporates many aspects of FAAC Recommendation 11. 

For more information regarding the FAAC, please visit http://www.dot.gov/faac. 

More recently, on May 24, 2012, the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer 

Protection was established to advise the Secretary in carrying out activities related to airline 

customer service improvements. On October 22, 2012, this Committee submitted its first set of 

recommendations to the Secretary on a wide range of aviation consumer issues, including 

adopting FAAC Recommendation 11, which urged greater transparency in the disclosure of 

ancillary fees and code-share operations. This NPRM addresses the recommendations by the 

Committee to ensure transparency in air carrier pricing, to require on-time performance data be 

reported to the Department for all flights and airlines, and to mandate disclosures by online travel 

agencies and other agents as to which carriers’ services they sell. Records relating to the 

advisory committee, including a transcript and minutes of its meetings and its full 

recommendation report, are contained in the Department’s docket, which is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov under docket number DOT-OST-2012-0087.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1. Clarifying the Definition of “Ticket Agent”

This NPRM proposes a regulatory definition for the statutory term “ticket agent” to 

clarify for the industry what type of entity the Department considers to be a ticket agent and to 

ensure that its consumer protection regulations apply to all entities that hold out airfare, schedule, 

and availability information to consumers. Consumers and stakeholders in the air transportation 

industry have identified relatively new entities, such as meta-search engines, as primary 

information sources and entry points for the purchase of air transportation. However, such 
11

entities do not consistently provide the information that the Department views as vital to 

consumer protection such as code-share disclosure. For example, consumers may begin their 

search for air transportation options by selecting their flights on one website and then completing 

their purchase on another website and, in the process, not be provided disclosures regarding 

code-share operations, baggage fee information, and other consumer protection information that 

the Department requires air carriers, foreign air carriers, and ticket agents provide to consumers

early in the process. 

The Department is considering codifying in its regulations its interpretation of the 

statutory definition of “ticket agent” to make clear that all entities involved in the sale or 

distribution of air transportation, including those intermediaries that do not themselves sell air 

transportation but arrange for air transportation and receive compensation in connection with the 

sale of air transportation, are ticket agents subject to the Department’s regulations regarding the 

display of airfare information. The definition would include all commercial entities that are 

involved in arranging for the sale of air transportation through the internet (among other 

channels), regardless of whether an entity received a share of revenue from a third party for 

transactions that originated on the entity’s website, or the entity charged a commission for each 

transaction that originated on its website, or the entity was simply compensated on a cost-perclick for advertisements, or was compensated on some other basis. 

The means by which airline itineraries are commonly displayed and sold has changed 

dramatically and continues to evolve. New entities that were not previously involved in the 

distribution of air transportation are now an important source of information for consumers as 

well as a means of distribution for carriers. Online entities, such as websites that provide a 

variety of travel information, advertising, and links as well as meta-search engines that provide 
12

flight search tools including fare and schedule information, are now frequently used by 

consumers to research airfares and schedules and to connect to the airline or travel agent website 

that ultimately books and/or fulfills the consumer’s ticket purchase. Meanwhile, some airlines 

provide direct electronic access to their own internal systems providing fare, schedule, and 

availability information to certain internet entities with the condition that when displaying that 

carrier’s flight itineraries in flight search results, the entity must provide a link only to the 

airline’s website and not to travel agent websites that have similar information. Staff members 

from the Department have been informed that, in some cases, entities such as meta-search 

engines and other websites that operate flight search tools receive a commission or some other 

compensation for transactions that originate on their websites, for example, from a flight search 

tool that allowed the consumer to select a particular itinerary. However, in other cases, entities 

that are involved in arranging for air transportation by allowing a consumer to select an itinerary 

using a flight search tool are compensated for advertising and not for the individual transaction. 

But regardless of the manner of compensation, consumers are increasingly relying on those 

internet entities in making their air transportation purchasing decisions. In some cases, these 

internet entities display schedules, fares and availability but direct consumers to other websites to 

purchase and are not the final point of sale for an airline ticket. They may be earning revenue 

through advertising sales and providing flight search capabilities based on data gathered from 

other sources. These entities would be included under our proposed definition of ticket agent 

along with traditional ticket agents. The Department seeks comment on the differences between 

traditional ticket agents and entities that provide flight search tools but direct consumers to 

another site to finalize their purchase. Are there considerations regarding entities that are not the 

final point of sale for air transportation that should be considered in connection with the 
13

regulations proposed in this rulemaking? DOT also seeks comment on the impact on these 

entities of complying with the Department’s existing regulations applicable to ticket agents. For 

example, what are the impacts on ticket agents that are not the final point of sale for air 

transportation of the regulations in 14 CFR 399.80 (e.g., prohibition against misrepresentation of 

quality or kind of service, type or size of aircraft, time of departure or arrival, and so forth; 

prohibition against misrepresentation of fares and charges)? Are those impacts different from 

the impacts on traditional ticket agents or other agents that have a different business model?

As noted above, consumers may begin their search by selecting their flights on one 

website and then completing their purchase on another website and, in the process, bypass the 

pages containing disclosures regarding code-share operations, baggage fee information, and 

other consumer protection information that the Department requires air carriers, foreign air 

carriers, and ticket agents to provide to consumers before an air transportation purchase is 

finalized. Accordingly, the Department is considering a definition of “ticket agent” that would 

clarify that global distribution systems, meta-search internet sites that offer a flight search tool 

and are compensated for advertisements that are displayed on the same website (even if the 

advertising content is not directly related to air travel), and other such compensated 

intermediaries, regardless of the manner in which they are compensated for their role in 

arranging air transportation, are ticket agents for the purposes of the Department’s air 

transportation consumer protection regulations. Such a broad definition would ensure that all 

commercial entities that receive compensation in connection with air transportation advertising/ 

marketing and that are involved in arranging for air transportation would be required to provide 

consumers with certain essential information early in the process (e.g., information regarding 

code-share operations, disclosure about baggage fees). A broad definition of “ticket agent” 
14

would better ensure passengers are protected regardless of the path they choose to arrange for air 

transportation. Additionally, this rulemaking proposes to prohibit ticket agents from 

incorporating undisclosed bias into their displays, and solicits comment on whether ticket agents 

should be required to disclose information about incentive payments and/or identify the carriers 

the ticket agent markets or does not market. 

We are not aware of whether there is a widespread problem of consumers being confused 

by websites that do not sell tickets but do provide fare, schedule, and availability information 

that consumers are relying on in planning their travel. However, we believe that there is a risk of 

harm because some websites do not provide all of the disclosures required by the Department. 

We seek comment from any consumers who have faced these types of problems.

Past litigation has made clear that GDSs are ticket agents. Sabre v. Department of 

Transportation, 429 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005). However, meta-search engines that offer a 

flight search tool have entered into the marketing and distribution of fare and schedule 

information. In addition, new entities have emerged that receive direct or indirect compensation 

from the advertising and/or sale of air transportation, while offering flight search tools and fare 

displays. The Department sees a benefit in clarifying that those entities are ticket agents, 

regardless of whether or not they are the final point of sale for air transportation, and are required 

to comply with air transportation consumer protection regulations that apply to ticket agents. 

Additionally, at this point, the Department cannot predict the new types of entities that will 

engage in the marketing and distribution of fare and schedule information or how the marketing 

and distribution of fare and schedule information will change with new developments in 

technology. However, it appears that some of these entities may have taken, or will take in the 

future, a quasi-GDS role. Accordingly, the Department believes its regulations should be clear 
15

and should apply equally to entities that are new to the air transportation marketplace as well as 

existing entities already involved in the marketing and distribution of air transportation. To be 

clear, only entities operating websites that provide flight search tools that manipulate, manage, 

and display fare, schedule, and availability information and are tools that the website operator 

creates or manipulates and has ultimate control over would be covered. For example, entities 

such as Kayak and Google that offer flight search tools with fare, schedule, and availability 

information would be covered. An entity that operated a website that simply displayed airfare 

advertisements without actual flight search capability under its control would not be covered. 

The Department seeks comment on whether the definition of “ticket agent” should be 

codified in the regulation so as to clarify the Department’s view that it is a broad term and 

includes entities such as meta-search engines that provide a flight search tool and other websites 

that act as intermediaries between consumers and the ultimate entity that sells the air 

transportation, whether an airline or another ticket agent. The Department also seeks comment 

on whether the proposed definition of a ticket agent, which includes an entity that arranges for or 

sells air transportation for compensation (regardless of the form of compensation), is sufficiently 

broad and meets the Department’s goal of encompassing the variety of entities that use the 

internet to arrange for the sale of air transportation. For example, under the proposed definition, 

an entity that provides a flight search tool that allows consumers to select an itinerary that can be 

purchased on another site and displays air transportation advertisements for which the entity is 

compensated on a “cost-per-click” basis would fall under the definition of a ticket agent. The 

Department also seeks comment on whether the definition of a ticket agent should include all 

entities that operate flight search tools that display itineraries and allow consumers to begin the 

booking process but are not compensated for the specific transaction. We also request 
16

comments on the costs and benefits to consumers, airlines, meta-search engines, and other 

entities involved in arranging for and selling air transportation, of codifying the definition of 

“ticket agent” to include air transportation intermediaries such as meta-search engines that offer a 

flight search tool.

As a related matter, the Department is considering whether carriers should be prohibited 

from restricting the information provided by ticket agents when those ticket agents do not sell air 

transportation directly to consumers but rather provide consumers with different airlines’ flight 

information for comparison shopping. For example, the Department has been informed that 

some carriers may not allow certain entities with websites that operate flight search tools to 

display the carrier’s fare, schedule and availability information. Should carriers be prohibited 

from imposing restrictions on ticket agents that prevent ticket agents from including a carrier’s 

schedules, fares, rules, or availability information in an integrated display? 

Also, we understand that a number of carriers restrict the links ticket agents may place 

next to a particular flight itinerary on a display, and in many cases only permit a link to the 

carrier’s own website. Why might carriers place such restrictions on travel agents? Should the 

Department require carriers to allow ticket agents to provide links to the websites of the entities 

listed in an integrated display, including non-carrier websites? 

2. Display of Ancillary Service Fees through All Sales Channels

Need for rulemaking

Many services or products previously included in the price of an airline ticket such as 

checked baggage, advance seat assignments and priority boarding are now sold separately. 

Traditional and online travel agents generally access their airline ticket inventory through large 

Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) and often do not have access to the fees associated with 
17

ancillary services/ products and thus cannot disclose this information to consumers without 

looking directly at carriers’ websites. In discussions with the Department, consumers and 

corporate travel companies have identified the lack of complete transparency of fees for 

unbundled services and products as a problem. Specifically, when consumers are making 

decisions on whether to purchase air transportation and if so, from which entity, they continue to 

have difficulty determining the total cost of travel because the fees for the basic ancillary 

services are not available through all sales channels. This lack of transparency also creates 

challenges in the corporate and managed travel community. Currently, approximately 50% of 

air transportation is booked through a channel that involves a ticket agent rather than the airline’s 

own reservation agents or its website, whether it is through a traditional brick-and-mortar travel 

agency, a corporate travel agent, or an online travel agency.1 Consumers and corporate travel 

companies often search various websites to try to determine the fees for ancillary services. They 

have raised concerns with the Department regarding how the lack of clear disclosure of ancillary 

fees makes it difficult to determine the true cost of travel and compare different airline flight and 

fare options. 

In the NPRM that led to the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule, the 

Department reiterated its goal of increasing notice to consumers of the fees carriers charge for 

optional or ancillary services, including checked baggage fees and carry-on baggage fees, by 

proposing a series of disclosure requirements related to ancillary service fees. When drafting the 

disclosure regime in the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule, the Department

 

1 According to estimates by PhoCusWright (2011), 31 percent of passengers purchased tickets through Travel 

Management Companies (TMCs) (e.g., American Express, Carlson Wagonlit), and 16 percent via an online travel 

agency (OTA). Since both TMCs and OTAs use GDSs to book air tickets, the share of passengers who will benefit 

from improved salience on ancillary service fees would be the total of both ticket distribution channels (47 percent), 

unless TMCs or OTAs connect directly to airlines. Other higher proxy estimates were also found. InterVISTAS 

estimated that 50 percent of US national round trip passengers book their ticket via a GDS.
18

recognized that a problem in the marketplace existed because ticket agents did not have access to 

real-time and accurate fee data for ancillary services. Therefore, in the NPRM, the Department 

asked whether it should require that carriers provide fee information for ancillary services and 

products to the GDSs in which each carrier participates, in an up-to-date and useful fashion. 

Although the Department did not propose rule text, it invited comment on the “GDS proposal.” 

The comment period closed on September 24, 2010. 

The Department received numerous comments regarding the GDS proposal from 

interested industry parties and consumer advocacy groups both before and after the closing of the 

comment period. The comments demonstrated to the Department that before it issued a final rule 

it needed more information on the contractual and historical relationships between the GDSs and 

the carriers, as well as an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of such a requirement. Therefore, in the 

Final Rule for Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections published in the Federal Register on 

April 25, 2011, 76 FR 23110, the Department did not include a requirement that carriers provide 

all ancillary service fee information to GDSs. Instead, it stated that it would continue to consider 

the issue, gather more information, and defer final action on this topic.

In the 2011 final rule, the Department did impose various disclosure requirements on 

both carriers and travel agents via the new 14 CFR 399.85. However, in recognition of the fact 

that the Department had not required the dissemination of ancillary service fee information 

through GDSs and, therefore, agents would not necessarily have access to the most up-to-date 

and accurate ancillary service fee information, the Department promulgated different baggage 

disclosure requirements for ticket agents from those required of carriers. For example, the rule 

allows ticket agents with websites marketed to consumers in the United States to disclose 

baggage fees through hyperlinks displayed with itinerary search results and included in e-ticket 
19

confirmations which link to static lists. Also, 14 CFR 399.85(a) requires carriers but not ticket 

agents to disclose on their homepage for three months any change to their baggage fees. 

Additionally, under 14 CFR 399.85(d), carriers must provide a listing of all optional service fees 

on one webpage. There must be a link to that listing on the homepage. Agents are not required 

to have this listing, as they do not necessarily have access to all carriers’ current optional service 

fee information on a real-time basis.

While the Department considers the disclosure requirements in its 2011 final rule to be a 

step in the right direction, these requirements do not fully address the problem of lack of 

transparency of ancillary services and products. Consumers who book transportation through a 

ticket agent still do not receive accurate and real-time information about fees for ancillary 

services and products and are unable to determine the total cost of travel. Consumers also can’t 

use the list of optional services and fees that airlines post on their website to determine the cost 

of travel since airlines generally provide a range of fees for ancillary services aside from baggage 

and acknowledge that the fees vary based on a number of factors such as the type of aircraft 

used, the flight on which a passenger is booked or the time at which a passenger pays for the 

service or product. Further, the list of optional services and fees that the airlines post on their 

websites are static lists. In many cases, it is not possible for consumers to know the specific fees 

that would apply to them based on these lists as there are numerous possible fare and fee 

combinations and routings for any given trip. With respect to baggage, the existing disclosure 

requirements mandate specific information, but passengers must still review lengthy and 

complex charts to determine the exact fee that they would be charged for their baggage. 

The Department remains of the view that as carriers continue to unbundle services that 

used to be included in the price of air transportation, passengers need to be protected from 
20

hidden and deceptive fees and allowed to price shop for air transportation in an effective manner. 

However, we lack sufficient data to be able to quantify the extent of this problem for consumers. 

We request comment from consumers about whether it is difficult to find baggage and seat 

assignment fee information and how much of an impact this has on their ability to comparison 

shop among carriers. The Department also requests comment from consumers on whether and 

how much the fee disclosures required of carriers and travel agents in Passenger Protections II 

have improved their ability to find information on fees. 

Consumers and consumer groups have reiterated to the Department through comments in 

the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rulemaking and comments to the docket for 

the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection the difficulty in determining the 

specific fees that apply to ancillary services. Additionally, members of Congress, representing 

their constituents, have expressed support for full disclosure of ancillary fees during the 

rulemaking period for the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule. The Department 

also receives consumer complaints that reflect the confusion consumers experience regarding 

fees for ancillary services, particularly in connection with baggage and seat assignments. For 

example, consumers complain that when shopping for air transportation they do not know how 

much it will cost them to book seats together for family members or to transport all of their 

baggage. Similarly, representatives of business travelers complain that it is difficult to advise 

clients on the best and most cost-effective flights because the fee information for seat 

assignments or baggage is not readily available. Additionally, the issue has been raised at 

meetings of the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection by various industry 

stakeholders and consumer advocates. The Department believes that regulation is needed to 

address the lack of transparency regarding the true cost of air transportation and is proposing to 
21

require that fees for certain ancillary services be disclosed to consumers through all sale 

channels. The Department seeks input on this proposal as well as any innovative solutions that 

we may not have considered to address the problem of lack of transparency. 

Current Airline Distribution System

In the final rule that was issued on April 25, 2011, the Department announced its 

intention to address in a future rulemaking the transparency of ancillary fees at all points of sale. 

Since that time, the Department has met with numerous stakeholders with an interest in the 

distribution of ancillary service fee information and conducted an inquiry regarding current 

distribution models as well as the contractual and historical relationships between the GDSs and 

the carriers. Representatives of carriers, GDSs, consumer advocacy organizations, and trade 

associations, as well as other interested entities, including third-party technology developers, 

have met with Department staff to explain their views. They have also provided information to 

the Department’s economists. The description of the current airline distribution system provided 

below is largely based on the information that the Department received from these stakeholders. 

Today, airlines sell airfares in two ways: directly through their websites, call centers, or 

employees at airports or indirectly through ticket agents. Approximately 50% percent of airline 

tickets are purchased indirectly through ticket agents, whether it is through a traditional brickand-mortar travel agency, a corporate travel agent, or an online travel agency. Ticket agents that 

display or sell air transportation typically get the fare, schedule and availability information 

about the air transportation through a GDS. In the United States, three GDSs (Sabre, Travelport 

and Amadeus) control the distribution of the airline product for the ticket agent channel. In 

recent years, Sabre had more than 50 percent of the market, Travelport had approximately 40 
22

percent and Amadeus had less than 10 percent of the market in the U.S. though Amadeus has a 

much larger percentage of the market worldwide. 

Most U.S. airlines use GDSs to distribute their products. Some low cost carriers2such as 

Southwest participate on a selective basis in GDSs while other low cost carriers do not use 

GDSs, presumably because there are costs attached to each transaction. GDSs charge airlines a 

booking fee based on the total number of flight segments in the consumer’s itinerary. Airlines 

presently pay booking fees that can range from a few dollars to much more for each flight 

segment. For example, if a booking fee is $5 per segment and a passenger purchases an itinerary 

that consists of four flight segments, the airline will be charged approximately $20 in booking 

fees. A transaction through an airline's own system costs the carrier less. However, GDSs have 

emphasized that there have been substantial discounts of domestic booking fees for the major 

airlines since 2005. 

Nevertheless, airlines have expressed frustration about paying what they view as more in 

fees to GDS than the value they feel they receive now that technology provides new ways of 

selling fares and ancillary services. Still these airlines are not able to forgo using GDSs to 

aggregate flight schedule and fare information because airlines earn a large percentage of their 

revenue from business travelers, and the majority of the world’s managed business travel is 

booked through travel management companies which use GDSs. Unlike Southwest, the legacy 

carriers do not have the option to participate on a selective basis in GDSs (i.e., only for business 

 

2 Low-cost carriers operate under a generally recognized low-cost business model, which may include a single 

passenger class of service, limited in-flight services, and use of smaller and less expensive airports.
23

travel). Overall, airline revenue from the GDS channel is higher than direct channels mainly 

due to the greater proportion of high-yield business bookings.3 

Airlines’ efforts to reduce their reliance on GDSs and transition to direct connections 

with travel agents have also been difficult. By direct connect, we are referring to agreements 

between an airline and a travel agent in which the airline provides fare, schedule and availability 

information to the travel agent directly, bypassing GDSs. Various airlines have reported to the 

Department that they as well as new-entrant travel technology firms, such as Farelogix, have had 

difficulty in facilitating direct connections to ticket agents because of highly restrictive 

agreements between GDSs and ticket agents. Similar assertions were made by other third party 

technology providers. GDSs have contracts with both airlines and travel agents for use of their 

services. These contracts tend to be long-term agreements that are renewed every 3 to 5 years. 

Historically, contracts between carriers and the GDSs generally provided that carriers 

compensate the GDSs per flight segment booked. These contracts also generally require that 

carriers offer the same fares through GDSs that are offered through other channels, even if it is 

cheaper for the carrier to distribute the fares in a different manner, such as direct connect. 

Contracts between travel agencies and GDSs generally provide for incentive payments to travel 

agencies for booking travel through GDSs. GDSs also provide travel agencies with the 

technology used for mid- and back- office solutions such as quality control and office 

accounting. GDSs do not view the contracts as a barrier to entry for travel technology firms. 

They assert that the direct connect services will succeed or fail based on whether they meet the 

needs of travel agencies and the consumers they serve. 

 

3 GDSs process 64 percent of the total U.S. airline gross sales by revenue. PhoCusWright, The Role and Value of the 

Global Distribution Systems in Travel Distribution, 2009.
24

It is also worth noting that IATA has filed an application with the Department for 

approval of its Resolution 787, the agreement that establishes the framework for its New 

Distribution Capability (NDC). NDC would be based on a common XML based technical 

standard for direct connect services. Airlines contend that this new standard would allow airlines 

to custom-tailor product offers that would include different combinations of ancillary services in 

addition to air transportation and would include a total price. The new standard, if approved by 

the Department, will be available for use by any party. While the Department acknowledges that 

carriers are working towards technological solutions to distribute information, such solutions are 

prospective. Additionally, even if a standard is agreed upon, its use is optional and the 

information transmitted using the standard would be determined by each carrier. Accordingly, 

the development of a standard would not solve the immediate problem that some current 

consumers are not receiving the information that they need to determine the total cost of travel 

including the cost of certain ancillary services.

While fare, schedule, and availability information is currently provided by the airlines to 

the GDSs, and by GDSs to the agents that display and sell to consumers, information about the 

cost of ancillary services is not typically shared. One reason, as it has been explained to 

Department staff by airline representatives, is that GDSs do not have the modern technology 

airlines need to merchandise and sell their products the way they choose. The GDSs disagree 

with the airlines’ assessment and contend that they are capable of handling the most complex 

airline transactions and have worked with airlines, airline associations, and airline-owned 

intermediaries like ATPCO, ARC and IATA to establish technical standards for the distribution 

of their products, including ancillary offerings. While expressing a general willingness to 

distribute ancillary products to travel agents subject to assurances that the technology is in place 
25

to conduct transactions in an efficient and cost‐effective manner, airlines expressed the need for 

the flexibility to do so on terms that meet their business needs. Airlines prefer to negotiate with 

the GDSs for the business terms acceptable to them. They argue that market forces and not 

government mandates are the best way to ensure that information about ancillary services and 

fees reaches consumers using the travel agent channel. 

Various airlines and airline associations have also asserted to the Department that if it 

were to require carriers to provide ancillary service fee information to all ticket agents that the 

carrier permits to distribute its fare and schedule information, including GDSs, the Department 

would reinforce the existing distribution patterns and stifle innovation in the air transportation 

distribution marketplace. These carriers argue that since existing business arrangements provide 

significant benefits to most ticket agents, including GDSs, those entities would strive to retain 

existing distribution technology and transaction patterns. The carriers have also expressed 

concern that if they are required to provide information to GDSs, the GDSs will use existing 

contractual agreements and market power to pressure carriers to provide the information in the 

existing format for fare filing. If that occurs, some stakeholders allege that carriers would no 

longer have sufficient financial incentive to invest in new distribution technologies which might 

ultimately provide more useful and responsive information to consumers by allowing carriers to 

differentiate their services from competitors. GDSs have disputed the carriers’ assertions and 

contend that Department action is needed because airlines and ticket agents have been unable 

come to agreements that would allow fee information about ancillary services to be disclosed to 

consumers at all points of sale.

We agree with the GDSs that there is a need for rulemaking because we believe that 

consumers continue to have difficulty finding ancillary fee information. The Department is 
26

striving to find the most beneficial disclosure rule for consumers while avoiding any adverse 

impact on innovations in the air transportation marketplace, contract negotiations between 

carriers and their distribution partners, and a carrier’s ability to set its own fees and fares in 

response to its own commercial strategy and market forces. Also, despite the disputes regarding 

contract terms and distribution methods, both carriers and GDSs have assured the Department 

that they share our goal of transparency of ancillary service fee information. 

Request for Public Input on Airline Fees

Given our continuing concern that consumers may not be getting sufficient information 

about carriers’ fees, we solicit comment from consumers on the following questions:

 Do you have a problem finding fee information? And if so, how significant is that 

problem? If you have a problem finding fees, how does it affect your ability to 

comparison shop?

 What types of fees would you most like to have more information about during the 

shopping process, prior to purchase?

 When would you like to see that information displayed in your search process—as soon 

as you see a list of fares or later in the process? How would you like to see the 

information regarding ancillary fees displayed—as a link, as a specific dollar amount 

shown with the airfare quote, as a table or menu on the homepage or flight search results 

list? Should the Department require a standardized format for disclosure?

 Do you feel that our proposed disclosure requirements would improve your search 

experience? Have we selected the most ancillary fees that are most important to your 

decision making process? Will disclosure of all these fees at the point of search cause 
27

further confusion on ticket agent websites (as defined in this proposal), or diminish your 

user experience (because of screen clutter, diminished usability features, etc.)? 

 Is either of our co-proposals outlined below likely to make fees easy to find?

Proposed Solutions and Alternatives Considered

Based on the information gathered, the Department is co-proposing two regulatory texts 

and seeking input regarding those two proposals. One proposal is to require each carrier to 

distribute certain ancillary service fee information to all ticket agents (including GDSs) that the 

carrier permits to distribute its fare, schedule, and availability information. Carriers would not 

be required to distribute ancillary fee information to any GDS or other ticket agent that the 

carrier did not permit to distribute its fare, schedule, and availability information. Additionally, 

under this proposal, the Department would not require carriers to allow ticket agents to 

sell/transact its ancillary services to consumers but rather would require carriers to provide 

“usable, current and accurate” information on fees for certain ancillary services to all ticket 

agents so this information can be disclosed to consumers at all points of sale. Each airline would 

continue to determine where and how its ancillary services may be purchased. For instance, if a 

carrier chooses to allow a ticket agent to sell its ancillary services directly to consumers, we 

expect that the carrier and ticket agent would determine through negotiation whether the ticket 

agent would offer the ancillary services at the same prices that the carrier offers those services. 

In other words, the proposal would require airlines to provide certain ancillary fee information to 

ticket agents, including GDSs, in order to enable disclosure to consumers of fees associated with 

certain ancillary services at all points of sale but would not require that these ancillary services 

be transactable. Carriers and ticket agents would negotiate regarding the ability of ticket agents 

to sell a carrier’s ancillary services and the price at which those services would be sold. 
28

The second proposal is similar to the first in all ways except one. Unlike the first 

proposal, the second would omit the requirement that the information on ancillary fees be 

distributed to GDSs or other intermediaries since GDSs and similar intermediaries would not be 

subject to any direct consumer notification requirements. Instead, the second alternative would 

require carriers to distribute certain ancillary service fee information to all ticket agents that the 

carrier permits to distribute its fare, schedule, and availability information if the ticket agent sells 

the carrier’s tickets directly to consumers. Although this proposal would not require carriers to 

provide ancillary fee information to entities that act as intermediaries and do not deal directly 

with the public such as GDSs, GDSs are the source through which most travel agents obtain their 

fare information, so as a practical matter, they may be the most efficient vehicle currently 

available for carriers to use for dissemination of information on ancillary fees. Additionally, the 

second proposal would not require carriers to provide ancillary fee information to entities such as 

meta-search tools like Kayak and Google.

The Department has proposed these two options as it remains of the view that as carriers 

continue to unbundle services that used to be included in the price of air transportation, 

passengers need to be protected from hidden and deceptive fees and allowed to price shop for air 

transportation in an effective manner. The Department believes that failing to disclose basic 

ancillary service fees in an accurate and up-to-date manner before a consumer purchases air 

transportation would be an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

Under both proposals, the Department recognizes that not all ancillary service fee 

information needs to be available through all channels. However, there are certain basic services 

that are intrinsic to air transportation that carriers used to include in the cost of air transportation 

but that they now often break out from the airfare, and the cost of those services is a factor that 
29

weighs heavily into the decision-making process for many consumers. We consider these basic 

ancillary services to consist of the first and second checked bag, one carry-on item and advance 

seat selection. This rulemaking would require U.S. and foreign air carriers to distribute to ticket 

agents the fees for these basic ancillary services. However, carriers would not be required to 

provide ticket agents information about individual customers, such as their frequent flyer status 

or type of credit card though these factors may impact the fee for an ancillary service. Carriers 

would, of course, be required to provide ticket agents the fee rules for particular passenger types 

(e.g., military, frequent flyers, or credit card holders). Under the proposal, the failure of airlines

to share this fee information in an up-to-date and accurate fashion would be considered an unfair 

and deceptive trade practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

As the requirement for carriers to distribute this information to agents would not be 

helpful to consumers without a disclosure requirement, the Department is also proposing to 

require all carriers and agents to disclose the fees for these basic ancillary services before the 

passenger purchases the air transportation. Airlines and agents that have websites marketed 

towards U.S. consumers must disclose, or at a minimum display by a link or rollover, the fees for 

these basic ancillary services on the first page on which a fare is displayed in response to a 

specific flight itinerary search request in a schedule/fare database. To comply with this

proposed requirement, airlines and agents would have to modify their websites to display these 

basic ancillary service fees adjacent to the fare information on the first page on which a fare for 

the requested itinerary is displayed. We solicit comment on whether the Department should 

require the ancillary service fee information to be disclosed only upon the consumer’s request, or 

require that the information be provided in the first screen that displays the results of a search 

performed by a consumer. The Department also seeks comments on whether it should limit the 
30

applicability of the disclosure requirement only to agent and carrier website displays marketed to 

members of the general public, or whether the disclosure requirement should include agent and 

carrier website displays that are not publicly available (e.g., displays used by corporate travel 

agents). 

Under both co-proposals, the fee information disclosed to consumers for a carry-on bag, 

the first and second checked bag, and advance seat assignment would need to be expressed as 

specific charges. Airlines would be required to disclose customer-specific fees for these 

services to the extent the customer provides identifying information, and if the customer does not 

provide that information, must disclose itinerary-specific fees. Ticket agents would be required 

to disclose itinerary-specific fees for these services. Ticket agents may also arrange/ negotiate 

with the airlines to obtain data that would enable them to give customer-specific fees for basic 

ancillary services. “Customer-specific” refers to variations in fees that depend on, for example, 

the passenger type (e.g., military), frequent flyer status, method of payment, geography, travel 

dates, cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare ticket -Y class), and, in the 

case of advance seat assignment, the particular seat on the aircraft if different seats on that flight 

entail different charges. In other words, the response to a specific flight itinerary search request

by a consumer on a carrier’s website would need to display next to the fare the actual fee to that 

consumer for his or her carry-on bag, first and second checked bags, and advance seat 

assignment. Nothing in this proposal would require carriers to compel consumers to provide the 

passenger-specific details before searching for airfare. Providing such details before conducting 

a search should be an option and not a requirement for consumers. We note that many carriers 

already offer seat maps during the online booking process on their website that permit consumers 

to obtain a seat assignment at that time and that disclose the charge for each seat. This process 
31

would comply with the proposed rule as long as there is a statement adjacent to the fare on the 

first screen where an itinerary-specific fare is displayed that informs the consumer that there are 

fees for advance seat assignments and direct links to the seat map. 

The fee information that ticket agents would be required to display to consumers differs 

from what would be required of airlines in that ticket agents would not be required to include 

variations in fees that depend on the attributes of the passengers such as the passenger type (e.g., 

military), frequent flyer status, or method of payment. Ticket agents would be required to take 

into account variations in fees that are related to the itinerary such as travel dates, geography, 

ticketed fare and cabin. In addition to providing itinerary-specific fees for a first checked bag, a 

second checked bag, a carry-on bag and an advance seat assignment, ticket agents would also be 

required to clearly and prominently disclose that these fees may be reduced or waived based on 

the passenger’s frequent flyer status, method of payment or other characteristic. Ticket agents 

who have not negotiated an agreement with the airlines to sell advance seat assignments would 

also be required to disclose that seat availability and fees may change at any time until purchase 

of the seat assignment. In addition, it is worth noting that carriers and agents would be 

permitted to offer an “opt out” option for consumers who prefer to search for fare information 

only, without any ancillary fee information, and when this option is selected carriers and agents 

would not be required to present the fee information. 

We ask for comment on whether the Department should only require carriers and agents 

to provide information on standard baggage fees without taking into account variations based on 

frequent flyer discounts, loyalty card discounts, geography, ticketed fare, etc. If all of the 

varieties of baggage fees are displayed, how should the varying fees be arranged? Regarding 

advance seat assignments, the charges for which also may vary considerably based on, among 
32

other things, the location of the seat and how far in advance the seat assignment is purchased, 

should carriers and agents be required to display all possible advance seat assignment fees, or a 

range, or the fee for each seat assignment available at the time of the search for a particular citypair? What is the technological feasibility and cost of providing this information to consumers in 

a usable fashion, particularly for ticket agents?

As discussed earlier, neither of the Department’s two alternative proposals would require

that carriers enable agents to sell the carrier’s ancillary services; in industry idiom, we are not 

proposing to require that the fees be “transactable.” The Department is addressing the harm 

caused to consumers of not knowing the true cost of travel before purchasing air transportation. 

Under the proposed disclosure regime, every point of sale for a particular carrier’s fares would 

also provide access to the carrier’s fee information for first and second checked bag, one carryon bag, and an advance seat assignment. This requirement would place a legal obligation on 

carriers to disseminate this information to all of their agents; however, the Department is not 

stating the method the carriers must use to distribute the information, as long as it is in a form 

that would allow the fee information to be displayed on the first itinerary-specific results page in 

a schedule/fare database. Carriers would be free to develop cost-effective methods for 

distributing this information to their agents. Carriers could use existing channels, such as filing 

the fee information through the ATPCO, or they could develop their own systems to disseminate 

the information, in conjunction with the agents who would receive the information. 

Although neither of the Department’s alternative proposals dictate the method that 

carriers must use to distribute the information, carriers should be mindful that whatever 

distribution method they might choose must be usable, accurate, and current so the information is 

accessible in real-time. Similarly, ticket agents must work in good faith with carriers to come to
33

agreement on the method used to transmit the ancillary service fee information. For example, 

ticket agents should not use contractual restrictions to prohibit travel agents, carriers, or 

applications software providers from integrating the ancillary fee information with information 

obtained from the GDSs. Since the Department’s proposal would require ticket agents to 

provide the ancillary fee information to consumers, in cases where carriers and ticket agents are 

able to agree on a transmission mode for ancillary fee information other than through a GDS, we 

would expect GDSs to work in good faith with carriers and other ticket agents to permit the 

integration of information obtained from other sources with information obtained through the 

GDS and allow the distribution of fee information directly to the agents. Additionally, under 

the proposed disclosure requirement, to the extent that carriers have existing contractual 

relationships with ticket agents acting as intermediaries, such as GDSs, to distribute fare 

information, those ticket agents would be prohibited from imposing charges for the distribution 

of ancillary service fee information that are separate from or in addition to the existing charges 

for the distribution of fare information as it would be unlawful to provide fare information that 

does not include the fees for the basic ancillary services. The Department invites comments 

regarding the two proposals: (1) requiring a carrier to disseminate certain ancillary service fee 

information to the agents that distribute the carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability information 

and requiring both carriers and agents to disclose accurate and up-to-date fee information to 

consumers, or (2) requiring a carrier to disseminate certain ancillary service fee information to 

the agents that distribute the carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability information and are a point 

of sale for the carrier’s tickets to consumers, and requiring both carriers and agents to disclose 

accurate and up-to-date fee information to consumers. What are the costs and benefits of 

requiring carriers to provide ancillary fee information to all ticket agents, including entities that 
34

have not previously considered themselves to be regulated but would fall under the proposed 

definition of “ticket agent,” described above, and what are the costs and benefits of requiring 

carriers to provide ancillary fee information only to ticket agents that act as sales outlets? If 

DOT requires disclosure of certain ancillary service fees, but does not require the ability to 

purchase these services at the time of booking, what would be the preferred way for carriers to 

collect payment for such services? On the internet through the airline websites prior to check-in, 

at the airport at the time of check-in, etc.? 

Proponents of the first alternative have argued that, because most carriers already rely on 

GDSs to transmit information to ticket agents that act as a point of sale, the Department could 

ensure that the information was disseminated in a quick and efficient manner by requiring 

carriers to provide the information to GDSs. They also assert that such a proposal would resolve 

the “market failure” that has prevented carriers and ticket agents from coming to agreements that 

would allow the information to be provided to consumers. Advocates of the second alternative 

state that permitting carriers to decide which intermediaries, if any, to use to provide ancillary 

fee information to ticket agents acting as sales outlets still provides for consumer disclosure but 

minimizes government interference with business arrangements. Additionally, they contend that 

the second proposal provides opportunities for the development of new and innovative 

technologies and methods of distribution of air transportation while allowing carriers the 

freedom to use traditional methods if it makes commercial sense for them to do so. 

In addition to the two alternative proposals under consideration, we also solicit comment 

on whether any of the alternatives rejected earlier in the rulemaking process better address the 

problem of lack of transparency of fees associated with ancillary services. For example, should 

the Department set design standards (e.g., filing of fees for ancillary services through ATPCO, 
35

EDIFACT, XML or some other technology) rather than using performance standards for 

transmission of ancillary fee data from airlines to ticket agents or from airlines and ticket agents 

to consumers? Under both alternative proposals, the Department does not prescribe particular 

standards in order to avoid stifling innovation and imposing more of a burden on industry 

participants than is necessary to solve the transparency problem. However, we are interested in 

comments on whether setting a specific technological/information standard could potentially 

enhance innovation and improve transparency, and if so, how. Would selecting a specific 

standard allow for new market entrants in the transmission or display of air travel information, 

by making fare and fee information more open and accessible?

The Department also solicits comment on the issue of whether the basic ancillary services 

that are disclosed to consumers should also be transactable. Although the Department has 

tentatively determined that it would be sufficient to require carriers and agents to disclose certain 

basic ancillary fee information to consumers, it has not closed the door on the possibility of also 

requiring that those ancillary services be available for purchase through all channels that carriers 

decide should sell their fares. In other words, should we require these ancillary services to also 

be “transactable”? 

Representatives of certain consumer advocacy groups and trade associations have argued 

to the Department that if consumers are not entitled to purchase the ancillary services at the time 

of booking air transportation, the carrier may increase the price of those ancillary services before 

the consumer has a chance to purchase the ancillary service on the carrier’s website or through 

its reservation center. In the case of advance seat assignments, the problem is particularly acute 

because in addition to price increases, the consumer risks the possibility that the advance seat 

assignment that he or she wished to purchase will no longer be available. 
36

Carriers are prohibited from increasing the price of baggage fees after a consumer 

purchases air transportation under the current 14 CFR 399.88, but under the Guidance on Price 

Increases of Ancillary Services and Products not Purchased with the Ticket issued by the 

Enforcement Office on December 28, 2011, and under the proposed change to section 399.88 

discussed below, carriers would not be prohibited from increasing the price of an advance seat 

assignment until the seat assignment itself is purchased. Prices for advance seat assignment are 

often dynamic and change based on route, aircraft size, availability, and time of purchase. 

Proponents of transactability argue that without the ability to purchase the seats at the time of 

ticket purchase, consumers will be further harmed because desired seats may not be available 

when the passenger decides to purchase them or is allowed by the carrier to purchase them or 

they may cost more. The Department seeks comment on requiring disclosure plus transactability 

of advance seat assignment fees at all points of sale. We also seek information on the costs and 

benefits of requiring transactability and how requiring transactability would affect existing 

contracts between the GDSs and the airlines. We also invite interested persons to provide their 

views on whether disclosure plus transactability should be required not only for advance seat 

assignments but also for fees associated with first and second checked bags and carry-on bags. 

As noted above, of the ancillary services traditionally included in the price of a ticket, the 

Department views the first and second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat 

assignment as the services that are intrinsic to air transportation and of primary importance to 

many consumers when making air transportation purchasing decisions. The Department invites 

comments on whether the list should be expanded to include services such as in-flight wireless 

Internet access, seating section upgrades, food and beverages, or priority boarding. If the list 
37

should be expanded, how should carriers and agents display the information related to these 

additional services?

The Department also solicits comment on leaving the disclosure requirements established 

in 14 CFR 399.85 unchanged instead of adopting new proposed requirements for customerspecific information about one carry-on bag, the first and second checked bag, and an advance 

seat assignment. Under the existing regulation, consumers may visit individual carrier websites 

to ascertain all of the fees associated with ancillary services. This information is in a centralized 

location accessible from a link on each carrier’s homepage. Leaving the existing requirements in 

place would not require carriers to enable agents to provide up-to-date and real-time pricing for 

ancillary services, but it would still require that passengers be made aware that “baggage fees 

may apply” on the first page on which a fare quote is given for a flight search. The Department 

asks consumers to comment on the existing requirements, particularly whether the disclosure 

requirements under section 399.85 have aided in their ability to price shop and their ability to 

understand the true cost of travel before purchasing. The Department also asks carriers and 

ticket agents to comment regarding whether they believe the current disclosure requirements are 

sufficient and effective and why or why not. The Department also asks agents to comment on 

how the current disclosure requirements are affecting their businesses and whether consumers 

are aided under the disclosure requirements. If the Department decides to maintain the current 

disclosure requirements, should the Department require carriers to list the fees for advance seat 

assignments in a more specific manner, rather than a range, on the page listing ancillary fees and 

on e-ticket confirmations? Comments on the cost and benefits of the proposal and all of the 

alternatives are invited. Further, we encourage interested parties to provide comment regarding 
38

any innovative alternatives/ solutions that Department may not have considered but that would 

address the lack of disclosure of ancillary service fees in all sales channels. 

3. Expanding the Definition of “Reporting Carrier” Under 14 CFR Part 234

In 14 CFR Part 234, the Department sets forth requirements for “reporting carriers” to 

file certain performance data with the Department and provide flight on-time performance 

information to the public. “Reporting carrier” is defined in 14 CFR 234.2 as an air carrier 

certificated under 49 U.S.C. § 41102 that accounts for at least one percent of domestic 

scheduled-passenger revenues. In addition to reporting carriers, any carrier that does not reach 

the reporting carrier threshold may voluntarily file Part 234 reports, provided that the 

Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is advised beforehand and such data will 

be submitted voluntarily for 12 consecutive months.

Pursuant to Part 234, reporting carriers are required to submit to BTS’ Office of Airline 

Information their domestic scheduled passenger on-time performance data and mishandled 

baggage information, and provide on-time performance codes to computer reservation systems 

(CRS). These carriers also must disclose to consumers the on-time performance code, on a 

flight-by-flight basis, for all domestic scheduled flights that they market to the public, including 

the flights operated by code-share partners. The on-time performance codes must be disclosed to 

consumers during in-person or telephone communication (including but not limited to 

reservations or ticketing transactions) upon reasonable inquiry. For flight schedule website 

displays, the on-time performance information must be provided either on the initial listing of the 

flights or via a prominent hyperlink. Furthermore, to implement a statutory requirement of the 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 106-81), the 

Department amended Part 234 in 2005 to require all U.S. air carriers (not only “reporting 
39

carriers”) to file a report with the Department’s Aviation Consumer Protection Division on any 

incident involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation.4 Additionally, 

under 14 CFR Part 250, reporting carriers are also required to submit to the Department 

information on passengers denied boarding on their domestic and outbound international 

scheduled flights. 

Since their implementation, Parts 234 and 250 have been effective tools for the 

Department to collect on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales data and use 

these data to monitor the quality of service provided by each reporting carrier to the flying public 

and to provide such information to consumers. On October 22, 2013, BTS issued a Technical 

Reporting Directive (Technical Directive #23) to update the list of reporting air carriers that are 

required to file “Airline Service Quality Performance Reports” under 14 CFR Part 234 for 

calendar year 2014. Technical Directive #23 identified the following 14 air carriers that reached 

the reporting threshold of one percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenue in the 12-month 

period ending June 30, 2013: AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, American 

Eagle Airlines, Delta Air Lines, ExpressJet Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, 

JetBlue Airways, SkyWest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, and 

Virgin America. 

The one percent domestic scheduled-passenger revenue threshold for reporting carriers 

was set in a final rule that initiated the reporting requirements contained in Part 234. 52 FR 

34056 (September 9, 1987). In that final rule, the Department considered some comments 

 

4 On June 29, 2012, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 2105-AE07, Docket No. 

DOT–OST–2010–0211), seeking comments on whether the Department should expand the reporting carrier pool for 

reporting animal death, loss and injury incidents to cover all U.S. carriers operating domestic and international 

scheduled passenger air transportation using at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats. See 

77 FR 38747 (June 29, 2012). Because our determination on the scope of reporting carrier with respect to animal 

death, loss or injury incidents will be addressed separately in the final rule of that rulemaking, interested parties 

should provide comments regarding animal reporting to the Department through the docket designated for RIN 

2105-AE07. 
40

asserting that flight delays affect passengers without regard to the size of the carrier or the length 

of the flight. The Department concluded, however, that compliance with the rule was likely to 

be much more costly for small carriers than for large carriers, particularly due to the fact that, at 

the time when the rule was finalized, large carriers were more likely than small carriers to 

maintain their flight performance data in a computerized form. Therefore, the Department made 

the determination that as an initial matter, it would limit the application of this rule to large air 

carriers. Nonetheless, the Department noted that it would continue to review the carriers covered 

and would extend the reporting requirements to smaller carriers if it became necessary. 

Twenty-five years have passed since the issuance of that final rule. Technology 

innovations that have fundamentally reshaped our world in many ways have also profoundly 

changed almost every aspect of the commercial aviation industry’s operations. In 1987, for a 

small carrier to file data with the Department, it had to commit to either a significant capital 

investment in a comprehensive computer data tracking system or to a significant human resource 

investment so it could compile and file reports manually. Conversely, in this day and age, 

virtually all air carriers are using computerized recordkeeping methods to store and distribute 

data to file reports with the Department or are conducting internal performance evaluations, or 

both, which makes reporting data a much easier and less costly task. 

Moreover, we believe that requiring smaller carriers to report service quality data to the 

Department will greatly benefit the public in several ways. First, adding these smaller carriers’ 

performance data to the data currently collected by BTS will enable the Department to obtain 

and provide to the flying public a more complete picture of the performance of scheduled 

passenger service in general. These data will, in turn, provide consumers with more meaningful 

information on which to base their purchasing decisions. For example, based on BTS-provided 
41

domestic scheduled passenger revenue and enplanement data for 2010, the carriers that reach the 

one percent threshold represent approximately 90 percent of total domestic scheduled passenger 

revenue, and 80 percent of total domestic scheduled passenger enplanements. If we were to 

lower the threshold to 0.5 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue, the reporting carrier 

pool would capture approximately 98 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue and 94 

percent of the domestic scheduled passenger enplanements. 

Further, the public benefits of including smaller carriers in the reporting pool were also 

recognized and supported by a September 2011 Report to Congressional Requesters prepared by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In the report titled Airline Passenger 

Protections, More Data and Analysis Needed to Understand Effects of Flight Delays, GAO 

recommended that in order to enhance aviation consumers’ decision-making, the Department 

should collect and publicize more comprehensive on-time performance data to include 

information on most flights, to airports of all sizes. GAO specifically recommended that one way 

this goal could be accomplished was by requiring airlines with a smaller percentage of total 

domestic scheduled passenger service revenue, such as airlines that operate flights for other 

airlines, to report flight performance information. Furthermore, expanding the reporting carrier 

pool would enhance the Department’s ability to analyze the cause of flight disruptions such as 

delays and cancellations, particularly with respect to airports in smaller communities and smaller 

airlines. For example, according to GAO’s analysis of the performance record of two legacy 

airlines5and their regional partners, the regional partners generally have worse on-time 

performance records. GAO further notes that while flight cancellations to smaller communities 

may inconvenience a relatively small number of passengers, they may result in long trip delays if 

 

5 A “legacy” airline is a carrier that was operating when the industry was deregulated. They are typically 

large airlines with a hub-and-spoke route system.
42

those smaller communities have infrequent service. What’s more, requiring smaller carriers to 

file on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales data with the Department will 

increase the level of public scrutiny of these carriers’ performance, which in turn will function as 

an incentive for these carriers to continuously improve the quality of their service. The enhanced 

service quality will increase these carriers’ competitiveness and benefit the regional markets that 

they primarily serve. 

For these reasons, we are proposing in this NPRM to amend the definition of “reporting 

carrier” under Part 234 to include carriers that account for at least 0.5 percent of annual domestic 

scheduled-passenger revenue. Additionally, since for years BTS has been using June 30, instead 

of March 31, as the cutoff date to compile a carrier’s annual domestic scheduled-passenger 

revenue percentage, we propose to codify this change in the definition of “reporting carrier.” We 

seek public comments on whether 0.5 percent is a reasonable threshold to achieve our goal of 

maximizing the scope of data collection from the industry while balancing that benefit against 

the burden of increasing reporting requirements on carriers, particularly small businesses. If 0.5 

is not the most reasonable threshold, we seek comment on an even larger expansion, e.g., to 0.25 

percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue, or a smaller expansion to 0.75 percent of 

domestic scheduled passenger revenue. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should 

require that all carriers that provide domestic scheduled passenger service report to the 

Department. We especially welcome comments that provide specific cost estimates or analysis 

by small carriers that would potentially be impacted by this proposal. We also request comments 

regarding whether a carrier’s share of domestic scheduled passenger revenue remains an 

appropriate benchmark. Should we use a carrier’s share of domestic scheduled passenger 
43

enplanements instead? If so, what percentage is a reasonable threshold for triggering the 

reporting obligation? 

Finally, in relation to the burden associated with implementing a reporting mechanism 

within a carrier’s operation system, what is the approximate time period that a newly reporting 

carrier will likely need to prepare for the new reporting duties? Although not proposed in the 

rule text, we are contemplating that should this proposal be finalized, we would permit carriers 

that otherwise would not have been reporting carriers but become a reporting carrier under a new 

threshold to file their first Part 234 report by February 15 for the first January that is at least six 

months after the effective date of this rule. We believe this would provide carriers adequate time 

to implement necessary procedures for filing the reports and amending their websites to comply 

with the flight on-time performance disclosure requirements contained in section 234.11, to the 

extent that the websites directly market flights to consumers. Having the initial reports start in 

January would provide the added benefit of preserving the consistency of the Department’s data 

for a full calendar year during the transition. We seek comments on whether this rationale for 

determining the compliance date for the reporting requirement would be helpful to newly 

reporting carriers.

In addition to expanding the pool of reporting carriers, we are also contemplating 

expanding the scope of “reportable flights” in relation to airports. The current rule only requires 

reports for flights operated to and from U.S. airports that count for at least 1% of domestic 

enplanements (large hub airports). However, since the inception of the rule, the reporting 

carriers have chosen to file reports for scheduled passenger flights to all U.S. airports where they 

operate. In this NPRM, we seek comments on whether we should eliminate the concept of 

reportable flights and simply mandate reports for all scheduled flights operated by reporting 
44

carriers to and from all U.S. airports. Without this amendment, the expansion of “reporting 

carrier” to include smaller carriers could be rendered less meaningful because a large percentage 

of flights operated by these smaller carriers are not to or from large hub airports. In addition to 

comments on whether and how such expansion of scope of reportable flights may benefit 

different stakeholders, we also welcome information on cost comparisons for carriers to report 

only flights to and from (1) large hub airports, (2) large, medium, small, and non-hub U.S. 

airports, and (3) all airports. 

4. Carriers to Report Data for Certain Flights Operated by Their Code-Share Partners

The Department of Transportation provides information each month on the quality of 

services provided by the airlines through its Air Travel Consumer Report (ATCR). This 

Report is divided into six sections: flight delays, mishandled baggage, oversales, consumer 

complaints, customer service reports to the Transportation Security Administration, and airline 

reports of the loss, injury, or death of animals during air transportation. The sections that deal 

with flight delays, mishandled baggage, and oversales are based on data collected by BTS 

pursuant to 14 CFR Part 234 and Part 250. The section that deals with animal incidents during 

air transport is based on reports required by section 234.13 and collected by the Aviation 

Consumer Protection Division. 

With respect to flight delay information, in addition to the monthly overview of each 

reporting carrier, the ATCR also ranks each reporting carrier’s performance at all large hub U.S. 

airports from which it operates. These performance tables, particularly the rankings, are widely 

accepted as important indicators of the carriers’ quality of service, and are frequently referred to 

in news reports, industry analyses, and consumer commentaries and forums. Moreover, it is not 

uncommon that these rankings are used as the key references in institutional studies, the results 
45

of which are often cited in news reports with attention-grabbing headlines such as “The Best and 

Worst Airlines of the U.S.” Although headlines like this tend to over-simplify the complexity of 

airline operations, being named as one of “the best” or “the worst” airlines in the country in a 

national news outlet does have a significant impact on a carrier’s image and brand identity and 

either affords the carrier a great marketing tool or causes some consumers to avoid selecting that 

carrier’s flights when making purchase decisions which acts as an incentive for the carrier to 

improve its performance.

Because of the influence of the ATCR on consumer perception of carriers as well as its 

effect on the perception of carriers within the industry, it is vitally important that the information 

provided by these reports remains accurate. Since the Department began to issue the ATCR, the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division and BTS have been working closely to ensure that the 

published reports accurately reflect the data received by the Department. However, this 

continuing effort does not address the growing problem of an inadequate scope of data 

collection, the most significant area being that a marketing carrier’s data do not include its flights 

operated by code-share partners. 

The data that carriers file under Part 234 and Part 250 are the primary source from which 

each monthly ATCR is developed. A “reportable flight” under Part 234 refers to any domestic 

scheduled nonstop flight reported to the Department by a reporting carrier pursuant to 14 CFR 

Part 241, Uniform System of Accounts and Reports for Large Certificated Air Carriers. Part 241 

in turn defines a “reporting carrier” for the purpose of Form T-100 (U.S. air carrier traffic and 

capacity data by nonstop segment and on-flight market) as “the carrier in operational control of 

the flight, i.e., the carrier that uses its flight crew under its own FAA operating authority.” 

Therefore, the on-time performance and mishandled baggage data collected under Part 234 from 
46

each reporting carrier are limited to the data for a reporting carrier’s domestic scheduled 

passenger nonstop flight segments operated by that reporting carrier. Part 250 also limits the 

oversales reporting requirement to reporting carriers, although it is not limited to domestic flights 

(see 14 CFR § 250.10).

If the reporting carrier engages in code-sharing arrangements in which the reporting 

carrier is the marketing carrier but not the operating carrier, the performance data for those 

flights are not included in the reporting carrier’s Part 234 and Part 250 reports. If the operating 

carrier of a code-share flight is a reporting carrier itself, the performance data for its code-share 

flights that are also marketed by another carrier will be reported to the Department, but data for 

those flights will not be attributed to the marketing carrier. What’s more, some operating 

carriers of code-share flights marketed by larger carriers do not meet the current reporting 

threshold of Part 234, and a certain number of operating carriers of code-share flights marketed 

by larger carriers would not meet the proposed lower reporting threshold of 0.5 percent of annual 

domestic scheduled passenger revenue. Therefore, the on-time performance, mishandled 

baggage, and oversales data for those flights are not currently reported to the Department at all 

and, even under a revised reporting threshold, not all of those operating carriers of code-share 

flights marketed by larger carriers would necessarily be required to report performance data. 

The Department considers the current scope of reportable flights under Part 234 

inadequate to truly capture many carriers’ quality of service, so as to be accurately reflected in 

the ATCR. The limited scope of the current reporting requirements may result in consumer 

confusion or misperception. We note that the majority of legacy/mainline U.S. carriers continue 

to seek brand consolidation, while still maintaining the “hub and spoke” operation structure. For 

economic reasons, those legacy carriers’ regional short-haul flights are operated, in many 
47

markets, by code-share partners on a fee-for-flight basis and these operating carriers do not 

engage in the sale of tickets at all. According to the data contained in the FAA’s Aerospace 

Forecast for fiscal years 2012-2032, mainline carriers provided 16 percent less domestic 

passenger capacity in 2011 than they did in 2001. Over the same ten-year period, however, 

regional carriers’ capacity overall has increased to 153 percent of the 2001 level. Further, a

recent Official Airline Guide (OAG) survey provides a snapshot of the current operations of 

mainline carriers and their regional partners and indicates the comparative scope of code-share 

operations. It shows that in 2011, each of the top five legacy carriers had more than 45% of its 

domestic scheduled flights operated by code-share regional partners, with the carrier on the top 

of the survey list having almost 70% of its domestic scheduled flights operated by code-share 

regional partners. The service quality data for these code-shared flights are not reported by the 

legacy carriers and are not attributed to these carriers’ records and rankings in the ATCR. 

However, those flights are marketed by the legacy carriers with their own airline designator 

codes and usually their own brands, sometimes bearing trademarks such as “Connection” or 

“Express” in addition to the mainline carriers’ trade names. In many instances, the mainline 

carriers also handle virtually all aspects of ground operations including scheduling and customer 

service related issues, such as dealing with oversales situations, providing denied boarding 

compensation, and resolving baggage claims. Consumers may consider these code-share flights 

operated by code-share regional partners to be air transportation service provided by the mainline 

carrier just as much as the flights actually operated by the mainline carriers. 

The Department is also concerned that the inadequacy of the scope of service quality 

reports may hinder competition. The Department is mindful that on-time performance data in 

the ATCR may have a limited influence on a consumer’s purchase decision regarding a 
48

particular flight, because the consumer is more likely to refer to that specific flight’s on-time 

performance record, which under 14 CFR 234.11 must be provided on a marketing carrier’s 

website, regardless of whether it is operated by a code-share partner. Nonetheless, a carrier’s 

ATCR ranking speaks of the carrier’s performance quality from a macro perspective, and is often 

used by carriers as a powerful marketing tool in developing brand loyalty, recruiting talented 

employees, and negotiating with suppliers and airports, as well as promoting its service in a 

newly developed or targeted geographic market. Most importantly, the ATCR numbers and 

rankings are benchmarks carriers use to assess their performance among competitors and to seek 

effective ways to improve. As stated above, recent numbers show that virtually all legacy 

carriers have at least 45% of their domestic scheduled passenger flight segments operated by 

code-share partners, which means data for those flights are not reported by the marketing carriers 

under Part 234 and Part 250 or attributed to the carrier in the ATCR. By contrast, most relatively 

new carriers that are ranked in the ATCR operate a “point-to-point” network and follow a 

different business model, the so-called “low cost” model. Under this business model, carriers 

engage in very few, if any, code-share arrangements. As a result, the ATCR is comparing the 

service quality of all flights marketed by a low-cost carrier with the service quality of 55% or 

less of the flights marketed under legacy carriers’ brands and codes. We will not seek to 

determine how including code-share flight records in the ATCR would affect legacy carriers’ 

rankings, but we are of the tentative opinion that requiring all reporting carriers to report data for 

all flights marketed under that carrier’s name and code would put carriers on an equal footing in 

this important competitive arena. 

Additional support for our proposal comes from the aforementioned final report by 

FAAC, which noted that the Competitiveness and Viability Subcommittee recommended that the 
49

Department should continue to require marketing carriers to provide clear and transparent 

notification of operations conducted by an air carrier other than the marketing carrier. Further, 

some subcommittee members also believed that more detailed disclosure regarding regional 

carriers’ operations should be included in the ATCR, and that the report should include metrics 

organized not only by operating air carrier, but by the marketing air carrier. 

For the reasons stated above, we are proposing to expand the scope of “reportable flight” 

under Part 234, and consequently under Part 250. Pursuant to this proposal, a reporting carrier 

would continue to file Form 234 and Form 251 (the oversales report required by Part 250) with 

respect to nonstop scheduled flights operated by the reporting carrier. In addition, each reporting 

carrier would file a separate Form 234 and a separate Form 251 to include both flights that are 

operated by the reporting carrier itself and all nonstop scheduled flights that are operated by a 

code-share partner and sold under the reporting carrier’s code. Reportable flights under Part 234 

(on-time performance and baggage data) are limited to domestic nonstop flight segments. The

Form 251 oversales report has always included data for outbound international flights from the 

United States, and that will continue to be the case for the proposed new report that would

include service operated by code-share partners. However, this new report, like the original 

report, would be limited to service operated by “a certificated carrier or commuter air carrier”—

both of which are U.S. air carriers—and consequently the new report would not collect data on 

code-share flights operated for a reporting carrier by a foreign-carrier code-share partner. Our 

primary regulatory interest at this time is collecting and publishing data on code-share service 

operated by the regional-carrier partners of the larger U.S. airlines. We are not proposing at this 

time to collect oversales data for flights from the United States (the oversales rule doesn’t apply 
50

to inbound international flights to the United States) that are operated by large foreign carriers 

that do not already report these data. 

For this purpose it is irrelevant whether the actual operating carrier in the code-share

arrangement is a reporting carrier itself and is required to file data for that flight under the 

reporting requirements applicable to the operating carrier. Under our proposed rule, the 

marketing carrier reporting data on flights operated by another carrier would not need to 

distinguish flights operated by different code-share partners. We are proposing to require the 

marketing carrier to provide aggregated consumer statistics for all flights operated under its code 

(i.e., flights it operates and flights operated by its code-share partners). This would be an 

additional reporting requirement (second set of reports) and is not intended to replace the 

existing requirement for a reporting carrier to provide separate data for flights it operates. We 

seek comment on whether the second sets of reports should only contain the performance records 

of all flights operated for the reporting carrier by its code-share partners but not the flights 

operated by the reporting carrier. Alternatively, rather than having all code-share partners’ 

records in aggregation, we ask if we should require the marketing carrier to provide separate data 

on flights operated by each of its code-share partner’s operations. What are the benefits of 

separating each code-share partner’s records and what are the costs, if any, added to the reporting 

carriers? Finally, since many regional carriers operate flights under the code of more than one 

large carrier, we seek comment on whether “double-counting,” i.e., situations where a given 

flight carries the code of more than one large carrier, is an issue and if so, how to avoid it. Do 

regional carriers that have code-share agreements with more than one large carrier ever operate a 

given flight for more than one marketing carrier, or on the other hand, do these flights always 
51

operate in discrete city-pair markets? How should we deal with the situation of large U.S. 

carriers that code-share with each other?

Our proposal to expand the scope of reportable flights will necessitate amendments to the 

rule text of 14 CFR 234.6, Baggage Handling Statistics. On July 15, 2011, the Department 

issued an NPRM, Reporting Ancillary Airline Passenger Revenues (RIN 2105-AE31, Docket 

No. DOT-RITA-2011-0001) that proposes, among other things, to amend section 234.6 by 

changing the way it computes mishandled baggage rates, from mishandled baggage reports per 

unit of domestic enplanements to mishandled baggage per unit of checked bags. The proposed 

amendments to section 234.6 also include a new and separate requirement for collecting statistics 

for mishandled wheelchairs and scooters used by passengers with disabilities. In this NPRM, our 

proposed amendments to section 234.6 are tentatively based on the proposed rule text in the 

ancillary revenues reporting NPRM. Our adoption of the rule text as proposed in RIN 2105-

AE31 in this rulemaking is not indicative of whether we are going to adopt the text as proposed 

in the final rule for the ancillary revenue reporting proposal. Further, although that NPRM’s 

comment period has ended, any comments regarding the proposed computation method for 

mishandled baggage and the proposed inclusion of mishandled wheelchairs and scooters in the 

reporting should be submitted to the ancillary revenue reporting rulemaking docket and will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

We note that if the operating carrier is already a reporting carrier, the data for the codeshare flights that will be added to the marketing carrier’s report will have to be prepared and 

submitted to the Department by the operating carrier to meet the existing reporting requirement. 

In these instances, we expect that the cost to the marketing carrier to obtain this data would be 

negligible. With respect to flights operated by a code-share partner that is not a reporting carrier, 
52

we believe the cost of obtaining data would be higher but not significant, as most carriers, large 

or small, already have internal systems in place that track the major elements of flight 

performance quality. There are also costs related to compiling data for the code-share flights 

and setting up the reporting infrastructure to file the compiled report with the Department. We 

seek comments from carriers and the public regarding the costs associated with adding data on 

flights operated by code-share partners to reports filed with the Department. We further note that 

14 CFR 234.8 requires reporting carriers to calculate and assign an on-time performance code for 

each “reportable flight.” Currently section 234.8 only covers domestic scheduled flights 

operated by a reporting carrier, so our proposal to expand the scope of “reportable flight” under 

Part 234 will require that reporting carriers also calculate and assign an on-time performance 

code for each domestic scheduled flight operated by a code-share partner. However, since April 

29, 2010, all current reporting carriers have been required by section 234.11 to disclose on their 

websites that provide schedule information detailed on-time performance records, on a monthly 

basis, for each domestic scheduled flight, including each domestic code-share flight. In this 

regard, we expect that these current reporting carriers are already adequately prepared to comply 

with requirement of section 234.8 with respect to code-share flights. Finally, we ask what the 

reasonable implementation period should be if this proposal becomes a final rule. 

5. Minimum Customer Service Standards for Ticket Agents

In the Department’s first Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections final rule, 74 FR 

68983, the Department required U.S. carriers in 14 CFR 259.5 to adopt a customer service plan. 

In the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections final rule, 76 FR 23110, the Department 

extended this requirement to foreign carriers and required both U.S. and foreign carriers to adopt 

minimum standards for their customer service plans. Among other standards, the Department 
53

requires carriers to provide prompt ticket refunds where ticket refunds are due, in accordance 

with existing Department rules; hold a reservation at the quoted fare or permit the reservation to 

be cancelled without penalty for at least 24 hours after a customer books the ticket; disclose 

cancellation policies, seating configuration, and lavatory availability to consumers; notify 

travelers of changes in travel itineraries; and respond to consumer-related complaints in a timely 

manner. Section 259.5 only applies to U.S. and foreign carriers that provide scheduled passenger 

service using at least one aircraft with an original designed passenger capacity of 30 or more 

seats. In a Frequently Asked Questions guidance document issued by the Department’s 

Enforcement Office, in response to questions regarding whether section 259.5 applies to ticket 

agents, the Enforcement Office clarified that these customer service provisions are not applicable 

to agents. Therefore, agents are not currently required to hold a reservation for 24 hours or 

respond to consumer complaints or notify passengers of changes to travel itineraries. 

The Department is proposing to amend 14 CFR 399.80, which addresses unfair and 

deceptive practices by ticket agents, because the Department believes that all airline passengers 

should benefit from certain customer service plan protections. Not all of the customer service 

standards set forth in 14 CFR 259.5 should apply to agents, but the Department sees no reason 

not to extend the standards related to ticket purchases and information dissemination to ticket 

agents that sell air transportation. As such, the Department is proposing to require these ticket

agents to adopt minimum customer service standards in select areas. The customer service 

standards would not apply to ticket agents that don’t sell air transportation but rather arrange for 

air transportation and receive compensation in connection with air transportation sold by others. 

Additionally, as proposed, the standards would only apply to those ticket agents with annual 

revenue of $100 million or more that market to the general public in the United States. A 
54

majority of U.S. travelers who bought their airline tickets through an avenue other than a carrier 

used large ticket agents. 

As carriers are already required to allow reservations to be held at the quoted fare without 

payment or cancelled without penalty for at least 24 hours after a reservation is made if the 

reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure, the Department is proposing 

to extend this requirement to ticket agents that sell air transportation. The Department feels that 

such agents should be able to allow reservations to be held at the quoted fare, as carriers are 

already required to provide this option. Moreover, through this proposal, the benefits of 

reserving without payment or canceling without penalty will reach consumers who use an agent 

to book air transportation. Similar to carriers, this proposal would only require ticket agents that 

sell air transportation to hold the fare at the quoted price. The proposal would not require agents 

to hold for 24 hours the price for other related items such as fees associated with ancillary 

services or tour components (e.g., hotel stay) although agents are, of course, free to do so if they 

wish. We solicit comment on whether the Department should require specific disclosure by 

agents and airlines about what is and is not being held for 24 hours. 

The Department also seeks comments on requiring both agents and carriers to inform 

consumers, when engaging in oral communications with them about changes to a reservation, of 

the consumer’s right to cancel without penalty if applicable. The Department has received 

complaints alleging that airlines are not disclosing to consumers when they are eligible to change 

their reservation without penalty and charging consumers change fees when consumers are 

unaware that they can cancel without penalty and rebook. Should carriers and agents be required 

to disclose the 24-hold policy to a consumer who is making a change within 24 hours of 

booking? Should the Department require that the policy be prominently disclosed during the 
55

booking process? Currently, many carriers only disclose the policy in their “Customer Service 

Commitment” but not during the booking process. Would it be beneficial for consumers to have 

this information during booking? 

Additionally the Department is proposing to require agents to provide prompt refunds 

where ticket refunds are due. This requirement would mirror 14 CFR 259.5(b)(5), which 

requires carriers to submit a refund for a credit card purchase within 7 days of the complete 

refund request, and in the case of cash or check purchases, within 20 days of receiving a 

complete refund request. Oftentimes, if a consumer has to cancel a trip, and a refund is due, they 

find themselves going between the airline and the agent for the refund in cases where the 

passenger purchased the airline ticket through an agent. This requirement would prevent this 

type of hassle and back-and-forth for consumers and clarify the agent’s responsibility in assisting 

consumers when ticket refunds are due.

The Department is also proposing that agents disclose cancellation policies, seating 

configuration, and lavatory availability upon request to a passenger before a consumer books a 

selected flight. Many consumers who choose to book through a ticket agent are unaware of 

restrictions or fees associated with canceling the ticket. Additionally, consumers are not always 

aware that they are booking a flight on a smaller aircraft or an aircraft that may not have a 

bulkhead seat or lavatory available. As carriers are required to provide this information to 

consumers on their websites and upon request from their telephone reservation staff, the 

Department feels agents should also provide the information. Under this proposal, agents would 

have to make this information available on their websites that are marketed to U.S. consumers, 

and upon request for reservations made over the telephone. The Department invites interested 

parties to comment on this proposal, specifically whether agents already have this information to 
56

share with consumers. If agents do not have information about carriers’ cancellation policies, 

aircraft seating configurations and lavatory availability, should the Department impose a 

requirement for carriers to provide their agents this information or should agents be required to 

provide links so that consumers can obtain that information? The Department also invites 

comments regarding the methods for disclosing cancellation policies, seating configurations, and 

lavatory availability information to consumers. Should the Department require that this 

information be placed at a particular location on a carrier’s website, e.g., next to every flight in a 

search-result list for a particular itinerary?

The Department is also proposing that agents adopt a customer service standard to notify 

consumers of changes in travel itineraries in a timely manner. A carrier is not required to notify 

a consumer about a change in his or her travel itinerary if the carrier does not have contact 

information for that individual, and an agent is not required to provide a client’s contact 

information to an airline. Therefore, consumers who use agents that do not provide contact

information to carriers may not receive direct or timely notice of changes to their itinerary. This 

requirement is intended to ensure that consumers are timely notified of such changes. 

Finally, the Department is proposing that agents be required to substantively respond to 

consumer complaints. Agents would be required to acknowledge receipt of a consumer-related 

complaint within 30 days of receipt of the complaint. Where the complaint (in whole or in part) 

is about the agent’s service, the agent must substantively respond to the complaint within 60 

days. If all or part of the complaint is about services furnished (or to be furnished) by an airline 

or other travel supplier, the agent must forward the complaint to that supplier for response. If no 

part of the complaint is about the agent’s service and the agent sends the complaint to the 

appropriate supplier(s), the agent’s substantive reply can consist of the agent informing the 
57

passenger that his or her complaint has been forwarded to the appropriate party and providing 

contact information to the passenger for that entity. This proposal closes the gap that exists in 14 

CFR 259.5(b)(11) and 259.7, which require carriers to respond to consumer complaints but do

not provide for complaints related to a ticket agent’s services. 

Although the subjects that we are proposing that ticket agents that sell air transportation 

address in their customer service plans are identical to those that carriers are already required to 

include in their customer service plans with respect to ticket purchases and information 

dissemination, we request comment on whether any of these subjects would be inappropriate if 

applied to ticket agents. Why or why not? Some of these items may be under direct control of 

the air carrier, and not the ticket agent. In commenting on these customer service commitments, 

large ticket agents should address the extent to which they are responsible for each of these 

items. Moreover, we seek comment on whether the Department should require that ticket agents 

address any other subjects in their customer service plans. For example, should ticket agents be 

required to prominently disclose to individuals who will be issued more than one ticket for their 

trip that their bags may not be checked through, as airlines typically check a passenger’s baggage 

between the origin and destination points that are issued on a single ticket? Should ticket agents 

also be required to disclose to such individuals that they may have to pay multiple and different 

bag fees if ticketed separately as the Department’s requirement for one set of baggage 

allowances and fees throughout a passenger’s itinerary only applies when there is a single ticket? 

If so, when should this disclosure occur—before or after a ticket is purchased? We also seek 

comment on the appropriate form for such a disclosure (e.g., orally, on the ticket agent’s website, 

on e-ticket confirmation). The Department is proposing to apply these customer service 

standards only to large ticket agents (those with annual revenue of $100 million or more) that 
58

market to the general public in the United States. The Department invites comment on whether 

the applicability should be expanded to cover other ticket agents, e.g., smaller ticket agents, or 

ticket agents who do not sell to members of the general public.

The Department recognizes that requiring these minimum customer service standards for 

agents would place a cost burden on these agencies. However, the Department believes that the 

benefits to consumers of receiving timely information, permitting reservations to be held for 24 

hours without risk, and having their complaints addressed outweigh the costs. These proposals 

put all airline passengers on an equal footing when it comes to customer service standards, 

regardless of how they purchased their tickets. 

The Department invites comments on the costs and benefits of these proposed customer 

service standards. For consumers who use agents, have you had problems in the past 

determining the cancellation policies associated with your ticket or being informed of changes in 

travel itineraries? For carriers, do you see any cost in sharing the information with the agents 

that the agents would be required to provide to consumers? For agents, what are the costs and 

benefits that you see in the proposal? Are you already receiving the information that you would 

have to disclose to consumers from carriers? Should agents also be required to review their 

adherence to the customer service plans each year and retain the records of the audits for two 

years following the date of any audit, just as carriers are required to do today? Should agents be 

required to post their customer service plans on their websites if the websites are marketed 

towards U.S. consumers? Are there unforeseen consequences of the proposal, and, if so, what 

are they? 
59

6. Codifying 49 U.S.C. § 41712(c) Regarding Website Disclosure of Code-Share Service and 

Other Amendments to 14 CFR Part 257

Code-sharing is an arrangement whereby a flight is operated by a carrier other than the 

airline whose designator code is used in schedules and on tickets. The Department’s current 

regulation on the disclosure of code-sharing and long term wet lease arrangements, 14 CFR 

257.5, was initially issued in 1999. Based on the statutory prohibition against unfair and 

deceptive practices in the sale of air transportation, 49 U.S.C. § 41712, the purpose of section 

257.5 is to ensure that consumers are aware of the identity of the airline actually operating their 

flight in code-sharing and long-term wet lease arrangements in domestic and international air 

transportation. See 64 FR 12838 (March 15, 1999). The Department has long recognized the 

economic benefits of airline code-sharing and long term wet lease arrangements but has been 

aware that such arrangements may cause consumer confusion regarding the identity of the 

operating carrier of a flight. For simplicity, we refer to both code-sharing arrangements and long

term wet lease arrangements (covered in Part 258) as “code-share” arrangements, as the 

disclosure requirements for both types of operations are essentially identical. Code-share 

disclosure is important because the identity of the operating carrier is a factor that affects many 

consumers’ purchasing decisions. In that regard, we believe that strengthening the code-share 

disclosure requirements by codifying requirements in Part 257 is an effective way to prevent 

potential consumer confusion. 

Pursuant to section 257.5, carriers and ticket agents are required to inform consumers, 

when engaging in oral communications with the public, of code-share service “before booking 

transportation” and to “identify the transporting carrier by its corporate name and any other name 

under which that service is held out to the public” (section 257.5(b)). Written notice of codesharing arrangements is also required when a ticket purchase is made, regardless of whether an 
60

itinerary is issued (section 257.5(c)). In “printed” advertisements, including those appearing on a 

website, the code-sharing relationship must be “prominently” disclosed and an abbreviated 

notice must be included in any radio or television advertisement (section 257.5(d)). With respect 

to all schedule information that is publicly available in writing, including on website displays, 

section 257.5(a) requires that any code-share service be indicated with “an asterisk or other 

easily identifiable mark and that the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any other 

name under which that service is held out to the public” also be disclosed. As a matter of 

enforcement policy, since the issuance of section 257.5, we have permitted entities providing 

schedules on websites to provide disclosure of an operating carrier’s corporate name and other 

pertinent names through rollover or hyperlinked displays. 

In February 2009, a flight operated by a regional air carrier under a mainline air carrier’s 

code crashed during landing. In the aftermath of that fatal incident, family members of some 

victims questioned the adequacy of disclosure regarding the code-sharing nature of that 

operation. In response to these concerns and in recognition of the necessity of further 

strengthening the disclosure requirements of code-sharing arrangements, Congress amended 49 

U.S.C. § 41712 in August 2010 to add a subsection (c) that requires that in any oral, written, or 

electronic communications with the public, U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents 

disclose the name of the carrier providing the air transportation for each flight segment prior to 

the ticket purchase. In addition, subsection (c) provides that if an offer to sell tickets is provided 

on a website, such information must be disclosed “on the first display of the website following a 

search of a requested itinerary in a format that is easily visible to a viewer.” Airline Safety and 

Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-216, Title II, § 210, 124 

Stat. 2362 (August 1, 2010). In light of Congress’ specific requirement regarding website ticket 
61

offer disclosure, on January 14, 2011, the Department’s Enforcement Office issued Guidance on 

Disclosure of Code-Share Service Under Recent Amendments to 49 U.S.C. § 41712, in which the 

Enforcement Office revised its enforcement policy and explained that under the statute any 

disclosure of code-share service in the context of website displays by carriers and ticket agents 

must be on the same screen as the itinerary and immediately adjacent to that itinerary and to each 

alternative itinerary, if any. The guidance provided notice that carriers or ticket agents whose 

websites failed to provide full disclosure of code-share service arrangements or that provided 

disclosure only through rollovers or hyperlinks would potentially be subject to enforcement 

action. 

In this NPRM, we are proposing to amend 14 CFR 257.5 to codify the requirements of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712(c) and the Department’s current enforcement policy with respect to website 

disclosure of code-share and long term wet lease arrangements. In addition, we are proposing to 

update certain other disclosure requirements of 14 CFR 257.5 in order to reflect the technology 

changes in the airline industry’s reservation and ticketing systems that have resulted in the 

predominance of electronic ticketing and the significant use of online transactions. As noted in 

the background section of this NPRM, these proposals are also intended to implement the Future 

of Aviation Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection 

recommendation that the Secretary should ensure transparency regarding flight operators, such as 

disclosure of the identity of the operator on regional-carrier code-share flights. See FAAC Final 

Report, April 11, 2011. It is important to emphasize that we believe the changes proposed in this 

NPRM to the text of section 257.5 are primarily non-substantive and would not affect what 

carriers and ticket agents are already obligated to do under the combination of the current section 

257.5, the amended 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and the Department’s guidance document. 
62

(a) Disclosure in flight itinerary and schedule displays. 

14 CFR 257.5 contains subsections (a) through (d), which deal with disclosure in 

schedule displays, oral notice to prospective consumers, written notice to ticket purchasers, and 

disclosure in advertisements, respectively. Most code-share disclosure requirements under 14 

CFR 257.5 cover both carriers and ticket agents, but section 257.5(a), notice in schedules, only 

covers U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers. On the other hand, 49 U.S.C. § 41712(c) (enacted 

in 2010), as well as the January 10, 2011, notice issued by the Department’s Enforcement 

Office, are explicit that the same heightened requirements regarding code-share disclosure, 

including website schedule display disclosure, apply to both carriers and ticket agents. As a

result of this inconsistency, under the current rule, ticket agents that fail to adequately disclose 

code-share arrangements in schedule displays would violate section 41712 but not section 

257.5(a). 

The inclusion of ticket agents in section 41712(c) reflects the fact that, through the 

growth and development of the Internet and related technologies, more and more ticket agents, 

especially online travel agencies (OTAs), are able to provide flight schedules and itinerary search 

functions to the public. The Department applauds new technologies that increase the number of 

venues from which consumers can search and compare airfares and schedules and perform onestop shopping for airfares along with other components of travel packages. However, it is our 

firm belief that information is useful and beneficial to the public only if it is accurate and 

complete. As a result, we are proposing to codify the code-share disclosure requirement in 

section 41712(c) concerning schedule displays and make it applicable to both carriers and ticket 

agents doing business in the United States with respect to flights in, to, or from the United States. 

Although the rule text and the preamble of the final rule issued in 1999 did not specify what 
63

constitutes “doing business in the United States,” we are tentatively of the opinion that any ticket 

agent that markets and is compensated for the sale of tickets to consumers in the United States, 

either from a brick-and-mortar office located in the United States or via an Internet website that 

is marketed towards consumers in the United States, would be considered as “doing business in

the United States.” This interpretation would cover any travel agent or ticket agent that does not 

have a physical presence in the United States but has a website that is marketed to consumers in 

the United States for purchasing tickets for flights within, to, or from the United States. We also 

note that with the usage of mobile devices gaining popularity among consumers, our code-share 

disclosure requirement with respect to flight schedule and itinerary displays covers not only 

conventional Internet websites under the control of carriers and ticket agents, but also those 

websites and applications specifically designed for mobile devices, such as mobile phones and 

tablets.

Furthermore, the text of section 257.5(a) states that any code-sharing arrangements must 

be disclosed in flight schedules provided to the public in the United States, which we interpret to 

include electronic schedules on websites marketed to the public in the United States, by an 

asterisk or other easily identifiable mark. As discussed above, the new amendment to section 

41712 and the guidance provided by the Enforcement Office make it clear that for schedules 

posted on a website in response to an itinerary search, disclosure though a rollover, pop-up 

window or hyperlink is no longer sufficient. Moreover, as stated in the rationale behind our 

recently amended price advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84, which ended the practice of permitting 

sellers of air transportation to disclose airfare taxes and mandatory fees through rollovers and 

pop-up windows, we believe that the extra step a consumer must take by clicking on a hyperlink 
64

or using a rollover to find out about code-share arrangements is cumbersome and may cause 

some consumers to miss this important disclosure. 

Our proposal codifies the requirement of section 41712(c)(2) that the code-share 

disclosure must appear on the first display of the website following an itinerary search. Further, 

section 41712(c)(2) requires that the disclosure on a website must be “in a format that is easily 

visible to a viewer.” In that regard, we are proposing that the disclosure must appear in text 

format immediately adjacent to each code-share flight displayed in response to an itinerary 

request by a consumer. We ask whether the proposed requirement is sufficient to meet the 

statutory requirement that the disclosure must be in a format that is easily visible by a viewer. 

We further seek comments on whether we should specify minimum standards on the text size of 

the disclosure in relation to the text size of the schedule itself. As an alternative to the proposed 

standard, we ask whether a code-share disclosure appearing immediately adjacent to the entire 

itinerary as opposed to appearing immediately adjacent to each code-share flight would be a 

sufficient way to meet the “easily visible” standard. 

With regard to flight schedules provided to the public (whether the schedules are in paper 

or electronic format), we propose that the code-share disclosure be provided by an asterisk or 

other identifiable mark that clearly indicates the existence of a code-sharing arrangement and 

directs the readers’ attention to another prominent location on the same page where the identity 

of the operating carrier is fully disclosed. We seek public comments on whether we should 

impose the same standard for flight schedules as for flight itineraries provided on the Internet in 

response to an itinerary search, i.e., requiring that the disclosure be provided immediately 

adjacent to each applicable flight.
65

(b) Disclosure to prospective consumers in oral communications.

Section 257.5(b) requires that carriers and ticket agents must identify the actual operator 

of a code-share flight the first time that a code-share flight is cited to a consumer in person, over 

the telephone, or through other means of oral communication. With respect to covered entities, 

this section currently applies to, and, under this proposal, will continue to apply to, both U.S. and 

foreign air carriers, as well as ticket agents doing business in the United States. We are not 

proposing any changes to this provision, but we propose to interpret the phrase “ticket agent 

doing business in the United States” in the same manner as described in the discussion of that 

phrase in section 259.5(a) above. Consequently, a ticket agent that sells air transportation via a 

website marketed toward U.S. consumers (or that distributes other marketing material in the 

United States) is covered by section 259.5(b) even if the agent does not have a physical location 

in the United States, and such an agent must provide the disclosure required by section 259.5(b) 

during a telephone call placed from the United States even if the call is to the agent’s foreign 

location. 

(c) Disclosure of code-share at time of purchase.

With respect to written notice of code-share arrangements provided to ticket purchasers, 

we propose to retain the basic requirements listed in 14 CFR 257.5(c)(1) but delete the language 

in 14 CFR 257.5(c)(3). The basic requirements in section 257.5(c)(1) are as follows: if a codeshare flight segment has its own designated flight number, the code-share disclosure must be 

immediately adjacent to that flight number; if a single-flight number service involves one or 

more code-share segments, each code-share segment must be identified immediately adjacent to 

that flight number in the format “Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be operated by 

Jane Doe Airlines d/b/a ORS Express.” Section 257(c)(3) states that the written code-share 
66

notice required by section 257.5 (c) must accompany the ticket if the transportation is purchased 

far enough in advance of travel to allow for advance delivery of the ticket. If time does not allow 

for advance delivery of the ticket, “or in the case of ticketless travel,” the required written notice 

is to be provided no later than the time that the consumer checks in at the airport for the first 

flight in his or her itinerary.

The first part of section 257.5(c)(3) appears to refer to paper tickets, as it speaks of the 

time required for delivery of the ticket, and it draws a contrast with “ticketless travel” in the next 

sentence. (Ticketless travel is a term that used to be used for what is now referred to as 

electronic ticketing or e-tickets.) We believe that the required written notice should in all cases 

be provided “at the time of purchase” as indicated at the beginning of section 257.5(c), 

regardless of whether a paper ticket is subsequently issued or the consumer will receive an eticket. Section 257.5(c)(2) states that if a consumer does not receive an itinerary, the selling 

carrier or ticket agent must provide a separate written notice that identifies the operating carrier. 

Thus, the existing rule anticipates situations in which the required written code-share notice is 

not automatically generated by industry purchase/ticketing systems and states that in such cases 

the selling carrier or ticket agent must manually generate and furnish a written disclosure of the 

identity of the carrier(s). We do not believe that a written code-share notice that is provided at 

the airport is sufficient though currently permitted under section 257.5(c)(3) for passengers who 

purchase their air transportation in advance but do not receive a paper ticket until a date close to 

the scheduled departure date and for e-ticketed passengers including those who have purchased 

their transportation weeks or months in advance. Accordingly, we propose to make it clear that 

written code-share disclosure must be provided at the time of purchase. 
67

(d) Disclosure in city-pair specific advertisements. 

Subsection (d) deals with disclosure requirements in city-pair specific advertisements.

We are proposing to use the phrase “written advertisement” to replace the phrase “printed 

advertisement,” which in the current rule text refers to both advertisements printed in paper and 

advertisements published on the Internet. We believe the word “written” is more accurate in 

describing both formats of advertisements. 

In addition, we are proposing to add a descriptive phrase to specify the scope of the 

disclosure requirements on Internet advertisements in an effort to eliminate any possible 

ambiguity. Specifically, the current rule states that our requirements cover advertisements 

“published in or mailed to or from the United States” including those published on the Internet. 

As the Internet is a global information network, this language may leave it unclear what would 

constitute an Internet advertisement that is “published” in the United States. For example, a 

website that is hosted on a server located in the United States could arguably fall within the 

scope of our rule. Conversely, a website hosted on a server located outside of the United States 

could still be marketing airfares to consumers in the United States. For this reason, and to 

achieve consistency with the Department’s other airline consumer protection rules, we are 

proposing to specify that our code-share disclosure requirements regarding advertisements 

published on the Internet would apply to advertisements for service in, to or from the United 

States that are marketed to consumers in the United States. This standard is consistent with the 

recently amended full-fare advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84, which only covers Internet 

advertisements published on websites marketed to United States consumers. As explained in a 

Frequently Asked Questions document issued by the Department’s Enforcement Office following 

the publication of that rule, we will look at a variety of factors to determine whether a website is 
68

marketed to United States consumers, such as whether the website is in English, whether the 

seller of air transportation displays prices in U.S. dollars, or whether sales can be made to 

persons with addresses or telephone numbers in the United States. 

We note that this proposed standard will cover all advertisements appearing on a carrier’s 

or a ticket agent’s own website, as well as advertisements that are presented to U.S. consumers 

through other paid advertising venues on the Internet (such as a news media website or a travel 

blog website) and social media websites (such as Facebook or Twitter). We seek comments 

with regard to whether imposing the same standard to advertisements on all of these websites is 

reasonable and technically practical. We specifically ask what type of code-share disclosure is 

considered adequate from a consumer’s point of view, in light of the brevity of the Facebook and 

Twitter posting formats. Finally, we are proposing some editorial changes to 14 CFR 257.5. 

First, we propose to replace the term “transporting carrier”, which is used throughout section 

257.5, with the term “operating carrier” to refer to the carrier in a code-share or wet lease 

arrangement that has the operational control of a flight but does not market the flight in its own 

name. In doing so, we are trying to achieve consistency with other recently amended consumer 

protection rules, see, e.g., 14 CFR 259.4(c) (code-share partners’ responsibilities in tarmac delay 

contingency plans) and 14 CFR 399.85(e) (notice of baggage fees for code-share flights). 

Another stylistic change proposed in this NPRM concerns the example disclosure statement that 

a seller of air transportation must include in a radio or television broadcasting advertisement. 

The current sample statement includes the phrase “[s]ome services are provided by other 

airlines.” Because the words “ services” and “provided” cover a wide range of activities, 

including ground operations, customer service, etc., they do not accurately convey the 

information we intended to relate, which was regarding the actual operation of a flight. 
69

Accordingly, we propose to change the sentence to read “[s]ome flights are operated by other 

airlines.” 

7. Disclosure that Not All Carriers are Marketed and Identification of Carriers Marketed 

on Ticket Agent Websites

The Department is considering requiring large travel agents to disclose in online displays 

the fact that not all carriers that serve a particular market are marketed by the travel agent if that 

is the case. Consumers deserve complete information regarding whether a particular ticket agent 

provides flight and fare information for all carriers or just a subset of carriers. Many online 

travel agents provide flight and fare information for a significant number of carriers serving a 

particular city-pair market but not all carriers that serve that market. In some markets, they may 

not provide information regarding any carrier serving the market. Online travel agents do not 

necessarily identify the carriers whose schedule and fare information is or is not provided in 

search results. As a result, consumers may believe they are searching all possible flight options 

for a particular city-pair market when in fact there may be other options available. The Advisory 

Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection recommended that DOT require ticket agents, 

including online ticket agents, to disclose the fact that they do not offer for sale all airlines’ 

tickets, if that is the case, and that additional airlines may serve the route being searched, so that 

consumers know they may need to search elsewhere if they want to find all available air travel 

options. Accordingly, the Department is considering requiring large ticket agents, such as online 

travel agents, that operate websites that display schedules or fares and/or sell tickets for air 

transportation of more than one carrier to disclose whether they display the airfares of all carriers 

serving any market that can be searched on the travel agent’s website. One alternative would be 

to merely require travel agents to prominently note on their websites that not all U.S. air carriers 

and non-U.S. air carriers serving the U.S. are displayed on the website or marketed by the travel 
70

agent. Another option would be to prominently display a statement in connection with a search 

of a particular city pair that not all air carriers serving those cities are displayed on the website or 

marketed by the travel agent. Alternatively, online travel agents could be required to specifically 

identify all of the air carriers that are marketed by the travel agent. 

The Department is not providing rule text for this proposal. Instead, it seeks comment on 

how such a requirement should be implemented. For example, should the disclosure be made 

with a general statement on the travel agent’s home page with a link to more detailed 

information? Or should the disclosure be made through a statement on the search results page 

that displays itineraries in response to a consumer search? If the general disclosure statement is 

linked to a page with more detailed information, what additional information should be 

provided? Additionally, the Department seeks comment on whether such a rule should be 

limited to ticket agents of a certain size or should include all ticket agents, and if the rule should 

be limited to ticket agents of a certain size, what parameters should the Department use to define 

the ticket agents included in the requirement. The Department also seeks comment on the costs 

and benefits of requiring websites to state whether a particular carrier’s schedule information is 

provided on that website and of identifying those air carriers that must be included in such 

disclosure. For example, what are the costs and benefits of a disclosure that says, “These 

schedules do not include all carriers in these markets” versus a disclosure that would list the 

carriers that are included?

8. Prohibition on Undisclosed Airfare Display Bias by Ticket Agents and Carriers

In connection with electronic displays of multiple carriers’ airfares and schedules, the 

Department is proposing to prohibit any undisclosed bias in any presentation of carrier 

schedules, fares, rules or availability. A Department prohibition on airfare display bias is not 
71

unprecedented. In the past, Department regulations contained a limited prohibition on bias of 

computer terminal displays provided to travel agents by computer reservation systems (CRSs), 

the precursors to GDSs. At that time, there was a concern that the owners of the CRSs (initially 

airlines and, subsequently, other entities) would potentially engage in display bias or other 

unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive practices absent Department regulation of their 

operations (14 CFR Part 255). This rule prohibited CRSs used by travel agents from using 

factors relating to carrier identity in determining how airfares were displayed. Among other 

things, the CRSs were required to use the same editing and ranking criteria for “both on-line and 

interline connections and not give on-line connections a system-imposed preference over 

interline connections.” 14 CFR 255.4(a)(1). However, Part 255 sunset on July 31, 2004 (see 14 

CFR 255.8). 

Recently, the Enforcement Office has been informed of allegations that certain ticket 

agents, including GDSs, have biased their displays to disadvantage certain airlines in the course 

of hard-fought contract negotiations. Those ticket agents have allegedly biased the listing of 

available itineraries displayed in response to searches by consumers or travel agents on their 

websites. The display bias allegedly resulted in consumers and travel agents being presented 

with favored carriers’ fare and schedule information first. Complainants also assert that although 

some ticket agents may have received limited disclosure regarding certain instances of display 

bias, the general public received no notice or disclosure. Moreover, we are concerned that GDSs 

and other ticket agents could sell bias to certain airline competitors or bias displays toward 

carriers that pay higher segment fee compensation to GDSs and such bias could be difficult to 

detect. The prohibition would also apply to flight search tools operated by meta-search engines 
72

and similar entities engaged in the distribution of certain air transportation information. As 

discussed earlier, the Department would view such entities as being ticket agents. 

The Department is considering a regulation that would require any carrier or ticket agent 

that provides electronic display of airfare information to provide unbiased displays or disclose 

the biases in the display. The regulation would apply to all electronic displays of multiple 

carriers’ fare and schedule information, whether the display is available on an unrestricted basis, 

e.g., to the general public, or is only available to travel agents who sell to the public. The 

requirement to provide unbiased displays or disclose biases in the display would also apply to 

electronic displays used for corporate travel unless a corporation agrees by contract to biases in 

the display used by its employees for business travel. If not, the regulation would require 

carriers and ticket agents that provide airfare information electronically to display the lowest 

generally available airfares and most direct routings that meet the parameters of the search in 

response to an inquiry for an airfare quotation for a specific itinerary. It would also prohibit 

biasing displays such that less direct routings that are equivalently priced, or more expensive 

fares with an equally direct routing, and that meet the parameters of a search, are displayed more 

prominently or earlier in the search results list than a more direct routing or a lower fare simply 

to benefit a particular favored carrier or penalize a disfavored carrier. In the alternative, carriers 

and ticket agents could provide biased displays so long as they have prominent and specific 

disclosure of the bias. The requirements would apply to displays in response to airfare inquiries 

by a consumer for a particular itinerary and displays in response to airfare inquiries made by a 

travel agent or other intermediary in the sale of air transportation for a particular itinerary. 

Under this proposal, undisclosed display bias would not be permitted on displays publicly 

available directly to consumers or displays directed toward travel agents, such as those working 
73

for corporations or other travel management companies. To the extent the consumer or travel 

agent placed restrictions on the search, for example, by limiting to one or more specific carriers 

or classes of service, the display would not be considered to contain undisclosed display bias as 

long as the display disclosed the lowest available fares and most direct itineraries that met the 

search parameters. In addition to prohibiting display bias, the Department is considering 

requiring any ticket agent that decided to bias its displays and disclose the existence of bias to 

also disclose any incentive payments it is receiving. We seek comment on what kind of 

disclosure of the existence of incentive payments would be most helpful for consumers. When 

providing notice, should the ticket agent list the companies, air carriers, and foreign air carriers 

offering the incentives? If so, should the list rank companies in order of the company providing 

the incentives of the greatest monetary value? Or should it group them based on whether the 

incentive is provided in the form of payments, rebates, discounts, commissions, volume-based 

compensation, or another method? Should the requirement apply to incentives earned by the 

travel agent in the previous calendar year or some other time period? Should it be limited to 

incentives with a certain monetary value?

The Department seeks comment on whether the prohibition on display bias should be 

limited to airfare and routings. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of a prohibition 

on display bias.

9. Prohibition on Post-Purchase Price Increases for Baggage Fees

In the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule, the Department prohibited an 

air carrier or agent from increasing the price of air transportation after the passenger purchases a 

ticket. Under 14 CFR 399.88, carriers and other sellers of air transportation are now prohibited 

from increasing the price of air transportation to a particular passenger after the purchase of a 
74

ticket, including but not limited to the price of a seat, the price for the carriage of passenger 

baggage, and the price for any applicable fuel surcharge. The rule includes a limited exception 

for an increase in a government-imposed tax or charge. In response to questions received after 

publication of the final rule, the Department’s Enforcement Office clarified that there could not 

be an increase to a particular passenger in the charge for any ancillary service after a ticket is 

purchased, including services not purchased with the ticket. The reasoning behind this was 

twofold. First, by using the phrase “including but not limited to” when describing the types of 

items that sellers of air transportation are prohibiting from price increases after ticket purchase, 

the Department made it clear that these items are simply examples and not an exhaustive list. 

Second, under the disclosure requirements of 14 CFR 399.85(c), sellers of air transportation are 

required to inform passengers about baggage charges on their e-ticket confirmations as a means 

of preventing consumers from being surprised about hidden fees. If these fees could change after 

the passenger purchases the ticket, the information provided in the e-ticket would be useless. 

However, after the rule became final, certain carriers raised concerns that had not been 

raised previously: that a prohibition on an increase in the price of any ancillary service after a 

ticket purchase could prove cumbersome for carriers in practice. For example, one passenger 

might be entitled to pay a lesser amount for a drink or a snack than the passenger sitting next to 

him or her. They contended that the cost of developing systems to keep track of the price of 

every ancillary service at the time of passenger purchase and charging those prices on an 

individualized basis would be prohibitive. 

In light of the problems in application of the rule as it relates to ancillary services that are 

not purchased with the ticket, the Enforcement Office issued Guidance on Price Increases of 

Ancillary Services and Products not Purchased with the Ticket on December 28, 2011. In that 
75

guidance, the Department’s Enforcement Office noted that the Department had decided to revisit 

the issue through a further rulemaking to examine the application of the rule to fees for ancillary 

services not purchased with the ticket. The Department also announced that with respect to fees 

for ancillary services that were not purchased with the air transportation, it would only enforce 

the prohibition on post-purchase price increases for carry-on bags and first and second checked 

bags. The application of the prohibition of the post-purchase price increase was also at issue in a 

lawsuit filed by two airlines against the Department. The court considered the rule as applied 

under the December 28, 2011, guidance and upheld the Department’s rule prohibiting postpurchase price increases as it is currently being applied. Spirit Airlines, Inc., v. U.S. Dept. of 

Transportation (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2012), slip op. at 20-21. Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied 

on April 1, 2013.

The Department is now proposing to modify 14 CFR 399.88 to prohibit a price increase 

after the purchase of air transportation for any mandatory charge the consumer must pay (such as 

the air fare or an applicable fuel surcharge), and the price for the carriage of any passenger 

baggage. Sellers of air transportation would also continue to be prohibited from increasing the 

price of any ancillary service after it is purchased. The logistical and financial burdens placed on 

carriers related to ancillary services other than baggage that are not purchased with the ticket are 

too great. Ensuring that in-flight crew have the information and tools to impose varying service 

fees depending on when a passenger purchased a ticket would likely lead to unreasonable costs 

for carriers, significant confusion, and ultimately consumer harm by incentivizing carriers to set 

prices for ancillary services artificially high. However, the Department believes that transporting 

baggage is intrinsic to air transportation and baggage fees are a major factor for consumers when 

deciding which air transportation to purchase, and should be subject to the rule prohibiting post-
76

purchase price increases. Therefore, under the proposed rule, the price for the transportation of 

passenger baggage that applies when a passenger buys a ticket is the price that they will pay, 

even if they do not pay for the transportation of baggage at the time they purchase the ticket. 

This interpretation is consistent with guidance given by the Department in 2008 which states that 

“[i]n no case should more restrictive baggage policies or additional charges be applied 

retroactively to a consumer who purchased his or her ticket at a time when the charges did not 

apply, or when a lower charge applied.” Notice of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, ‘‘Guidance on Disclosure of Policies and Charges Associated 

with Checked Baggage,’’ May 13, 2008. 

In addition, under the revised 14 CFR 399.88, after a ticket is purchased, carriers and 

other sellers of air transportation would continue to be prohibited from raising the price of the air 

transportation or of ancillary services that are purchased with the ticket. For example, if a 

passenger buys a ticket that costs $200 (total fare, inclusive of taxes and fees) and pays an 

additional $25.00 for a priority boarding pass, and the carrier subsequently increases the price of 

a priority boarding pass effective on a date before this passenger travels, the carrier cannot 

retroactively increase the price for the consumer who already purchased their priority boarding 

pass. The new 14 CFR 399.88 would still allow for the limited exception of an increase in the 

price of a ticket if there is an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee; that tax/fee could still 

be retroactively applied to the passenger’s travel if the required notice is provided to consumers 

prior to the ticket purchase. However, any other increase in price of any already purchased 

ancillary service would constitute an unfair and deceptive practice. 

The Department is also considering the alternative of keeping the original interpretation 

of the rule. Under this interpretation, the price of ancillary services and products for a given 
77

consumer is capped at the time that he or she purchases the air transportation whether or not 

these items are purchased along with the air transportation, as the existence of a fee for other 

services or products related to the air transportation, as well as the amount of any such fee, can 

influence a customer’s purchasing decision. The Department invites comments on the costs and 

benefits of retaining the rule as originally interpreted and on the new proposal to prohibit only an 

increase in the price of the carriage of baggage if not purchased with the fare. 

Finally, the Department is also contemplating revising the post-purchase price provision 

to better address the issue of “mistaken fares.” As explained above, section 399.88 essentially 

bans sellers of air transportation from increasing the price of an airline ticket to a consumer who 

has purchased and paid for the ticket in full. As a result, the Department’s Enforcement Office 

explained in a guidance document that, under section 399.88, “if a consumer purchases a fare 

and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase 

appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the 

seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, 

even when the fare is a ‘mistake.’” Since then, the Enforcement Office has investigated a 

number of incidents where passengers complained that airlines or ticket agents would not honor 

tickets that had been paid for in full because the sellers of the air transportation erroneously let 

them book flights for less than the actual value. The Enforcement Office has become concerned

that increasingly mistaken fares are getting posted on frequent-flyer community blogs and traveldeal sites, and individuals are purchasing these tickets in bad faith and not on the mistaken belief 

that a good deal is now available. We solicit comment on how best to address the problem of 

individual bad actors while still ensuring that airlines and other sellers of air transportation are 

required to honor mistaken fares that were reasonably relied upon by consumers.
78

Additionally, industry and consumers have raised questions regarding when 

transportation is considered to touch upon the United States and thus covered by the prohibition 

on post-purchase price increases. Currently, section 399.88 states that it is an unfair and 

deceptive practice for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United 

States or of a tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or 

from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation to a consumer after the air 

transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of a government-imposed 

tax or fee and only if the passenger is advised of a possible increase before purchasing a ticket. 

We are considering defining the phrase “air transportation within, to, or from the United States” 

for the purposes of this section to mean any transportation that begins or ends in the United 

States or involves a connection or stopover in the United States that is 24 hours or longer. We 

ask for comments on whether this new definition would provide greater clarity to members of the 

public and the regulated entities on when sellers of air transportation would be required to honor 

mistaken fares.

10. Amendments/corrections to second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule and 

certain other provisions 

In response to questions and concerns from airlines and other regulated entities, the 

proposed amendments to the rules described below are intended to correct drafting errors, 

provide clarifications and reflect minor changes to the second Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections rule to increase consistency and conform to guidance issued by the Department’s 

Enforcement Office regarding its interpretation of the rule. On its own initiative, the Department 

is also making administrative changes to another rule.
79

a. Baggage Disclosure Requirements under Sections 399.85(a) and (b)

In sections 399.85(a) and 399.85(b) the final rule inadvertently refers to websites that are 

“accessible” from the United States. In this NPRM, we are proposing to codify the guidance 

given in Frequently Asked Question #25, page 25, and amend sections 399.85(a) and 399.85(b) 

to reflect the intended applicability of those sections to websites “marketed to” U.S. consumers. 

This change also makes sections 399.85(a) and 399.85(b) consistent with the other provisions in 

14 CFR 399.85 that apply to websites that market air transportation to U.S. consumers. The 

Department invites comment on this proposal.

In further regard to section 399.85(b), after issuing the rule and assisting carriers and 

online travel agents with their efforts to come into compliance, it became clear that the 

Enforcement Office needed to clarify two aspects of this disclosure rule. The first issue is when 

a carrier or agent needs to notify a passenger that “baggage fees may apply.” The rule text states 

that an agent or carrier must “clearly and prominently disclose on the first screen in which the 

agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that 

additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can see these baggage fees.” 

Although section 399.85(b) may be amended in accordance with the proposal regarding the 

“[d]isplay of ancillary service fees through all sales channels,” if the Department decides not to 

adopt that proposal it would amend section 399.85(b) to conform to the guidance previously 

issued. In that case, section 399.85(b) would state that the first screen on which the carrier offers 

a fare quotation after a passenger initiates a search for flight itineraries must include notification 

that baggage fees may apply. For example, if a passenger performs a search for flights from San 

Francisco to Dallas on a carrier or agent’s website, the first page displayed in response to that 

search that includes a fare quote must also note that baggage fees may apply. The second issue 
80

is that the Department wishes to clarify that in showing “where consumers can see these baggage 

fees,” the search results screen of the website of the agent or carrier must include a hyperlink that 

takes the consumer to the up-to-date and accurate baggage fee listings. An agent may link to a 

chart of information that it generates itself, to a third party site containing the information, or to 

the carrier’s page, as it is allowed to do under the current rule. 

b. Standard Applicable to Reportable Tarmac Delays Under Part 244

In 14 CFR Part 244, the Department requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to file Form 

244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the Department with respect to any covered flight that 

experienced a lengthy departure or arrival delay on the tarmac at a large, medium, small, or nonhub U.S. airport. A “lengthy” tarmac delay for purposes of this report is defined in Part 244 as

any tarmac delay that lasts “three hours or more.” This standard is inconsistent with the standard 

applicable to the tarmac delay contingency plan requirements under 14 CFR Part 259 and the 

existing reporting requirements of BTS, both of which refer to any tarmac delay of “more than 

three hours.” In a Frequently Asked Questions document issued by the Department following 

the issuance of the final rule for Part 244, we acknowledged this discrepancy and stated that we 

intend to correct it in a future rulemaking. In this NPRM, we are proposing to amend the rule 

text of Part 244 and to adopt the “more than three hours” standard so this Part would be 

consistent with other Parts of our rules. Under this proposal, any tarmac delay that lasts exactly 

three hours would not be covered under the requirements of Part 244. 

c. Civil penalty for tarmac delay violations

In the first and second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections final rule, the 

Department stated that failure to comply with the assurances required by the tarmac delay rule 

will be considered an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 that 
81

is subject to enforcement action by the Department. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301, the Department 

has authority to impose a civil penalty of “of not more than $27,500” for each violation of the 

specifically listed aviation-related laws and regulations, which would include DOT’s tarmac 

delay rule. Nevertheless, in recent years, there have been questions raised as to whether the 

Department has the authority under the civil penalty statute (49 U.S.C. § 46301) to assess a civil 

penalty on a per passenger basis for tarmac delay violations. As such, we are amending the 

tarmac delay rule to clarify that the Department may impose penalties for tarmac delay violations 

on a per passenger basis. 

It has long been the Department’s policy that each consumer affected by an unlawful 

carrier practice is a separate violation. For example, if a flight is canceled and ten people on that 

flight cannot be rerouted and thus are entitled to a refund of their unused transportation, and the 

carrier fails to comply with the Department’s refund rules, each person whose refund was not 

provided in compliance with our rules would constitute a separate violation. Similarly, if five 

people were involuntarily denied boarding from an oversold flight and none were paid denied 

boarding compensation as required by our oversales rule that would be five violations. Our 

authority to calculate a civil penalty on a per passenger basis for tarmac delay violations is just as 

clear. Each passenger on a flight that experiences a tarmac delay that exceeds three hours for 

domestic flights or four hours for international flights experiences the inconvenience that this 

rule was designed to prevent and gives rise to a separate violation. Likewise, each passenger 

who is not offered food and water at the two-hour mark during a tarmac delay gives rise to a 

separate violation. Indeed, a number of carriers have recognized this fact and complained in 

public filings and press reports of the prospect of incurring $27,500 per passenger in fines for 

tarmac delay violations. 
82

The purpose of the tarmac delay rule is clearly to mitigate hardships for individual airline 

passengers during lengthy tarmac delays. To that end, the rule requires carriers to develop 

contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays, and to provide an assurance that the carrier will not 

allow an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours for domestic flights and for 

more than four hours for international flights without each passenger being given an opportunity 

to deplane. The preambles to both the first and second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

final rules refer to protecting individual passengers. Carriers are also required to tell passengers 

what they can expect by posting their contingency plans on their website. To the extent that 

carriers do not live up to the assurances that they provided to any passenger, it is an unfair and 

deceptive practice with respect to each affected passenger and therefore a separate violation of 

49 U.S.C. § 41712 with respect to each such passenger. 

d. Required Oral Disclosure of Material Restrictions on Travel Vouchers Offered to 

Potential Volunteers In Oversale Situations Under Part 250

Another inconsistency in the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections final rule 

concerns the requirement in 14 CFR Part 250 to provide oral disclosure of any material 

restrictions on travel vouchers offered to any passenger a carrier solicits to voluntarily give up

his or her confirmed reservation on an oversold flight. The preamble to the final rule discussed 

extensively the reason for requiring such oral disclosure to both voluntarily and involuntarily 

bumped passengers who are orally offered a voucher, but inadvertently, the new Part 250 rule 

text only requires oral disclosures to passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding. The rule 

text, as it currently stands, allows carriers to provide such disclosure solely by written notice to 

passengers who are orally solicited to be volunteers in exchange for travel vouchers. However, 

for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

rule, we are unconvinced that such written notice alone is adequate at times when the solicitation 
83

itself is oral and passengers are constrained by time pressure to make a quick decision as to 

whether to volunteer. Many times, the written notice is incorporated in the printed contents of 

the travel voucher, and the passenger frequently would not have time to review the notice before 

he or she commits to the acceptance of the voucher. We continue to believe that a brief oral

summary of the material restrictions applicable to the travel vouchers that are orally offered to 

potential volunteers (as well as continuation of the requirement to orally disclose this 

information to involuntarily bumped passengers who are offered the option of a travel voucher) 

will provide further protections to these passengers so they can make an informed decision. As 

such, we are proposing to amend section 250.2b(c) to reflect this notion. Under this proposal, 

when carriers orally solicit volunteers and offer travel vouchers as incentives, they would also be 

required to orally describe any material restrictions applicable to the travel vouchers.

e. Limitation of Flight Status Notification Requirement of 14 CFR 259.8 

Section 259.8 requires that covered carriers must notify passengers and other interested 

persons of flight status changes within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of such 

changes. Flight status changes in this section include a flight cancellation, a delay of more than 

30 minutes, or a diversion. Although the preamble and rule text did not specify how far in 

advance of the date of the scheduled operation carriers must comply with the notification 

requirements, the Frequently Asked Questions guidance document issued by the Enforcement 

Office in relation to the second Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule stated that, as an 

enforcement policy, the rule applies to any flight status changes that occur within seven calendar 

days of the scheduled date of the operation. See Frequently Asked Questions, Section VIII, #2. 

We further explained that the purpose of this rule is to avoid or reduce unnecessary waits at, or 

pointless trips to, an airport, which are most likely to occur on the date of the scheduled travel. 
84

Therefore, the closer to the date of the scheduled operation, the more important it is for carriers 

to provide notice of a flight status change promptly. In this NPRM, we propose to codify this 

“seven-calendar-day” timeframe as we believe that requiring carriers to provide notifications of 

schedule changes within 30 minutes after they become aware of such changes is not necessary if 

the changes occur more than seven days before the date of the operation. To require 

notifications within 30 minutes for changes occurring more than seven days in advance of the 

date of operation would likely greatly increase carriers’ burden yet result in little additional 

benefit to the public. We do emphasize, however, that notifications of changes that occur earlier 

than the seven-day threshold are still required to be delivered to the passengers in a timely 

manner; see 14 CFR 259.5(b)(10). 

We are also proposing some editorial changes to section 259.8 to clarify that flight status 

change notifications required in this section should be provided not only to passengers, but also 

to any member of the public who may be affected by the changes, including persons meeting 

passengers at airports or escorting them to or from airports. This is a point we made clear in the 

preamble of the final rule document but not in the rule text. In this regard, we are proposing to 

change the word “passengers” to “consumers” in the title of section 259.8, to change the first

instance of the word “passengers” in subsection 259.8(a)(1) to the phrase “passengers and other 

interested persons,” and to change the second instance of that word to “subscribers.” 

f. Removing the Rebating Provision in Section 399.80(h) 

Section 399.80(h) states that it is an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of 

competition for a ticket agent to advertise or sell air transportation at less than the rates specified 

in the tariff of the air carrier, or offer rebates or concessions, or permit persons to obtain air 

transportation at less than the lawful fares and rates. This provision is a vestige of the period 
85

before deregulation of the airline industry. Domestic air fares were deregulated effective 1983, 

and in most cases international air fares to and from the United States are no longer contained in 

tariffs that specify “lawful” fares. In those markets where international fares are still subject to 

regulation, carriers that do not comply with their tariff are potentially subject to enforcement 

action under 49 U.S.C. § 41510 concerning adherence to tariffs or 49 U.S.C. § 41712 concerning 

unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition (the statutory basis for section 

399.80(h)). The Department’s Enforcement Office has said that it will pursue enforcement 

action against a carrier that does not comply with its tariff when there is clear evidence of a 

pattern of direct consumer fraud or deception, invidious discrimination, or violations of the 

antitrust laws. It has been the longstanding policy of that office to decline to prosecute instances 

of noncompliance with tariff obligations that result in benefits to consumers absent clear 

evidence of such behavior. (See the Frequently Asked Questions for “Rule #2” of the Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections regulation, www.dot.gov/individuals/air-consumer/aviation-rules, 

section X, question 38a, footnote 1.) There have been no enforcement actions solely for tariff 

compliance for over 20 years, and should such action become appropriate in the future it can 

proceed under the authority of sections 41510 or 41712. 14 CFR 399.80(h) is not necessary, and 

consequently we are proposing to remove this provision.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures

This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the 

Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget under that Executive Order. The Regulatory Evaluation finds 

that the costs for the proposed rule exceed the monetized benefits as the benefits from all 
86

provisions, with the exception of provision 2, could not be measured and valued with confidence.

The benefits which could be estimated for provision 2 do not include the value of all likely 

benefits, as values for some of those could not be adequately estimated. The total present value 

of monetized passenger benefits from the proposed requirements over a 10-year period at a 7% 

discount rate is $25.1 million and the total present value of monetized costs incurred by carriers 

and other sellers of air transportation over a 10-year period at a 7% discount rate is $80.5

million. The net present cost of the rule for 10 years at a 7% discount rate is $53.8 million. 

However, if the value of the unquantified benefits, per passenger, is any amount greater than one 

cent, and unquantified costs are minimal, then the entire rule is net beneficial. In other words, if 

passengers are willing to pay, on average, one penny per trip for all eight provisions of the 

proposal, then the value of the proposal outweighs its costs.

Below, we have included a table outlining the projected costs and benefits of this 

rulemaking. 

Table: Summary of Costs and Benefits Over 10 Years, Discounted at 7 percent (Millions $)

Provisions

10 Year Analysis Period

7% Discount Rate

Costs Benefits Net Benefits

1 Definition of Ticket Agent 

Monetized Costs and Benefits N/A N/A N/A

2 Carriers provide ancillary fee information to ticket agencies for display 

Monetized Costs and Benefits $46.2 $25.1 ($21.1)

Unquantified/ non-monetized benefits or costs Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX 

Needed for Benefits to Equal or Exceed 

Costs

Greater Competition and Lower Overall Prices for Ancillary 

service fees 
87

Provisions

10 Year Analysis Period

7% Discount Rate

Costs Benefits Net Benefits

Greater Efficiency by Consumers in Flight Purchases Less than $0.00

(21.06 M net cost / 1,666 M travelers 

purchasing via internet - 10 yrs)

Unquantified/ non-monetized Costs:

May Inhibit New Entrants 

May Decrease Carrier Flexibility to Customize Services

3 & 4

Expand reporting threshold to 0.50% and reporting as mainline carriers and code-share partners 

combined

Monetized Costs and Benefits $29.8 N/A ($29.8)

Unquantified/ non-monetized benefits:

Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX 

Needed for Benefits to Equal or 

Improved On-Time Performance for Newly Reporting Carriers 

and Code-Share Flights for All Reporting Carriers 

Exceed Costs

$0.7 

Improved Handling of Baggage for Newly Reporting Carriers 

and Code-Share Flights for All Reporting Carriers

($29.75 M net cost / 43.9 M PAX on newly 

reporting carriers 10 yrs) 

Decrease in Oversales to

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Carriers Less than $0.00 

Insurance Value

($29.75M net cost / 7,335 M all domestic 

PAX 10 yrs)

Improved Public Oversight of the Industry

Unquantified/ non-monetized Costs:

Increased Training Costs for Gathering Data to Report (some 

carriers only)

Increased Management Costs To Improve Carrier Performance 

5 Minimum customer service standards for ticket agents

Monetized Costs and Benefits $3.0 N/A ($3.0)
88

Provisions

10 Year Analysis Period

7% Discount Rate

Costs Benefits Net Benefits

Unquantified/ non-monetized benefits:

Value of Unquantified Benefits per PAX 

Needed for Benefits to Equal or Exceed 

Costs

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Ticket Agents Less than $0.00

Reduced Legal and Administrative Costs to Manage 

Complaints

(2.95 M net cost / 3,405 M domestic PAX 

purchasing via travel agents 10 yrs)

Faster Resolution of Complaints/Refunds

Potential Increase in Competitiveness of Travel Agents vs. 

Carriers with Customer Protections Similar to Carriers

Unquantified/ non-monetized Costs:

Increased Training Costs 

Increased Management Costs 

Increased Staff Time 

6 Disclosure of code-share segments in schedules, advertisements and communications with consumers

Monetized Costs and Benefits N/A N/A N/A

7 Disclosure of carriers marketed by ticket agents (no proposed rule text – seeking comments)

8 Prohibition on undisclosed biasing 

Monetized Costs and Benefits N/A N/A N/A

Unquantified/ non-monetized benefits:

Decrease in Incentive Payments to Ticket Agents from Carriers 

Potentially Leading to Lower Costs to Consumers 

Potential Decrease in Consumers Not Noticing Flights which 

Better Meet Their Criteria

Unquantified/ non-monetized Costs:
89

Provisions

10 Year Analysis Period

7% Discount Rate

Costs Benefits Net Benefits

Programming Costs to Change Ranking Software/Systems or to 

Post Notice

Legal Costs to Adjust Existing Contracts Currently Requiring 

Preferential Display

9 Prohibition of post-purchase price increase for ancillary service fees 

Monetized Costs and Benefits N/A N/A N/A

Unquantified/ non-monetized benefits:

Improved Customer Good Will Towards Ticket Agents

Reduced Legal and Administrative Costs to Manage Complaints

TOTAL (All Proposed Provisions)* $80.5 $25.1 ($53.8)

Value of Unquantified Benefits Per Passenger Needed for $0.01

*Note: Details may not sum to totals in table due to rounding.

We invite comment on the quantification of costs and benefits for each provision, as well as the 

methodology used to develop our cost and benefit estimates. We also seek comment on how 

unquantified costs and benefits could be measured. More detail on the estimates within this 

table can be found in the preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this proposed 

rule.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review 

regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not 

expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The 

regulatory initiatives discussed in this NPRM would have some impact on some small entities. A 
90

direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only 

with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 

399.73. A travel agency is considered to be small if it makes $3.5 million or less in annual 

revenues. While most of the proposals in this rulemaking impact carriers, certain elements also 

impact ticket/travel agents. 

The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis found that there are some costs, though not 

substantial, to certain small entities from provision 3 which would expand the definition of a 

reporting carrier to one that accounts for at least 0.5% of domestic scheduled passenger 

revenues; provision 4, which would expand the reporting requirements for reporting carriers to 

include an additional, combined set of reports for both the carrier’s own flights and its codeshare partner flights; and provision 2, which would require that U.S. and foreign air carriers and 

ticket agents disclose certain ancillary service fees to a consumer who requests such information. 

Our analysis estimates that a total of 87 small U.S. and foreign air carriers may be 

impacted by this rulemaking. We believe that the economic impact on these entities would not 

be significant. The estimated cost to small carriers from all the provisions would be $ 5.1 

million for the first year and $ 24.7 million for a 10-year period discounted at 7 percent. On the 

basis of this examination, I certify that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. A copy of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis has been placed in docket. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132 (‘‘Federalism’’). This notice does not propose any provision that (1) has

substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the 
91

States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; 

(2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts 

State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation 

Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive 

Order 13132 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13084

This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13084 (‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’).

Because none of the options on which we are seeking comment would significantly or uniquely 

affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not 

apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

This NPRM proposes two new collections of information that would require approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–13, 49 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency 

submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document 

in the Federal Register providing notice of the proposed collection of information and a 60-day 

comment period, and must otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection.

The first collection of information proposed here is a requirement that more carriers 

report on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales data to the Department (i.e., 

expansion of reporting carriers from any U.S. airline that accounts for at least one percent of 
92

annual domestic scheduled passenger revenue to any U.S. airline that accounts for at least 0.5 

percent of annual domestic scheduled-passenger revenues). The second information collection is 

a requirement that mainline carriers provide enhanced reporting for their domestic code-share 

partner operations including requiring reporting carriers to separately report on-time 

performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales data for all domestic scheduled passenger 

flights marketed by the reporting carriers. 

For each of these information collections, the title, a description of the respondents, and 

an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden are set forth below:

1. Requirement for more carriers to report on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and 

oversales data to the Department.

Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate passenger service and account for at least 0.5 percent of 

domestic passenger service, but less than 1 percent of domestic passenger service (eight new 

reporting carriers, among which five carriers do not market directly to consumers and three

carriers market directly to consumers).

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: The first-year cost for eight new reporting carriers 

would total 26,877 hours, or 3,360 hours on average (for eight carriers). For each of the five new 

reporting carriers that do not market directly to consumers, the costs would include the 

following: (1) one-time cost to set up systems to collect and report the data for each newly 

reporting carrier of 1,118 hours (set-up costs of $100,762 divided by hourly cost of $90.10, both 

figures derived from respondent interviews); and (2) an annual cost for each newly reporting 

carrier to report data regarding on-time performance, baggage, and oversales of 496 hours (480 

hours to collect data for form 234 and 16 hours to collect data for form 251). For each of the 

three new reporting carrier that market directly to consumers, the costs would include the 

following: (1) one-time cost to set up systems to collect and report the data for each newly 
93

reporting carrier of 1,118 hours (set-up costs of $100,762 divided by hourly cost of $90.10, both 

figures derived from respondent interviews); (2) an annual cost for each newly reporting carriers 

to report data regarding on-time performance, baggage, and oversales of 496 hours (480 hours to 

collect data for form 234 and 16 hours to collect data for form 251); and (3) one-time cost for 

setting up systems to post flight on-time performance information on the carrier’s website of 

4,655 hours (set-up costs of $419,394 divided by hourly cost of $90.10).

Estimated Total Annual Burden: First year costs total 26,877 which would include the system 

set-up costs for new reporting carriers of 8,944 hours (8 carriers times 1,118 hours each), annual 

labor cost for new reporting carriers to report data of 3,968 hours (8 carriers times 496 hours 

each), 13,965 hours (for three carriers to set up systems to post on-time performance data on 

their websites). Burdens for subsequent years would be 4,528 hours on average annually for 

reporting carriers to collect and report their own data regarding on-time performance, baggage,

and oversales.

Frequency: Monthly for on-time performance and baggage reports and posting on-time 

performance on marketing carriers’ websites; quarterly for filing oversales report; estimates of 

burden are annual.

2. Requirement for reporting carriers that market code-share flights to report their codeshare flights in addition to their own flights to provide enhanced reporting for domestic 

code-share partner operations.

Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate passenger service and account for at least 0.5 percent of 

domestic passenger service and market code-share partners (9 existing reporting carriers that 

market code-share flights).

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: The annual cost for each code-share partner to 

process and report data regarding on-time performance, mishandled baggage, and oversales to 
94

each separate marketing, reporting carrier with which it code-shares would be 496 hours (480 

hours to collect data for form 234 and 16 hours to collect data for form 251), whether or not the 

marketing carrier compensates its code-share partner for the costs or the code-share partner takes 

the burden itself.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total first-year burden would be 30,752 hours (62 codeshare partners’ times 496 hours each). Each year after the first year, the total average burden 

would be 34,731 hours (higher than the first year to reflect the rate of growth of flights and 

passengers over the 10 year period of analysis). These estimates likely overestimate the actual 

costs to some carriers that code-share with multiple partners. Carriers that code-share any flights 

with more than one code-share partners should experience some efficiencies in the collection, 

management, and reporting of data regarding those flights for use by multiple code-share 

partners. 

Frequency: Monthly reports for on-time performance and mishandled baggage; quarterly reports 

for oversales; estimates of burden are annual.

The Department invites interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of each of 

these two information collections, including the following: (1) The necessity and utility of the

information collection, (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the

burden of collection without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included, or both, in the request for 

OMB approval of these information collections.
95

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this NPRM.

ISSUED THIS DAY OF , 2014, IN WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________

Anthony R. Foxx,

Secretary of Transportation.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Parts 234, 244, 250, 255, 256, 257, 259 and 399

PART 234-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 234 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. § 329 and chapters 401 and 417.

2. The definitions of “reporting carrier” in 14 CFR 234.2 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 234.2 Definitions

* * * * *

Reporting carrier means an air carrier certificated under 49 U.S.C. § 41102 that accounted for at 

least 0.5 percent of domestic scheduled-passenger revenues in the most recently reported 12-

month period as defined by the Department’s Office of Airline Information, and as reported to 

the Department pursuant to Part 241 of this title. Reporting carriers will be identified 

periodically in accounting and reporting directives issued by the Office of Airline Information. 
96

* * * * *

3. Section 234.3 is amended to read as follows:

§ 234.3 Applicability.

This part applies to certain domestic scheduled passenger flights that are held out to the public by 

certificated air carriers that account for at least 0.5 percent of domestic scheduled passenger 

revenues. Certain provisions also apply to voluntary reporting of on-time performance by 

carriers.

4. Section 234.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (k) to read as 

follows:

§ 234.4 Reporting of on-time performance.

(a) Each reporting carrier shall file BTS Form 234 “On-Time Flight Performance Report” 

with the Office of Airline Information of the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics on 

a monthly basis, setting forth the information for each of its reportable flights operated by the 

reporting carrier and held out to the public on the reporting carrier’s website and the websites of 

major online travel agencies, or in other generally recognized sources of schedule information. 

(See also paragraph (k) of this section.) 

* * * * *

(k) Each reporting carrier shall file a separate BTS Form 234 “On-Time Flight Performance 

Report” with the Office of Airline Information on a monthly basis, setting forth the information 

for each of its reportable flights held out with the reporting carrier’s code on the reporting 

carrier’s website, on the websites of major online travel agencies, or in other generally 

recognized sources of schedule information, including reportable flights operated by any codeshare partner that is a certificated air carrier or commuter air carrier. The report shall be made in 
97

a form and manner consistent with the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) through (j) of this 

section. 

5. Section 234.6 is amended by removing the existing paragraph and adding paragraphs (a) and 

(b) to read as follows:

§ 234.6 Baggage-handling statistics.

(a) Each reporting carrier shall report monthly to the Department on a domestic system basis, 

excluding charter flights, the total number of checked bags, including gate checked baggage, the 

total number of wheelchairs and scooters transported in the aircraft cargo compartment, the total 

number of mishandled checked bags, including gate checked baggage, and the number of 

mishandled wheelchairs and scooters that were carried in the cargo compartment. Each 

reporting carrier shall submit a separate monthly report on the mishandled baggage, wheelchairs 

and scooters as described above for all domestic scheduled passenger flight segments that are 

held out with the reporting carrier’s code on the reporting carrier’s website, on the websites of 

major online travel agencies, or in other generally recognized sources of schedule information, 

including flights operated by code-share partners that are certificated air carriers or commuter air 

carriers. For flights operated by a code-share partner that also carry passengers ticketed under 

another carrier’s code, the reporting carrier shall only report baggage information applicable to 

passengers ticketed under its own code. 

(b) This information shall be submitted to the Department within 15 days after the end of the 

month to which the information applies and must be submitted with the transmittal letter 

accompanying the data for on-time performance in the form and manner set forth in accounting 

and reporting directives issued by the Director, Office of Airline Information. 
98

PART 244 - [AMENDED]

6. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 244 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. § § 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712.

7. Section 244.2 is amended by removing the last sentence of paragraph (a) and replacing it 

with the following sentence to read as follows:

§ 244.2 Applicability.

(a) * * * Covered carriers must report all passenger operations that experience a tarmac time 

of more than 3 hours at a U.S. airport. 

* * * * *

8. Section 244.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data.

(a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS Form 244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the Office of 

Airline Information of the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics setting forth the 

information for each of its covered flights that experienced a tarmac delay of more than 3 hours, 

including diverted flights and cancelled flights on which the passengers were boarded and then 

deplaned before the cancellation. The reports are due within 15 days after the end of any month 

during which the carrier experienced any reportable tarmac delay of more than 3 hours at a U.S. 

airport. 

* * * * * 

PART 250 - [AMENDED]

9. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 250 continues to read as follows:
99

Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401, 411, 413 and 417.

10. Section 250.2b is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding.

* * * * * 

(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate air transportation as compensation to volunteers, 

the carrier must disclose all material restrictions, including but not limited to administrative fees, 

advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer before the 

passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed reserved space on the flight in 

exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation. If the free or reduced rate air transportation 

is offered orally to potential volunteers, the carrier shall also orally provide a brief description of 

the material restrictions on that transportation at the same time that the offer is made. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 250.5(c)(3) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of that paragraph, to 

read “(See also section 250.9(c)).” 

12. Section 250.10 is amended to read as follows:

§ 250.10 Report of passengers denied confirmed space.

(a) Each reporting carrier as defined in § 234.2 of this chapter and any carrier that 

voluntarily submits data pursuant to § 234.7 of this chapter shall file, on a quarterly basis, the 

information specified in BTS Form 251. The reporting basis shall be flight segments originating 

in the United States operated by the reporting carrier. The reports must be submitted within 30 

days after the end of the quarter covered by the report. The calendar quarters end March 31, 
100

June 30, September 30 and December 31. “Total Boardings” on Line 7 of Form 251 shall 

include only passengers on flights for which confirmed reservations are offered. Data shall not 

be included for inbound international flights. 

(b) Each reporting carrier and voluntary reporting carrier shall file a separate BTS Form 251 

for all flight segments originating in the United States operated under the reporting carrier’s 

code, including flight segments operated by a code-share partner that is a certificated air carrier 

or commuter air carrier using aircraft that have a designed passenger capacity of 30 or more 

seats. For code-share flight segments that also carry passengers ticketed under another carrier’s 

code, the reporting carrier shall only report information applicable to passengers ticketed under 

its own code. 

13. The text of 14 CFR Part 255, which sunset on July 31, 2004, via operation of section 

255.8 but whose text was not removed from the Code of Federal Regulations, is removed and 

replaced with “Reserved.”

14. A new Part 256 is added to read as follows:

Part 256 – Electronic Airline Information Systems

§ 256.1 — Purpose.

§ 256.2 — Applicability.

§ 256.3 — Definitions.

§ 256.4 — Accurate EAIS display of information and prohibition of undisclosed display bias.

§ 256.5 — Prohibition against inducing bias.
101

§ 256.1 Purpose.

(a) The purpose of this part is to set forth requirements for the operation of electronic airline 

information systems that provide air carrier or foreign air carrier schedule, fare, rule, or 

availability information, including, but not limited to, global distribution systems (GDSs) and 

Internet flight search engines, for use by consumers, carriers, ticket agents, and other business 

entities as well as for related air transportation distribution practices so as to prevent unfair and 

deceptive practices in the distribution and sale of air transportation. 

(b) Nothing in this part exempts any person from the operation of the antitrust laws set forth in 

subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 12). 

§ 256.2 Applicability.

(a) This part applies to any air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent that - (1) creates or 

develops the content of an electronic airline information system that combines the schedules, 

fares, rules, or availability information of more than one air carrier or foreign air carrier for the 

distribution or sale in the United States of interstate and foreign air transportation, or (2) operates 

an electronic airline information system, e.g., GDS or Internet flight search tool.

(b) This part applies only if the electronic airline information system is displayed on a website 

marketed to consumers in the United States or on a proprietary display available to travel agents, 

business entities, or a limited segment of consumers of air transportation in the United States. 

§ 256.3 Definitions.

(a) For purposes of this part, 
102

1. “Lowest fare generally available” means the lowest price offered for air 

transportation between designated points including all mandatory taxes and fees 

but not ancillary fees for optional services. The term does not cover fares 

restricted to a limited category of travelers, (e.g., negotiated corporate or 

government fares or discount fares available only to travel agents).

2. “Availability” means information provided in displays with respect to the seats a 

carrier holds out as available for sale on a particular flight. 

3. “Display” means the presentation of air carrier or foreign air carrier schedules, 

fares, rules or availability to a consumer or agent or other individual involved in 

arranging air travel for a consumer by means of a computer or mobile computing 

device. 

4. “Integrated display” means any display that includes the schedules, fares, rules, or 

availability of more than one carrier. 

5. “Listed carrier” means an air carrier or foreign air carrier whose schedules, fares, 

or availability is included in an electronic airline information system.

6. “Electronic airline information system or EAIS” means a system that combines 

air carrier or foreign air carrier schedule, fare, rule, or availability information for 

transmission or display to air carriers or foreign air carriers, ticket agents, other 

business entities, or consumers. It includes direct connections between a ticket 

agent and the internal reservations systems of an individual carrier if the direct 

connection provides schedules, fares, rules, or availability of more than one air 

carrier or foreign air carrier (unless all of the listed carriers are under the same 
103

ownership or the individual carrier’s direct connection only provides information 

on flights operated under its own code).

§ 256.4 Accurate EAIS Display of Information and Prohibition of Undisclosed Display Bias.

(a) Each air carrier, foreign air carrier, and ticket agent that operates an EAIS that provides at 

least one integrated display must comply with the requirements of this section. 

(1) Each EAIS shall display accurately all schedule, fare, rules, and availability information 

provided by or on behalf of listed carriers or obtained from third parties by the EAIS operator. 

(2) Each EAIS that uses any factors directly or indirectly relating to carrier identity in ordering 

the information contained in an integrated display must clearly disclose that the identity of the 

carrier is a factor in the order in which information is displayed. 

(3) Undisclosed display bias in an integrated display is prohibited. 

(i) Each EAIS’s integrated display must use the same editing and ranking criteria for each 

listed carrier’s flights and must not give any listed carrier’s flights a system-imposed preference 

over any other listed carrier’s flights unless the preference is prominently disclosed. 

(ii) EAISs may organize information on the basis of any service criteria that do not reflect 

carrier identity provided that the criteria are consistently applied to all carriers and to all markets. 

Unless any display bias is specifically and prominently disclosed, when providing information in 

response to a search by a user of the EAIS, the EAIS must order the information provided so that 

the lowest fare generally available that best satisfies the parameters of the request (e.g., date and 

time of travel, number of passengers, class of service, stopovers, limitations on carriers to be 

used or routing [e.g., nonstop only], etc.) is displayed conspicuously and no less prominently 
104

than any other fare displayed. To the extent the user (e.g., consumer or travel agent) is entitled 

to access to any fares restricted to a limited category of travelers, the lowest of those fares must 

also be displayed conspicuously and no less prominently than any other fare displayed.

§ 256.5 Prohibition against inducing undisclosed bias.

(a) No air carrier, foreign carrier, or ticket agent may induce or attempt to induce the developer 

or operator of an EAIS to create a display that would not comply with the requirements of §256.4 

of this Part or provide inaccurate schedule, fare, rules, or availability information that would 

result in a display that would not comply with the requirements of §256.4 of this Part.

(c) Nothing in this section requires an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent to allow a 

system to access its internal computer reservation system or to permit “screen scraping” or 

“content scraping” of its website; nor does it require an air carrier or foreign air carrier to permit 

the sale of the carrier’s services through any ticket agent or other carrier’s system. “Screen 

scraping” refers to a process whereby a company uses computer software techniques to extract 

information from other companies’ websites. In the travel industry, screen scraping companies 

generally extract schedule and fare information from the websites of airlines or online travel 

agencies (OTAs) in order to display the lowest rates on their own website and eliminate the need 

for consumers to compare offerings from site to site.

PART 257 - [AMENDED]

15. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 257 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. § § 40113(a) and 41712.
105

16. Section 257.3(g) is amended by substituting the term “operating carrier” for “transporting 

carrier.”

17. Section 257.5 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) to read as follows:

§ 257.5 Notice requirement.

(a) Notice in flight itineraries and schedules. Each air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket 

agent providing flight itineraries and/or schedules for scheduled passenger air transportation to 

the public in the United States shall ensure that each flight segment on which the designator code 

is not that of the operating carrier is clearly and prominently identified and contains the 

following disclosures.

(1) In flight schedule information provided to U.S. consumers on desktop browser-based or 

mobile browser-based Internet websites or applications in response to any requested itinerary

search, for each flight in scheduled passenger air transportation that is operated by a carrier other 

than the one listed for that flight, the corporate name of the transporting carrier and any other 

name under which the service is held out to the public must appear prominently in text format on 

the first display following the input of a search query, immediately adjacent to each code-share 

flight in that search-results list. Roll-over, pop-up and linked disclosures do not comply with this 

paragraph.

(2) For static written schedules, each flight in scheduled passenger air transportation that is 

operated by a carrier other than the one listed for that flight shall be identified by an asterisk or 

other easily identifiable mark that leads to disclosure of the corporate name of the operating 

carrier and any other name under which that service is held out to the public. 
106

(b) Notice in oral communications with prospective consumers. In any direct oral 

communication in the United States with a prospective consumer, and in any telephone call 

placed from the United States by a prospective consumer, concerning a flight within, to, or from 

the United States that is part of a code-sharing arrangement or long-term wet lease, a ticket agent 

doing business in the United States or a carrier shall inform the consumer, the first time that such 

a flight is offered to the consumer, that the operating carrier is not the carrier whose name or 

designator code will appear on the ticket and shall identify the transporting carrier by its 

corporate name and any other name under which that service is held out to the public.

(c) Notice in Ticket Confirmations. At the time of purchase, each selling carrier or ticket 

agent shall provide written disclosure of the actual operator of the flight to each consumer of 

scheduled passenger air transportation sold in the United States that involves a code-sharing 

arrangement or long-term wet lease. For any flight segment on which the designator code is not 

that of the operating carrier the notice shall state “Operated by” followed by the corporate name 

of the transporting carrier and any other name in which that service is held out to the public. In 

the case of single-flight-number service involving a segment or segments on which the 

designator code is not that of the transporting carrier, the notice shall clearly identify the segment 

or segments and the operating carrier by its corporate name and any other name in which that 

service is held out to the public. The following form of statement will satisfy the requirement of 

this paragraph:

Important Notice: Service between XYZ City and ABC City will be operated by Jane Doe 

Airlines d/b/a QRS Express. At the purchaser’s request, the notice required by this part may be 

delivered in person, or by fax, electronic mail, or any other reliable method of transmitting 

written material. 
107

(d) In any written advertisement distributed in or mailed to or from the United States 

(including those that appear on an Internet website that is marketed to consumers in the United 

States) for service in a city-pair market that is provided under a code-sharing arrangement or 

long-term wet lease, the advertisement shall prominently disclose that the advertised service may 

involve travel on another carrier and clearly indicate the nature of the service in reasonably sized 

type and shall identify all potential operating carriers involved in the markets being advertised by 

corporate name and by any other name under which that service is held out to the public. In any 

radio or television advertisement broadcast in the United States for service in a city-pair market 

that is provided under a code-sharing or long-term wet lease, the advertisement shall include at 

least a generic disclosure statement, such as “Some flights are operated by other airlines.” 

Part 259 - [AMENDED]

18. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 259 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. § § 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712.

19. Section 259.4 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 259.4 Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays. 

* * * * * 

(f) Civil Penalty. A carrier’s failure to comply with the assurances required by this section and 

contained in its Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be considered to be an unfair 

and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 with respect to each affected 

passenger and therefore a separate violation for each passenger for each unfulfilled assurance 

under 49 U.S.C. § 46301. 
108

20. Section 259.8 is amended by revising the second sentence in paragraph (a), and paragraph 

(a)(1), to read as follows:

§ 259.8 Notify consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions.

(a) * * * A change in the status of a flight means, at a minimum, a cancellation, diversion or 

delay of 30 minutes or more in the planned operation of a flight that occurs within seven 

calendar days of the scheduled date of the planned operation. * * *

(1) With respect to any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that permits passengers and other

interested persons to subscribe to flight status notification services, the carrier must deliver such 

notification to such subscribers, by whatever means the carrier offers that the subscriber chooses.

* * *

Part 399-[AMENDED]

21. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 399 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et seq.

22. Section 399.80 is amended by revising the lead in sentence, removing paragraph (h) and 

marking it “Reserved”, revising paragraph (1) and adding paragraphs (o), (p), (q), and (r) to read 

as follows:

§ 399.80 Unfair and deceptive practices of ticket agents

It is the policy of the Department to regard the practices enumerated in paragraphs (a) through 

(m) by a ticket agent of any size and the practices enumerated in paragraphs (o) through (r) by a 
109

ticket agent that sells air transportation and has annual revenue of $100 million or more as an 

unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition:

* * * * *

(l) Failing or refusing to make proper refunds promptly when service cannot be performed as 

contracted or representing that such refunds are obtainable only at some other point, thus 

depriving persons of the timely use of the money to arrange other transportation, or forcing them 

to suffer unnecessary inconvenience and delay or requiring them to accept transportation at 

higher cost, or under less desirable circumstances, or on less desirable aircraft than that 

represented at the time of sale. For purposes of this subsection “promptly” means processing a 

credit card refund (e.g., forwarding a credit to the merchant bank) within seven business days 

and a cash, check or debit card refund within 20 days. These deadlines are calculated from the 

time that the ticket agent receives all information from the consumer that is necessary to process 

the refund. The ticket agent must request any missing information without delay. A ticket 

agent’s need to collect information from its own records does not suspend these deadlines.

* * * * * *

(o) Failure to hold a reservation at the quoted fare without payment or to permit it to be cancelled 

without penalty for at least 24 hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is made one 

week or more prior to a flight’s departure. (The ticket agent may choose between these two 

methods; it need not offer both options to consumers.)

(p) Failure to disclose cancellation policies applicable to a consumer’s selected flights, the 

aircraft’s seating configuration, and lavatory availability on the aircraft on its website, and upon 

request, from the telephone reservations staff. 
110

(q) Failure to notify consumers in a timely manner of carrier-initiated changes to the consumer’s 

air travel itinerary about which the carrier notifies the agent or about which the agent becomes 

aware through other means.

(r) Failure to respond to consumer problems by acknowledging receipt of a consumer complaint 

within thirty days of receiving the complaint and sending a substantive written response within 

sixty days of receiving the complaint. If all or part of the complaint is about services furnished 

(or to be furnished) by an airline or other travel supplier, the agent must send the complaint to 

that supplier for response. If no part of the complaint is about the agent’s service and the agent 

sends the complaint to the appropriate suppliers, the agent’s substantive reply can consist of 

advising the consumer where the agent has sent the complaint and why. 

(s) As used in this Subpart G of Part 399 and in 14 CFR Parts 257 and 258: 

“Air carrier”, “foreign air carrier”, and “ticket agent” have the same definitions as set forth in 49 

U.S.C. § 40102. The term “person...arranging for [,] air transportation” as set forth in the 

definition of “ticket agent” in section 40102(40) includes any person that acts as an intermediary 

involved in the sale of air transportation directly or indirectly to consumers, including by 

operating an electronic airline information system, if the person holds itself out as a source of 

information about, or reservations for, the air transportation industry and receives compensation 

in any way related to the sale of air transportation (e.g., cost-per-click for air transportation 

advertisements, commission payment, revenue-sharing, or other compensation based on factors 

such as the number of flight segments booked, number of sales made, or number of consumers 

directed or referred to an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent for the sale of air 

transportation). The term does not include persons who only publish advertisements of fares and 
111

are paid only per click for linking consumers to the websites of the carriers or agents that 

provided the advertisement. 

23. Section 399.85 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and adding paragraph (g) 

to read as follows:

§ 399.85 Notice of baggage fees and other fees

(a) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier has a website marketed to U.S. consumers where it 

advertises or sells air transportation, the carrier must promptly and prominently disclose any 

increase in its fee for carry-on or first and second checked bags and any change in the first and 

second checked bags or carry-on allowance for a passenger on the homepage of that website 

(e.g., provide a link that says “changed bag rules” or similarly descriptive language that takes 

the consumer from the homepage directly to a pop-up or a place on another webpage that details 

the change in baggage allowance or fees and the effective dates of such changes). 

(b) All U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents must disclose the current ancillary 

services fees for a first and second checked bag, for a carry-on bag, and for an advance seat 

assignment to a consumer who requests such information. On websites marketed to the general 

public in the U.S., the fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and 

an advance seat assignment must be disclosed (and at a minimum displayed by a link or rollover) 

at the first point in a search process where a fare is listed in response to a specific flight itinerary 

request from a passenger, and on the summary page provided to the consumer at the completion 

of any purchase.

(c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

including the summary page at the completion of an online purchase and a post-purchase email 

confirmation, an air carrier, foreign air carrier, agent of either, or ticket agent that advertises or 
112

sells air transportation in the United States must include information regarding the passenger's 

free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second 

checked bag, including size and weight limitations. Carriers and agents must provide this 

information in text form in the e-ticket confirmation. 

* * * * * *

24. Section 399.88 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) to read as follows:

§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increases

(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 for any 

seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a 

combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, 

to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including 

but not limited to an increase in the price of the airfare, an increase in the price for the carriage of 

passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has 

been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax 

or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon for the air 

transportation has been paid by the consumer. An itinerary that does not begin or end in the 

United States or include a stopover of 24 hours or more in the United States is not considered air 

transportation for purposes of this section. This prohibition on a post-purchase price increase 

extends to all mandatory fees and charges a consumer must pay in order to obtain air 

transportation and to fees associated with transporting baggage. This prohibition does not extend 

to fees for optional services ancillary to air transportation that are not purchased with the ticket
113

except for baggage. The price for other ancillary services not purchased at the time of ticket 

purchase may be increased until the consumer purchases the service itself. 

25. A new section 399.90 is added to read either as proposed in A or B:

A. Option A

§ 399.90 Transparency in airline pricing, including ancillary fees

(a) The purpose of this section is to ensure that air carriers, foreign air carriers and ticket agents 

doing business in the United States clearly disclose to consumers at all points of sale the fees for 

certain basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or 

considering buying. Nothing in this section should be read to require that these ancillary 

services must be transactable (e.g., purchasable online). 

(b) Each air carrier and foreign air carrier shall provide useable, current, and accurate 

information for certain ancillary service fees to all ticket agents that receive and distribute the 

U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability information. For purposes of this 

section, the fees that must be provided are: fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag,

one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. Fees for an advance assignment to a seat 

adjacent to a window or aisle, bulkhead seat, exit row seat, or any other seat for which a 

consumer must pay an additional fee to receive an advance seat assignment are to be provided.

(c) Each ticket agent that provides a U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability 

information to consumers in the United States must disclose the U.S. or foreign carrier’s fees for 

a first checked bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

The fee information disclosed to consumers for these ancillary services must be expressed as 

itinerary-specific charges. “Itinerary-specific” refers to variations in fees that depend on, for 
114

example, geography, travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare 

ticket -Y class), and, in the case of advance seat assignment, the particular seat on the aircraft if 

different seats on that flight entail different charges. Ticket agents must also disclose that 

advance seat assignment and baggage fees may be reduced or waived based on the passenger’s 

frequent flyer status, method of payment or other characteristic. When providing the fees 

associated with advance seat assignments, ticket agents must also disclose that seat availability 

and fees may change at any time until the seat assignment is purchased.

(d) Each U.S. or foreign air carrier that provides its fare, schedule and availability information 

directly to consumers in the United States must also disclose its fees for a first checked bag, a 

second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. The fee information 

disclosed to a consumer for these ancillary services must be expressed as customer-specific 

charges if the consumer elects to provide his or her personal information to the carrier, such as 

name and frequent flyer number. “Customer-specific” refers to variations in fees that depend 

on, for example, the passenger type (e.g., military), frequent flyer status, method of payment, 

geography, travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare ticket -Y 

class), and, in the case of advance seat assignment, the particular seat on the aircraft if different 

seats on that flight entail different charges. If a consumer does not provide his or her personal 

information and submits an anonymous shopping request, the fee information disclosed to that 

consumer for these ancillary services must be expressed as itinerary-specific charges. 

(e) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier or ticket agent has a website marketed to U.S. consumers 

where it advertises or sells air transportation, the carrier and ticket agent must disclose the fees 

for a first checked bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment 

as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) at the first point in a search process where a fare is listed in 
115

connection with a specific flight itinerary. Carriers and ticket agents may permit a consumer to 

opt out of seeing this basic ancillary fee information so that the consumer will see only fares. 

The opt-out option must not be pre-selected and must notify the consumer that fees may include 

charges for a first and second checked bag (including oversize and overweight charges), a carryon bag, and an advance seat assignment.

(f) In any oral communication with a prospective consumer and in any telephone calls placed 

from the United States, the carrier or ticket agent must inform a consumer, upon request, of the 

fees for a first checked bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat

assignment as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d). 

(g) Ticket agents with an existing contractual agreement with an air carrier or foreign air carrier 

for the distribution of that carrier’s fare and schedule information shall not charge separate or 

additional fees for the distribution of the ancillary service fee information described in paragraph 

(b). Nothing in this paragraph should be read as invalidating any provision in an existing 

contract among these parties with respect to compensation.

(h) Failure of an air carrier or foreign carrier to provide the ancillary fee information as described 

in paragraph (b) to its ticket agents and failure of a U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, or ticket agent to 

provide the information to consumers as described in paragraph (c) and (d) will be considered an 

unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

B. Option B

§ 399.90 Transparency in airline pricing, including ancillary fees

(a) The purpose of this section is to ensure that air carriers, foreign air carriers doing business in 

the United States, and ticket agents doing business in the United States and selling a carrier’s 

tickets directly to consumers clearly disclose to consumers at all points of sale the fees for certain 
116

basic ancillary services associated with the air transportation consumers are buying or 

considering buying. Nothing in this section should be read to require that these ancillary 

services must be transactable (e.g., purchasable online). 

(b) Each air carrier and foreign air carrier shall provide useable, current, and accurate 

information for certain ancillary service fees to all ticket agents that receive and distribute the 

U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability information, and sell that carrier’s tickets 

directly to consumers. For purposes of this section, the fees that must be provided are: fees for a 

first checked bag, a second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. 

Fees for an advance assignment to a seat adjacent to a window or aisle, bulkhead seat, exit row 

seat, or any other seat for which a consumer must pay an additional fee to receive an advance 

seat assignment are to be provided.

(c) Each ticket agent that provides a U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability 

information to consumers in the United States and sells that carrier’s tickets directly to 

consumers must provide the U.S. or foreign carrier’s fees for a first checked bag, a second 

checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. The fee information disclosed 

to consumers for these ancillary services must be expressed as itinerary-specific charges. 

“Itinerary-specific” refers to variations in fees that depend on, for example, geography, travel 

dates, cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare ticket -Y class), and, in the 

case of advance seat assignment, the particular seat on the aircraft if different seats on that flight 

entail different charges. Ticket agents that sell the carrier’s tickets directly to consumers must 

also disclose that advance seat assignment and baggage fees may be reduced or waived based on 

the passenger’s frequent flyer status, method of payment or other characteristic. When providing 
117

the fees associated with advance seat assignments, such ticket agents must also disclose that seat 

availability and fees may change at any time until the seat assignment is purchased. 

(d) Each U.S. or foreign air carrier that provides its fare, schedule and availability information 

directly to consumers in the United States must also provide its fees for a first checked bag, a 

second checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment. The fee information 

disclosed to a consumer for these ancillary services must be expressed as customer-specific 

charges if the consumer elects to provide his or her personal information to the carrier, such as 

name and frequent flyer number. “Customer-specific” refers to variations in fees that depend 

on, for example, the passenger type (e.g., military), frequent flyer status, method of payment, 

geography, travel dates, cabin (e.g., first class, economy), ticketed fare (e.g., full fare ticket -Y 

class), and, in the case of advance seat assignment, the particular seat on the aircraft if different 

seats on that flight entail different charges. If a consumer does not provide his or her personal 

information and submits an anonymous shopping request, the fee information disclosed to that 

consumer for these ancillary services must be expressed as itinerary-specific charges. 

(e) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier, or ticket agent that sells such a carrier’s tickets directly to 

consumers, has a website marketed to U.S. consumers where it advertises or sells air 

transportation, the carrier and ticket agent must disclose the fees for a first checked bag, a second 

checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment as specified in paragraphs (c) 

and (d) at the first point in a search process where a fare is listed in connection with a specific 

flight itinerary. Carriers and ticket agents may permit a consumer to opt out of seeing this 

basic ancillary fee information so that the consumer will see only fares. The opt-out option must 

not be pre-selected and must notify the consumer that fees may include charges for a first and 
118

second checked bag (including oversize and overweight charges), a carry-on bag, and an advance 

seat assignment.

(f) In any oral communication with a prospective consumer and in any telephone calls placed 

from the United States, the carrier and ticket agent that sells that carrier’s tickets directly to 

consumers must inform a consumer, upon request, of the fees for a first checked bag, a second 

checked bag, one carry-on bag, and an advance seat assignment as specified in paragraphs (c) 

and (d). 

(g) Ticket agents that sell a carrier’s tickets directly to consumers and have an existing 

contractual agreement with an air carrier or foreign air carrier for the distribution of that carrier’s 

fare and schedule information shall not charge separate or additional fees for the distribution of 

the ancillary service fee information described in paragraph (b). Nothing in this paragraph 

should be read as invalidating any provision in an existing contract among these parties with 

respect to compensation.

(h) Failure of an air carrier or foreign carrier to provide the ancillary fee information as 

described in paragraph (b) to its ticket agents and failure of a U.S. carrier, foreign carrier, or 

ticket agent to provide the information to consumers as described in paragraph (c) and (d) will be 

considered an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.