CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Record of Meeting December 2013 

Fifth Meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection 

Prepared by CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Arlington, Virginia 22203
1

RECORD OF MEETING

Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

Meeting Date: December 16, 2013

Scheduled Meeting Time: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time

Meeting Location: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.

Washington, DC

Public Notice: The Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT) 

informed the public of the Advisory Committee meeting in a Federal Register notice published 

November 29, 2013.

Attendees:

Last Name First Name Affiliation

Ahmed Huma CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Atwood Tristan Kirstein & Young PLLC

Blackston Elizabeth Attorney General Lisa Madigan State of Illinois

Blank Riether Kathleen DOT

Breyault John National Consumers League 

Brown Brenda Delta

Chapman, Jr Livaughn DOT

Cornelius Matthew Airports Council International, North America 

Derco Drew M. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

Dols Jonathan DOT 

Donley Charles Squire Sanders LLP

Downey Shane Global Business Travel Association

Gosain Carol Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Graber Kimberly DOT 

Greenberg Sally Executive Director, National Consumers League 

Gros Simon VP Travelport
CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Last Name First Name Affiliation

Hainbach Don Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC

Hammond Karla DOT

Harvey Heather Spirit Airlines

Higginbotham Patty Global Business Travel Association

Hubbard Russell American Airlines

Hudson Paul FlyersRights.org

Jansen Bart USA TODAY

Jennings Vaughn Airlines for America

Kass Howard US Airways

Kidd Douglas National Association of Airline Passengers

Kirstein David Kirstein & Young PLLC

Kronon-Schertz Renee Consumer Travel Alliance

Lavin Douglas International Air Transport Association

Lehman Jr. Dayton Capitol Business Solutions

Lowry Richard Spirit Airlines

Maddux Jason Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC.

Markert Alissa United 

Mckee Laura Airline Services, Airlines for America

Nguyen Vinh DOT

Norcross Sarah CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Pinkerton Sharon Airlines for America 

Peters Cheryl Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operations 

Przybyla Amy CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Rosenfeld Dana Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
CENTRA Technology, Inc.

Last Name First Name Affiliation

Shur Steve The Travel Technology Association

Simmons Kendale Lynora DOT

Strickman Norm DOT

Swafford-Brooks Lisa DOT 

Thomas John L.E.K. Consulting

Thumpston Jim Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger

Weinstein Andrew Open Allies for Airfare Transparency 

Workie Blane DOT 

Young Joanne Kirstein & Young PLLC

Zimmerman Johnathan FTC
CENTRA Technology, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

Summary of Meeting Proceedings.................................................................................................. 1

Welcome and Introductory Remarks........................................................................................... 1

Update on the Department’s efforts to carry out the Committee’s recommendations as outlined 

in the Secretary’s report to Congress of March 22, 2013............................................................ 1

Posting consumer rights information at U.S. airports................................................................. 4

Delays in clearing passengers arriving on international flights through U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection facilities at U.S. airports ................................................................................ 7

Privacy and airline customized pricing ....................................................................................... 9

Streaming CRM for Travel ....................................................................................................... 13

Presentations from the public.................................................................................................... 13

Future recommendations to the Secretary on consumer protection measures .......................... 16

Closing remarks......................................................................................................................... 16

Committee Member Biographies.................................................................................................. 17
1

SUMMARY OF MEETING PROCEEDINGS

Fifth Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General (AG), State of Illinois, Chairperson of the Committee

Chairperson Lisa Madigan called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. She welcomed the speakers 

and the attendees and outlined the agenda for the day, with a focus on evaluating and providing 

recommendations for improving existing programs to facilitate better travel for passengers. 

Committee member Charles Leocha, Director of the Consumer Travel Alliance, emphasized the 

important task for the Committee of discussing traveler’s rights. He felt it was important to 

inform the public about their rights as travelers, and used the example of the European Union to 

highlight customer service practices. Mr. Leocha noted that until recently, if passengers lost 

their luggage while traveling, they had no way of knowing how much compensation they would 

receive, who was ultimately responsible for the recovery of the luggage (airline or airport), and,

subsequently, who to contact in case of a loss. He also emphasized the growing trend of 

personalization in the industry and the need to regulate how the travel industry employs it for 

business purposes given privacy concerns. Other issues he identified were long wait times for 

customs processing and the steps taken by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to curtail 

delays while ensuring the safety of U.S. borders. Mr. Leocha suggested the need for a 

“Passenger Bill of Rights,” which would be a comprehensive catalogue of what travelers should 

expect when planning and going on a trip. 

Mr. Leocha also stated for the record the Committee was formed on the premise that the 

Secretary of Transportation must respond to Committee recommendations and submit two 

annual reports to Congress during the Committee’s tenure. He noted that the Committee 

submitted its first set of recommendations to the Secretary in October 2012, which the Secretary 

presented to Congress in March 2013. He further noted that at the next Committee meeting held 

in May 2013, the Enforcement Office reported on actions taken toward implementation of the 

initial recommendations and will update Committee members on the progress made since May at 

today’s meeting. 

Committee members Deborah Ale Flint, Director of Aviation, Port of Oakland, and David Berg, 

Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary for Airlines for America, ,

added that they looked forward to the day’s proceedings and the Committee’s work in the 

upcoming year.

Update on the Department’s efforts to carry out the Committee’s recommendations as outlined 

in the Secretary’s report to Congress of March 22, 2013

Jonathan Dols, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (C-70)
2

Mr. Jonathan Dols began by restating that the mission of the Advisory Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection is to make recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation for 

improving aviation consumer protection programs. 

Mr. Dols outlined the DOT’s actions in response to the Committee’s 2012 recommendations.

The Committee’s recommendations addressed a variety of subjects including: Travelers with 

Disabilities, Other Forms of Prohibited Discrimination, Understanding Contract Terms, 

Consumer Air Travel Complaints, Enhanced Information about Passenger Rights, Pricing 

Transparency, Ticket Agent Disclosures, and On-time Performance Reporting for all Carriers.

Travelers with Disabilities

To improve the travel experience of travelers with disabilities, the Committee recommended that 

DOT encourage airlines and airports to take voluntary steps towards this goal, including 

encouraging airlines and airport personnel to work with TSA in assisting travelers who are 

unable to sit during lengthy layovers without their customized wheelchairs. In June 2013, the 

Secretary sent a letter to associations for airports and for U.S. and foreign air carriers addressing 

the obligation to provide nondiscriminatory service and ensure timely return of customized 

wheelchairs during lengthy airport connections. 

The Committee also recommended that the Department work with airlines and airports to make 

their kiosks and websites accessible to disabled persons. In November 2013, DOT issued final 

rules establishing kiosk and website accessibility requirements (78 Fed. Reg. 67882 (November 

12, 2013)). 

Lastly, the Committee recommended that the Department require airports and airlines to ensure 

appropriate access to service animal relief areas at airports. New requirements governing service 

animal relief areas at airports were proposed under a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

(76 Fed. Reg. 60426 (September 29, 2011)) and the public comment period has closed. 

Other Forms of Prohibited Discrimination

To prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and gender, the Committee 

recommended that the Department remind airlines of their legal obligations and encourage them 

to stress the avoidance of such discrimination in their initial and recurrent employee training. In 

June 2013, the Secretary sent a letter to carrier associations referring to federal statutes that 

prohibit such discrimination and stressed the benefits of training.

Understanding Contract Terms

To provide better understanding of terms used in contracts of carriage and customer service 

plans, the Committee recommended that DOT survey how airlines define certain terms and place 

this information on DOT’s website. After receiving the Secretary’s letter in June 2013, A4A is 

working in conjunction with the DOT to develop a glossary of commonly used terms that will be 

posted on the DOT website once the project is completed.

Consumer Air Travel Complaints
3

To address concerns regarding consumer complaints, the Committee recommended that DOT 

provide complainants with contact information for the analyst handling the complaint, and 

indicate that this person can be contacted concerning the status of the complaint. 

Communications acknowledging letters and emails from complainants have been revised to 

include a case number automatically inserted as well as a central email address and phone 

number and a commitment to reply within one business day, in most cases, by an analyst 

working on the case.

Additionally, the Committee recommended that DOT explain the complaint handling process to 

complainants by advising them: 1) whether their complaints are potential violations, 2) that their 

complaints will be sent to the carriers, which will have 30/60 days (depending on the type of 

complaint) to reply to the consumer, and 3) they should contact DOT if they do not receive a 

reply within that time frame. Acknowledgment letters/emails from the Enforcement Office now 

state that if the subject of the complaint is covered by a DOT rule, the complaint will be sent to 

the carrier to respond to the consumer within the 30/60-day legal time frame.

Enhanced Information about Passenger Rights

To enhance information about air travel consumer rights, the Committee recommended that DOT 

place its guidance on consumer rights and related FAQs in a prominent location on its website.

New FAQs have been added on the Aviation Consumer office page (www.dot.gov/airconsumer) 

and new links to that page are available from the home page and “Aviation” page on the DOT 

public website at www.dot.gov.

Pricing Transparency

The Committee recommended that DOT take steps to ensure transparency in air carrier pricing, 

including ancillary fees. Consumer Rule II requires airline websites to disclose fees for optional 

services and the Department will address the issue of displaying ancillary fees through all sales 

channels, including Global Distribution Systems (GDS) through its third rulemaking on 

enhancing airline passenger protections, Consumer Rule III, which is pending).

Ticket Agent Disclosures

To encourage ticket agent disclosures, the Committee recommended that DOT require all ticket 

agents, including Online Travel Agencies (OTAs), to disclose if they do not sell tickets for all 

airlines and, if so, that additional airlines may serve the route being searched. The Department’s 

third rulemaking on enhancing airline passenger protections will address the issue of whether 

ticket agents, including OTAs, should be required to disclose whether they do not sell tickets for 

all airlines. DOT released an enforcement guidance addressing how, starting August 19, 2013,

OTAs should disclose in search results those carriers it does not market, and thus does not 

consider in its search process, which could have flights meeting the specific parameters entered 

by the user.

On-time Performance Reporting for all Carriers

To promote on-time performance reporting for all airlines, the Committee recommended that 

DOT require on-time performance data to be reported by all airlines, not simply those that 

account for one percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue, as is currently the case. The 
4

Department’s third rulemaking on enhancing airline passenger protections will also address the 

issue of expanding the reporting-carrier pool to include smaller carriers.

Posting consumer rights information at U.S. airports

Pedro Garcia-Gracia, DG MOVE, European Commission

Mr. Garcia-Gracia outlined the efforts of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for 

Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) to ensure that passengers benefit from the same basic 

standards of treatment wherever they travel in the European Union. The European Union is 

legislating to protect passenger rights on the different modes of public transport.

The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport works in concert 

with the European Union Member States, European industry, citizens and stakeholders. The 

European Commission works on behalf of the EU’s common interest, the European Parliament 

on behalf of the EU citizen’s interest, and the Council of Ministers on behalf of the individual 

state’s interest. DG Move is in charge of developing transport policies for the European Union. 

Its remit is to ensure mobility in a single European transport area, integrating citizens' needs, 

environmental policy, and competitiveness.

The European Union is the first and only integrated area with passenger right rules covering all 

modes of transport. The first legislation in 1991 on the issue covered air travel, followed by rail 

travel in 2009, travel by ship in 2012, and bus and coach travel in 2013. Passengers in the 

European Union enjoy a minimum set of rights: non-discrimination, information, assistance, and 

compensation. There is a clear demand for knowledge of passenger rights: in 2010 each 

European travelled 12,869 km and Europeans made more than 1 billion trips. However, 66

percent of EU citizens are not aware of their contractual rights when purchasing a transport 

ticket.

Beginning in June 2013, a two-year campaign commenced in which eye-catching posters are 

posted in airports, ports, and bus and train stations across Europe, and leaflets and online 

information are available in all EU languages. The first passenger rights campaign poster was 

displayed in 2009. The poster provided information about passenger rights and where to 

complain in the case of denied boarding, long delays, and cancellation. The first organized 

campaign on passenger rights took place from 2010-2012 and focused on air and rail. 

Information was displayed through websites, posters, leaflets, videos, and a passenger rights 

ambassador. Graphics in visual posters depicted humorous scenes for travel issues including lost 

luggage or a canceled flight. There was also an informative poster for passengers with reduced 

mobility. The new campaign builds on the existing one, and will focus particularly on raising 

awareness of the new maritime passenger rights, and bus and coach passenger rights. The aim is 

to have 20,000 posters displayed in transport hubs until 2015 and 1 million leaflets to be 

distributed until 2015.

Committee Chairperson Madigan opened the question and answer period by asking about the 

location of posters displayed in the airports. Mr. Garcia noted that the location is dependent on 
5

the terminal but in the past 20 years poster displays have moved to more central areas. The EU

campaign is a voluntary system in which airports decide where posters will be placed.

When asked about the airlines’ reception of this campaign, Mr. Garcia stressed the importance of 

the campaign’s holistic approach to sharing information of passenger’s rights—including 

posters, leaflets, smart phone applications, and websites.

Charlie Leocha, ACACP Member – Update on discussions with the European Union and with 

airport managers.

Mr. Leocha discussed space for public service posters at Dulles International Airport. With the 

help of an airport customer service representative, Mr. Leocha identified potential locations for 

consumer rights information, including monitors mounted over the baggage carousel. He noted 

that one carousel monitor was owned by the airport, which could volunteer to display public 

service announcements. There are similar monitors owned by the airport throughout the facility. 

He observed another prospective location for consumer rights information was the space behind 

the baggage carousel used for advertisements. Airport announcement monitors in the gate area, 

next to bathrooms, and in passenger service areas could also include information on consumer 

rights. He noted that the passenger rights poster displays he saw at the Madrid airport in the

summer of 2013 are strategically placed throughout the facility. Lost luggage information 

posters are located in the baggage claim area and prominently displayed in the gate area and near 

bathrooms. Mr. Leocha underscored the importance of making posters displaying passenger 

rights information more effective by involving airlines and airports in to the poster design 

process. 

Laura McKee, Vice President, Airline Services, Airlines for America

Ms. McKee stated that a recommendation to post consumer rights information at airports is not 

necessary. U.S. airlines are required to report performance and complaint data to DOT monthly 

in order to provide customers with quality information. The data in 2012 indicate better service 

within the past five years—with the highest percentage of scheduled domestic departures and the 

highest on-time arrival rates. Statistics released in October 2013 show the industry’s baghandling performance continues to improve, and is the best showing for customer complaints in 

four years. These facts indicate there is no need for a poster explaining consumer rights.

She further noted that consumer rights information is readily available on U.S. airline websites, 

including links to key service elements affecting customers including contingency plans and

customer complaint information. Websites also contain a customer service commitment to 

acknowledge and respond to complaints within a certain time period. Additionally, the DOT 

website has a function for entering airline service complaints and comments, as well as 

information on regulations, travel tips, and assistance in filing a complaint. The reality is that 

U.S. airlines and DOT are already making available a great deal of consumer rights information.

She observed that since airports are already complex environments with a lot of signage to direct 

passengers in navigating the airport, additional signage describing passenger rights will likely 

cause bottlenecks. The European Commission’s consumer rights poster is difficult to read, does 
6

not include valuable new information, and often refers consumers to government agencies. If a 

problem occurs, customers are most likely to seek out an airline or airport customer service 

representative or utilize user-friendly technology. Ms. McKee closed by saying that carriers are 

motivated to provide excellent customer service and that over the next three years, $32 billion 

will be invested in the customer experience. 

During the question and answer session, Mr. Leocha asked for clarification of the 2012 customer 

complaints statistics, which were higher than those for prior years. Ms. McKee explained that 

the abnormally high number of complaints in 2012 was an anomaly due to the merging of the 

United and Continental airlines systems, which resulted in an uptick in consumer complaints. 

She asserted that the complaint rate for this year is back down under the 2008 rate. 

Mr. Leocha disagreed with Ms. McKee about the proper metrics for measuring the rate of 

mishandled bags, suggesting that the rate for mishandled bags has decreased since 2008 due to 

fees that have influenced passengers to check fewer bags. Ms. McKee and David Berg, Senior 

Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Airlines for America (A4A), 

reiterated that the metrics used properly accounted for this change in the rate for mishandled 

baggage. 

Matt Cornelius, Senior Director of Air Policy, Airports Council International (ACI) – North 

America

Mr. Cornelius agreed with the view that there is no need to post consumer rights information at 

airports as the data show that airlines’ customer relations continue to improve and are one of 

their top priorities. Airports would likely have concerns about the implementation of a program 

to display passenger rights information at airports, as it could be detrimental to airport revenue 

streams. Under federal law, airports are responsible for the revenue needed for operations, and 

revenue generated from marketing is significant. The public service advertising space is most 

often reserved for the least traveled areas. Without the revenue stream from advertising, airports 

would need to increase prices in other areas. 

The physical environment of the airport is also very important. It affects consumer satisfaction 

and overall experience. Studies find that the way-finding method—providing travelers with 

situational awareness by offering directions—is significant to customer satisfaction. Information 

clutter from consumer rights posters would compromise way-finding, causing bottlenecks and 

confusing passengers. 

European airports are very different from their U.S. counterparts. In Europe, airports provide 

many of the same services that airlines provide in the United States.

Mr. Leocha noted that U.S. airports are funded by the public through the passenger service fees.

He stated it is unfortunate that in the U.S. system, airlines do not view passengers as customers 

but rather view airlines as customers. Mr. Cornelius made a counterpoint that, despite the fact 

that airports are locally owned and operated by public entities, passengers are not their only 

responsibility. Airports have responsibility for employees, advertising, cargo providers, and 

passengers. Each facility needs to be financially self-sufficient.
7

Ms. Ale Flint noted that airport directors are very focused on consumers. The issue is not 

whether the airlines or airports understand the role of the consumer but rather the effectiveness 

of supplying services. The concern is that the posters are not the most effective method for 

informing consumers and the panel should think about a variety of approaches to convey 

passenger rights information to consumers. Mr. Leocha noted that, whether through posters or 

another medium, it is important to post the information for travelers. Mr. Berg agreed with 

earlier comments that posters are a step backwards in a technological environment of websites 

and smart phone applications.

Delays in clearing passengers arriving on international flights through U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection facilities at U.S. airports

Matthew Cornelius, Managing Director, Air Policy, Airports Council International (ACI) –

North America

Mr. Cornelius discussed the issues regarding processing passengers into the United States, 

particularly the persistent and excessive wait times at key international gateways. 

In 2012, the President of the United States wanted to implement new rules and processes to 

increase tourism and travel in the United States. After a presidential order to look into the 

persistent delays at airports for passengers, the first step for ACI was to identify the problem and 

bring transparency to the proceedings. In collaboration with Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), ACI collected actual and average data for wait times at airports across the country; CBP 

now has this data on its website. The ACI-CBP coalition has also been supporting the 

implementation of Automated Passport Control (APC) kiosks, which help save time for travelers 

by replicating administrative tasks and allowing CBP officers to do more behavior interviews. 

After pilot programs implementing the APC kiosks in Vancouver and Chicago have 

demonstrated the effectiveness of the technology, it is anticipated that ACI and CBP will help 

more airports implement these kiosks. 

The ACI-CBP alliance has established a set of goals as follows:

Short-term goals:

 Improve transparency of wait-time data.

 Place automated kiosks inside primary inspection spots to replicate many tasks of the 

officers, allowing them to focus on security and admissibility tasks.

 Treat administrative tasks differently, use non-law enforcement employees or staff during 

off-peak hours.

 Preclearance projects such as the pilot program in Abu Dhabi are still under development, so 

it is not feasible to expand preclearance programs, as airports cannot send CBP staff overseas 

when they are still needed here.

 Expand Global Entry for U.S. citizens. So far over one million travelers have registered for 

Global Entry.
8

 Increase flexibility and operational agility.

Medium-term goals:

 Expand non-citizen participation in Global Entry by increasing eligibility so that there are 

less people standing in line waiting to be processed for entry. 

 Transparent allocation of resources.

 Appropriate level of funding from Congress.

Long-term goals:

 Cost-based user fee study–the aviation sector contributes a lot of funds to the CBP program 

and wants to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately.

 Multiple options for primary inspection, for example speeding the process for those who do 

not check bags.

 Increase percentage of trusted travelers.

 Future facility design reflecting new processes.

During the question and answer session Mr. Leocha highlighted the continuing delays in 

processing times that many travelers still experience, with an average wait time of two to three

hours. 

An event participant, Mr. Douglas Kidd, National Association for Airline Passengers shared his 

recent travel experience to Tokyo to illustrate the difference in customer service provided at 

airports in the United States and other countries. He found the Tokyo customs section fully 

staffed, with officers ready and equipped to handle large flights arriving at the airport. In 

contrast, he found the Dulles airport to be inadequately staffed, with officers not ready or 

interested in preparing for passenger arrivals.

Cheryl Peters, Customs and Border Protection, Office of Field Operation

Ms. Peters led a presentation on the necessity for better communication between CBP and airport 

staff, particularly regarding delayed flights and airport rules. Given the limited resources, the 

more information staff has the sooner they can act. 

The following topics were addressed during the question and answer session:

 The Committee understands the need for strong security and at the same time has concerns 

about the long processing times for clearing customs. Addressing those concerns, Ms. Peters 

discussed several options, including the installation of APC kiosks in staging areas to 

facilitate processing. The advanced computer system will enable passengers to go through 

administrative processing more quickly and have more face to face time with the customs 
9

officer. This would also allow officials to focus on security screening rather than handling 

paperwork. Initial pilots have been successful and have shown great promise for future 

expansion. Ms. Peters also noted that CBP is facing challenges with staffing, including high 

attrition rates and reduced funding for salaries. These setbacks have forced CBP to find 

different ways to balance existing resources. One way has been partnering with the TSA to 

increase operational support and handle customs screenings more efficiently.

 Ms. Peters stated that the Global Entry program has been a successful in reducing wait times 

for passengers. For an application fee of $100, travelers can apply for the program online 

and, after being approved, have the opportunity to skip waiting lines and check in at selfserve kiosks. The Global Entry application can be processed hypothetically in eight to ten

business days in terms of finding out eligibility; being able to use the program is a matter of 

time, depending on interview times and proximity to enrollment centers. The program has 

expanded to 44 locations and has been fully operational for six months.

 Mr. Leocha asked for further details on those who had spearheaded the initiatives to install 

the kiosks. Ms. Peters explained that the APC kiosks were originally piloted in Canada. In 

looking for ways to expedite and streamline customs processing, CBP has invested resources

in APC kiosk programming and software but not yet in hardware. 

Privacy and airline customized pricing

John Thomas, Managing Director and Partner, L.E.K. Consulting 

Mr. Thomas discussed L.E.K.’s work as a strategy advisor to the world’s airlines. L.E.K. has a 

strong in-house research department that provides comprehensive surveys, rigorous analyses, and 

thus provides clear understanding of U.S. travelers. Over the last five years, L.E.K. has surveyed 

over 40,000 U.S. travelers in the United States using rigorous statistical techniques. This study 

includes: 1) a survey of over 25,000 U.S. travelers to assess demand for add-on products and 

services; 2) a survey of approximately 16,000 U.S. travelers to determine attitudes towards 

pricing, customer service, and other areas; as well as 3) a 90-question survey of over 2,000 U.S.

travelers on behaviors, decision-making, loyalty programs, and promotions. Mr. Thomas, noting

that L.E.K. performed cluster analyses to understand how customers are segmented and what 

attributes apply to each customer segment, reported the following findings:

 Today’s customer set is more diversified and distinct than when the network carriers’ 

operational model was established forty years ago. Forty years ago, there were mainly two 

customer segments—business travelers and high-income leisure travelers. 

 Customer segments today include road warriors, occasional business, high-income leisure, 

package vacationer, retirees, and young singles. This set of consumer demands and 

requirements varied across segments when it comes to air travel. For example, road warriors 

demanded high frequency schedules, minimal time at airport, whereas retirees wanted easy 

access throughout the airport.

 By providing consumers with more choices over the past five years, the U.S. airline industry 

has moved from being operational-centric to customer-centric. The vast majority of travelers 
10

react positively to both enhancement opportunities and to opting out of certain components 

of their ticket. 

 Pricing and personalization are totally distinct—both in how the airlines manage them as 

well as how they present them to customers—pricing is supply driven, personalization is 

demand driven.

 Although it seems to be the age of big data, the theory is well ahead of practice. Pricing is 

supply driven and run by the management revenue department. Personalization is demand 

driven through the end user. 

 The airline industry is late in providing people with choices. Many of the personalization 

tools being introduced by airlines are long established and well accepted by consumers in 

other industries. Consumers have come to expect personalization. 

 Research has shown that customers are willing to share personal information with their 

providers if it results in a better service or offering; 73 percent prefer to do business with 

brands and companies that use information about them to make their experience more 

efficient. 

 The United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has found that the current use of 

“personalized pricing” has been a net benefit for customers, focusing on providing discounts 

rather than selectively raising prices.

Mr. Thomas noted that regarding websites for purchasing tickets, the majority of consumers will 

find the cheapest airfare and will then be more open to buying additional services and offerings.

Mr. Leocha asked if U.S. travelers prefer to compare prices across airlines to get the best fare. 

Mr. Thompson responded that a new global survey indicates that the number of consumers who

shop for airfares across airlines is declining and that many consumers now have a preferred 

airline that they trust.

Mr. Leocha asked if passengers are surprised at the personal information that is collected without 

their knowledge. Mr. Thomas noted that this specific question has not been studied; however he 

has observed that many people, specifically young singles, are willing to share information. For 

example, through Facebook, users are willing to share information if a coupon or trip is offered.

Dana Rosenfeld, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 

Ms. Rosenfeld discussed customized offers, providing an overview of the federal consumer 

protection framework, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approach to pricing and consumer 

protection, and customized offers that can provide a pro-consumer approach. She made the 

following observations:

 The Federal Consumer protection framework includes the DOT’s Regulations on Advertising 

and Pricing that expressly prohibit unfair and deceptive practices of ticket agents and place 

certain restrictions on price advertisements. Similarly, Section 5 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts of practice. However, the FTC Act 

expressly exempts commercial air carriers.
11

 The legal standards for unfairness and deception are independent of each other. According to 

the FTC's deception standard, an act or practice is deceptive if the representation, omission, 

or practice is

 likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and

 "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.

 According to the FTC’s Unfairness Standard, an act or practice is unfair if the act or practice 

is one which: 

 causes substantial injury to consumers;

 consumers cannot reasonably avoid; and

 is not offset by benefits to consumers or competition.

 There is nothing inherently deceptive about offering, marketing, and packaging customized 

products and services. The issue is that within a particular offer, any element of deception or 

unfairness could make the offer itself illegal.

 The FTC is one of the only agencies having both consumer protection and competition or 

antitrust authority. The FTC generally favors procompetitive efforts in a free and 

competitive open market. If conducted in a fair, transparent, and truthful manner, 

customized offers can be provided in a manner consistent with tenets of consumer protection 

and increase benefits to consumers. Furthermore, this type of environment fosters new 

technologies and innovations.

Ms. Rosenfeld provided three market examples—energy industry, taxicab deregulation, and 

loyalty membership programs—to illustrate the exchange of consumer information to provide 

more relevant and targeted content or discounts as a common practice consistent with consumer 

protection values and consumer choice. For example the energy industries focus on dynamic 

pricing benefits customers through lower costs, increased innovation, and expanded variety of 

services. Dynamic pricing programs provide customers with the option to manage their 

electricity costs by shifting their electricity use to times when demand for electricity is lower.

Shifting electricity use times when demand for electricity is lower results in lower priced hours 

and lower bills. The results are pricing for any end use is more efficient and pro-consumer than 

uniform flat-rate pricing. It is therefore recommended that regulators take steps to ensure that 

dynamic pricing prevails in electricity markets.

Ms. Rosenfeld noted that the deregulation of the taxi industry is another example in which the 

FTC has noted that, with open entry and unregulated fares, radio-dispatched taxicab services 

would have an incentive to offer various fare and quality combinations responsive to different 

groups of customers. She also noted the introduction of Uber as a new entry to the market.

Finally, Ms. Rosenfeld commented that consumers make purchase decisions based on Loyalty 

and Membership Programs that allow them to provide certain information about themselves, 

including product purchase information, in exchange for reduced prices on certain products and 

services. Airlines have not utilized this program. Despite Upromise’s failure to provide 
12

appropriate data safeguards in the collection of consumer information, these types of offers are 

generally pro-consumer when managed in accordance with legal principles.

Ms. Madigan observed that this issue would be evaluated from an enforcement perspective on a 

case-by-case basis. Blane Workie, Principal Deputy Assistant General Counsel for the Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, noted the similarities between Section 5 of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) (15 U.S.C.§ 45) that prohibits unfair methods of competition 

and the statute prohibiting unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition in air 

transportation (49 U.S.C. § 41712). She indicated that a carrier practice of systematically 

gathering non-public personal information about consumers not provided by passengers might be 

investigated as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

Andrew Weinstein, Director, Open Allies for Airfare Transparency

Open Allies for Airfare Transparency is a coalition of nearly 400 independent distributors and 

sellers of air travel, corporate travel departments, travel trade associations, and consumer 

organizations that believe air travelers should be able to see, compare, and buy based on the total 

price of their airfare. That is, that all airline fares and fees should be transparent to, and 

purchasable by, the traveling public, enabling consumers to comparison shop for their fares on an 

“all-in” (fares+taxes+fees) basis, “apples-to-apples” across airlines.

Director Andrew Weinstein talked about the principles for the future of air travel distribution that 

Open Allies hoped to achieve: Transparency, Choice, Competition, Innovation, and Privacy. 

The Privacy principle states that “travelers should be able to shop anonymously in a setting in 

which all applicable privacy laws and regulations are respected. Customization should be at the 

request of the traveler, not at the demand of the supplier, and travel suppliers should allow 

travelers to decide which additional services they would like to receive, if any, whether traveling 

on business or for leisure with their family.”

Mr. Weinstein also differentiated between the concept of personalization in which the supplier 

presents a profile of the buyer based on shopping habits (“you tell me what you think I want”) 

and the idea of customization where the buyer provides a set of preferences (“I tell you what I 

actually want”).

Open Allies proposed a consumer-focused framework for suppliers to provide improved 

personalized services with the following provisions: 

 Transparency – ancillaries should be fully disclosed and transparent through all channels.

 Consumer-driven – Customization should respond to travelers’ requests, not airline 

predictions.

 Anonymity – Consumers should get broad range of customizable offers without providing 

personal information and have privacy rights protected.
13

 Competition – Consumers should be able to compare equivalent fares and ancillary fees 

across airlines on multiple websites, not limited to apples-to-horses comparisons on different 

airline sites.

Streaming CRM for Travel

Charlie Leocha, ACACP member

Mr. Charlie Leocha presented a short video on Customer Relationship Management (CRM) used 

by travel companies to leverage and merge online customer data. Travel companies use 

Streaming CRM to create individual consumer profiles and customize digital advertising in real 

time. Offers are created for specific users and individuals powered by existing data in loyalty 

programs, email databases, passenger name records (PNRs), and passenger and revenue 

management databases. Streaming CRM enables websites to target individuals across all 

platforms with tailor-made advertisements.

The video described how travel marketers assess customer activity and travel preferences against 

their revenue management information to generate an offer that is specific to each user in an 

effort to boost their booking curve. From a business perspective, this will result in companies 

offering dynamic fares and pricing advantages, while boosting incremental revenue, decreasing 

distribution costs, and increasing customer lifetime value.

Mr. Leocha was critical of the Streaming CRM model used by companies due to a lack of 

transparency and accountability regarding how user information is accessed.

Presentations from the public

Passenger bill of rights – Paul Hudson, FlyersRights.ORG 

Mr. Hudson noted that it has been 35 years since the airline industry was deregulated as to fares, 

schedules, and service. He stated the U.S. Government needs to review the laws and correct the 

inefficiencies that have crept into the nation’s public air transportation system.

A historic review of customer service indicates that before 1980 air travel got faster, cheaper, 

safer, and more reliable. However, since 1980 air travel became slower, less reliable, still safer, 

seat space has shrunk and services have declined. Specifically, airfares declined about 50

percent from 1980 to 2009, but have increased rapidly since 2010, especially when fees and 

taxes are included. Customer service by definition has declined.

Mr. Hudson requested that the DOT recognize an Airline Passenger Bill of Rights. 

 The right to a ticket we can understand and rely on, with no hidden fees, at a fair price.

 The right to be treated well when our flight is canceled or delayed, with reasonable access 

to available flights on other airlines and advance notice, a refund and compensation when 

it's the airline's fault.
14

 The right to airline honesty when it comes to the status of our flights and the reasons for 

delays and cancellations.

 The right to a safe aircraft and a well-trained, well-rested crew.

 The right to get off the tarmac within three hours at the most.

 The right to have our luggage arrive when we do - or to compensation if it does not.

 The right to be treated like human beings onboard aircraft, with food and drink and seats 

and legroom that are safe and comfortable.

 The right to retain basic constitutional rights of privacy, free speech, travel, due process 

of law, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure when we enter an airport or board 

an aircraft.

The Airline Passenger Bill of Rights is supported by a 33 Point Plan—30 Proposals and 3 

priorities. The full text is available on flyersrights.org. According to Mr. Hudson, the provisions

most desired by passengers include:

 “Airfare” means the price including all taxes and fees for air transportation and ticket and 

boarding pass issuance from an originating airport to a final destination airport and 

includes a seat (at least 18 inches in width with leg room and other specifications and 

aisle width certified for comfort, safety and health by the FAA), one carry on piece of 

baggage that will fit in an overhead container not exceeding 40 pounds and one personal 

item that will fit under a seat, plus one piece of checked baggage under 50 pounds, water, 

adequate food nutrition on flights lasting over 2 hours, plus toilet and hand washing 

facilities.

 Fees not included in the airfare must be conspicuously disclosed in advance of ticket 

purchase and shall be published and delivered in conventional machine readable form to 

all third party ticket sellers the same as airfares.

 Fees not included in airfare shall not be exorbitant, defined as in excess of 200 percent

over the cost to the airline of the service or benefit or feature.

 The FAA shall issue minimum standards and specifications for seat width, padding, 

reclining, size, pitch, leg room, aisle width for passenger comfort, safety and health 

within 180 days of enactment, in consultation with an advisory committee to be 

composed of representatives from airline passenger advocacy organizations, 

Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), and the Center for Disease 

Control (CDC), and including at one physician, ergonomic engineer, senior citizen, 

disabled air traveler, overweight person, disabled person, and at least six American air 

travelers representing a cross section of air travelers by age, height, weight, and gender. 

Until such standards are adopted, there shall be a moratorium on reductions in seat size, 

width, padding, pitch, and aisle width.
15

Mr. Hudson also noted a final priority of needing a practical means of recourse for consumers.

He commented on the current legal situation in which, unlike consumer claims in other fields, no 

arbitration is provided for, and airlines have the right to remove any lawsuit filed in local or state 

courts to U.S. District Court where litigation expenses far exceed any recovery. 

During the question and answer period, Blane Workie noted that the Enforcement Office 

processes consumer complaints—including complaints alleging unfair and deceptive practices.

Change fees and trip cancellation insurance

Sally Greenberg and John Breyault, National Consumers League (NCL)

Ms. Greenberg noted the issues surrounding legacy airlines that are increasing airline ticket 

expenses in lockstep.

Mr. Breyault presented findings from the National Consumer League’s Report reviewing their 

findings on airline fees and travel insurance. The consumer organization was prompted to 

investigate these issues due to rising consumer outrage associated with cancellation fees and 

denial of refunds when life intervenes, as well as anecdotal accounts of travel insurance policies 

failing to live up to consumer expectations. 

He noted that uncertainties can become costly for consumers, as cancellation and change fees 

have become a growing revenue source for the airline industry. In 2013, cancellation and change 

fees on legacy U.S. airlines increased to $200 per ticket for domestic flights. In 2012, more than 

$2.5 billion was collected in fees. In May 2013, USA Today noted that according to the 

government the airlines took in $159.5 billion in revenue in the previous year and had expenses 

of $153.6 billion. That 3.7 percent profit margin comes entirely from the baggage and change 

fees.

He further noted that refundable ticket sales have never been a popular alternative for most 

consumers. Refundable tickets have never made up more than 20 percent of the market because 

the average price difference is 350 percent between cheapest nonrefundable and refundable.

Mr. Breyault reported that rising cancellation fees and unaffordable refundable tickets result in a 

rising consumer desire to manage travel risk. With rising cancellation fees consumers may feel 

compelled to buy travel insurance. Data from the U.S. Travel Insurance Association indicate 

that in 2012, 148 million American purchased some form of travel insurance—trip cancellation 

or interruption policies accounted for more than 90 percent of travel insurance premiums. 

The aggressive marketing language of travel insurance gives consumers a false sense of security.

NCL reviewed dozen of travel agencies—including Orbitz and Expedia—that included 

borderline deceptive language. Phrases used included “stress free travel insurance,” “stress-free 

flight protection,” “peace of mind is only a click away,” and “peace of mind doesn’t have to cost 

a lot.” He noted that such language is concerning because most consumers will not click through 

all the detailed information to find that policies have significant exemptions. 
16

Mr. Breyault presented NCL’s reform proposals, which include:

 Congressional oversight hearings.

 Marketing travel insurance in clear, non-misleading language.

 Publicly reporting of travel insurance loss ratios.

 Tiered cancellation/change fees based on proximity of the travel date.

 Fee-free ticket transfers.

 Elimination of standby fees.

Mr. Leocha began the question and answer period with a comment regarding the legacy airlines’

simultaneous fee increases and whether consumers are totally at the mercy of the airlines. Ms. 

Workie responded by explaining that the airlines cannot deceptively state that a fee is for 

recouping the cost of the change or cancellation when it is not. Reasons given for airline fees

need to be accurate. Airlines are, however, allowed to charge any amount they choose. It is up 

to the consumer to indicate their preferences by continuing or stopping the purchase of an 

airline’s product or service. DOT does not have the authority to regulate the actual price of 

products and services.

Mr. Breyault further noted that NCL’s paper discusses complaints that suggest a high degree of 

consumer confusion and anger regarding the limitations of travel insurance. 

Future recommendations to the Secretary on consumer protection measures

Lisa Madigan, ACACP Chairperson

The Committee debated over recommendations to the Secretary concerning privacy, border 

protection, and a consumer awareness campaign.

Closing remarks

Lisa Madigan, ACACP Chairperson

Chairperson Madigan thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at

approximately 4:10 PM. 
17

COMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES

The Honorable Lisa Madigan 

Ms. Madigan is Attorney General (AG) of Illinois and officially chairs the Advisory Committee 

on Aviation Consumer Protection. AG Madigan serves as a representative of state and local 

governments with the Committee. She was elected the first woman Attorney General of Illinois 

in 2002 and won a third term in 2010. As Attorney General, her priorities have included 

protecting consumers from financial fraud and unsafe products, as well as protecting seniors in 

nursing homes.

Deborah Ale Flint

Ms. Ale Flint serves as a representative of airport operators with the Advisory Committee on

Aviation Consumer Protection. She was appointed Oakland International Airport’s Director of 

Aviation in 2010. Ms. Ale Flint is the primary executive responsible for the operation, 

management, and development of the airport. She previously served as manager of the airport’s 

airside operations where her responsibilities included noise abatement and environmental 

compliance.

David A. Berg

Mr. Berg serves as a representative of air carriers with the Advisory Committee on Aviation 

Consumer Protection. He was named Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate 

Secretary for Airlines for America (A4A) in 2011. At A4A, Mr. Berg is responsible for the 

association’s legal affairs and has been involved in a variety of aviation issues, including 

passengers with disabilities and airport landing fees.

Charles Leocha

Mr. Leocha serves as a representative of aviation consumers with the Advisory Committee on 

Aviation Consumer Protection. He is Director of the Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) which he 

formed in 2009, following a career in journalism where he specialized in reporting on travelers’ 

rights. Since beginning CTA, his advocacy for travelers has included meeting government 

officials, testifying before Congress and developing travel information and resources.