BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Petition of Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

for Rulemaking and Request for Sanctions 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2011-0079

ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

 

 Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director – Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 842-4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

April 28, 2011 

 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Petition of Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

for Rulemaking and Request for Sanctions 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2011-0079

ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

Delta hereby responds to Mr. Pevsner’s petition for rulemaking and 

request for sanctions. Delta respectfully submits that there is no basis for the 

Department to take either of these actions, and urges that Mr. Pevsner’s 

complaint be dismissed. 

On April 12, 2011, Mr. Pevsner held a Delta ticket for travel from Charlotte 

to Buffalo via Atlanta. The first leg, Delta flight 2032, was scheduled to depart 

Charlotte for Atlanta at 8:25 am, but was subject to an FAA-imposed ground 

stop. Consequently, due to circumstances beyond Delta’s control, flight 2032 

was unable to depart on time. 

Mr. Pevsner concedes that Delta’s contract of carriage clearly provides 

that if a flight is disrupted by a force majeure event, Delta will transport the 

passenger on the next available Delta flight. Delta may also, in its sole 

discretion, arrange for travel on another carrier. (Delta Domestic Tariff Rule 240 

(b)). 

Contrary to Mr. Pevsner’s extravagant assertions, he was not “treated like 

carrion.” (page 5). Delta’s customer service agents handled Mr. Pevsner with 
Answer of Delta 

Page 2 

dignity and respect. However, the agents’ efforts to offer assistance were 

greeted with profanity, rudeness, and abusive behavior. To provide a more 

complete and accurate picture of the events, Delta is contemporaneously 

providing a copy of its customer service records and agent reports to the DOT’s 

Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Mr. Pevsner. 

Mr. Pevsner represents himself to be an experienced air traveler. While 

Delta strives to maintain and improve upon high standards of on-time 

performance, the potential for delay from external, uncontrollable causes, such 

as ATC delays was certainly not unknown to Mr. Pevsner. Delta Rule 240(a) 

provides that Delta will use reasonable efforts to operate in accordance with its 

schedule, but that the schedule times are not guaranteed. Delta could have and 

would have transported Mr. Pevsner from Charlotte to Buffalo in accordance with 

the contract of carriage, but, due to a tight schedule of his own choosing,1 Mr. 

Pevsner claims that the purpose of his trip would have been defeated by the 

delay. Although Delta was under no obligation to do so, Delta voluntarily 

refunded the full ticket price and provided Mr. Pevsner, in addition, a courtesy 

$50 transportation voucher for use on a future flight. 

Mr. Pevsner received the full benefit of the bargain he made, which is 

clearly specified in the contract of carriage. By choosing a connecting itinerary 

via Atlanta, Mr. Pevsner was able to secure a deeply discounted ticket at a 

fraction of the price US Airways charges for its four daily nonstop flights between 

Charlotte and Buffalo. Mr. Pevsner paid a total of $93.90 for a one way 

 

1

 Delta offered multiple connecting itineraries from Charlotte to Buffalo at earlier times 

that would have enabled Mr. Pevsner to meet his personal schedule requirements. 
Answer of Delta 

Page 3 

connecting ticket via Atlanta. US Airways’ current lowest discounted one-way 

fare is $408.20. Based on Delta’s ticketing agreement with US Airways, it would 

have cost Delta $133.84 to re-accommodate Mr. Pevsner on US Airways (over 

40 percent more than the cost Mr. Pevsner paid for his original ticket). Mr. 

Pevsner’s proposal to re-write airline contracts of carriage to create a mandatory 

re-accommodation obligation on other carriers for force majeure events would 

chill and deter low fare competitive pricing options, which benefit consumers. 

The delays to Mr. Pevsner’s journey were caused not by Delta, but by the 

FAA ground stop and TSA security procedures which caused him to miss an 

alternative connecting flight via Detroit, which Delta had arranged to assist him. 

In these circumstances, Delta believes Mr. Pevsner’s petition and request for 

sanctions are without merit and should be dismissed. 

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________________ 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 
Answer of Delta 

Page 4 

Delta’s Response to Specific Allegations

Pursuant to Rule 302.408(b)

1. Delta admits that flight DL2032 from Charlotte to Atlanta was delayed due to an 

FAA-imposed air traffic control ground stop. (Complaint p.1) 

2. Delta admits that its tariff rule 240 provides that Delta will transport passengers 

delayed by a force majeure event on the next available Delta flight, or, at Delta’s 

sole discretion, on another carrier or ground transportation. (Complaint p.2-4). 

3. Delta admits that it attempted to provide Mr. Pevsner an alternate routing via 

Detroit. (Complaint at 4) 

4. Delta admits that Mr. Pevsner failed to present himself at the boarding gate 

before the Detroit flight had closed for departure. (Complaint at 4-5). 

5. Delta admits that it refused to delay the Detroit flight and the numerous 

passengers onboard, so that Mr. Pevsner could board the flight late. (Complaint 

at 5). 

6. Delta has no knowledge of the TSA screening and training procedures which 

allegedly delayed Mr. Pevsner and caused him to miss the Detroit flight. 

(Complaint at 4). 

7. Delta admits that it offered Mr. Pevsner a courtesy $50 transportation voucher; 

Delta further asserts that it voluntarily refunded Mr. Pevsner’s full ticket price, 

although Delta was under no obligation to do so. (Complaint at 5). 

8. Delta admits that Mr. Pevsner demanded additional compensation and credits for 

unrelated transactions, and that Delta declined to accede to those demands. 

(Complaint at 6). 

9. Delta denies that Mr. Pevsner was treated “like carrion” or in an “unconcerned 

and cavalier” manner. (Complaint at 1, 7). 

10. As an affirmative defense, Delta asserts that with respect to the alleged incident, 

Delta engaged in no unfair or deceptive practices, nor operated in contravention 

of any statute or regulation of the Department of Transportation. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 A copy of the foregoing Answer has been served this 28th day of April, 2011, upon 

the following persons via email: 

sam.podberesky@dot.gov 

dayton.lehman@dot.gov 

DonPevsner@aol.com