BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

' ~.) i. ,, 2 -::::; . !· r 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Third-Party Complaint of 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

Docket t>o-r- os-r • Zot2.- a to(\_ 

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 

AND 

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 

Communications with respect to this document should be directed to: 

July 2, 2012 

DONALD L. PEVSNER, Attorney-at-Law 

2010 Valle Cay Drive 

Vilas, NC 28692 

TEL.: (828)297-7823 

FAX.: (828)297-7824 

EMAIL: donpevsner@aol.com 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Third-Party Complaint of 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

Docket ------------------

------------------------------ PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 

COMES NOW Donald L. Pevsner, Esq., pro bono publico, and asks 

the Department to initiate a R ulemaking proceeding with regard to all 

air carriers and foreign air carriers providing air transportation or 

foreign air transportation to United States airports, and as grounds therefor 

says: 

( 1) This Petition for Rulemaking is filed pursuant to 14CFR §302. 502, §302. 505 

and §302.16. 

(2) Petitioner alleges that the Domestic General Rules Tariff of Delta Air 

Lines, Inc., as amended through May 25, 2012, and all similar tariffs of 

other air carriers and foreign air carriers, are causing great economic harm 

to passengers by unilaterally forcing them to accept schedule changes on 

nonrefundable tickets, with the only alternative being to pay a rapacious 

change penalty that is typically $150 in air transportation and $250 in foreign 

air transportation. 

(3)Petitioner was presented with this situation by Delta Air Lines, Inc. on 

June 29, 2012, when Delta had a schedule change of approximately one-half hour 

on his departing flight that, as the new departure time was earlier, would 

have adversely impacted his business arrangements. At that time, Delta 

cited Rule 240 of its Tariff as justification for imposing a $150 domestic 

change penalty. However, Delta Rule 240 states the following: 

"In the event of flight cancellation, diversion, delays of 

greater than 90 minutes ... (Delta will provide a full refund 

on a nonrefundable ticket) 11 
-2-

It is patently obvious that there is a world of difference between a 

flight delay and a unilateral schedule change by the carrier providing 

the air transportation or foreign air transportation. It is also clear 

that the Domestic and International Rules Tariffs of Delta Air Lines, Inc., 

and most probably of all other air carriers and foreign carriers providing 

air transportation or foreign air transportation, do not contain specific 

language governing the refundabi lity of nonrefundable tickets in this 

express situation. 

(4)A passenger books an airline ticket based upon the schedule displayed 

to him or his travel agent at the time of purchase. That schedule forms an 

integral part of the contract of carriage between the passenger and the 

carrier. It is a prima facie breach of contract for the carrier to change 

its schedule unilaterally without simultaneously providing the passenger 

with the right to obtain a full refund in such case, if the new schedule is 

unacceptable to him for any reason whatsoever. The sordid reason why 

carriers have not given the passenger this crucial right under their existing 

Tariffs is because, with the vast majority of all airline tickets being 

nonrefundable in the current airline environment, they prefer to mulct 

their passengers of billions of dollars in 11 change penalties 11 as a particularlyinequitable and disgraceful profit center. 

(5)Petitioner therefore requests that the Department promptly initiate a 

formal Rulemaking procedure that will mandate that the following, new language 

be added to all Domestic and Foreign Rules Tariffs of all air carriers and 

foreign air carriers providing air transportation, overseas air transportation 

and foreign air transportation: 
-3-

11 A passenger shall be entitled to, and shall receive on request, 

a full refund of his total ticket price, including his fare and all 

fees, taxes and other charges, should the carrier issuing the 

ticket attempt to impose a unilateral schedule change on the 

passenger between the time of purchase and the time of travel. 

Should the passenger opt to exchange his ticket for another 

ticket upon such occurrence, no carrier may impose any 11 change 

penalty11 whatsoever for such exchange. 11 

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 

( 1) Complainant alleges that the standard $250 change penalty currently 

imposed by most air carriers and foreign air carriers on nonrefundable 

tickets, which are the vast majority of all tickets sold in foreign air 

transportation, is expressly violative of 49 USC §41501, which 

expressly states the following: 

11 Every air carrier and foreign air carrier shall establish, comply with, 

and enforce-

( 1) reasonable prices, classifications, rules and practices related 

to foreign air transportation; " (Emphasis Added) 

(2)A long line of CAB and DOT legal precedents defines "reasonable 11 

[formerly 11 just and reasonable 11 ] as meaning "reasonably related to the 

cost of providing the service 11 • 

(3)When the airlines first perceived that imposing change penalties would create 

a highly-lucrative ancillary profit center for them, the initial charge for 

a flight change was $25. Today, it has been standardized at a rapacious 

$250, at a time when many such changes are made online directly by the 

passenger, with zero airline reservations employee time utilized at all. 

In brief, there is not the slightest relationship between the legal mandate 

of a "reasonable 11 charge for a change penalty imposed by 49 USD §41501 

and the current $250 mass gouging being inflicted upon a helpless air 

traveling public by most air carriers and foreign air carriers. 
-4-

( 4 )Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Department promptly open 

a formal investigation irto the lawfulness of a charge that, in Petitioner's 

view, is at least ten times more than a truly "reasonable" charge for 

changing a ticket to a different flight(s) in foreign air transportation. 

(5)The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which has dreadful as well as 

positive attributes, regrettably stripped legal authority from the CAB and the 

Department to similarly regulate rates, fares and charges in domestic 

air transportation. In this specific case, this is beyond lamentable. 

However, it is possible that the Department may use other sections of 

applicable law to compel the greedy US domestic airline industry to 

drastically-reduce their own current $150 change penalty fee. The 

classic tactic of "jawboning" also obviously applies here. Petitioner 

requests that the Department take prompt action on point as well, 

using whatever tactics stand a reasonable chance of prevailing in this 

noxious consumer issue. 

July 2,2012 

e (lyA 

Donald L.~s~~r Attorney-at- Law [pro bono publico] 

2010 Valle Cay Drive 

Vi las, N C 28692 

TEL.: ( 828) 297-7823 

FAX.: (828)297-7824 

EMAIL: donpevsner@aol. com 
-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Donald L. Pevsner, do hereby certify that I have served the following 

respondents to this Petition for Rulemaking and Third-Party Complaint 

by First Class Mail, on this second day of July, 2012: 

( 1 )Air Transport Association 

ATTN.: David Berg, General Counsel 

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20004 

(2)lnternational Air Transport Association 

ATTN.: Douglas Lavin, Regional Vice President, North America 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, North Building, Suite 301 

Washington, DC 20004 

(3)Richard 11 Ben 11 Hirst 

General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1 050 Delta Drive 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

( 4) Samuel Podberesky 

USDOT/OST 

Washington, DC 20590 
-6-

VERIFICATION 

Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, I, Donald L. Pevsner, 

in my individual capacity and as the authorized representative of the pleader, 

have not in any manner knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or failed 

to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious or fraudulent 

statement or knowlingly used any documents which contain such statements 

in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of the pleading. 

I understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions 

of 18 USC Section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, 

or both. 

July 2, 2012