I write to comment on the OneWorld Alliance’s Answers to Questions (May 9, 2013, document DOTOST-2013-0027-0005).

The DOT asked Oneworld Alliance:

Why did the oMC RTW booking engine fail to display properly the distinction between taxes and government fees on the one hand and carrier-imposed surcharges on the other and over what period of time did this failure occur?

oMC replied :
The D.O.T’s Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air TourPrice Advertisements did not come to the attention of oMC until we were contacted by member carrier Cathay Pacific Airways on 7 February 2013. Changes to the RTW booking engine w ere made as quickly as possible following that, with full effect as of 18 February.

oMC’s reply both misrepresents the DOT’s Guidance d ocument also fails to answer the DOT’s two questions.

The DOT’s Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements (henceforth, “February 21, 2012 Guidance”) reminds carriers that if they make available information regarding the amount of taxes and/or fees that are included in the full fare, the y must accurately distinguish between taxes and government fees versus carrier-imposed fees. But t his was a preexisting duty. Indeed, the Guidance specifically affirms that this is a preexisting dut y: The Guidance remarks that “Such displays were deceptive and in violation of section 41712” (emphasis added) -- not that such displays would become impermissible as of the date of the Guidance or som etime thereafter, but that such displays were at al l times prohibited. That is, the DOT’s Notice did no t create a new obligation for airlines to be truthf ul in stating “tax.” Rather, airlines and ticket agents were at all points obliged to make only truthful statements in this regard.

oMC suggests that its failure to review the DOT’s F ebruary 21, 2012 Guidance is the cause of its false statements about “tax.” But this explanation is un convincing. Even before that Guidance, airlines an d ticket agents had no proper reason for making affir matively false statements about “tax,” nor did they have any legal defense or regulatory authority for doing so. The February 21, 2012 Guidance is simply inapposite.

The DOT should reject oMC’s reliance on the Februar y 21, 2012 Notice as the supposed reason why the oMC RTW booking engine made false statements about “tax.” Perhaps the false statements resulted from failure of an attorney to review the oMC RTW b ooking tool, failure of product managers to recognize that carrier-imposed surcharges are in fa ct not “tax”, or failure of appropriate staff to recognize the importance of this error when they no ticed it. A full search of oMC records could revea l who designed the screens with false statements, wha t alternatives were considered, and whether anyone discussed the use of the word “taxes.” Such an inquiry could provide additional insight into t he DOT’s question of why the false statements occurred

.Notably, oMC also fails to fully answer the DOT’s s econd question: “[O]ver what period of time did thi s

failure occur?” oMC admits that the problem contin ued until February 18, 2013. But any “period of time” has both a start and an end. The DOT asked o MC not just when the problem ended, but also when it began. Inexplicably, oMC does not answer.

I believe the false statements of “tax” on the oMC RTW booking engine began when oMC launched the RTW online booking engine, on or about December 9, 2008. Specifically, I believe the oMC RTW booking engine made false statements about “fax” from its l aunch until the February 18, 2013 correction. Contemporaneous documents are in accord. For examp le, in a publicly-available web posting of December 16, 2008, a member of the public commented that it is possible to click the “taxes” line in t he fare summary and see a listing of taxes and carrier -imposed surcharges. (See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/10917177-post3.html .) Indeed, that person’s description matches what I presented in screenshots in initial my compl aint in this matter. (See especially Attachment 2 continued , bottom of the page, with the word “Taxes” a click able hyperlink marked in blue and shown with underlining.) Because the relevant practices appear to have been identical in December 2008 and January 2013, there is good cause to infer that the relevant practices continued without significant modification during this period. oMC’s records sho uld provide confirmation.

Because oMC’s false statements on this subject bega n in 2008, the DOT’s February 21, 2012 Guidance – some three and a quarter years later! – obviously c annot be the cause of oMC’s false statements. If D OT seeks an explanation for oMC’s false statements, DO T should look to causes other than DOT’s 2012 Guidance.