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 Tour Price 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 were made as quickly as possible following 

that, with full effect as of 18 February. 

oMC’s reply both misrepresents the DOT’s Guidance document 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, they must accurately distinguish between taxes and 

government fees versus carrier-imposed fees. But this was a preexisting duty. Indeed, the Guidance 

specifically affirms that this is a preexisting duty: 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 sometime thereafter, but that such displays were at all 

times prohibited. That is, the DOT’s Notice did not create a new obligation for airlines to be truthful 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 February 21, 2012 Guidance is the cause of its false

statements about “tax.” But this explanation is unconvincing. Even before that Guidance, airlines and 

ticket agents had no proper reason for making affirmatively 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 February 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 booking tool, failure of product managers to 

recognize that carrier-imposed surcharges are in fact not “tax”, or failure of appropriate staff to 

recognize the importance of this error when they noticed it. A full search of oMC records could reveal 

who designed the screens with false statements, what alternatives were considered, and whether 

anyone discussed the use of the word “taxes.” Such an inquiry could provide additional insight into the 

DOT’s question of why the false statements occurred. 
Notably, oMC also fails to fully answer the DOT’s second question: “[O]ver what period of time did this 

failure occur?” oMC admits that the problem continued until February 18, 2013. But any “period of 

time” has both a start and an end. The DOT asked oMC 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 launch until the February 18, 2013 correction. 

Contemporaneous documents are in accord. For example, 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 the 

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 complaint in this matter. (See especially Attachment 2 

continued, bottom of the page, with the word “Taxes” a clickable 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 should provide confirmation. 

Because oMC’s false statements on this subject began in 2008, the DOT’s February 21, 2012 Guidance – 

some three and a quarter years later! – obviously cannot be the cause of oMC’s false statements. If DOT 

seeks an explanation for oMC’s false statements, DOT should look to causes other than DOT’s 2012 

Guidance.