1 DOT Meeting with A4A August 7, 2014

List of Participants:

Mary Barnicle , Managing Director, Regulatory Affairs, United Airlines Stacey Bechdolt , Senior Director of Safety and Technical Affairs, RAA David Berg , General Counsel, A4A

Alec Bramlett , Senior Attorney, American Airlines Sophy Chen , Counsel, Steinbrecher & Span for United Airlines

Brian Friedman , Litigation/Regulatory Counsel, JetBlue Kimberly Graber , Branch Chief, Consumer Protection, DOT

Ben Hewlett , Summer Legal Intern, DOT

Clereece Kroha , S enior Trial Attorney, DOT

Alissa Markert , Senior Manager, Regulatory, United Airlines

Barbara Marrin , Senior Trial Attorney, DOT Steve Morrissey

, Managing Director, Regulatory and Policy, United Airlines Doug Mullen , Assistant General Counsel, A4A

Rosanna M. Neil , Associate, Paul Hastings

Sharon Pinkerton , Senior Vice President, Legislative and Regulatory Policy, A4A Ray Prentice , Director of Customer Advocacy, Alaska Airlines Jeremy Ross , Senior Attorney, Alaska Airlines

Norman Strickman , Director, Aviatio n Consumer Protection Division, DOT Stephanie Taylor , Manager, Passenger Services, A4A

Blane Workie , Acting Assistant General Counsel, DOT

Summary of Proceedings:

Prior to the meeting, DOT Acting Assistant General Counsel Blane Workie explained

that due to ex parte communication restrictions, the Department of Transportation (DOT) officials would only discuss information that is publicly available in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the accompanying regulatory analysis. Ms. Workie also explai ned that a summary of the meeting and the answers given would be publicly posted in the NPRM docket (DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0056) on www.regulations.gov.

Ms. Workie delivered a brief overview of the NPRM : Transparency of Airline Ancillary

Fees and Other Consumer Pr otection Issues, 79 Fed. Reg. 29970 ( May 23, 2014). Ms. Workie then pro ceeded to address the 43 questions posed to DOT by Airlines for America (A4A):

1. Has the Department considered withdrawing this NPRM and replacing it with an ANPRM given that there are over 75 open ended questions in the NPRM which makes it impossible for carriers to fully comment on the multiple combinations of possible rules?

Ms. Workie stated the Department’s position that an NPRM is the appropriate vehicle for this effort. However, she added that an SNPRM, or significant changes to the rule,

cannot be ruled out until the comment period has concluded.2

2. The NPRM states “Carriers would, of course, be required to provide ticket agents the fee rules for particular passenger types (e.g. military, frequent flyers, or credit card holders)” Notice at 29977. This is customer specific information.

a. If ticket agents are only required to provide “itinerary specific” fee information, for example geography, travel dates, cabin (economy, first cl ass) ticketed fare, what would be the purpose of sending carrier fee rules to ticket agents for “customer specific” fee disclosure?

Ms. Workie provided background information on the distinction between customer

specific versus itinerary

- specific informat ion and the roles of carriers and ticket agents.

See NPRM at 29977. She then indicated that the statement quoted in the question was

made in error

.

3. What is the legal basis for the proposed definition of “basic” ancillary services? These

are listed in the NPRM as first and second checked bags, a carry

- on bag and advance seat assignment.

Ms. Workie stated that the legal basis for the proposed definition is 49 U.S.C. § 41712. See NPRM at 29970 which states that the DOT is issuing this NPRM based on its

stat utory authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in air transportation, 49 U.S.C. § 41712.

4. Since seat assignment has not “traditionally” been part of the ticket purchase (assignment at the gate using stickers or by phone only within 30 days of tr avel) please explain why the NPRM defines seat assignment at ticket purchase a basic ancillary that was traditionally included in the ticket.

Ms. Workie explained that the Department views certain basic services, including seat assignment at ticket purcha se, as intrinsic to air transportation. She pointed out that before unbundling that carriers used to include advance seat selection in the cost of air transportation. See NPRM at 29977. Ms. Workie then invited A4A and its members to

submit comments if t hey disagree.

5. Please define the legal basis for proposing to regulate the interaction between the air carrier and the carrier’s customer and its proposals in the NPRM that would insert the Department in the relationship between air carriers and intermediaries (ATPCO,

GD Ss)?

Ms. Workie stated that the Department had held meetings with numerous stakeholders,

and concluded that there is a need for a rulemaking because consumers continue to have difficulty finding ancillary fee information. Ms. Workie added that the DOT is striving

for minimal impact on the relationships between carriers and their intermediaries. See NPRM at 29975 and 29976 discussing input from various stakeholders.3

In response to a follow

- up question from A4A as to whether standards, case law, or policies help ed the Department determine whether it was interfer ing improperly , Ms.

Workie said that DOT had met with stakeholders prior to issuing the proposed rule, tried to get an understanding of how the relationships worked, and developed a rule that interfered as little as possible. Ms. Workie reiterated the Department’s tentative finding that this rulemaking is necessary to protect the interests of consumers. See NPRM at

29975. Responding to a question from American about how the Department quantif ies the suggestions of a vocal minority of consumers who believe that existing regulations are inadequate, Ms. Workie stated that information obtained post

- Consumer Two, including information from consumer advocacy organizations and the A dvisory

C ommittee on Aviation Consumer Protection (ACACP) , indicated a need for the new rulemaking. See NPRM at 29975. Ms. Workie also noted that the Department is soliciting comments on this issue.

6. Proposed section 399.90(b) states “Each air carrier and foreign air carr ier shall provide useable, current, and accurate information for certain ancillary service fees to all ticket agents that receive and distribute the U.S. or foreign carrier’s fare, schedule, and availability information .” (emphasis ours)

a. Does a ticket agen t have to receive and distribute all three items, “fare, schedule,

and availability information” for this rule to apply?

Ms. Workie responded that ticket agents must receive and distribute all three items. See

NPRM at 30001

- 30002. A 4A inquired as to whe ther there was significance in the fact that the proposed 14 CFR 256.3(f) contains an “or” while the proposed 14 CFR 399.90 requirement contains an “and.” Ms. Workie invited A4A to submit a comment on the

issue.

7. Is there a definition of “useable, current, and accurate?”

Ms. Workie stated that the Department has not defined these terms in order to establish a performance standard, and that the ultimate goal is to make the data in question

accessible in real time. See NPRM at 29978. In response to a comment from A4A that the standard was too vague, Ms. Workie said that the rule was drafted to allow flexibility,

and invited A4A to submit a comment on the issue. A4A also asked what DOT would do if a dispute arose between airlines and ticket agents about what constitutes a “us e able” format, and Ms. Workie indicated that the Department would prefer to interfere as little as possible in such disputes. The question of whether this term could get defined through guidance or an FAQ came up, and t he effects that FAQs can have on compliance was

also discussed

. Ms. Workie encouraged A4A to submit a comment on the matter.

8. Did the Department receive complaints or any other public input prior to publishing the NPRM that triggered this question “Should carriers be proh ibited from imposing restrictions on ticket agents that prevent ticket agents from including a carrier’s scheduled, fares, or availability information in an integrated display?” (Notice at 29974).4

Ms. Workie replied that the Department had received inform ation about this issue from outside groups, and that these restrictions had become an area of concern. See NPRM at

29974.

9. Is the Department aware of any other industry where the government forces regulated entities to provide fee for service information to other regulated entities to enable comparison shopping?

Ms. Workie noted that the purpose of the rule is n ot to enable comparison shopping, but

rather to ensure that consumers are aware of the total cost of travel. See NPRM at 29975. She encouraged t hose who felt differently to express their opinions in comments.

American ask ed whether the need for the new rule implied non

- compliance with Consumer Two, and Ms. Workie replied that it did not and cited the seat assignment requirement as an example of a distinc tion between the two rules.

10. The cost benefit analysis in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rule is highly negative and most areas of proposed regulation have no quantifiable benefits. Please explain how a rule that is highly cost

- be nefit negative meets the requirements of relevant

executive orders.

Ms. Workie disagreed with the characterization of the cost benefit analysis (CBA) as highly negative. She cited the requ irement of Executive Order 12866 that rules be made in the most cost effective manner possible, and asserted that the Department feels that the

RIA me e t s the “reasoned determination” standard with this rulemaking. She cited the NPRM, which says that if the value of the unquantified benefits is greater than one cent per enplaned passenger , then the rule is expected to be net beneficial. See NPRM at

29993.

11. What are the most useful types of comments on the RIA?

Ms. Workie indicated that the most useful types of comments are those t hat provide specific data in support of their conclusions. She noted that A4A’s member survey information can be useful, but that the number of members who agree or disagree with a rule is less important than the reasons behind their opinions. United sta ted that it will be difficult to provide answers to the many open

- ended questions in the NPRM , and Ms. Workie responded that the airline should express this view in a comment.

In response to questions regarding the relationship between the consumer NPRM and the

still

- active RITA (OST

- R) rulemaking on mishandled baggage rates, Ms. Workie pointed

out the differences between the two NPRMs

. The Transparency In Airline Ancillary Fees

rule only consider s the additional costs of mishandled baggage reporting whe re codeshares are involved. She added that if there are any doubts about the costs incurred for changes in reporting, these may be expressed in comments in the dockets for both this

NPRM and the OST

- R NPRM.5

12. Is there a ratio or amount of negative benefi ts that would persuade the Department not to regulate?

Ms. Workie stated that the Department solicits comments (particularly those with cost/benefit information) so it can consider them as part of the rulemaking process.

13. To enable more robust industry comments on the RIA can the Department provide data on the number of consumers who rely on the Air Travel Consumer Report (ATCR) when making decisions on which carriers’ services to utilize?

Ms. Workie said that the Department does not measure how many co nsumers rely on the ATCR directly, because most consumers receive the ATCR data indirectly from news organizations, advocacy groups, and air carriers (through advertisements)

.

14. The Department has already attributed many of the benefits of the NPRM, both qu antified and not, outlined in the RIA in previous rulemaking proceedings. Does the Department plan to subtract from the final RIA those benefits previously attributed to other rules or to other aspects in the same rule?

Ms. Workie replied that the Depart ment should not be double

- counting benefits. She encouraged those who believe that the Department is double

- counting benefits to express
this view in their comments.

15. Will the final RIA include a cost

- benefit analysis of changing the fine authority to $27 ,500 per passenger? This amount would drive greater cancelations, passenger disservice and incremental lost passenger time.

Ms. Workie stated that the fine authority is already set at $27,500 per passenger, and that the proposed rule clarifies the Department’s position on this issue. See NPRM at 29992. American disagreed, and stated its view that the $27,500 should be assessed per flight rather than per passenger. Ms. Workie urged American to express this opinion in a

comment. A4A asked if it would be helpful to have a third

- party consultant review its

comments on the RIA, and Ms. Workie replied that a contractor’s input could be useful if it produced additional data on cost information.

16. Does the Department plan to quantify the number of comments in the docket versus the number of passengers that depart U.S. airports and apply that commenter to passenger percentage to the benefits in the RIA?

Ms. Workie stated that there currently are no plan s to perform this calculation, becau se it is unclear that doing so would be helpful. A4A suggested that the number of consumers who complain is quite small, and that the benefits of rules like this one are being distributed to a tiny portion of the travelling public. Ms. Workie replied tha t even if that were true, counting comments would not address the problem. As an example, she cited the comments received on the Department’s recently finalized rule: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport, 79 Fed. Reg . 37938 (July6

3, 2014). Most of the thousands of individual comments on that rule all said the same thing. Ms. Workie noted that many consumer group s have said that the issues addressed in this rule need attention, and this fact is more significant than the raw number of

comments received. American argued that a vocal minority of passengers are having an disproportionately large influence on the rulemaking process, and Ms. Workie encouraged American to express this view in a comment.

17. Please suggest how the Department would like to receive industry comments in the multiple areas in the NPRM that have overlapping dependencies. For example the combination of proposals of changes in the basis of bag reporting, expansion in the number of reporting carriers a nd aggregation of data for flights marketed by a carrier with flights operated by that carrier alone would lead to six or more possible cost estimates. It is difficult or impossible for the industry to effectively comment on combinations of proposed rules

.

Ms. Workie did not answer this question, as the issue had already been discussed.

18. If the Department decides to require a standardized format for fee disclosure (Notice at 29977) will it consult with industry beforehand to minimize implementation burden s?

Ms. Workie stated that any requirements for standardization would arise from comments received on the proposed rule. A4A said that if further guidance were issued in a FAQ, it would be helpful if the Department consulted with the carriers first

. Alask a mentioned that past FAQs (in particular, one FAQ on baggage fees) had caused problems for the carrier. Ms. Workie replied that FAQs could be used to identify acceptable methods of compliance, but could not mandate the use of any particular method.

19. The NPRM states that, “Airlines and agents that have web sites marketed towards U.S. consumers must disclose or at a minimum display a link or rollover the fees for these basic ancillary services on the first page on which a fare is displayed in response to a specific flight itinerary search request in a schedule/fare database” (Notice at 29978).

a. If a rollover or link is acceptable, did the Department consider an alternative where the carrier or ticket agent must provide a link to the carrier’s website that

i ncludes the four ancillary fees?

b. Did the Department receive specific consumer feedback stating that consumers wanted basic ancillary service fee information provided on the first page on which a fare is displayed?

c. Will the final RIA quantify the loss to co nsumers from obscuring other valuable information that will flow from yet additional required disclosures on the first page on which a fare is displayed?

d. Did the Department or its contractor quantify what share of passengers would elect to have baggage and seat assignment fees on the first fare display screen?

With regard to sub

- question a., Ms. Workie asked A4A to present this alternative in a comment. With regard to sub

- question b., she noted that this issue is discussed in the preamble, and that the De partment had considered feedback from consumer groups,7

Consumer Two comments, and the ACACP

. See NPRM at 29975. United asked what

carriers should do in the situation where one person performs a fare search for multiple

passengers. Ms. Workie replied that United should raise this issue in a comment. With regard to sub

- question c., Ms. Workie suggested that this potential cost be mentioned in a comment. With regard to sub

- question d., she referenced Table 12 and page 48 of the

RIA

.

20. Explain the rationale for the highly prescriptive requirement not to pre

- select the “opt

out ” option in proposed 399.90(e).

Ms. Workie stated that the Department is of the tentative view that the opt

- out option

should not be pre

- selected because the Department want s consumers to be able to choose the information they do and do not see. She described t his position as consistent with the position taken in Consumer Two, where the Department noted that passengers should not

be o pted into certain things without being informed first

. See Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections II at 23144.

21. Will the Department consult industry before adopting a standard to minimize regulatory burdens, if it adopts this baggage fee re quirement “If all of the varieties of baggage fees are displayed, how should the varying fees be arranged?” (Notice at 29978).

Ms. Workie said that the Department is currently not proposing any particular format or standard. See also response to question 18.

22. Can the Department confirm it is not considering requiring customer

- specific seat assignment fees for ticket agents when it makes this statement “should carriers and agents be required to display all possible advance seat assignment fees, or a range , or the fee for each seat assignment available at the time of the search for a particular city

pair?” (page 29978)

Ms. Workie replied said that there was a clear distinction between the requirements for ticket agents and carriers in the rule

. DOT explain s that “the fee information that ticket agents would be required to display to consumers differs from what would be required of airlines in that ticket agents would not be required to include variations in fees that depend on the attributes of the passenge rs such as the passenger type (e.g., military), frequent flyer status, or method of payment.” See NPRM at 29978. She also noted that the agents may negotiate with airlines to enable them to display customer

- specific

information. See NPRM at 29978.

23. Can th e Department explain why it asks what the “preferred way for carriers to collect payment for such services [ancillary fees]?” (Notice at 29979)

Ms. Workie specified that this information is requested to help determine the cost/benefit

of the disclosure r equirement. She then pointed out that the NPRM does not include a requirement for transactability but solicits comment on the matter

. See NPRM at 29979.8

24. Will the Department provide cost estimates for setting design standards for each option of sharing ancillary fee info, such as ATPCO, EDIFACT, XML, or some other technology? (Notice at 29979)

Ms. Workie said that cost estimates are not provided in the RIA because specific design standards are not proposed in the rule text . She suggested that if carrie rs had specific data and cost estimates related to these design standards, they should include them in

their comments.

25. If the Department were to open the door to not only sharing ancillary fee information but also require transactability (Notice at 29979 ), would it publish a supplemental NPRM, since the Department did not propose this requirement and the public is not able to comment on the impact of such a system without any details of what might be required?

a. For example, would DOT require that ticket ag ents complete ancillary fee transactions or would it permit a link on a ticket agent website that would allow the carrier to complete the ancillary fee transaction?

b. What if a ticket agent (under the expanded definition) does not have the ability or

want th e ability to execute transactions, would the Department allow carrier ancillary fee transactions or would it ban ticket agents that do not have the ability to complete ancillary fee transactions?

Ms. Workie indicated that the DOT had not yet decided next steps, including whether or

not an SNPRM or final rule would be issued. She also said that an SNPRM is not required, because comments have been solicited on the issue and cost benefit information has been presented in the RIA. She encouraged intere sted parties to file comments on the point s raised in s ub

- questions a. and b. A4A expressed the view that public comment on the transactability issue would be difficult, based on the information in the NPRM. Ms. Workie suggested that A4A bring this point up in a comment.

26. If the Department were to expand the list of ancillary fee information that must be shared with ticket agents (Notice at 29980) such as wireless internet access, food and beverages, priority boarding, etc., would the Department also re quire ticket agent itinerary specific pricing for these additional ancillary fees?

Ms. Workie reiterated her earlier point that the DOT considers only certain services are

intrinsic to air travel. See NPRM at 29977. She also pointed out that the preamble makes

it clear that ticket agents must provide itinerary

- specific information for these specific

services. See NPRM at 29978.

. 27. Can the Department provide data on the number of consumers who rely on the on

- time performance data required by 234.4 and which are aggregated to the ATCR? Per 234.11, carriers are already required to disclose during the course of reservations or ticketing the on

- time performance of each individual flight operated or marketed by the

carrier to consumers.9

Ms. Workie did not answer this question, as the point had already been addressed in the answer to Question 13.

28. Can the Department provide data on the number of consumer complaints which led to the proposed requirement in proposed 257.5, which further proposes prescriptive requirements related to codeshare disclosure?

Ms. Workie stated that proposed 14 CFR 257. 5 was not based on consumer complaints, but on the Department’s desire to make its regulations consistent with

49 U.S.C. § 41712(c). See NPRM at 29986.

29. In 234.6, the Department proposes to include gate checked baggage in the total number of checked bags. That proposal is the subject of a separate rulemaking. Can the Department confirm that it will not make this proposal final as part of the present rulemaking but instead depend on the open rulemaking (DOT

- RITA

- 2011

- 0001)?

Ms. Workie confirmed that the Department would not make the gate

- checked baggage proposal final as part of the present rulemaking. American asked whether the OST

- R rule would be finalized before the end of the comment period for this rule, and Ms.

Workie indicated that it would not. See schedule for DOT significant rulemakings at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

- significant

- rulemakings

.

30. As elements of the present NPRM, if made final, would great ly increase the burden, cost and time needed to comply with changes in mishandled bag reporting proposed in DOT

RITA

- 2011

- 0001 can the Department confirm that it will either suspend action on that rulemaking or withdraw it until the current rule is made fi nal?

Ms. Workie stated that, while there may still be changes to the OST

- R rulemaking, the Department has no plans to suspend it at this time. She encouraged interested parties to review the report on DOT’s significant rulemakings which is updated month ly.

31. Since the GAO report the NPRM refers to as the basis for expanding reporting discusses only expanding on

- time performance reporting please explain the basis for proposing to make substantial additional reporting changes (aggregated reports including c odeshare information, baggage reporting changes).

Ms. Workie noted that this issue is addressed in the preamble, and that the FAAC

recommendations were referenced there as well. See NPRM at 29982

- 29983.

32. In proposed Section 399.88 explain a possible internal contradiction. The NPRM first calls unfair and deceptive an increase in price “including but not limited to an increase in the price of the airfare, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in applicable fuel surcharge...” (Notice at 30000), but later states that, “This prohibition does not extend to fees for optional services ancillary to air transportation that are not purchased with the ticket except for baggage,” (Notice at 30000). Please explain.10

Ms. Workie stated that there was no contradict ion in proposed 14 CFR 399.88, because prices for optional services, other than baggage fees, not purchased with a ticket could

still be increased.

33. Proposed 399.85(b) requires that fees for first and second checke d bag, a carry

- on bag and an advance seat assignments must be disclosed, “...on the summary page provided to the consumer at the completion of any purchase.” This proposal presents a unique problem and should be withdrawn. A requirement to list price, or perhaps a range of prices for advance seat assignments on the receipt, which is generally a static display, will only confuse customers by giving the false impression that such price(es) would prevail through the point of travel.

Ms. Workie suggested that the carrier that asked this question should bring it up as a

comment.

34. Please explain why the RIA does not assess the costs of proposed 234.4 (on

- time performance); 234.6 (baggage handling statistics) and 250.10 (report of passengers denied confirmed spac e) to carriers that currently report.

Ms. Workie did not answer this question , but promised a follow

- up from the economists

who drafted the RIA

From the economist: The RIA is supposed to assess the incremental costs and benefits of any proposed rules and /or changes to existing rules. Thus, those reports which a carrier is already required to file should not be included in the analysis

– only the new, additional reports. Therefore, only those carriers “that currently report” which also have

code

- share pa rtners will incur costs due to this particular proposed provision. In the RIA’s sections discussing the costs of this provision, a table is included which presents the best estimate of the affected carriers (at the time the report was initially prepared)

– 9 existing reporting carriers who had code share partners.

35. Please explain the involvement of RITA, if any, in considering proposed reporting changes.

Ms. Workie said that OST

- R was a close partner in the rulemaking process. She also

identified the O ffice of Aviation and International Affairs as another close partner.

36. Please explain the statutory authority, if any, in the absence of unfair and deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition to regulate in the areas the RIA considers as benefits from proposed 234.4, 234.6 and 234.10, namely, ““improved handling of baggage for newly reporting carriers and code

- share flights for all reporting carriers,” “decrease in oversales,” “improved customer good will towards carriers,” and

“insurance value.”11

Ms. Workie stated that these areas can still be regulated under 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and that the focus is on providing complete and accurate information to consumers.

37. The RIA and NPRM contain no cost

- benefit analysis for the proposed change in baggage

hand ling statistics in 234.6. Does the Department plan to provide this information?

Ms. Workie stated that the cost/benefit information should be addressed in this rulemaking , but promised to touch base with the economist who provided the RIA. From

the econo mist: we did not find any estimates for reporting baggage mishandling, whereas

we did for the other two. Therefore, we could not put a number on it, but encourage carriers to comment on the proposed changes.

38. Mishandled baggage rates are very small and t he differences between carriers is trivial. Can the Department provide data for the basis of regulation in this area?

Ms. Workie noted that this point had been addressed previously.

39. In 250.2b, the Department proposes to require carriers that orally offer free/reduced rate tickets to volunteer to also orally describe limitations on the offer at the same time. Can the Department provide data on the number of consumers who have complained that they were unable to make informed decisions based on the cu rrent requirement to orally solicit and provide written notice?

Ms. Workie indicated that this was a holdover from Consumer Two, and that language had inadvertently been left out

. See NPRM at 29992.

40. Will the Department provide cost

- benefit analysis for the proposed change in section

250.2b?

Ms. Workie said that she was unsure if this was already accounted for in the RIA for Consumer Two, and would need to go back and check.

After checking, the Consumer Two regulatory impact analysis does assess the c osts and benefits of the changes to 14 CFR 250.2(b)

.

41. In proposed 250.10 the Department proposes that carriers report oversales on behalf of codeshare partners. Can the department provide data that shows consumers rely on statistics about denied boarding when making travel decisions?

Ms. Workie did not answer this question, as the point had already been addressed in the answer to Question 13.

42. Was the 3

- month notice requirement in 399.85(a) intentionally eliminated ? If so, what is

the reason since this change is not discussed in the preamble?12

Ms. Workie responded that t he elimination of the 3

- month notice requirement at the NPRM stage was inadvertent.

43. If the Department decides to require ancillary service fee information only upon the consumer’s reque st (page 29978), at what point in the search process must the customer receive an “opt in” choice?

Ms. Workie encouraged interested parties to file comments on this issue and offer suggestions as to what the requirement should be.

Ms. Workie then open ed up the floor to those with additional questions or comments on

the NPRM. A4A asked if the prohibition on charging for distributing information via contract provisions w ould apply only to current contracts but to future contracts as well. Ms. Workie

re sponded that the Department does not want to disrupt existing contracts between airlines and GDSs. The prohibition would last as long as the existing contracts, and after that, any price charged for distribution of ancillary service fee information would be negotiated by the parties

involved , just like the price for distributing fare information

. Ms. Workie also noted that if the NPRM is made final as proposed that it would be unlawful to provide to consumers fare

information that does not include fees fo r basic ancillary services. See NPRM at 29979. Ms. Workie next addressed a question from United about the necessity of disclosing seat assignment fees. She brought up the example of families that have difficulty planning travel because they are unaware w hat the total cost would be to be seated together. American pointed out that families can sit together, if they book seats in advance and pay the fees. Ms. Workie replied that this could make trip planning difficult in the absence of fee disclosure.

A4A and Alaska then asked how the rule, if finalized, would be enforced with regard to ticket agents. Ms. Workie stated that the rule would clarify the Department’s authority in areas where it has consistently regulated both ticket agents and airlines. S ee NPRM at 29973. She added that the Department will continue to pursue enforcement action against all culpable

entities.