BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20590 "0 ! c /\ iQ: 3 g 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Unfair-Practice Complaint of 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

Docket £;6 r- 6J~ T-v O 11- () () 7? 

-------------------------------

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 

AND 

UNFAIR-PRACTICE COMPLAINT OF 

DONALD L. PEVSNER, Esq. 

Communications with respect to this document should be directed to: 

April 15, 2011 

DONALD L. PEVSNER 

A ttorney-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, DC 20590 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Unfair-Practice Complaint of : 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

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

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

Petition for R ulemaking and Unfair-Practice Complaint pursuant to 14 C. F. R. 

§302.16 (as to both air transportation and foreign air transportation) 

and §302.502 (as to foreign air transportation). The remedies requested 

are as follows as to the subject-matter below: 

(1 )The subject of both the Petition for Rulemaking and the Unfair-Practice 

Complaint elements of this document is the refusal of both air carriers 

and foreign air carriers, in both domestic air transportation and foreign 

air transportation, to permit passenger ticketing on a round-trip-only, 

excursion-fare basis (i.e., as strongly opposed to two rapacious "full-fare 

Economy" one-way tickets) when passenger travel is requested on different 

air carriers or foreign air carriers on the respective outbound and inbound 

sectors, when such different carriers are not members of the same "Big Three" 

airline Alliances of OneWorld, SkyTeam and Star Alliance, or other, similar 

airline Alliance. 

(2)49 U.S.C. §41712 gives the Secretary of Transportation authority to 

" •.. investigate and decide whether an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or 

ticket agent has been or is engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or 

an unfair method of competition in air transportation or the sale of air 

transportation. If the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a 

hearing, finds that an air carrier, foreign air carrier, or ticket agent is 

engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition, 
-2-

the Secretary shall order [not "may order II ] the air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, or ticket agent to stop the practice or method. II [Emphasis Added] 

(3)49 U.S.C. §41501, applicable to foreign air transportation only, 

mandates that: 

IIEvery air carrier and foreign air carrier shall establish, comply with, 

and enforce--

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

to foreign air transportation. II 

(3)Your Petitioner and Complainant hereby requests the Department 

to: 

(a) Determine whether the air carrier and foreign air carrier practice 

set forth in Paragraph (1), above, is, as your Petitioner/Complainant now 

alleges, a prima facie unfair practice and/or an unfair method of competition, 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §41712; and 

(b)As may be necessary in foreign air transportation only, mandate 

that the carrier practice set forth in Paragraph (1), above, violates Paragraph 

(1) of 49 U.S.C. §41501 per se. 

(c)Argument in support of such prompt Departmental action is 

as follows: 

(A) Prior to deregulation of domestic air transportation, 

it was standard airline-industry practice in both air transportation and 

foreign air transportation to permit, if not to actually encourage, the 

practices of interlining and fare combinability, with particular application 

to permitting a passenger to fly on different air carriers or foreign air 

carriers on the outbound and inbound sector(s) of their ticketed itineraries. 
-3-

This practice, in fact, persisted long after U.S. domestic airline 

deregulation, as an elemental component of passenger satisfaction. 

For, when a passenger cannot fly on different carriers when holding 

any excursion-fare ticket, other than members of the same airline Alliance, 

the result may be highly detrimental to him: 

(i) Take the case of a passenger who wishes to fly from Chicago 

to Rome, Italy on a nonstop flight; then return nonstop from Zurich, 

Switzerland to Chicago as well. His paramount goal, if he is sane, is 

to avoid changing aircraft at a ghastly hub city en route either way, 

where delays and security headaches may ruin his trip. As of this date, 

only Alitalia operates nonstop flights from Chicago to Rome. Only Swiss 

International Airlines operates nonstop flights from Zurich back to Chicago. 

Swiss is a member of the Star Alliance, and Alitalia is a member of SkyTeam. 

As such, and as both carriers are shortsightly determined to keep 100% of 

the ticket revenue within their own Alliances rather than to recognize 

the obvious fact of reciprocity as to other, similarly-inclined passengers, 

it is impossible to fly this "open-jaw" itinerary without being forced 

to endure a connection at an en route hub city in one direction. 

This onerous practice is therefore a prima facie violation of the precepts 

set forth in 49 U.S.C. §41501 and §41712, as it is arbitarily unfair and 

an unfair method of competition [§41712] and an unreasonable rule and 

practice related to foreign air transportation [§41501]. 

(ii) The same unreasonable status of this practice is at work with 

regard to purely-domestic air transportation. A further element, not as 

widely-present on routes in foreign air transportation but still an important 

factor, is the passenger1s inability to obtain departures at the times of his, 
-4-

rather than one sole carrier's, choice in both directions on his itinerary. 

For example, Carrier A may have a nonstop flight at an acceptable time, 

but only a one-stop flight or change-of-plane service in the other direction. 

The universal practice of air carriers and foreign air carriers alike deprives 

the hapless passenger of freedom of choice, unless he wishes to pay 

five or ten times the applicable excursion fare by using two separate 

"full-Economy" or similar tickets on the two different carriers. 

(iii) Had the concept of "airline alliances" been envisioned by my 

late, good friend, Dr. Alfred E. Kahn, it is probable that he would have 

raised an alarm on the damages that this later industry concept is continuing 

to inflict on millions of airline passengers. It is also probable that the 

resultant oligipolization of reasonable carrier selection on differing flight 

sectors would be highly offensive and alarming to even rabid "free-marketeers", 

who have obviously never thought about confronting the net results of the 

dubious workings of the "free market" in this specific case. It is the 

purpose of your Petitioner/Complainant to have the Department conduct 

a probing investigation of the status quo as a result of his filing of the 

instant document, and to try to reconcile the resultant inconvenience to 

the mass traveling public with its duty to the pre-eminent doctrine of 

consumer protection. 

April 15, 2011 

Donald L. Pevsner 

Attorney-at-Law [pro bono publico] 

2010 Valle Cay Drive --

Vilas, NC 28692 

TEL.: (828)297-7823 

FAX.: (828)297-7824 

EMAIL: DonPevsner@aol.com 
-5-

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 or willfully falsified, 

concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, 

fictitious or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which 

contain such statements in connection with the preparation, filing or 

prosecution of the pleading. understand that an individual who is found 

to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 10 1 shall be fined or 

imprisoned not more 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

following respondents to this Petition for Rulemaking and Unfair-Practice 

Complaint by First Class Mail, on this fifteenth day of April, 2011: 

(1) Samuel Podberesky, Esq. 

USDOT 

Washington, DC 20590 

(2) Douglas Lavin: Regional Vice President, North America 

I nternational Air Transport Association 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: North Building, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20004 

(3) David Berg: General Counsel 

Air Transport Association 

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW: Suite 1100 

Washinaton _ DC 20004