BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Petition of Donald 

### L. Pevsner, Esq. for Rulemaking and Request for Sanctions : Docket DOT-OST-2011-0079

REPLY TO ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

April 29,2011 Donald L. Pevsner Attorney-at-Law 2010 Valle Cay Drive Vilas, NC 28692 (828)297-7823 DonPevsner@aol.comBEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

Petition bfDonald L. Pevsner, Esq. . for Rulemaking and Request for Sanctions : Docket DOT-OST-2011-0079

REPLY TOANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

COMES NOW Donald L. Pevsner, Esq., and files this Reply to the Answer ofDelta Air Lines, Inc. dated April 28,2011, and thereby says: 1. Contrary to the allegation on Page 1, Petitioner was not "treated with dignity and respect" by the initial counter agent to whom he spoke after his airplane returned to its departure Gate A3 at Charlotte International Airporton April 12,2011. This agent was annoyed that Iwas daring to request a supervisor from him, and did not even know that the flight at issue had returned to its departure gate rather than having departed. 2. As previously stated, despite the IIredjacket" counter supervisor having called Gate AS to request that I be permitted to board a substitute Delta flight from Charlotte to Detroit, which would have permitted me to make
a timelyconnection to Buffalo, NY that would have saved my entire trip, the gateagent refused to let me board despite the fact that the substitute flight was still loading checked baggage, and actually departed more than 10 minutes after its scheduled departure time. 3. Delta is hardly doing me any voluntary favors by refunding my ticket for a missed connection (at Atlanta) that would have ruined all downline ground connections after Buffalo, NY. Rule 240 B. ofDelta's Domestic Conditions ofCarriage states, in pertinent part:-2-

"B. ForceMajeure Events In the eventofa force majeure, Delta may...delay any flight without any liability exceptto refund the passenger's ticketin theoriginal fonnofpaymentin accordancewith Rule 260 oftheseconditionsofcarriage." [Emphasis Added] Rule 260 A.1 provides as follows: "If no portion ofthe ticket has been used the refund wiII

be an amount equal to the fare paid. " If Counsel for Respondent is indeed telling the Department that a ticket refund under a flight-delay (or cancellation or diversion) situation is discretionarywith this carrier,rather than mandatory upon passenger request, then the Department has a clear duty to eliminate any such self-serving interpretation ofDelta's Conditions ofCarriage (or any other air carrier or foreign air carrier's similar interpretation) forthwith. It would be the heightofinequity for Delta to wreck a passenger's trip via flight delay, cancellation or diversion--force majeure or not--and then refuse to refund such passenger's ticket, with a resultant $150 change penalty applied to another ticket that mayor may not even be wanted by such passenger. 4. Delta's later offer ofa $50 voucher, good for a future Delta flight that Petitioner wi" instead avoid per se, was rejected with the contempt it deserved. 5. The pricecharged by US Airways for a flight from Charlotteto Buffalo is totally immaterial to the merits ofthis Petition. It should instead be carefully noted by the Departmentthat Delta made a ruthless and conscious decision to refuse to place Petitioner on another airline from Charlotte to Buffaloon April 12, 2011, and that the sole reason for refusal was in orderto avoid having to pay the paltry sum of$133.84to do so: lessthanonethird Petitioner'sresultant, nonrecoverableout-of-pocketlossesfrom such-3-

deliberatedecision. [Emphasis Added] This sordid lesson in "airline economicsll is even more reason for the Departmentto promptly impose revisions in current Rule 240 language to mandate such air carrier or foreign air carrier substitution in its decision in this Docket. 6. The allegation by Counsel for Delta that Petitioner could have always booked an earlierconnection between Charlotte and Buffalo is ludicrous beyond belief. Petitioner allocated 2 1/2 hours at Buffalo for a simple ground connection from theretoToronto, Ontario; more than ample time, butforthe long flight delay and resultant missed connection. Further, the long delay was notclear until after Petitioner's flight had departed its Charlotte gate at 8;25AM. 7. Last but definitely not least, Respondent is sanctimoniously donning the garb of Billy Sunday in piously decrying the fact that Petition allegedly used "profanityll and was lIabusiveli after he was denied boarding on the substitute Delta flight that he expressly assumed would be available to him. Whether or not Petitioner used profanity is totally immaterial to the merits ofthe instant Petition. However, there is no profanity in any language that is too extremeto express the total outragethat Petitioner felt when he
was refused boarding on the substitute Delta flight thatthe Delta "red jacket" countersupervisortold him togotoand board. Further, it should be carefully noted that Petitioner was refused the benefits of Rule 240 in reo
a substitution ofcarrier twice, before he departed the airport for home in total disgust with Delta Air Lines and its heinous denigration ofIIcustomer service" into the ultimate oxymoron. As Respondent has neither the lawnorthe facts
on its side, it has chosen to obfuscate matters with an attack on Petitioner's character. This tactic should begiven the short-shriftthat it deserves. It should be carefully noted as well that Delta's only reference to the merits-4-

ofthis Petition for Rulemaking is this: "Mr. Pevsner1s proposal to re-write airline contracts ofcarriage

to createa mandatory re-accommodation obligation on other carriers for force majeure events would chill and deter low fare competitive pricing options, which benefitconsumers.II

The only "Iow fare competitive pricing optionII provided by Delta is when it has no choice but to match AirTran, Southwest, JetBlue and other non-legacy carriers in a given city pair (such as Charlotte-Atlanta-Buffalo
on AirTran or Charlotte-JFK-Buffalo on JetBlue). Delta could (and probably would) make the same specious argument forjustifying its rapacious change penalties, checked-baggage fees and other rank impositions upon consumers permitted by a highly-imperfectdomestic deregulation scenario. The Department is requested to use its full authority to protecttheconsumer, rather than be swayed by Ayn Randian nonsense about the workings of
a "free market.II 

# /}J / 

# ;ffftJ"rj**su~ttl.** . / 1?t/t(Jv/,.c

# '~~&h,-- 

# P DONALD 

### L. PE SNER, Esq.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy ofthe foregoing Reply to Answer of Delta Air Lines, Inc. has been served on this 29th day ofApril, 2011, by placing a true copy ofsame in the First Class Mails ofthe United States to: (1)Alexander Van Der Bellen, Esq.: Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2)Sam Podberesky I Esq.: USDOT (3)Dayton Lehman, Esq.: USD (4)Douglas Lavin, Esq.: IA (5}David Berg, Esq.: AT