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 

A ttorney-at- Law 

2010 Valle Cay Drive 

Vilas, NC 28692 

(828)297-7823 

DonPevsner@aol.com 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

Petition bf Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. . 

for Rulemaking and Request for Sanctions : 

Docket DOT -OST - 2011-0079 

REPLY TO ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

COMES NOW Donald L. Pevsner, Esq., and files this Reply to the 

Answer of Delta 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 

Airport on April 12,2011. This agent was annoyed that I was 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 II red jacket" 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 timely connection to Buffalo, NY that would have saved my entire trip, 

the gate agent 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. of Delta's Domestic 

Conditions of Carriage states, in pertinent part: 
-2-

"B. Force Majeure Events 

In the event of a force majeure, Delta may ... delay any 

flight without any liability except to refund the passenger's 

ticket in the original fonn ofpayment in accordance with 

Rule 260 of these conditions of carriage." [Emphasis Added] 

Rule 260 A. 1 provides as follows: 

"I f no portion of the ticket has been used the refund wi II 

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 

discretionary with this carrier, rather than mandatory upon passenger 

request, then the Department has a clear duty to eliminate any such 

self-serving interpretation of Delta's Conditions of Carriage (or any other 

air carrier or foreign air carrier's similar interpretation) forthwith. 

It would be the height of inequity 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 of a $50 voucher, good for a future Delta flight 

that Petitioner wi" instead avoid per se, was rejected with the contempt it 

deserved. 

5. The price charged by US Airways for a flight from Charlotte to Buffalo 

is totally immaterial to the merits of this Petition. It should instead be 

carefully noted by the Department that Delta made a ruthless and conscious 

decision to refuse to place Petitioner on another airline from Charlotte to 

Buffalo on April 12, 2011, and that the sole reason for refusal was in order to 

avoid having to pay the paltry sum of $133.84 to do so: less than onethird Petitioner's resultant, nonrecoverable out-of-pocket losses from such 
-3-

deliberate decision. [Emphasis Added] This sordid lesson in "airline 

economicsll is even more reason for the Department to 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 earlier connection between Charlotte and Buffalo is ludicrous beyond 

belief. Petitioner allocated 2 1/2 hours at Buffalo for a simple ground connection 

from there to Toronto, Ontario; more than ample time, but for the long flight 

delay and resultant missed connection. Further, the long delay was not clear 

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 lIabusive li 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 

of the instant Petition. However, there is no profanity in any language that 

is too extreme to express the total outrage that Petitioner felt when he 

was refused boarding on the substitute Delta flight that the Delta "red 

jacket" counter supervisor told him to go to and board. Further, it should 

be carefully noted that Petitioner was refused the benefits of Rule 240 in reo 

a substitution of carrier twice, before he departed the airport for home in total 

disgust with Delta Air Lines and its heinous denigration of IIcustomer service" 

into the ultimate oxymoron. As Respondent has neither the law nor the facts 

on its side, it has chosen to obfuscate matters with an attack on Petitioner's 

character. This tactic should be given the short-shrift that it deserves. 

It should be carefully noted as well that Delta's only reference to the merits 
-4-

of this Petition for Rulemaking is this: 

"Mr. Pevsner1s proposal to re-write airline contracts of carriage 

to create a mandatory re-accommodation obligation on other 

carriers for force majeure events would chill and deter low 

fare competitive pricing options, which benefit consumers. II 

The only "Iow fare competitive pricing option II 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 for justifying its rapacious change 

penalties, checked-baggage fees and other rank impositions upon consumers 

permitted by a highly-imperfect domestic deregulation scenario. The 

Department is requested to use its full authority to protect the consumer, 

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 of the foregoing Reply to Answer of 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. has been served on this 29th day of April, 2011, 

by placing a true copy of same in the First Class Ma ils of the 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