arg^ 

Th9 Vole* tor Air Utow Pmmamn^mr tUghim 

Fetruary28,2011 

> -

- -i ; ' i: 

Honorable Ray LaHood ^-

Secretary of Transportation -^ 

U.S. Department of Transportation -^ 

• r I -C m 

-;0 0 L J ^ 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. ^ j-~ n 

Washington, D,C. 20590 •^•' i'^^ 

Re: Commenrs otAirliitePassengen.org on Rulemaking 

*^£iihancuig Airline Passenger ] h-otections" 

75 FR 32318 (June 8,2010) 

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-01. tO 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

AirIinePassengers.org, a newly-chartere I non-profit organization^ to serve as the "Voice for 

Airline Passenger Rights," urges the Department to consider these late-filed comments* on an 

important polic> issue first raised in the *ebmary 16,2011, comments of Allegiant Air to this 

docker on die subject of Full-Fare Advertising (regulated at 14 C.F.R 399.84). 

Allegiant argues in part that since diere 1 as been a substantial run-up in fiiel costs in recent 

weeks that airlines must pay, DOT shoul J allow earners to retain the right to price their services 

flexibly, including the option for Alligla: it to offer consumers on its website a choice of two 

fares: a traditional "locked in" fere that would not fluctuate between the time of fare purchase 

and the travel date, and a lower fare that ;ould change before the date of travel *Xup to a set 

maximum that would be clearly disclose 1) depending upon changes in fuel price between the 

booking and travel dates.'* Allegiant is o )posed to DOT'S first listed option in the pending 

rulemaking to change the current regulat on to establish a blanket ban on all post-purchase price 

increasesFirst, AirlinePassengers.org is complete y sympathetic toward the concerns of aU airlines that 

the sudden and substantial recent increas es in their cost of fuel will have a serious financial 

impact on individual carriers and the ent re recovering domestic airline industry. 

Passengers will be asked to pay increase i fares that reflect airlines' higher costs for fuel. This is 

appropriate; the single policy question is how those higher fuel costs are to be presented to 

consumers. AirlinePassengers.org supp )n3 the Department's proposal for a blanket ban 

^ Charrered m the Commonwealth of Virginia; n quest lo the Imemal Reveime Service ORS) for classtficanon as a 

secrion 50l(cX3) edmratioDal origanization is pei diog. 

^ The NPRM piovides that laie-filed commenis' /ill be considered to the extent practicable (75 FR 3231 %). Since the 

Depanmcnt anticipates bsuing a final regulittior in April (DOT Rcgulatoiy Agenda Semjanmial Summary, 75 FK 

79612 (Decenibcr 20,2010)), AUtgiaai Air's co ntnents and dus submission should be considered. 

P.O. BOX 57238, WASHINGTON, DC 20037-7238 
precluding airlines from imposing any p 5st-purchase price increases on consumers for the 

following reasons: 

1. DOT must foster easy transparent^ as to the full costs of commercial air travel that 

passengers must pay. 

At the current time, some legacy carrier: are refusing to provide current fare and "ancillary fee" . 

information to third parties that have era iitionally offered consumers valuable on-line 

comparisons of the costs of flying on co npeting airlines. These carriers now want passengers to 

obtain information on their current fares and on each of their newly-established "ancillary fees" 

(e.g., checked bags, advance seat assign nents, carry-on bags, in-flight food and beverage 

service, blankets, piUows) solely from e ich carrier's own website and not from any thiixi party 

that would provide comparative informt lion between airlines. 

If allowed by the Department, airline pa sscngers would lose the transparency of the easy 

comparability of the total costs of flying on numerous compering airlines - which is one of the 

primary consumer benefits of the intemt.-t age - and would have to search numerous carrier 

websites to make informed judgments a x?ui total costs. 

Allegiant proposes to cake this legacy ci rrier scheme one step further: from a difficult-todctcrmine total cost of flying after consi jners have to search individual airline websites to an 

impossible-to-determine total cost becai.se Allegiant would determine that total cost on its own -

- post-purchase, between the dates of be oking and travel, by setting its current **fiiel surcharge." 

.. -Another step backward from true trar sparency for consumers. 

2. The proposed Allegiant Air plan is simply an effort to have DOT approve shifting 

normal airline business risk onto tl e consumer, which is contraiy to consumer interest. 

Regardless of the degree of disclosure i; might provide, what Allegiant Air is proposing is simply 

a mechanism for off-loading the normal airline business risk of fuel price increases onto the 

consumer, where it does not belong. W^U-run businesses throughout the economy recognize that 

there are certain, inherent risks in opera ions, often including commodity price increases. Fuel 

price increases is one such risk constant y faced by airlines. Well-run airlines can, and often do, 

address these tmcertainties by employin z hedging and other strategies to protect against the 

uncertainty of future fuel price increase :. The average constnner has no such opportunity. 

Allowing airlines to abnegate their man igemcnt responsibility to protect their businesses from 

the vicissitudes of fuel price fluctuation i discourages good management practices, is 

fundamentally anti-consumer and contr iry to the public interest. Qualified airline management 

must be prepared to manage the business risk of fuel price fluctuations no less than assuring 

compliance with required equipment m; intenance schedules and providing properly trained and 

qualified operating personnel. 

P.O. BOX 57238, WASHINGTOK, DC 20037-7238 
3. It's time DOT prohibits all airlines :rom identifying and collecting specific ^^fuel 

surcharges"; airline '^surcharges'" iacreasingly arc mostly marketing tactics and aren't 

regulated for amount or timing by s nyone. 

When fuel costs last spiked in 2008, it b* came obvious that the "fuel surcharges" the airlines 

added to their fares were as much markc ing tactics as a needed cost recovery mechanism. Some 

carriers imposed "fuel surcharges" only n their non-competitive markets, imposing their higher 

fiiel COSTS on some and not on all passen; ^ers buying tickets. Some carriers, according to some 

indusny commenters, delayed eliminaiirg their "fuel surcharges" long after the cost of fuel had 

receded. Pzissengers who bought tickets well in advance of their travel date and who paid the 

''fuel surcharge" reportedly weren'i give i refunds, while passengers buying tickets later for the 

same flight didn*t pay the surcharge, 

DOT traditionally has allowed airlines T< advertise "fuel surcharges" btn mandates that those 

extra charges be included within the advertised fare. That*s not enough. It's time DOT and the 

airlines made clear that the airline fare ii whatever the airline can charge, and liiat varying fuel 

costs are but one important element in t}-.e airlines' decisions as to what fares to charge (plus all 

the extra "ancillary fees,'' of course). Si rcharge language ought to be prohibited. 

The Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) a so agrees with the positions in this letter. 

Thank you tor your consideration of this issue of importance to passengers, raised in the recent 

Allegiant Air filing. For additional info mation, contact us at toll-free phone 1-855-AlRPASS 

(247-7277). 

Sii ccrely, 

BlfRTONJ.RUBlN 

Di ector 

' "Surcharges" in regulated Indusaies were txa i charges collected from all purchasers, and iheir inclusion in the 

COST base wa:; reviewed by regulators a^i to leas* oablcaess of ainouin of cliaiges and dates during AMfaich high£r 

charges were imposed. In contrast, today's ajrj nes set their own feres and "surcharges" on a market basie to 

maximize revenue. 

P.O. BOX 57238, WASHINGTOM, DC 20037-7238