BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Benjamin Edelman, ) 

 third-party complainant ) 

 ) 

v. ) Docket OST-2013-0027 

 ) 

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ) 

__________________________________________) 

ANSWER OF CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED 

TO THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

John R. Mietus, Jr. 

Law Office of John Mietus, LLC 

6701 Democracy Blvd., Suite 300 

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

(202) 747-5212 

(240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com 

Counsel for CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS 

LIMITED

March 7, 2013
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Benjamin Edelman, ) 

 third-party complainant ) 

 ) 

v. ) Docket OST-2013-0027 

 ) March 7, 2013 

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited ) 

__________________________________________) 

ANSWER OF CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LIMITED 

TO THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT 

 Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.405(a), Cathay Pacific Airways Limited 

answers the above-captioned February 6, 2013 complaint and, for the reasons 

set forth herein, urges the Department to dismiss the complaint without 

further investigation or action.1

 As with many carriers worldwide, Cathay’s flights may be incorporated 

by prospective passengers into specialized “around-the-world” (RTW) 

itineraries. One online source of RTW tickets is rtw.oneworld.com, a 

specialized site owned and managed by oneworld Management Company, Inc. 

(“oMC”) and developed by oMC in cooperation with Innovata and Amadeus. 

oMC offers this “RTW Tool” to book RTW flights on Cathay and seventeen 

 

1/ To the extent necessary, Cathay asserts the following affirmative defenses to the 

complaint: failure to state a claim upon which relief against Cathay may be granted; 

failure to join one or more indispensible parties; and mootness. As Cathay presently 

lacks sufficient information as to whether additional affirmative defenses may yet be 

available, it reserves the right to assert them. 
- 2 - Cathay Pacific 

Answer 

other oneworld carriers.2 Fare displays and disclosures provided by the RTW 

Tool are determined by oMC and not individual carriers. 

The complaint, filed under 49 U.S.C. § 41712, is based on a test 

conducted by the third-party complainant of the RTW Tool for an itinerary 

containing 12 British Airways and 8 Cathay flight segments; the itinerary 

apparently was composed so that Cathay would be the ticketing carrier. 

Screenshots in the complaint show that the RTW Tool generated a total price 

for the test itinerary and divided that into “Fare” and “Taxes” subtotals. 

Clicking on “Taxes” generated a list of items included in that subtotal, 

including two items described as “Multiple Surcharges” and “Surcharge.” 

Those items appear consistent with the way the RTW Tool would have 

displayed carrier-imposed surcharges. Cathay was also advised by oMC that 

the surcharge display results of the test appear representative of the RTW 

Tool display at the time. 

 Upon learning of the test results, Cathay immediately advised oMC 

and asked that the oMC display be corrected. As the Department is aware, in 

reservations systems carrier-imposed surcharges generally share the same 

data format with other taxes and charges in international air transportation. 

Carriers and reservations systems seek to ensure that this longstanding 

 

2/ Edelman has docketed identical complaints concerning the RTW Tool against two 

other oneworld carriers – American Airlines and British Airways – but CX 

understands that the RTW Tool may, depending on itinerary, select any of nine 

active oneworld members to ticket an itinerary. 
- 3 - Cathay Pacific 

Answer 

treatment does not affect the correct public display of carrier surcharges, but 

errors can occur. 

oMC completed its remedial action on February 18, 2013. RTW Tool 

pricing displays now show a “Taxes and Carrier Surcharges/Fees” subtotal, 

and non-tax items are identified, for example, as “Carrier Surcharges/Fees.” 

Thus, the RTW Tool appears consistent with the Department’s February 21, 

2012 guidance in this area,3 and the subject matter of the complaint has been 

resolved. 

To summarize, oMC determines the manner in which its RTW Tool 

displays pricing information for Cathay and other oneworld carriers. And 

when Cathay advised oMC that the RTW Tool’s display of carrier-imposed 

surcharges was deficient, oMC took immediate action to modify that display. 

Thus, neither of the Department’s administrative remedies for section 41712 

violations -- orders to cease and desist and civil penalties – would be 

warranted against Cathay.4 Cathay further submits that existing 

Department regulation and guidance on this subject is sufficient to protect 

the public interest.

 

3/ Contrary to an assertion in the complaint, that guidance does not specifically 

mandate the substantiation of carrier-imposed surcharges in pricing displays. 

 

4/ The suggestion that the Department order Cathay to refund carrier-imposed 

surcharges, to correct an error of its agent, has no basis in section 41712 

administrative precedent. It appears intended as an award of private damages, 

which DOT properly refuses to grant under that section. Nor is there any evidence of 

tax violations that would justify referral to U.S. or foreign tax agencies.