UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### Issued by the Department ofTransportation on the 23rd day ofDecember, 2014

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Violations of14 CFRPart 257 and 49 U.S.C. 

### § 41712 Served December23, 2014

DOT-OST-2014-0229

NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGAND PROPOSED ASSESSEMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES 

### The attached complaint of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) alleges that Delta Air Lines, Inc., (Delta) failed on a number of occasions to comply with the code-share disclosure requirement of49 U.S.C. § 

### 41712(c) and the Department's code-share disclosure rule, 14 CFR 257.5(b). In doing so, Delta committed unfair and deceptive practices in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712, and violated the cease-and-desistprovisions ofa prior code-share disclosure order. As an air carrier, Delta is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 

### 41712(a), which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation. Delta is also subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 

### 41712(c)(1), which states that it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice under subsection (a) for any air carrier to fail to disclose, whether verbally in oral communication or in writing in written or electronic communication, prior to the purchase of a ticket, the name of the air carrier providing the air transportation. The Department's oral code-share disclosure rule, 14 CFR 257.5(b), states in relevant part that "in any direct oral communication in the United States with a prospective consumer and in any telephone calls placed from the United States concerning a flight that is part of a code-sharing arrangement[,]" a carrier "shall tell the consumer, before booking transportation, that the transporting carrier is not the carrier whose designator code will appear on the ticket and shall identify the transporting carrier by its corporate name and any other name under which that service is held outto the public."2

As the Enforcement Office makes clear in its Complaint, Delta has been on notice for many years that during telephone conversations with prospective consumers concerning a code-share flight, the carrier must disclose both (1) the corporate name ofthe carrier that actually operates the flight, and (2) the marketing name ofthe operating carrier (i.e., "any other name under which that service is held out to the public"). 14 CFR 257.5(b). Moreover, Deltahas long been onnotice that this disclosure must take place regardless of whetherthe prospective consumer actually books a flight. In 2013 and 2014, the Enforcement Office conducted an investigation to determine whether Delta's telephone representatives were making code-share disclosures as required. The investigation revealed that Delta failed to make the full, required codeshare disclosures during eight separate telephone conversations. Each failure to disclose code-share information as required constitutes a violation of 14 CFR 257.5(b) and 49 U.S.C. § 41712(c). Moreover, in each instance, Delta omitted material information in a manner that is likely to mislead prospective consumers who were acting reasonably under the circumstances. Accordingly, Delta committed eight acts of unfair practices or unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712(a). This is not the first time that Delta has violated the code-share requirements of 14 CFR Part 257. Delta has been the subject ofa consent order involving code-share disclosures with respect to online listings (not oral communications). On July 9, 2010, the Department issued a consent order against Delta for failing to disclose code-share information as required. 

### DeltaAir Lines, Inc. andNorthwestAirlines, Inc., DOT Order 2010-07-4, Docket DOT-OST-2010-0005. The Department found that Delta failed to submit code-share information to the Official Airline Guide (OAG), and that this failure resulted in code-share information being omitted from online listings ofDelta code-share flights. In mitigation, Delta stated that it is "committed to strict compliance with the disclosure requirements ofPart 257." 

### !d. at 2. Delta agreed to the assessment of$80,000 in civil penalties, and agreed to cease and desist from future similar violations ofPart 257 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

### Id. at 4. Each failure to comply with the 2010 consent order constitutes a violation ofa Department order, subjecting Delta to separate civil penalties. 49 U.S.C. § 4630l(a)(1)(B). Based on the investigation undertaken, the Enforcement Office believes that Delta has violated 14 CFR Part 257, 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and the cease-and-desist provisions of DOT Order 2010-07-4, and that an investigation ofthe alleged violations is in the public interest. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 407 ofthe Department's Rules ofPractice, 14 CFR 302.407, by this notice and complaint we are instituting a formal enforcement proceeding to investigate the allegations set forth inthe attached complaint. The Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings seeks an assessment of civil penalties in the enforcement proceeding instituted by this notice. Under Rule 407(d) ofthe Department's Rules ofPractice, 14 CFR § 302.407(d), Delta is3
notified that it may be liable for civil penalties of $660,000, reflecting violations of 14 CPR Part 257 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and the cease-and-desist provisions of consent order 2010-07-04. This notice and the attached complaint will be served on Delta. Under Rule 408 ofthe Department's Rules ofPractice, 14 CFR § 302.408, Delta is required to file, within 15 days, an answer to the complaint admitting or denying specifically and in detail each allegation ofthe complaint, and a response to the proposed assessment ofcivil penalties, specifically presenting any matters the respondent intends to rely on in oppositionto or in mitigation ofsuch civil penalties.

BLANE A. WORKIE

Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 23, 2014, the foregoing Notice of Enforcement Proceeding and Proposed Assessment ofCivil Penalties and the related Complaint was served on the Respondent by electronic mail and certified mail-returnreceipt requested addressedto the Respondent's address: Jon-Peter F. Kelly Assistant General Counsel DeltaAir Lines, Inc. Department 981 

### 1

030 DeltaBoulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30354-1989 JonPeter.F.Kelly@delta.com

By: Blane A. Workie Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Robert M. Gorman Senior Trial Attorney Office ofAviation Enforcement

and Proceedings (202) 366-9350 robert.gorman@dot.gov U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofthe General Counsel 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

### BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Delta AirLines, Inc. Served December23, 2014

Violations of 14 CFRPart257 and 49 U.S.C. 

### § 41712 DOT-OST-2014-0229

EnforcementProceeding

ENFORCEMENTCOMPLAINT Nature ofthe Case 1. Pursuantto the Department ofTransportation's Rules ofPractice in Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 302, the Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) hereby brings this Enforcement Complaint against DeltaAir Lines, Inc. (Delta). As discussed more fully below, Deltafailed on a number ofoccasions to comply withthe code-share disclosure requirement of49 U.S.C. § 41712(c) and the Department's codeshare disclosure rule, 14 CFR 257.5(b). In doing so, Delta committed unfair and deceptive practices in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712, and violated the cease-and-desist provisions ofa prior code-share disclosure order. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law 2. Deltaholds certificate authority under 49 U.S.C. § 

### 41101 to engage in air transportation ofpassengers and cargo. Delta's principal office is located at 1030 Delta Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30354-1989. 3. As an air carrier, Delta is subject to the Department's adjudicatory authority pursuantto 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. and 14 CFRPart 302. 4. As an air carrier, Delta is subjectto the requirements of49 U.S.C. §41712(a), which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation. 5. As an air carrier, Delta is subject to the requirements of49 U.S.C. § 41712(c)(l), which states that it shall be an unfair or deceptive practice under subsection (a) for any air carrier to fail to disclose, whether verbally in oral communication or in writing inwrittenorelectronic communication, priorto the purchase ofa ticket, the name ofthe air carrier providing the air transportation. 6. The Department's oral code-share disclosure rule, 14 CFR 257.5(b), states inrelevant part that "in any direct oral communication in the United States with a prospective consumer and in any telephone calls placedfrom the United States concerning a flight that is part ofa code-sharing arrangement[,]" a carrier "shall tell the consumer, before booking transportation, that the transporting carrier is notthe carrier whose designator code will appear onthe ticket and shall identify the transporting carrier by its corporate name and any other name under which that service is held outto the public." 7. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46101(a)(4), the Department may issue an order compelling compliance with the provisions ofPart A, Subtitle VII ofTitle 49 U.S.C., including 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The Department may also issue an order compelling compliance with the requirements prescribed under that Part, including 14 CFRPart 257. 8. Under 49 U.S.C. § 41712, the Department may, uponfinding that a carrier is engaged in anunfair or deceptive trade practice or unfair method ofcompetition, issue an order directing the violatorto cease and desist from such conduct. 9. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 and 14 CFRPart 383, the Department may assess civil penalties ofup to $27,500 for each violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712. 10. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 and 14 CFRPart 383, the Department may assess civil penalties ofup to $27,500 for each violation ofa regulationprescribed, or order issued under, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. Background and Enforcement History 11. Code-sharing is a commonpractice among air carriers. In a typical domestic codesharing arrangement, a mainline carrier (such as Delta) will enter into an agreement with an independent, separately owned and managed commuter or regional air carrier (an "operating carrier," such as ExpressJet Airlines) to transportpassengers to airports that are usually not served directly by the mainline carrier, often in smaller cities. The mainline carrier markets the flight and sells the ticket using a trade name that is similarto that ofthe mainline carrier (e.g., Delta Connection). 12. Because the mainline carriertypically markets a flight under a name that is similar to the mainline carrier's ownname, there is a significant likelihood ofconfusion among consumers as to the true identity ofthe carrier that is actually providing the air transportation. Specifically, passengers mayreasonably but erroneously conclude that a code-share flight is actually operated by a well-known mainline carrier, when it is in fact often operatedby a smaller, lesser-known airline. Additionally, such flights are usually operated with smaller aircraft.



### 2 

### Delta

- Complaint

### 13. In September 1985, the Department issued a policy statement that it is an unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. § 

### 41712 for air carriers to fail to provide reasonable notice ofcode-sharing arrangements. Specifically, the Department required air carriers, "in any direct oral communicationwith a consumer concerning a code-sharing flight," to (1) 

### provide sufficient informationto alert the consumer thatthe operating carrier is different from the mainline carrier, and (2) identify the carrier actually providing the service. 14 CFR 399.88 (DocketNo. 42199, 50 FR38508, September 23, 1985, removed March 8, 1999, and replaced with 14 CFR 257.5) 14. On August 10, 1994, the Department issued aNotice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to obtain comments on clarifying, expanding, and/or strengthening the code-share disclosure rule. 15. In the NPRM, the Department stated its policy: "to be timely, notice must be given during all discussions about a code-shared flight. Consumers must be given clear notice before they make reservations orbuy transportationboththatthe service they are considering is on a code-shared flight and ofthe actual operator's identity, so thatthey can considerthese facts in making travel purchase decisions." 59 FR40836 (August 10, 1994). 16. In the NPRM, the Departmentproposed, among other things, clarifying the specific types ofcode-share informationthat mustbe disclosed (e.g., the name ofthe operating carrier). The Department also sought comment onhowmainline carriers should disclose codeshare arrangements to consumers. 

### Id 17. On November 8, 1994, Delta submitted comments regarding the NPRM. In relevant part, Delta stated that "the most importanttime to provide notification ofcode-sharing arrangements is during conversations prior to booking. That is the time during whichthe consumer is evaluating his orher options." (emphasis in original). Delta advocated for the information to be disclosed while a consumer is evaluating options, but opposed a requirement thatthe air carrier disclose code-share arrangements atthe "firstinstance" that a code-share itinerary is offered. Docket 49702; OST-95-179-36 (November 8, 1994) at 3. 18. On March 15, 1999, the Department adopted a final rule, codified at 14 CFR Part 257. Among other changes, the final rule provides that the disclosure must include both (1) the corporate name ofthe operating carrier, and (2) the marketing name ofthe operating carrier (i.e., "any other name under whichthat service is held outto the public"). 14 CFR 257.5(b). 19. Withrespectto the timing ofcode-share disclosures, the final rule requires air carriers to provide code-share information "inany direct oral communication inthe United States with a prospective consumer and in any telephone calls placed from the United States concerning a flight that is part ofa code-sharing arrangement." The required code-share information mustbe provided "before booking transportation." 14 CFR 257.5(b). 

### 3 Delta

- Complaint20. In the preamble to the final rule, the Department discussed various airlines' comments and proposals, including Delta's, regarding the timing ofcode-share disclosures. In doing so, the Department explainedthat it chose to use the phrase "before booking transportation" because it is consistent with longstanding enforcementpolicy: [D]uring a given encounter, the agent or carrier may not wait until after the consumer has decided to make the reservation orpurchase the ticket and disclose the codesharing arrangement only whenreading backthe flight information. Instead, the disclosure mustbe made at the time thatthe schedule information is being provided to the consumer during the "information" and "decisionmaking" portion ofthe conversation, as TWA and Deltarecognize. We therefore rejectNorthwest's argumentthat disclosure should only be required during the booking process. Furthermore, the term "booking" has no meaning that departs from currentpolicy, since it encompasses a reservation. (64 FR 12845-12846). 21. Deltahas been onnotice since at least September 1985 (whenthe Department issued its policy statement) that itwas required to disclose code-share informationto prospective consumers during discussions about a code-share flight. Since at least March 1999 (when the Department issued its final rule titled "Disclosure ofCode-Sharing Arrangements and Long-Term Wet Leases"), Deltahas clearlybeen onnotice thatthe propertime to disclose code-share information is no laterthanthe information and decisionmaking portion ofa conversation, because itis during thattime that a consumer is evaluating options. Moreover, Deltahas itselftakenthatposition as early as November 8, 1994, when it submitted its comments to the NPRM. 22. Deltahas also been onnotice since at least 1999 that it is required to provide code-share information in any direct oral communication with a consumer regarding a code-share flight, regardless ofwhetherthe consumer decides to actually book a flight. This fact is not only reflected inthe preamble to section 257.5(b), but also inthe text ofthe regulation itself. Specifically, air carriers must disclose code-share informationto "prospective" consumers, notjustto consumers who actually book a flight. 23. As noted above, the Departmenthas determinedthat in oral co111Ihunications concerning a code-share flight, consumers are entitled to information aboutthe identity ofthe operating carrier, regardless ofwhetherthey ultimately book a flight during any particular conversation. 24. Over time, the Departmenthas taken numerous enforcement actions against air carriers and ticket agents for failing to orally disclose code-share information as required. See, e.g., UnitedAirlines, Docket OST 2009-0001, DOT Order 2009-7-6 (July 9, 2009); US. Airways, Inc., Docket OST 2009-0001, Order 2009-8-2 (August 10, 2009); FC USA, Inc., v. Liberty Travel, Docket OST 2013-0004, DOT Order 2013-8-25 (August 29, 2013); and AlaskaAirlines, Inc., Docket OST 2014-0001, DOT Order 2014-6-15 (June 27, 2014). Throughthese orders, Deltahas again beenplaced on notice ofits code-share disclosure obligations.

- 

### 4 Delta

- Complaint

### 25. Deltaitselfhas beenthe subject ofa consent order involving code-share disclosures with respect to online listings (not oral communications). On July 9, 2010, the Department issued a consent order against Delta for failing to disclose code-share information as required. DeltaAirLines, Inc. andNorthwestAirlines, Inc., 

### Docket OST 2010-0005, DOT Order 2010-07-4 (attached). The Department found that Delta failed to submit code-share informationto the Official Airline Guide (OAG), and that this failure resulted in code-share informationbeing omitted from online listings ofDelta code-share flights. In mitigation, Delta stated that it is "committedto strict compliance withthe disclosure requirements ofPart 257." !d. at 2. Delta agreed to the assessment of$80,000 in civil penalties, and agreed to cease and desist from future similarviolations ofPart 257 and 49 U.S.C. §

### 41712. !d. at 4. Facts Giving Rise to This Action 

### 26. From September 2013 to September 2014, the Enforcement Office conducted an investigation into whether Delta's telephone reservations agents were providing full and timely code-share disclosure informationto prospective consumers. 27. During this time period, Transportation Industry Analysts (Analysts) from the Department's Aviation Consumer Protection Division, within the Enforcement Office, called Delta's telephone reservations line, expressing an interest inbooking flights that the Analysts knewto be code-share flights (the "targetflights.") See attached declarations. 28. As noted below, eachAnalyst entered into the information and decisionmaking portion of the conversation by stating thathe or she was interested inflying one-way from a particular cityto a destination city, on a particular date, during a specified time period on that day. The Deltareservations agent then disclosed information about the target flight, such as the flight number, the time ofdeparture, and the price. In the cases described below, the reservations agent did not disclose the full, required code-share information (i.e., the corporate name ofthe operating carrier and the marketing name ofthe operating carrier). The Analyst closed each conversationwithout booking a flight. Specifically:

a. On September 15, 2013, Analyst George Gilbert called Delta's reservations line, expressing an interest in a one-way flight from Atlanta, GA, to Killeen, TX, on Saturday, November 16, 2013, at around 10:00 a.m. The target flight was flight #5165, departing at 10:25 a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was ExpressJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent statedthatthey had a flight, #5165, to Killeen. Mr. Gilbert asked the agentto confirm this information, at whichtime the agent repeated thatthey had a flight, #5165, to Killeen. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofGeorge Gilbert, Exhibit A). b. On September 23, 2013, Analyst BrianMcQuillen called Delta's reservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Atlanta, GA, to Toronto, Canada, onthe morning ofNovember 16, 2013. The target flight was flight #4956, departing at 9:58 

### 5 Delta

- Complainta.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was ExpressJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent stated thattheyhad a flight departing at 9:58a.m., and identifiedthe flight number as #4956. WhenMr. McQuillen asked the agentto repeatthe information, she did so, and statedthat the fare was $317.01. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofBrianMcQuillen, Exhibit B).

c. On December 20, 2013, Analyst Brian McQuillen called Delta'sreservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Washington , DC, to Detroit, MI, on the morning ofFebruary 14,2014. The target flight was flight #3637, departing at 9:40a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was EndeavorAir; the marketing name ofthe operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent statedthattheyhad three options for the morning flight, including one leaving at 9:40a.m. Mr. McQuillen statedthat he was interested inthe flight leaving at 9:40. The Delta agent stated thatthis flight arrived at 11:21 a.m., and asked ifMr. McQuillen would like to bookthe flight. Mr. McQuillen asked the agent to repeatthe information, which he did. The agent also asked ifMr. McQuillenneeded a car or hotel, and statedthat Mr. McQuillen could cancel the booking withoutpenalty for 24 hours. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit of Brian McQuillen, Exhibit C). d. On January 27, 2014, Analyst Adam Duffy called Delta'sreservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC (Dulles) to NewYork City (LaGuardia) onFebruary 14, 2014. The target flight was flight #6195, departing at 6:00 a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was GoJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrierwas Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent stated thatthey had a flight departing at 6:00a.m. Mr. Duffy confirmedthatthe flight departed at 6:00, at whichpointthe agent disclosed that the flight landed in LaGuardia at 7:15a.m. and would cost $247. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofAdam Duffy, Exhibit D).

e. On February 4, 2014, AnalystAlex Taday called Delta's reservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC (Dulles) to New York City (LaGuardia) onFebruary 14, 2014. The target flight was flight #6195, departing at 6:00 a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was GoJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent statedthat they had a flight departing at 6:00a.m., butidentifiedthe flight number as #6181. WhenMr. Taday asked the agent to repeatthe information, the Delta agent stated the price ofthe flight and that it was flight #6181. Atthis pointthe agent stated thatthe flight was operated by GoJet, but did not disclose the marketing name ofthe carrier, Delta Connection. (See Affidavit ofAlex Taday, ExhibitE). f. On September 23, 2014, Analyst Jessica Ilich called Delta'sreservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC, to NewYork City on October 11, 2014. The target flight was flight #1346, departing at 6:00a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was Endeavor Air; the marketing name ofthe 

### 6 

### Delta

- Complaintoperating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent stated that they had a flight departing at 6:00a.m. During this conversation, the agent gave the arrival time of the flight, quoted a fare of$152.10, confirmedthat the flight departed out ofReagan Airport, and asked ifMs. Ilich would like assistance with a hotel or rental car. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofJessica Ilich, Exhibit F). g. On September 24, 2014, Analyst Jessica Ilich called Delta's reservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Atlanta, GA, to Baton Rouge, LA, on October 11, 2014. The target flight was flight #5166, departing at 9:00a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was ExpressJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Deltareservations agent stated thatthey had six flights on that route; Ms. Ilich stated that she would like the first flight ofthe day. During this conversation, the Delta agent statedthatthey had a flight leaving at 9:00a.m., with flight number 5166, at a fare of$390.10. Ms. Ilich statedthat she wouldhave to think about that fare. The agent asked ifthere was anything else he could assist with, and Ms. Ilich said no. Atno time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofJessica Ilich, Exhibit G). h. On October 7, 2014, Analyst Adam Duffy called Delta's reservations line, expressing interest in a one-way flight from Atlanta, GA, destinationBatonRouge, LA, on October 11, 2014. The target flight was #5166, departing at 9:00a.m. Forthis flight, the corporate name ofthe operating carrier was ExpressJet; the marketing name ofthe operating carrierwas Delta Connection. Mr. Duffy stated thathe was travelling economy, and asked whattime the earliest flight departed. The agent responded thatthey had a 9:00a.m. flight, and quoted the price of$555.10. The agent then asked ifMr. Duffy would like to "confirm"the ticket. Mr. Duffyrepliedthat he was writing the information down, and asked to confirmthe arrival and departure time. The agent did so. At no time did the Deltareservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit ofAdam Duffy, Exhibit H). Claim for Relief 29. DeltaAir Lines' failure to disclose all required code-share informationto prospective consumers, as described above, ineight instances, constitutes eightviolations ofthe code-share disclosure provisions set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 41712(c) and 14 CFR257.5. 30. In eight instances, during telephone conversations, DeltaAir Lines omitted material information in a mannerthat is likely to mislead consumers who were acting reasonably under the circumstances. Accordingly, Delta committed eight acts ofunfairpractices or unfair methods ofcompetition in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712(a). 31. DeltaAir Lines' failure to disclose all required code-share information to prospective consumers, as set forth above, in eight instances, constitutes eight violations ofthe ceaseand-desist provisions found inDeltaAirLines, Inc. andNorthwestAirlines, Inc., DOT Order 2010-07-4. 7 

### Delta

- ComplaintPrayerfor Relief 

### WHEREFORE, the Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings requests the Department of Transportationto: A. 

### Find that, by failing to disclose all required code-share informationto prospective consumers, as set forth above, DeltaAir Lines, Inc., has committed eight violations of49 U.S.C. §41712(c) and 14 CPR 257.5; B. Findthat, by omitting material information during telephone conversations in a manner that is likely to mislead consumers who were acting reasonably under the circumstances, as set forth above, DeltaAir Lines, Inc., has committed eight acts ofunfairpractices or unfair methods ofcompetition in violation of49 U.S.C. §41712(a); C. Find that, by failing to disclose all required code-share informationto prospective consumers, as set forth above, DeltaAir Lines, Inc., has committed eight violations ofthe cease-and-desistprovisions found inDeltaAirLines, Inc. andNorthwestAirlines, Inc., 

### DOT Order 2010-07-4; D. Assess civil penalties against DeltaAirLines, Inc., inthe amount of$27,500 for each of the violations described inparagraphs A, B, and C, above, for atotal of$660,000, and $27,500 for each additional similar violation revealed inthe course ofthis investigation pursuantto 49 U.S.C. § 46301; E. Order DeltaAir Lines, Inc., to cease and desist from violating 49 U.S.C. § 

### 41712 and 14 CPRPart 257 by engaging inthe conduct described inparagraphs A, B, and C; and F. Grant such otherreliefas may be appropriate.



### 8 Delta

- Complaint Respectfully submitted,

# ~~4/L/~ Blane A. 

### Workie Assistant General Counsel

for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Robert Gorman Senior Trial Attorney Office ofAviation Enforcement and

Proceedings (202) 366-9342; robert.gorman@dot.gov

### Exhibit A District of Columbia: SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared 

# tO>rBe £.. 

# b./be¥"f to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:



### 1. I, George E. Gilbert, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer Protection Division, apart ofthe Department's Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed bythe Enforcement Office for 12 years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, Ihandle consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. InAugust of2013, I
was assigned to work on an investigationteamto test compliance with the Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating myinterest inbooking a flight (the "targetflight") that I knew would be operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta's reservation agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operatedthe flight.
3. On September 15, 2013, at 6:08a.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 1-800-221- 1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight# 5165, departing from Atlanta, GA, destination Killeen, TX, on Saturday, November 16, 2013, at 10:25 a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was ExpressJet. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.
4. Afterresponding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. I inquired about flights between Atlanta and Killeen

### leaving Atlanta around 10:00 a.m. The agent informed me that they had flight #5165 leaving Atlanta at 10:25 a.m. I asked him to repeat and was informed that they hadflight #5165 leaving Atlanta at 10:25 a.m. I statedthat I would have to think about it and call himbacklater.
5. In summary, the Deltatelephone reservations agentresponding to my inquiry did not disclose the operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."
I state under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

### Signature of Affiant.!}_ 

# '<-.

# ~ \)- 2 · 

## J.. 0 \ 

# '-1

.**;~d** 

### Subscribedandsworn to before me this ?:_______day of 

# 0 e.cun

## b-er- ,20

## !!f_.

### Exhibit B District of Columbia: 

### SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared""B.-i0¥'1 

### HeOui 1 \cv) to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:



### 1. I, Brian McQuillen, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office ofAviationEnforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). Ihave been employedbythe Enforcement Office for 11 years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. In August of2013, I was assigned to work on an investigationteamto test compliance withthe Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating my interest in booking a flight (the ''target flight") that I knew would be operatedby an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta's reservation agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operated the flight.
3. On September 23, 2013, at 9:40a.m., I called Delta'sreservations number at 1-800-221- 1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight#4956, departing from Atlanta, GA, destination Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, November 16, 2013, at 9:58a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was ExpressJet. The operating carrier's marketing
name was Delta Connection.
4. Afterresponding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. I inquired about flights between Atlanta and Toronto leaving Atlanta around 10:00 a.m. The agent informed me thatthere was a flight leaving

### at 9:58a.m. I asked for the flight number, and she replied #4956. I askedherto confirm thatthe flight was leaving at 9:58, and she replied "yes" and quoted a fare of$317.01. She asked me ifI wanted to bookthe flight. Ireplied that I wouldthink about it and I thanked her.
5. In summary, the Deltareservations agentresponding to my inquiry did not disclose the operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."
I state underpenalty ofperjurythatthe foregoing is true and correct.
Signature of Affiant: ']N%

## ~"

# Q \..i t

## ~

# l**~**
Subscribedandsworn to before me this 

### 24"thday of**lJowz.yn~**

# No~

DARICE NICOLE LAMBERT NOTARY PUBUC DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA MyCommission Expires September 14;2018 

### , 20J!:L

### Exhibit C Districtof Columbia: SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared**~'()** 

### HCQui 1 

### kV) to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:



### 1. I, BrianMcQuillen, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office ofAviationEnforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). Ihave been employedby the Enforcement Office for 11 years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate inEnforcement Office investigations, as assigned. InAugust of2013, I was assigned to workon an investigationteamto test compliance withthe Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating my interest in booking a flight (the "targetflight") that I knew wouldbe operatedby an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta's reservation agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operatedthe flight.
3. On December 20, 2013, at 11:11 a.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 1-800-221- 1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight# 3637, departing from Washington, DC, destination Detroit, MI, on Friday, February 14, 2014, at 9:40a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was Endeavor Air. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.
4. Afterresponding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. I inquired about flights between Washington and Detroit leaving inthe morning. The agent informedme that there were three options formorning flights. I statedthat I was interested inthe 9:40 flight. He statedthat it would arrive at 11 :21 a.m., and he asked ifI would like to bookthe flight. I asked him to repeat the information, whichhe did. He then asked ifI needed a car or a hotel, and addedthat I could book withoutpenalty for 24 hours. I replied that I wouldthink about it.
5. In summary, the Deltatelephone reservations agentresponding to my inquiry didnot disclose the operating carrier's corporate name, "EndeavorAir," or its marketing name, "DeltaConnection."
I state under penalty ofperjurythatthe foregoing is true and correct.
Signature of Affiant: 

### :3Nifoo-\ 

# M

# <-'~**:~** \ Subscribedandsworn to before me this 2t.rtnday oflJo\lnnlDa=

NotaryPublic

DARICE NICOLE LAMBERT NOTARY PUBUC DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA MyCommission Expires September 14;2018 

### '20lY_.Exhibit D District of Columbia: SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared 

# llu.Jtvvt 

# t. Vvt

# f\1
to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:

1. I, AdamBakerDuffy, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer ProtectionDivision, a part ofthe Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employedby the Enforcement Office for two years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle
consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. InAugust of2013, I was assignedto work on an investigationteamto test compliance withthe Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating my interest inbooking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew wouldbe operatedby an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta'sreservation agentwould disclose boththe corporate name andthe marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operated the flight.
3. OnJanuary 27, 2014, at 2:41p.m., I called Delta'sreservations line at 1-800-221-1212. The target flight for mytest call was Flight# 6195, departingfrom Washington, DC (Dulles), destinationNewYork City (LaGuardia), onFriday, February 14,2014, at 6:00
a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was GoJet. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.
4. Afterresponding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, the system stated that I wouldreceive a call back in 10 to 16 minutes and that I wouldnot lose my place in

### line. I optedto use this service and entered my phone number and statedmy name, Adam, as requested by the system. At 2:55p.m., a Deltareservations agent called me back. She confirmedthat I was looking to travel from Dulles to LaGuardia onFebruary 14, 2014. I stated yes. She stated that "we have one non-stop flight leaving that day at 6:00a.m." She stated that all the other flights travelling to those two cities that day were not non-stop. I reconfirmed verbally that the flight was at 6:00a.m. She said yes and that it lands in LaGuardia at 7:15a.m. and that the ticket would cost $247.00. I stated that I would check my schedule and call back ifI needed to book it. Ithen ended the call.

5. In summary, the Deltareservations agentresponding to my inquiry did not reveal the operating carrier's corporate name, "GoJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."
I state underpenalty ofperjurythat the foregoing is true and correct.

# ~ (-{ ft/V'J

# ~-d-z 

# \I u jl I 

### Signature of Affiant: •**!_!!__!_~** - 1



### Subscribedandsworn to before me this

# 21 rtay of

# ~u!J.~J(.

### ExhibitE Districtof Columbia: SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared (\.

### ~Q.:'{0-.f\d.Q..,:'L-n\.1);}..

# 1 to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:



### 1. I, Alexander A. 

### Taday III, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employedby the Enforcement Office for 12 years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle
consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. In August of2013, I was assigned to work on an investigationteamto test compliance with the Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at Delta Air Lines (Delta), indicating myinterest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew wouldbe operatedby an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta's reservation agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operated the flight.
3. OnFebruary 4, 2014, at approximately 4:45a.m., I called Delta'sreservations number at 1-800-221-1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight# 6195, departing from Washington (Dulles), destinationNew York City (LaGuardia), on Friday, February 14, 2014, at 6:00a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was GoJet. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.
4. After responding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. The agent confirmed that I was looking to travel from

### Dulles to LaGuardia on February 14, 2014. I was informedthat Flight 6181 departed at 6:00a.m. and arrived in LaGuardia around 7:15. The agent also gave the price ofthe flight. I asked again for the flight number and was told itis flight #6181 on "GoJet." I thanked the agent and said I would book later after speaking with my wife.

5. In summary, the Deltareservations agent responding to my inquiry did notreveal the operating carrier's corporate name, "GoJet,"until I made a subsequent inquiry for the flight number. Atno point did the agent disclose the operating carrier's marketing name, "Delta Connection."
I state under penalty ofperjurythat the foregoing is true and correct. 

## l/ /;: 

# <" v'/1 Signnture of Affiant:

# IU:d;;;t {fL/f 

# a:lj;e:!v'



# ------**·~**•..... 

### Subsq:the ndsworn to before me

# this~'-i-day of 

# N 0 

### V

DEONNA BURRELL NOTARY PUBLIC DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA**MyCommid,,,~** :::n<'-'. e,·**,~** "0111 DEONNA BURRELL**~IP\I!l.I!CilJISmiC'IrOF~ ~!Owfmission**  Expires October31, 201'6

## '20_l_~

### Exhibit F Districtof Columbia: 

### SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally,

# appeared~~-'•ff/:f-:-; \(

## Ct _L

## \·.(LV\_

to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowint



### 1. I, Jessica Ilich, being ofsoundmind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employedbythe Enforcement Office for four years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. In September of2014, I was assigned to work on an investigationteamto test compliance withthe Department's code-share disclosure requirements. 2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating my interest inbooking a flight (the "targetflight") that I knew would be operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta'sreservations agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operatedthe flight.
3. On September 23,2014, at 1:46 p.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 1-800-221- 1212. The target flight for mytest call was Flight# 1346 (after my call, the flight number
was changed to #3370), departing from Washington, DC (Reagan), destinationNewYork City (Kennedy), on Saturday, October 11, 2014, at 6:00a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was Endeavor Air. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.

4. Afterresponding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. Because I gave all ofmy informationthroughthe

### automated systemwhen the agent picked up, she statedher name (which I could not understand) and read offthe city pairs. She asked what time I wanted to leave and Itold her early morning. She offered the 6:00a.m. flight. I asked her whattime it arrived and she gave me the arrival time of7:07. She statedthat it was a non-refundable fare of $152.10. I didnot ask for the flight number nor did she provide it. She asked ifI would like to bookthe flight, and I told her that I needed to think about it. Then I reconfirmed thatthe departure airport was Reagan and notDulles, and the agent said yes. Itoldherthat for some reason Ithought the fare would be cheaperthan $152. She asked ifI needed assistance with a hotel orrental car and I said no. Ithankedher for herhelp and endedthe call. 5. In summary, the Deltareservations agentresponding to my inquiry did not reveal the operating carrier's corporate name, "Endeavor Air," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."

I state under penalty ofperjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct.

Subscribedandsworn to before me this

# rJ

# l day of

# }~oJflVU0CL( 20 

## J 

# J{

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: SS**SUBSCRIB~** AND**S~AN** TO BEFORE ME THIS 

### 2/4 DAY OF

### flO~,~,

# ~H-.AD4~

### Exhibit G Districtof Columbia: 

### SS



# . Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared 

# a;.6 61 C' - 

# r Llc.Jv
to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:



### 1 . I, Jessica Ilich, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, inthe Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). Ihave been employed bythe Enforcement Office for four years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, I handle consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. In September of2014, I was assigned to work on an investigationteam to test compliance withthe Department's code-share disclosure requirements. 2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating myinterest in booking a flight (the "targetflight") that I knew would be operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthistelephone conversation, Delta's reservations agent would disclose boththe corporate name andthe marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operatedthe flight.
3. On September 24, 2014, at 3:00p.m., I called Delta'sreservations number at 1-800-221- 1212. The target flight for the test call was Flight# 5166, departing from Atlanta, GA, destination BatonRouge, LA, on Saturday, October 11, 2014, at 9:00a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was ExpressJet. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.

4. After responding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. Afterthe agent gave me his name, Itold him that I would like to book a flight from Atlantato BatonRouge. He responded, "one way," and Isaid yes.. He said "the price will be $390.10." I asked ifthere was only one flight that day and he said, "no, there's six." I asked ifthey were all the same price. He asked whattime I would like to fly and I responded, "the first flight oftheday." He offeredthe 9:00a.m. flight and I asked ifthe price was $391.10. He confirmed that it was. I asked for the flight number andhe said#5166. I toldhimthatI wouldhave to think about $390.10. He asked ifthere was anything else he could assist me with, and I said no. 5. In summary, the Deltareservations agentresponding to my inquiry did notreveal the operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."

I state under penalty ofperjurythatthe foregoing is true and correct.

Subscribedandsworn to before me this

# ;J\day ofExhibit H District of Columbia: SS
Before me, the undersignednotarypublic, this day, personally, appeared 

# ,A-ovt"wl 

# .f. ()..;L-r-T{ to me known, who beingduly sworn according to law, deposes thefollowing:

1. I, Adam BakerDuffy, being ofsound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am over eighteen years ofage and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part ofthe Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by the Enforcement Office for two years. As a Transportation Industry Analyst, Ihandle
consumer complaints received from the traveling public as well as participate in Enforcement Office investigations, as assigned. In August of2013, I was assignedto work on an investigationteam to test compliance with the Department's code-share disclosure requirements.

2. Specifically, my assignment was to call the reservations line at DeltaAir Lines (Delta), indicating myinterest in booking a flight (the "targetflight") that I knew would be operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner ofDelta. My goal was to determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta'sreservations agent would disclose boththe corporate name and the marketing name ofthe air carrier that actually operatedthe flight.
3. On October 7, 2014, at 6:06p.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 1-800-221-1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight# 5166, departing from Atlanta, GA, destination BatonRouge, LA, on Saturday, October 11, 2014, at 9:00a.m. The operating carrier's corporate name was ExpressJet. The operating carrier's marketing name was Delta Connection.
4. After responding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was answered by a reservations agent. At approximately 6:14p.m., a reservations agent

### introducedhimselfand confirmed my name. The agent re-stated the itinerary I had entered into the automatic system, flying from Atlantato Baton Rouge, and asked me to confirm ifthat was correct. I said yes. The agent asked me ifI was travelling "onfirst class or economy." I stated, "economy." He then asked me what time I was looking to travel. I said "something inthe morning," and asked him what his first flight ofthe day
was. He answered, "there's a 9 a.m. flight," and then statedthe arrival time which I did not hear correctly. He then stated the price as $555.10. He then asked me iflwanted to "confirm" a ticket. I asked him to hold on, because I was writing this information down. I repeated, "youhave a 9 a.m. flight," and he stated yes. I asked whattime it arrived, and he said "9:37a.m." Ithanked him and said I would call back iflhadto confirm. I then ended the call.

5. In summary, the Deltareservations agentresponding to my inquiry did not reveal the operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection."
I state underpenalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature of Affiant:

# ~ {?.**~·** \\(7\)'?Dtf

Subscribedandsworn to before me this Z!s'day of

# MrenJo~ 

# , 20ft/.

# ~b~·

# McLJ:iJ£

.

# .....**~M&~i~fi'fl'f~i**

# .................

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued bythe Department ofTransportation On theNinth day ofJuly, 2010 Order 2010-07-4

DeltaAirLines,Inc. and Northwest Airlines,Inc. Docket OST-2010-0005

Violations of 14 CFR257.5(a) and (d), and 49

## u.s.c. § 41712

CONSENT ORDER Served July 9, 2010

This order concerns apparent violations by Delta Air Lines, Inc., (Delta), and its operating subsidiary Northwest Airlines, Inc.! ("Northwest") ofthe Department's code-share disclosure rule, 14 CFRPart 257, and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The instant order directs Delta to cease and desist from future violations of Part 257 and section 41712, and assesses Delta, individually and as successor to Northwest, $80,000 in civil penalties. Section 257.4 ofthe code-share disclosure rule statesthat the holding out or sale ofscheduled passenger air transportation involving a code-share arrangement is an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712 unless, in conjunction with that holding out or sale, carriers follow certain notice requirements, including those of 14 CFR 257.5(a) and (d). With regard to written or electronic schedule information concerning a flight that is part ofa code-share arrangement, section 257.5(a) requires that carriers disclose in written or electronic schedule information available to the public, including the Official Airline Guide (OAG) and, where applicable, computer reservation systems, the corporate name of the transporting carrier, and any other name under which the flight is held out to the public. Likewise, with regard to published advertisements for air transportation services provided under a code-share arrangement, including those published on the Internet, section 257.5(d) states that the advertisement must identify all potential transporting carriers by corporate name "and by any other name under which that service is held out to the public." Violations

1 At all times relevant to the subject matter ofthis order, Delta Air Lines, Inc., andNorthwest Airlines, Inc., were and remained separate and distinct legal entities. This order addresses thetwo carriers simultaneously due to the common causes of the violations addressed herein, and in recognition of the merger of the two carriers' operating certificates, completed December 31, 2009, after which Northwest Airlines, Inc., ceased to exist as a separate legal entity, and as a consequence ofwhich Delta Air Lines stands as its sole successor in interest.2
ofeither section 257.5(a) or 257.5(d) also constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices and unfair methods ofcompetition in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712. An investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) revealed a significant lack ofcompliance by Delta with section 257.5. For a period during mid-2009, both Delta andNorthwest submitted schedule and fare data to the OAG that failed to include a disclosure ofthe "Delta Connection" trade name used by their regional carrier affiliates. 2 The failure to provide this information to the OAG resulted in a failure by every automated booking engine that relies on the OAG for schedule and fare data, including the carriers' own websites (http://www.delta.com and http://www.nwa.com), and the websites ofDelta andNorthwest agents Orbitz, Travelocity, Expedia, and others, to accurately report to consumers the trade name used by the regional carrier affiliates ofboth Delta and Northwest, as required by section 257.5(a) and (d). 3 Thus, for example, ifa potential customer conducted an airfare search from Delta's main webpage for flights from Washington-Reagan National Airport (DCA) to Indianapolis International Airport (IND), the search results would properly identifY each operating carrier as well as its code-share relationship to Delta or Northwest, as appropriate, but in every instance, would fail to state that carriage would be provided under the "Delta Connection" trade name. The omission affected the marketing of hundreds of flights, across all major online sales channels, and potentially impacted the purchasing and travel decisions ofthousands ofcustomers across a period ofat leastthreeto four months. The Enforcement Office believes that the failure by both Delta and Northwest to provide the required trade name information likely resulted in confusion for and inconvenience to many passengers, increasing the risk ofmissed connections or missed flights, particularly at those airports where, during the affected period, Delta and Northwest continued to utilize check-in and gate facilities at different terminals (such as DCA and PHL ), and particularly with respect to those flights, and with respect to those regional affiliates, that consumers may have reasonably expected to still be operating underthe "NorthwestAirlink" trade name. In mitigation, on behalf of itself and Northwest, Delta states that it is committed to strict compliance with the disclosure requirements of Part 257 and corrected the omission ofthe "dba Delta Connection" language in its schedule loads promptly after the Department brought this issue to its attention. Delta further notes that prior to correction, the schedules published by both Delta and Northwest disclosed the existence of a code-share relationship, where appropriate, and the identity ofthe operating carrier. Delta therefore contends that it fully complied withthe spirit ofPart 257.

2 Delta's "regional affiliates," as referenced herein and which operated underthe "Delta Connection" trade name during the effected period, included Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASQ), Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (CHQ), Comair (COM), Compass Airlines (CPZ), FreedomAirlines, Inc. (FRL), Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (MES), Pinnacle Airlines (FLG), Shuttle America Corp. (TCF), and SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (SKW). Ofthese, only COM, CPZ and MES were wholly or majority owned by Delta. Northwest's "regional affiliates," as referenced herein and which were operated under the "Delta Connection" trade name during the effected period, included Compass Airlines (CPZ), Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (MES), and Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. (FLG).

3 Affected fare and schedule data that appeared on the carriers' own websites constituted "published advertisements" within the meaning of 14 CFR 257.5(d).3
Delta agrees that potential customer confusion during the airport check-in process is a vital concern, and asserts that it is one it takes very seriously. Nevertheless, Delta argues that, as a result ofcontemporaneous efforts to inform the public ofservice changes occurring as part of its merger with Northwest, its failure, and the failure by Northwest, to include the "dba Delta Connection" trade name in any of its published fare and schedule information during the affected period did not create actual confusion in the minds ofits customers. In October 2008, Delta closed its merger with Northwest. Delta points out that it took several specific steps during the weeks and months that followed to ensure that the traveling public was fully informed ofthe operational changes being made as the merger process proceeded. Delta emphasizes that it voluntarily chose to dedicate extensive resources to, among other things, communicating as clearly as possible to Delta and Northwest passengers where they needed to check-in for Delta and Northwest flights (including those of the regional Delta Connection partners) operated during the transitional period ofthe merger. Moreover, Delta points to additional measures taken at the airport to assist customers who for any reason arrived at the wrong terminal for check-in during the merger integration process. These measures included the provisioning ofadditional signage and pre-printed information cards, the introduction ofspecial procedures to allow check-in ofpassengers and baggage from any Delta or Northwest counter, and the allocation of standby ground transportation to deliver passengers and baggage from one terminal to the other ifthe need arose. Delta contends that disclosure ofthe relevant terminal information in those itineraries and boarding passes provided through its own websites, and the additional measures taken at the airport, were a much more direct and effective means of addressing potential customer confusion than full compliance with Part 257. Delta argues that mere full compliance with Part 257 would not have adequately communicated terminal information to customers, particularly as OAG data are frequently viewed or used by a customer weeks or months in advance ofthe anticipated date oftravel. Indeed, Delta asserts that full compliance with Part 257 actually might have led some passengers to erroneously assume a given "Delta Connection" flight was departing from the pre-merger Delta facilities, when it was actually departing from the pre-merger Northwest facilities, and so might have causedmore confusion than it would cure. We have carefully considered the mitigating factors put forward by Delta, but continue to view seriously the failure ofDelta and Northwest to disclose the trade name oftheir regional connection code-share partners as required by 14 CFRPart 257. We are unconvinced that any component requirement of Part 257 is rendered mere surplusage where a carrier makes disclosures in airport signage, or takes other steps, to achieve, in its solejudgment, the same end. The Enforcement Office recognizes that the efforts by both Delta and Northwest to inform customers ofproper terminal and gate locations for all ofthe flights marketed under their codes, regardless ofthe business names or liveries used by their affiliated code-share partners, likely mitigated the confusion resulting from their failure to fully and adequately disclose business name information in their OAG schedule data. A carrier's perception that it must do more than Part 257 requires, however, does not excuse the carrier from also complying with the rule's specific disclosure requirements. At a time when relevant customer confusion was likely to peak, precisely when new business names and liveries were being applied to entire fleets of aircraft, the violations of Part 257 discussed herein could only4
contribute to an even higher level ofconfusion that subsequent disclosures and signage would struggle to undo. Accordingly, after carefully considering all ofthe facts in this case, including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action is warranted. In order to avoid litigation, Delta, individually and as successor to Northwest, agrees to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 257 and 49 U.S.C. §41712, and to the assessment of $80,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise assessable against it. We believethat this compromise assessment is appropriate in view ofthe nature and extent ofthe violations in question, serves the public interest, and provides a meaningful incentive to all airlines to comply with the Department's code-share disclosure rule. This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CPR 1.57a and 14 CPR 385.15. ACCORDINGLY, 1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions ofthis order as being in the public interest; 2. We find that Delta Air Lines, Inc., violated 14 CPR 257.5(a) and (d) by failing to disclose code-share arrangements as required; 3. We find that Northwest Airlines, Inc., violated 14 CPR 257.5(a) and (d) by failing to disclose code-share arrangements asrequired; 4. We find that by engaging in the conduct and violations described in ordering paragraph 2, above, Delta Air Lines, Inc., engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods ofcompetition in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712; 5. We find that by engaging in the conduct and violations described in ordering paragraph 3, above, Northwest Airlines, Inc., engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods ofcompetition in violation of49 U.S.C. § 41712; 6. We order Delta Air Lines, Inc., and all other entities owned and controlled by or under the common ownership and control with Delta Air Lines, Inc., and their successors and assignees to cease and desist from further similar violations of 14 CPR Part 257 and 49 U.S.C. §41712; 7. Delta Air Lines, Inc., individually and as successor to Northwest Airlines, Inc., is assessed a compromise civil penalty of $80,000 in lieu ofcivil penalties that might otherwise be assessed for the violations described herein. Ofthe total penalty amount, $40,000 shall be due and payable no later than 15 days after the date this order is issued. The remaining $40,000 shall become due and payable ifDelta Air Lines, Inc., violates this order's cease and desist provision within one year following the date of issuance ofthis order, or fails to comply with the payment provisions ofthis order, in which case the entire unpaid portion ofthe civil penalty shall become due and payable immediately; and5
8. Payment shall be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System, commonly known as "Fed Wire," to the account ofthe U.S. Treasury. The wire transfer shall be executed in accordance with the attached instructions. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered will subject Delta Air Lines, Inc., its successors or assignees, to the assessment ofinterest, penalty, and collection charges under the Debt Collection Act and to possible further enforcement action for failure to comply with this order This order will become a final order ofthe Department 10 days after its service unless a timely petition for review is filed orthe Department takes review on its own initiative. BY:

(SEAL) ROSALIND A. KNAPP Deputy General Counsel

An electronic version of this document is available atwww.regulations.gov