UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

on the 23rd day of December, 2014 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Violations of 14 CFR Part 257 and 49 U.S.C. 

§ 41712 

Served December 23, 2014 

DOT -OST -2014-0229 

NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING AND 

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 of 49 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 of 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and violated 

the cease-and-desist provisions of a 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 out to 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 of the carrier that 

actually operates the flight, and (2) the marketing name of the operating carrier (i.e., "any 

other name under which that service is held out to the public"). 14 CFR 257.5(b). 

Moreover, Delta has long been on notice that this disclosure must take place regardless of 

whether the 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 of a 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. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, 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 of Delta 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 of Part 257 

and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. Id. at 4. Each failure to comply with the 2010 consent order 

constitutes a violation of a 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 of the alleged violations is in the public 

interest. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 407 of the Department's Rules of Practice, 14 

CFR 302.407, by this notice and complaint we are instituting a formal enforcement 

proceeding to investigate the allegations set forth in the 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 of Practice, 14 CFR § 302.407(d), Delta is 
3 

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 of the 

Department's Rules of Practice, 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 of the complaint, and a response to the proposed assessment of civil penalties, 

specifically presenting any matters the respondent intends to rely on in opposition to or in 

mitigation of such civil penalties. 

BLANE A. WORKIE 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on December 23, 2014, the foregoing Notice of Enforcement Proceeding 

and Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties and the related Complaint was served on the 

Respondent by electronic mail and certified mail-return receipt requested addressed to the 

Respondent's address: 

Jon-Peter F. Kelly 

Assistant General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Department 981 

1 03 0 Delta Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30354-1989 

J onPeter .F .Kelly@delta.com 

By: 

Blane A. Workie 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Robert M. Gorman 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Office of Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings 

(202) 366-9350 

robert. gorman@dot. gov 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of the General Counsel 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. Served December 23, 2014 

Violations of 14 CFR Part 257 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712 

DOT -OST -2014-0229 

Enforcement Proceeding 

ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT 

Nature of the Case 

1. Pursuant to the Department of Transportation's Rules of Practice in Proceedings, 14 CFR 

Part 3 02, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) 

hereby brings this Enforcement Complaint against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta). As 

discussed more fully below, Delta failed on a number of occasions to comply with the 

code-share disclosure requirement of 49 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 of 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and violated the cease-and-desist 

provisions of a prior code-share disclosure order. 

Jurisdiction and Applicable Law 

2. Delta holds certificate authority under 49 U.S.C. § 41101 to engage in air transportation 

of passengers 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 pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. and 14 CFR Part 302. 

4. 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. 

5. As an air carrier, Delta is subject to the requirements of 49 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 in written 
or electronic communication, prior to the purchase of a ticket, the name of the air carrier 

providing the air transportation. 

6. 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 out to the public." 

7. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46101(a)(4), the Department may issue an order compelling 

compliance with the provisions of Part A, Subtitle VII of Title 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 CFR Part 257. 

8. Under 49 U.S.C. § 41712, the Department may, upon finding that a carrier is engaged in 

an unfair or deceptive trade practice or unfair method of competition, issue an order 

directing the violator to cease and desist from such conduct. 

9. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 and 14 CFR Part 383, the Department may assess civil 

penalties of up to $27,500 for each violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

10. Under 49 U.S.C. § 46301 and 14 CFR Part 383, the Department may assess civil 

penalties of up to $27,500 for each violation of a regulation prescribed, or order issued 

under, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

Background and Enforcement History 

11. Code-sharing is a common practice 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 transport passengers 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 similar to 

that ofthe mainline carrier (e.g., Delta Connection). 

12. Because the mainline carrier typically markets a flight under a name that is similar to the 

mainline carrier's own name, there is a significant likelihood of confusion among 

consumers as to the true identity of the carrier that is actually providing the air 

transportation. Specifically, passengers may reasonably but erroneously conclude that a 

code-share flight is actually operated by a well-known mainline carrier, when it is in fact 

often operated by 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 of code-sharing arrangements. Specifically, the Department required air carriers, 

"in any direct oral communication with a consumer concerning a code-sharing flight," to 

(1) provide sufficient information to alert the consumer that the operating carrier is 

different from the mainline carrier, and (2) identify the carrier actually providing the 

service. 14 CFR 399.88 (Docket No. 42199, 50 FR 38508, September 23, 1985, removed 

March 8, 1999, and replaced with 14 CFR 257.5) 

14. On August 10, 1994, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed 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 or buy transportation both that the service they are 

considering is on a code-shared flight and of the actual operator's identity, so that they 

can consider these facts in making travel purchase decisions." 59 FR 40836 (August 10, 

1994). 

16. In the NPRM, the Department proposed, among other things, clarifying the specific types 

of code-share information that must be disclosed (e.g., the name of the operating carrier). 

The Department also sought comment on how mainline 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 important time to provide notification of code-sharing 

arrangements is during conversations prior to booking. That is the time during which the 

consumer is evaluating his or her options." (emphasis in original). Delta advocated for 

the information to be disclosed while a consumer is evaluating options, but opposed a 

requirement that the air carrier disclose code-share arrangements at the "first instance" 

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 of the operating carrier, and (2) the marketing name of the operating 

carrier (i.e., "any other name under which that service is held out to the public"). 14 CFR 

257.5(b). 

19. With respect to the timing of code-share disclosures, the final rule requires air carriers to 

provide code-share information "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." The required code-share 

information must be provided "before booking transportation." 14 CFR 257.5(b). 

3 

Delta - Complaint 
20. In the preamble to the final rule, the Department discussed various airlines' comments 

and proposals, including Delta's, regarding the timing of code-share disclosures. In 

doing so, the Department explained that it chose to use the phrase "before booking 

transportation" because it is consistent with longstanding enforcement policy: 

[D]uring a given encounter, the agent or carrier may not wait until after the consumer 

has decided to make the reservation or purchase the ticket and disclose the codesharing arrangement only when reading back the flight information. Instead, the 

disclosure must be made at the time that the schedule information is being provided to 

the consumer during the "information" and "decisionmaking" portion of the 

conversation, as TWA and Delta recognize. We therefore reject Northwest's 

argument that disclosure should only be required during the booking process. 

Furthermore, the term "booking" has no meaning that departs from current policy, 

since it encompasses a reservation. (64 FR 12845-12846). 

21. Delta has been on notice since at least September 1985 (when the Department issued its 

policy statement) that it was required to disclose code-share information to prospective 

consumers during discussions about a code-share flight. Since at least March 1999 (when 

the Department issued its final rule titled "Disclosure of Code-Sharing Arrangements and 

Long-Term Wet Leases"), Delta has clearly been on notice that the proper time to 

disclose code-share information is no later than the information and decisionmaking 

portion of a conversation, because it is during that time that a consumer is evaluating 

options. Moreover, Delta has itself taken that position as early as November 8, 1994, 

when it submitted its comments to the NPRM. 

22. Delta has also been on notice 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 of whether the consumer decides to actually book a flight. This fact is 

not only reflected in the preamble to section 257.5(b), but also in the text of the 

regulation itself. Specifically, air carriers must disclose code-share information to 

"prospective" consumers, not just to consumers who actually book a flight. 

23. As noted above, the Department has determined that in oral co111Ihunications concerning 

a code-share flight, consumers are entitled to information about the identity of the 

operating carrier, regardless of whether they ultimately book a flight during any 

particular conversation. 

24. Over time, the Department has taken numerous enforcement actions against air carriers 

and ticket agents for failing to orally disclose code-share information as required. See, 

e.g., United Airlines, 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 

Alaska Airlines, Inc., Docket OST 2014-0001, DOT Order 2014-6-15 (June 27, 2014). 

Through these orders, Delta has again been placed on notice of its code-share disclosure 

obligations. -

4 

Delta - Complaint 
25. Delta itself has been the subject of a 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. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Docket OST 2010-0005, 

DOT Order 2010-07-4 (attached). 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 of Delta code-share flights. 

In mitigation, Delta stated that it is "committed to strict compliance with the disclosure 

requirements of Part 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 of Part 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 information to 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 in booking flights that 

the Analysts knew to be code-share flights (the "target flights.") See attached 

declarations. 

28. As noted below, each Analyst entered into the information and decisionmaking portion of 

the conversation by stating that he or she was interested in flying one-way from a 

particular city to a destination city, on a particular date, during a specified time period on 

that day. The Delta reservations agent then disclosed information about the target flight, 

such as the flight number, the time of departure, 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 of the operating carrier and the marketing name of the operating 

carrier). The Analyst closed each conversation without 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. For this flight, the corporate name of the operating carrier was ExpressJet; the 

marketing name of the operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations 

agent stated that they had a flight, #5165, to Killeen. Mr. Gilbert asked the agent to 

confirm this information, at which time the agent repeated that they had a flight, #5165, 

to Killeen. At no time did the Delta reservations agent disclose the required code-share 

information. (See Affidavit of George Gilbert, Exhibit A). 

b. On September 23, 2013, Analyst Brian McQuillen called Delta's reservations line, 

expressing interest in a one-way flight from Atlanta, GA, to Toronto, Canada, on the 

morning ofNovember 16, 2013. The target flight was flight #4956, departing at 9:58 

5 

Delta - Complaint 
a.m. For this flight, the corporate name of the operating carrier was ExpressJ et; the 

marketing name of the operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations 

agent stated that they had a flight departing at 9:58a.m., and identified the flight number 

as #4956. When Mr. McQuillen asked the agent to repeat the information, she did so, 

and stated that the fare was $31 7. 01. At no time did the Delta reservations agent disclose 

the required code-share information. (See Affidavit of Brian McQuillen, Exhibit B). 

c. On December 20, 2013, Analyst Brian McQuillen called Delta's reservations line, 

expressing interest in a one-way flight from Washington , DC, to Detroit, MI, on the 

morning of February 14,2014. The target flight was flight #3637, departing at 9:40a.m. 

For this flight, the corporate name of the operating carrier was Endeavor Air; the 

marketing name of the operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations 

agent stated that they had three options for the morning flight, including one leaving at 

9:40a.m. Mr. McQuillen stated that he was interested in the flight leaving at 9:40. The 

Delta agent stated that this flight arrived at 11:21 a.m., and asked if Mr. McQuillen would 

like to book the flight. Mr. McQuillen asked the agent to repeat the information, which 

he did. The agent also asked if Mr. McQuillen needed a car or hotel, and stated that Mr. 

McQuillen could cancel the booking without penalty for 24 hours. At no time did the 

Delta reservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See Affidavit of 

Brian McQuillen, Exhibit C). 

d. On January 27, 2014, Analyst Adam Duffy called Delta's reservations line, expressing 

interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC (Dulles) to New York City 

(LaGuardia) on February 14, 2014. The target flight was flight #6195, departing at 6:00 

a.m. For this flight, the corporate name of the operating carrier was GoJet; the marketing 

name of the operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations agent stated 

that they had a flight departing at 6:00a.m. Mr. Duffy confirmed that the flight departed 

at 6:00, at which point the agent disclosed that the flight landed in LaGuardia at 7:15a.m. 

and would cost $24 7. At no time did the Delta reservations agent disclose the required 

code-share information. (See Affidavit of Adam Duffy, Exhibit D). 

e. On February 4, 2014, Analyst Alex Taday called Delta's reservations line, expressing 

interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC (Dulles) to New York City 

(LaGuardia) on February 14, 2014. The target flight was flight #6195, departing at 6:00 

a.m. For this flight, the corporate name of the operating carrier was GoJ et; the 

marketing name of the operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations 

agent stated that they had a flight departing at 6:00a.m., but identified the flight number 

as #6181. When Mr. Taday asked the agent to repeat the information, the Delta agent 

stated the price of the flight and that it was flight #6181. At this point the agent stated 

that the flight was operated by GoJ et, but did not disclose the marketing name of the 

carrier, Delta Connection. (See Affidavit of Alex Taday, Exhibit E). 

f. On September 23, 2014, Analyst Jessica Ilich called Delta's reservations line, expressing 

interest in a one-way flight from Washington, DC, to New York City on October 11, 

2014. The target flight was flight #1346, departing at 6:00a.m. For this flight, the 

corporate name of the operating carrier was Endeavor Air; the marketing name of the 

6 

Delta - Complaint 
operating carrier was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations 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, confirmed that the flight departed out of Reagan 

Airport, and asked if Ms. Ilich would like assistance with a hotel or rental car. At no time 

did the Delta reservations agent disclose the required code-share information. (See 

Affidavit of Jessica 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. For this flight, the corporate 

name of the operating carrier was ExpressJet; the marketing name of the operating carrier 

was Delta Connection. The Delta reservations agent stated that they had six flights on 

that route; Ms. Ilich stated that she would like the first flight of the day. During this 

conversation, the Delta agent stated that they had a flight leaving at 9:00a.m., with flight 

number 5166, at a fare of$390.10. Ms. Ilich stated that she would have to think about 

that fare. The agent asked if there was anything else he could assist with, and Ms. Ilich 

said no. At no time did the Delta reservations agent disclose the required code-share 

information. (See Affidavit of Jessica 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, destination Baton Rouge, LA, on October 

11, 2014. The target flight was #5166, departing at 9:00a.m. For this flight, the 

corporate name of the operating carrier was ExpressJ et; the marketing name of the 

operating carrier was Delta Connection. Mr. Duffy stated that he was travelling 

economy, and asked what time the earliest flight departed. The agent responded that they 

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. Duffy replied that he was writing the 

information down, and asked to confirm the arrival and departure time. The agent did so. 

At no time did the Delta reservations agent disclose the required code-share information. 

(See Affidavit of Adam Duffy, Exhibit H). 

Claim for Relief 

29. Delta Air Lines' failure to disclose all required code-share information to prospective 

consumers, as described above, in eight instances, constitutes eight violations of the 

code-share disclosure provisions set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 41712(c) and 14 CFR 257.5. 

30. In eight instances, during telephone conversations, Delta Air Lines omitted material 

information in a manner that is likely to mislead 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). 

31. Delta Air Lines' failure to disclose all required code-share information to prospective 

consumers, as set forth above, in eight instances, constitutes eight violations of the ceaseand-desist provisions found in Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc., DOT 

Order 2010-07-4. 

7 

Delta - Complaint 
Prayer for Relief 

WHEREFORE, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings requests the Department of 

Transportation to: 

A. Find that, by failing to disclose all required code-share information to prospective 

consumers, as set forth above, Delta Air Lines, Inc., has committed eight violations of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712(c) and 14 CPR 257.5; 

B. Find that, 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, Delta Air Lines, Inc., has committed eight acts of unfair practices or 

unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712(a); 

C. Find that, by failing to disclose all required code-share information to prospective 

consumers, as set forth above, Delta Air Lines, Inc., has committed eight violations of the 

cease-and-desist provisions found in Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc., 

DOT Order 201 0-07 -4; 

D. Assess civil penalties against Delta Air Lines, Inc., in the amount of $27,500 for each of 

the violations described in paragraphs A, B, and C, above, for a total of $660,000, and 

$27,500 for each additional similar violation revealed in the course of this investigation 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 46301; 

E. Order Delta Air Lines, Inc., to cease and desist from violating 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 

CPR Part 257 by engaging in the conduct described in paragraphs A, B, and C; and 

F. Grant such other relief as 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 of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings 

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

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared tO>rBe £.. b./be¥"f 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, George E. Gilbert, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this 

declaration. I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry 

Analyst at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, General 

Counsel's Office, in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the 

Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I 

have been employed by 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 of 2013, I 

was assigned to work on an investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservation 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the 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. After responding 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 had flight 

#5165 leaving Atlanta at 10:25 a.m. I stated that I would have to think about it and call 

him back later. 

5. In summary, the Delta telephone reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not 

disclose the operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, 

"Delta Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature of Affiant.!}_ '<-. ~ \)- 2 · J.. 0 \ '-1 

. ;~d 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ?:_______day of 0 e.cun b-er- , 20 !!f_. 
Exhibit B 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared""B.-i0¥'1 HeOui 1 \cv) 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, Brian McQuillen, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. 

I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by the 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 investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the ''target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservation 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the flight. 

3. On September 23, 2013, at 9:40a.m., I called Delta's reservations 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. After responding 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 that there was a flight leaving 
at 9:58a.m. I asked for the flight number, and she replied #4956. I asked her to confirm 

that the flight was leaving at 9:58, and she replied "yes" and quoted a fare of $317.01. 

She asked me if I wanted to book the flight. I replied that I would think about it and I 

thanked her. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not disclose the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta 

Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature of Affiant: '] N% ~" Q \..i t ~ l ~ 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24"th day of lJowz.yn~ 

No~ 

DARICE NICOLE LAMBERT 

NOTARY PUBUC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

My Commission Expires September 14; 2018 

, 20J!:L 
Exhibit C 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared ~'() HCQui 1 kV) 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, Brian McQuillen, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. 

I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office ofthe Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by the 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 investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservation 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the 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. After responding 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 in the morning. The agent informed me that there were three options for 
morning flights. I stated that I was interested in the 9:40 flight. He stated that it would 

arrive at 11 :21 a.m., and he asked if I would like to book the flight. I asked him to repeat 

the information, which he did. He then asked if I needed a car or a hotel, and added that I 

could book without penalty for 24 hours. I replied that I would think about it. 

5. In summary, the Delta telephone reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not 

disclose the operating carrier's corporate name, "Endeavor Air," or its marketing name, 

"Delta Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature of Affiant: :3Nifoo-\ M 

\ 

<-'~ :~ 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2t.rtnday oflJo\lnnlDa= 

Notary Public 

DARICE NICOLE LAMBERT 

NOTARY PUBUC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

My Commission Expires September 14; 2018 

'20lY_. 
Exhibit D 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared llu.Jtvvt t. Vvt f\1 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, Adam Baker Duffy, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this 

declaration. I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry 

Analyst at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, General 

Counsel's Office, in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by 

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. In August of2013, I was assigned to 

work on an investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservation 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the flight. 

3. On January 27, 2014, at 2:41p.m., I called Delta's reservations line at 1-800-221-1212. 

The target flight for my test call was Flight # 6195, departing from Washington, DC 

(Dulles), destination New York City (LaGuardia), on Friday, 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. After responding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, the system stated 

that I would receive a call back in 10 to 16 minutes and that I would not lose my place in 
line. I opted to use this service and entered my phone number and stated my name, 

Adam, as requested by the system. At 2:55p.m., a Delta reservations agent called me 

back. She confirmed that I was looking to travel from Dulles to LaGuardia on February 

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 if I needed to book it. I then ended the call. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not reveal the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "GoJet," or its marketing name, "Delta Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

~ (-{ ft/V'J ~-d-z \I u jl I 

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

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 rtay of 

~u!J.~J(. 
Exhibit E 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared (\. ~Q.:'{ 0-.f\d.Q..,:'L-n\.1) ;}.. 1 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, Alexander A. Taday III, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this 

declaration. I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry 

Analyst at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 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 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 investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservation 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the flight. 

3. On February 4, 2014, at approximately 4:45a.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 

1-800-221-1212. The target flight for my test call was Flight# 6195, departing from 

Washington (Dulles), destination New 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 informed that 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 it is flight #6181 on "GoJ et." I 

thanked the agent and said I would book later after speaking with my wife. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not reveal the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "GoJet," until I made a subsequent inquiry for the 

flight number. At no point did the agent disclose the operating carrier's marketing name, 

"Delta Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

l/ /;: <" v'/1 

Signnture of Affiant: IU:d;;;t {fL/f a:lj;e:!v' ------·~ •..... 

Subsq:the nd sworn to before me this~ '-i-day of N 0V 

DEONNA BURRELL 

NOTARY PUBLIC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MyCommid,,,~ :::n<'-'. e,· ,~ "0111 

DEONNA BURRELL ~IP\I!l.I!CilJISmiC'IrOF~ 

~!Owfmission Expires October 31, 201'6 

'20_l_~ 
Exhibit F 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared~~-'•ff/:f-:-; \( Ct _L \·.(LV\_ 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the followint 

1. I, Jessica Ilich, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am 

over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by the 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 of 2014, I was assigned to work on an investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservations 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the 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 my test call was Flight# 1346 (after my call, the flight number 

was changed to #3370), departing from Washington, DC (Reagan), destination New York 

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. After responding to initial prompts through Delta's automated system, my call was 

answered by a reservations agent. Because I gave all of my information through the 
automated system when the agent picked up, she stated her name (which I could not 

understand) and read off the city pairs. She asked what time I wanted to leave and I told 

her early morning. She offered the 6:00a.m. flight. I asked her what time it arrived and 

she gave me the arrival time of7:07. She stated that it was a non-refundable fare of 

$152.10. I did not ask for the flight number nor did she provide it. She asked if I would 

like to book the flight, and I told her that I needed to think about it. Then I reconfirmed 

that the departure airport was Reagan and not Dulles, and the agent said yes. I told her that 

for some reason I thought the fare would be cheaper than $152. She asked if I needed 

assistance with a hotel or rental car and I said no. I thanked her for her help and ended the 

call. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not reveal the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "Endeavor Air," or its marketing name, "Delta 

Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this rJ l day of }~oJ flVU0CL( 20 J J{ 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: SS 

SUBSCRIB~ AND S~AN TO BEFORE ME 

THIS 2/ 4 DAY OF flO~,~, 

~H-.AD4~ 
Exhibit G 

District of Columbia: SS 

. Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared a;.6 61 C' - r Llc.Jv 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1 . I, Jessica Ilich, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this declaration. I am 

over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry Analyst at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, General Counsel's Office, in the 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by the 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 of 2014, I was assigned to work on an investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course ofthis telephone conversation, Delta's reservations 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the flight. 

3. On September 24, 2014, at 3:00p.m., I called Delta's reservations number at 1-800-221-

1212. The target flight for the test call was Flight# 5166, departing from Atlanta, GA, 

destination Baton Rouge, 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. After the agent gave me his name, I told him that I 

would like to book a flight from Atlanta to Baton Rouge. He responded, "one way," and I 
said 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 if they were all the same price. He asked what time 

I would like to fly and I responded, "the first flight ofthe day." He offered the 9:00a.m. 

flight and I asked if the price was $391.10. He confirmed that it was. I asked for the flight 

number and he said #5166. I told him that I would have to think about $390.10. He asked 

if there was anything else he could assist me with, and I said no. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not reveal the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta 

Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ;J \ day of 
Exhibit H 

District of Columbia: SS 

Before me, the undersigned notary public, this day, personally, appeared ,A-ovt"wl .f. ()..;L-r-T{ 

to me known, who being duly sworn according to law, deposes the following: 

1. I, Adam Baker Duffy, being of sound mind, willfully and voluntarily make this 

declaration. I am over eighteen years of age and work as a Transportation Industry 

Analyst at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, General 

Counsel's Office, in the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, a part of the Office of 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office). I have been employed by 

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. In August of2013, I was assigned to 

work on an investigation team to 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 my interest in booking a flight (the "target flight") that I knew would be 

operated by an air carrier acting as a code-share partner of Delta. My goal was to 

determine whether, during the course of this telephone conversation, Delta's reservations 

agent would disclose both the corporate name and the marketing name of the air carrier 

that actually operated the 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 Baton Rouge, 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 
introduced himself and confirmed my name. The agent re-stated the itinerary I had 

entered into the automatic system, flying from Atlanta to Baton Rouge, and asked me to 

confirm if that was correct. I said yes. The agent asked me if I was travelling "on first 

class or economy." I stated, "economy." He then asked me what time I was looking to 

travel. I said "something in the morning," and asked him what his first flight ofthe day 

was. He answered, "there's a 9 a.m. flight," and then stated the arrival time which I did 

not hear correctly. He then stated the price as $555.10. He then asked me ifl wanted to 

"confirm" a ticket. I asked him to hold on, because I was writing this information down. 

I repeated, "you have a 9 a.m. flight," and he stated yes. I asked what time it arrived, and 

he said "9:37a.m." I thanked him and said I would call back ifl had to confirm. I then 

ended the call. 

5. In summary, the Delta reservations agent responding to my inquiry did not reveal the 

operating carrier's corporate name, "ExpressJet," or its marketing name, "Delta 

Connection." 

I state under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature of Affiant: ~ {?. ~· \\(7\)'?Dtf 

Subscribed and sworn 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 OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Issued by the Department of Transportation 

On the Ninth day of July, 2010 

Order 201 0-07-4 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. and 

Northwest Airlines, Inc. 

Docket OST-2010-0005 

Violations of 14 CFR 257.5(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") of the Department's code-share disclosure 

rule, 14 CFR Part 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 of the code-share disclosure rule states that the holding out or sale of scheduled 

passenger air transportation involving a code-share arrangement is an unfair and deceptive 

trade practice in violation of 49 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 of a 

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 of this order, Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., were 

and remained separate and distinct legal entities. This order addresses the two 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 of which Delta Air Lines stands as its sole successor in interest. 
2 

of either section 257.5(a) or 257.5(d) also constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices and 

unfair methods of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. 

An investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement 

Office) revealed a significant lack of compliance by Delta with section 257.5. For a period 

during mid-2009, both Delta and Northwest submitted schedule and fare data to the OAG that 

failed to include a disclosure of the "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 and Northwest agents Orbitz, Travelocity, Expedia, and others, to accurately report to 

consumers the trade name used by the regional carrier affiliates of both Delta and Northwest, 

as required by section 257.5(a) and (d). 3 Thus, for example, if a 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 of thousands of customers across a period of at least three to 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 of missed 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 under the "Northwest Airlink" 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 of the 

"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 of the operating carrier. Delta therefore contends that it fully 

complied with the spirit ofPart 257. 

2 Delta's "regional affiliates," as referenced herein and which operated under the "Delta Connection" trade name 

during the effected period, included Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASQ), Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (CHQ), 

Comair (COM), Compass Airlines (CPZ), Freedom Airlines, Inc. (FRL), Mesaba Aviation, Inc. (MES), Pinnacle 

Airlines (FLG), Shuttle America Corp. (TCF), and SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (SKW). Of these, 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 of contemporaneous efforts to inform the public of service 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 of its 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 of the 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 of additional signage and pre-printed information cards, 

the introduction of special procedures to allow check-in of passengers 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 if the need arose. 

Delta contends that disclosure of the 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 caused more confusion 

than it would cure. 

We have carefully considered the mitigating factors put forward by Delta, but continue to 

view seriously the failure of Delta and Northwest to disclose the trade name of their regional 

connection code-share partners as required by 14 CFR Part 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 sole judgment, the same 

end. The Enforcement Office recognizes that the efforts by both Delta and Northwest to 

inform customers of proper terminal and gate locations for all of the flights marketed under 

their codes, regardless of the 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 only 
4 

contribute to an even higher level of confusion that subsequent disclosures and signage would 

struggle to undo. 

Accordingly, after carefully considering all of the 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 believe that this compromise assessment is appropriate in 

view of the nature and extent of the 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 of this 

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 as required; 

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 of competition in violation of 49 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 of competition in violation of 49 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 of civil penalties that might 

otherwise be assessed for the violations described herein. Of the 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 if Delta Air Lines, Inc., 

violates this order's cease and desist provision within one year following the date of 

issuance of this order, or fails to comply with the payment provisions ofthis order, in 

which case the entire unpaid portion of the civil penalty shall become due and payable 

immediately; and 
5 

8. Payment shall be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications 

System, commonly known as "Fed Wire," to the account of the 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 of interest, 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 of the Department 10 days after its service unless a 

timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own initiative. 

BY: 

(SEAL) 

ROSALIND A. KNAPP 

Deputy General Counsel 

An electronic version of this document is available at www.regulations.gov