BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011-XXXX

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

30 November 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

 Regional Vice President – North America 

International Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W. #12th Floor 

Washington DC 20006 
 1

Summary DOCKET: OST-2011-XXXX US DOT ORDER: pending

Date: 30 November 2011 

Filing fee / IATA Acct: USD 61 / 0000-06 

US/UST involved: No

End of Government Filing Period: 16 December 2011

Meeting site, date: SIN, 14 Oct 2011 

Intended effective date: 30 January 2012 

Agreement: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

 Singapore, 14 October 2011 

 Composite Resolutions 010o

 Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012

 (Memo PTC COMP 1655) 

 

 Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

 Singapore, 14 October 2011 

 Minutes

 (Memo PTC COMP 1656) 

R1 010o 
 2

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT

 Pursuant to statements submitted by Member airlines of the International Air Transport 

Association (IATA), the undersigned has been constituted to be their attorney-in-fact for filing 

with the Department of Transportation copies of agreements adopted by the IATA Traffic 

Conferences. 

 On their behalf, and pursuant to Sections 41308 and 41309 of Title 49 of the United 

States Code and Parts 303.03, 303.05 and 303.30(c) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, I am filing with the Department this application for approval of an IATA 

agreement. 

 This agreement and related factual and explanatory material and documentation 

required by 14 C.F.R. 303.31 and Department and Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) precedent 

are contained in the IATA Traffic Conference documentation summarized above. 

 This agreement arises from the continuing process of Tariff Coordinating Conferences 

and was developed in the context of prior Department and CAB rulings addressing related 

resolutions which reflected regulatory and market conditions then in effect. Thus, the present 

agreement should be viewed as part of a dynamic process of IATA Member airline 

adjustment to governmental and economic factors. 

 On previous occasions, the Department has found such agreements to be consistent 

with the public interest when they do not result in fares or rates that are unlawful or injurious 

to competition in the markets at issue. Approval of the present agreement would not yield 

fares or rates that are unlawful or injurious to competition. Moreover, approval of this 

agreement, which reflects compromises among the differing economic and social 

philosophies of the many nations whose airlines are parties, will advance the public interest 

in maintaining good aviation relations with other countries. 

 We request early approval by the Department of the foregoing agreement, pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. 41309, and the grant of full antitrust immunity, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41308. 

 The conferral of full antitrust immunity would be in the public interest and necessary for 

the transaction to proceed. This agreement is a product of the IATA Tariff Coordinating 

Conferences which the Department found to be anticompetitive but nevertheless approved 

and immunized in Order 85-5-32 (May 6, 1985) on foreign policy and comity grounds 

because such action is necessary to achieve the serious transportation need of maintaining 

good aviation relations with other countries and these benefits are not obtainable by 

reasonably available means having materially less anticompetitive effects. 

 This agreement concerns fares or rates between non-U.S. points and thus has at most 

indirect application in foreign air transportation. The U.S. authorities have recognized (e.g, 

Order 79-8-194, 30 August 1979) that the interests of sovereign nations in the conditions 

governing air transportation between them greatly exceed any that the U.S. might have by 

reason of U.S. airline, citizen or shipper participation. This agreement is not adverse to the 

public interest or in violation of the Act and, therefore, should be granted full immunity. 

Respectfully submitted 

___________________________ 

 Douglas Lavin 

 Regional Vice President – North America 

International Air Transport Association 
 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 A copy of this application or a summary notice thereof has been served by first class or 

priority mail on the following person 

Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section 

Antitrust Division 

Department of Justice 

Washington D.C. 20530 

________________________________ 

 Douglas E. Lavin 

30 November 2011 

Date Served 
International Air Transport Association 

Route de l’Aéroport 33 

PO Box 416 

CH - 1215 Geneva 15 Airport 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 770 2842 

Fax +41 22 770 2896 

LO www.iata.org E-Mail: tariffs@iata.org 

25 November 2011 

MEMORANDUM

PTC COMP 1655 

TO: Members Participating in Tariff Coordinating Conferences 

FROM: Manager, Interline Tariffs 

SUBJECT: Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

 Singapore, 14 October 2011 

Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010o 

between South Sudan and Africa 

 Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012 

RESOLUTIONS - ADOPTED

Attached is Composite Resolution 010o, which was adopted at the above meeting for an 

intended effective date of 30 January 2012. 

The filing period for the attached Resolutions ends 16 December 2011. 

Members are reminded of their obligations under Resolutions 001 and 006 to advise this 

office by the end of the filing period whether approval by their Government authorities is 

required and, if so, to accomplish the necessary filing formalities. The effective date will be 

declared in accordance with Resolutions 001 and 006, when all the known necessary 

Government approvals have been received. 

Alban Sato 

Manager, Interline Tariffs 

Passenger Interline Standard 
RESOLUTION AMENDED AT 

COMPOSITE MEETING OF 

PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCE 

SINGAPORE, 14 OCTOBER 2011 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 30 JANUARY 2012 

RESO TITLE COMMENTS RD 

010o Special Passenger Amending Resolution 

between South Sudan and Africa 

New 1 
ADOPTED Res Doc : 1 

 Resolution : 010o 

TC2 

SPECIAL PASSENGER AMENDING RESOLUTION 

BETWEEN SOUTH SUDAN AND AFRICA 

PTC2(165)010o Amending 

Filing Period Begins 25 November 2011 Intended Effectiveness 30 January 2012 

 Ends 16 December 2011 Expiry Indefinite 

 Type B 

RESOLVED that, to support interlining to/from the newly formed nation of South Sudan: 

1. Fares are specified between South Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of 

existing add-ons in Sudanese Pound (SDG), converting to South Sudanese Pound 

(SSP) at the exchange rate of 1:1. 

2. The fares will be updated by Flex Fares process. 

Attachment 
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 1

ABJ-JUB

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

ABIDJAN ABJ XOF MPXIF1M RT 569700 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1421800 052OO 30JAN12 BANJUL BJL USD

FIF RT 2187300 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 959100 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3258 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1475400 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5013 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 874800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2472 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1345800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3803 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 805800 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1982 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 644700 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 3049 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1968 070OP 30JAN12

ACCRA ACC USD MPXIF1M RT 1574 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 2360 052OO 30JAN12 BENGHAZI BEN LYD

FIF RT 3631 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1761 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 692.3 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 2709 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1065.0 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1438 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 544.1 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 2212 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 837.0 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1319 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 470.0 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1055 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 723.0 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 548.0 070OP 30JAN12

ADDIS ABABA ADD USD MPXIF1M RT 438.4 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1069 052OO 30JAN12 BRAZZAVILLE BZV XAF

FIF RT 1645 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1069 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1406200 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1645 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2163300 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 803 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 872700 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1235 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1342600 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 878 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 828000 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 702 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1273700 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 712000 070OP 30JAN12

ANTANANARIVO TNR USD MPXIF1M RT 569600 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 3728 052OO 30JAN12 BUJUMBURA BJM USD

FIF RT 5735 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 2584 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1541 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 3975 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2371 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2018 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1286 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 3104 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1979 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2325 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 893 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1860 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1374 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1064 070OP 30JAN12

ASMARA ASM USD MPXIF1M RT 851 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 660 052OO 30JAN12 BULAWAYO BUQ USD

FIF RT 1015 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 547 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2653 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 842 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4081 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 412 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2046 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 634 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3147 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 403 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1557 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 322 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 2395 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1438 070OP 30JAN12

BAMAKO BKO XOF MPXIF1M RT 1150 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1528800 052OO 30JAN12 CONAKRY CKY USD

FIF RT 2352000 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1150500 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3318 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1769900 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5104 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 940500 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2510 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1446900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 3862 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 859200 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 2018 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 687400 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 3104 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1993 070OP 30JAN12

BANGUI BGF XAF MPXIF1M RT 1594 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1241300 052OO 30JAN12 COTONOU COO XOF

FIF RT 1909600 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 940700 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1447200 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 694200 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 963200 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1067900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1481700 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 712100 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 COO-JUB
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 2

COO-JUB

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

COTONOU COO XOF FIF RT 19995 052OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH CIF OO 10030 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 15430 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 684400 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 8149 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 547600 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 12537 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 10740 070OP 30JAN12

DAKAR DKR XOF MPXIF1M RT 8592 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1647600 052OO 30JAN12 GAROUA GOU XAF

FIF RT 2534700 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1234300 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 960000 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1898800 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1476800 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 753900 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 763400 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1159800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1174400 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 917400 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 630500 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 734000 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 970000 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 625400 070OP 30JAN12

DAR ES SALAAM DAR USD MPXIF1M RT 500400 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1357 052OO 30JAN12 HARARE HRE USD

FIF RT 2088 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1195 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2642 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1838 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4065 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 872 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1683 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1342 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2589 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1135 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 1276 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 908 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1963 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1426 070OP 30JAN12

DJIBOUTI JIB DJF MPXIF1M RT 1141 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 213100 052OO 30JAN12 JOHANNESBURG JNB ZAR

FIF RT 327700 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 213100 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 20150 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 327700 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 31000 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 137100 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 18290 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 210800 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 28130 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 131600 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 12880 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 105300 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 19810 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 13370 070OP 30JAN12

DOUALA DLA XAF MPXIF1M RT 10700 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1068900 052OO 30JAN12 JUBA JUB SDG

FIF RT 1644400 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ABIDJAN ABJ EH

CIF OO 848200 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4939.00 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1304900 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7597.00 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 634500 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3739.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 976100 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5751.00 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 674500 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 3098.00 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 539600 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 4765.00 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2867.00 070OP 30JAN12

ENTEBBE EBB USD MPXIF1M RT 2294.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1318 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ACCRA ACC EH

FIF RT 2027 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4625.00 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 1104 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 7115.00 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1698 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3562.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 619 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5480.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 952 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2653.00 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 832 070OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 4081.00 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 666 074OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2678.00 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2143.00 074OP 30JAN12

FREETOWN FNA USD

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH >>>>> ADDIS ABABA ADD EH

FIF OO 3933 052OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1971.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 6051 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 3032.00 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 2947 042OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1662.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4534 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 2556.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2178 062OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 1306.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 3351 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2009.00 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2366 070OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1306.00 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1893 074OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1045.00 074OP 30JAN12

GABORONE GBE BWP >>>>> ANTANANARIVO TNR EH

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH FIF OO 5882.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 12997 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9049.00 052OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-TNR
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 3

JUB-TNR

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

JUBA JUB SDG YIF RT 4154.00 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> ANTANANARIVO TNR EH MEEIF3M RT 2062.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4805.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1650.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 7392.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4051.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> CONAKRY CKY EH

YIF RT 6231.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5162.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3747.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7941.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2998.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4223.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 6496.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> ASMARA ASM EH YIF OO 3560.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 1235.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 5476.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 1899.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3289.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 1010.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2632.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 1553.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 853.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> COTONOU COO EH

YIF RT 1312.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 666.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 533.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BAMAKO BKO EH YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 5162.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 7941.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 3863.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 5942.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3560.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DAKAR DKR EH

YIF RT 5476.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2990.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2392.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4374.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 6728.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BANGUI BGF EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 4304.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 6621.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3458.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 3523.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2767.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 5419.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2969.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DAR ES SALAAM DAR EH

YIF RT 4567.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3447.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2502.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5302.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2002.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2798.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4304.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BANJUL BJL EH YIF OO 2284.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3513.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2244.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1796.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DJIBOUTI JIB EH

YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1862.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 2864.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1754.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 2697.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BENGHAZI BEN EH YIF OO 1356.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3185.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2085.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4899.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1247.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 2515.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 998.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 3868.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1669.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> DOUALA DLA EH

YIF RT 2567.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2198.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1759.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3475.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 5345.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BRAZZAVILLE BZV EH YIF OO 2771.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 4883.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4263.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 7511.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2735.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 3774.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2188.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 5805.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3062.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ENTEBBE EBB EH

YIF RT 4710.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3301.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2980.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5078.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2384.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2453.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 3773.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> BUJUMBURA BJM EH YIF OO 2070.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3921.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3184.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 6032.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1909.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 3204.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1528.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 4928.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2701.00 062OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-EBB
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 4

JUB-FNA

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

JUBA JUB SDG >>>>> LAGOS LOS EH

>>>>> FREETOWN FNA EH FIF OO 3974.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6113.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 2964.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 4559.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2478.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3812.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2544.00 070OP 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2036.00 074OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> LIBREVILLE LBV EH

>>>>> GABORONE GBE EH FIF OO 4510.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 7292.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6937.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 11217.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3532.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 5794.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5433.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 8913.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2849.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4891.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4383.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 7524.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2763.00 070OP 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 5844.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2211.00 074OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 4676.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> LILONGWE LLW EH

>>>>> HARARE HRE EH FIF OO 6284.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 6973.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9667.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 10727.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5002.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 5516.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7695.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 8486.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4222.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4659.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6495.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 7167.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3219.00 070OP 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3562.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2576.00 074OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2850.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> LIVINGSTONE LVI EH

>>>>> JOHANNESBURG JNB EH FIF OO 6284.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 6764.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 9667.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 10406.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 5138.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 5135.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 7904.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 7899.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 4329.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4305.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6660.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 6622.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 4010.00 070OP 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 4140.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3208.00 074OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 3312.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> LOME LFW EH

>>>>> KANO KAN EH FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3496.00 052OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 5378.00 052OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 3305.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 2697.00 042OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 5084.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4149.00 042OO 30JAN12 YIF OO 2517.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2192.00 062OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 3872.00 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 3372.00 062OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2693.00 070OP 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2233.00 070OP 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2155.00 074OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1787.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> LUBUMBASHI FBM EH

>>>>> KIGALI KGL EH FIF OO 5265.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2062.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8099.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1650.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4302.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 6617.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> KILIMANJARO JRO EH YIF OO 3631.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3245.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 5586.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4991.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2976.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 2651.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2381.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 4078.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2238.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> LUSAKA LUN EH

YIF RT 3442.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5835.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1804.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8976.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1444.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4769.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 7336.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> KINSHASA FIH EH YIF OO 4025.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 5379.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6192.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 8274.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3072.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4012.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2458.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 6171.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3372.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> MAHE IS SEZ EH

YIF RT 5187.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4829.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3133.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7428.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2507.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3945.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 6069.00 042OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-SEZ
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 5

JUB-SEZ

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

JUBA JUB SDG MPXIF1M RT 1364.00 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> MAHE IS SEZ EH

YIF OO 3331.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> N’DJAMENA NDJ EH

YIF RT 5124.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2798.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3077.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 4304.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2462.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2080.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 3199.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MAPUTO MPM EH YIF OO 1604.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 7292.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 2467.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 11217.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 1783.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 5794.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1427.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 8913.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4891.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NIAMEY NIM EH

YIF RT 7524.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 4198.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 3359.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MAURITIUS MRU EH YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 7142.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 10987.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4829.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 7429.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 4071.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NOUADHIBOU NDB EH

YIF RT 6262.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 4403.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 3523.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4674.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 7190.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MOGADISHU MGQ EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3137.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4825.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3871.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 1790.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3097.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 2753.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1507.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> NOUAKCHOTT NKC EH

YIF RT 2318.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5720.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1401.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 8799.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1121.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 4674.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 7190.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MOMBASA MBA EH YIF OO 3945.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 3172.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6069.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4879.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3871.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 2595.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3097.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 3992.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2187.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> OUAGADOUGOU OUA EH

YIF RT 3364.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 5125.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1670.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 7884.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1336.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3248.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4996.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MONROVIA MLW EH YIF OO 3137.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 5316.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4825.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 8178.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2813.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4348.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2251.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 6688.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3667.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> ST DENIS RUN EH

YIF RT 5641.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 6270.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3388.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 9646.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2711.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 5130.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 7892.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> MORONI YVA EH YIF OO 4325.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 4635.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 6653.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 7130.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 3999.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 4134.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 3200.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 6359.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 3004.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> SEBHA SEB EH

YIF RT 4621.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 4369.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 3580.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 6721.00 052OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2864.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3245.00 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4992.00 042OO 30JAN12

>>>>> NAIROBI NBO EH YIF OO 2740.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF OO 2948.00 052OO 30JAN12 YIF RT 4215.00 062OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4535.00 052OO 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2656.00 070OP 30JAN12

CIF OO 2254.00 042OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 2125.00 074OP 30JAN12

CIF RT 3467.00 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1755.00 062OO 30JAN12 >>>>> TRIPOLI TIP EH

YIF RT 2700.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3709.00 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1704.00 070OP 30JAN12 FIF RT 5706.00 052OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 JUB-TIP
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 6

JUB-TIP

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

JUBA JUB SDG LAGOS LOS USD

>>>>> TRIPOLI TIP EH >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 3221.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1366 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4955.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2101 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2645.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 1151 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 4069.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1770 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2280.00 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 951 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1824.00 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1463 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 944 070OP 30JAN12

>>>>> WINDHOEK WDH EH MPXIF1M RT 755 074OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 7888.00 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 12135.00 052OO 30JAN12 LIBREVILLE LBV XAF

CIF OO 6359.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF RT 9783.00 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1133800 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 5351.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1744300 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 8231.00 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 901100 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 5269.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 1386300 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 4216.00 074OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 737700 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1134800 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> YAOUNDE YAO EH MEEIF3M RT 662600 070OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 4417.00 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 530100 074OP 30JAN12

FIF RT 6795.00 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 3609.00 042OO 30JAN12 LILONGWE LLW USD

CIF RT 5551.00 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

YIF OO 3046.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 2476 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 4686.00 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 3809 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2816.00 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 1819 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 2253.00 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 2798 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1551 062OO 30JAN12

KANO KAN USD YIF RT 2386 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 1294 070OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 1350 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1035 074OP 30JAN12

FIF RT 2077 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 1051 042OO 30JAN12 LIVINGSTONE LVI USD

CIF RT 1617 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

YIF OO 857 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3808 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1318 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5858 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 799 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 3149 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 639 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4844 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2194 062OO 30JAN12

KIGALI KGL USD YIF RT 3375 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 2073 070OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 1541 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1658 074OP 30JAN12

FIF RT 2371 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 861 042OO 30JAN12 LOME LFW XOF

CIF RT 1325 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

YIF OO 677 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1041 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1041 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 875600 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 833 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 1347000 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12

KILIMANJARO JRO USD YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 694600 070OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 1566 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 555700 074OP 30JAN12

FIF RT 2409 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 1203 042OO 30JAN12 LUANDA LAD USD

CIF RT 1851 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

YIF OO 864 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3090 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1329 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 4754 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1135 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2301 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 908 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 3540 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1764 062OO 30JAN12

KINSHASA FIH USD YIF RT 2714 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH MEEIF3M RT 1829 070OP 30JAN12

FIF OO 3954 052OO 30JAN12 MPXIF1M RT 1463 074OP 30JAN12

FIF RT 6083 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 2723 042OO 30JAN12 LUBUMBASHI FBM USD

CIF RT 4189 042OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

YIF OO 1791 062OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 3868 052OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 2755 062OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 5950 052OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2072 070OP 30JAN12 CIF OO 2660 042OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1658 074OP 30JAN12 CIF RT 4092 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 1751 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 2694 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 1970 070OP 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 FBM-JUB
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 7

LUN-JUB

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

LUBUMBASHI FBM USD YIF OO 2575 062OO 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH YIF RT 3961 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1576 074OP 30JAN12 MEEIF3M RT 2868 070OP 30JAN12

LUSAKA LUN USD MPXIF1M RT 2294 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 3541 052OO 30JAN12 MORONI YVA KMF

FIF RT 5448 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 2924 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 975400 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 4498 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1500500 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2246 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 936400 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 3456 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1440600 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2165 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 686800 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1732 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1056500 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 738900 070OP 30JAN12

MAHE IS SEZ SCR MPXIF1M RT 591200 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 18967 052OO 30JAN12 NAIROBI NBO USD

FIF RT 29180 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 15049 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1066 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 23151 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1640 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 12458 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 975 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 19165 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1500 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 12087 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 688 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 9670 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1059 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 666 070OP 30JAN12

MAPUTO MPM MZN MPXIF1M RT 533 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 52280 052OO 30JAN12 N’DJAMENA NDJ XAF

FIF RT 80430 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 40140 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 803900 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 61750 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1236700 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 29210 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 611100 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 44930 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 940100 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 29620 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 494500 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 23700 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 760700 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 492700 070OP 30JAN12

MAURITIUS MRU MUR MPXIF1M RT 394200 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 54880 052OO 30JAN12 NIAMEY NIM XOF

FIF RT 84425 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 43575 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1271100 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 67035 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 1955400 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 36060 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 963200 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 55475 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 1481700 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 34405 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 781800 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 27525 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 1202700 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 778500 070OP 30JAN12

MOGADISHU MGQ USD MPXIF1M RT 622800 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1431 052OO 30JAN12 NOUADHIBOU NDB MRO

FIF RT 2201 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 831 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 513360 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1278 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 789780 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 619 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 388820 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 953 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 598160 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 607 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 315840 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 486 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 485900 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 312680 070OP 30JAN12

MOMBASA MBA USD MPXIF1M RT 250160 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1310 052OO 30JAN12 NOUAKCHOTT NKC MRO

FIF RT 2016 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 1063 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 513360 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1636 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 789780 052OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 839 062OO 30JAN12 CIF OO 388820 042OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 1290 062OO 30JAN12 CIF RT 598160 042OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 780 070OP 30JAN12 YIF OO 315840 062OO 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 624 074OP 30JAN12 YIF RT 485900 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 312680 070OP 30JAN12

MONROVIA MLW USD MPXIF1M RT 250160 074OP 30JAN12

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 4774 052OO 30JAN12 OUAGADOUGOU OUA XOF

FIF RT 7345 052OO 30JAN12 >>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 2575 042OO 30JAN12 FIF OO 1473100 052OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 3961 042OO 30JAN12 FIF RT 2266200 052OO 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 OUA-JUB
2F: TC2 MIDDLE EAST-AFRICA 8

OUA-JUB

Origin Origin

> Destination GI > Destination GI

Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry Fare Basis Note Fare Reso Effective Expiry

OUAGADOUGOU OUA XOF

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

CIF OO 852700 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1311700 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 606700 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 933300 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 902300 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 721900 074OP 30JAN12

ST DENIS RUN EUR

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 3200 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 4922 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 2541 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 3909 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 2103 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 3234 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 2002 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 1602 074OP 30JAN12

SEBHA SEB LYD

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 877.5 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 1350.0 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 696.2 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1071.0 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 575.9 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 886.0 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 597.0 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 477.6 074OP 30JAN12

TRIPOLI TIP LYD

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 770.3 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 1185.0 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 568.8 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 875.0 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 503.8 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 775.0 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 588.0 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 470.4 074OP 30JAN12

WINDHOEK WDH NAD

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 23200 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 35690 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 18350 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 28220 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 14230 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 21890 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 13880 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 11110 074OP 30JAN12

YAOUNDE YAO XAF

>>>>> JUBA JUB EH

FIF OO 1068900 052OO 30JAN12

FIF RT 1644400 052OO 30JAN12

CIF OO 848200 042OO 30JAN12

CIF RT 1304900 042OO 30JAN12

YIF OO 642700 062OO 30JAN12

YIF RT 988700 062OO 30JAN12

MEEIF3M RT 696900 070OP 30JAN12

MPXIF1M RT 557600 074OP 30JAN12

Date: 24-NOV-11 YAO-JUB
International Air Transport Association 

Route de l’Aéroport 33 

PO Box 416 

CH - 1215 Geneva 15 Airport 

Switzerland 

Tel: +41 22 770 2842 

Fax +41 22 770 2682 

AS www.iata.org E-Mail: tariffs@iata.org 

 

30 November 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

PTC COMP 1656 

TO: Members Participating in Tariff Coordinating Conferences 

FROM: Manager, Interline Tariffs 

SUBJECT: Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences

 Singapore, 14 October 2011 

MINUTES

Attached are the Minutes of the Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating 

Conferences, which was held in Singapore, 14 October 2011 under the Chairmanship of 

Mrs. Patricia George. 

Alban Sato 

Manager, Interline Tariffs 

Passenger Interline Standards 

 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

OUTLINE OF CONTENTS 

• Opening of Meeting 

• Attendance Record 

• Determination of Voting Membership 

• Examination of Credentials of Accredited Representatives and Alternates 

• Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting 

• Passenger Tariff Conferences Steering Group (PSG) Report 

• Resolution Advisory Working Group (RADWG) 

• Expedited Resolution 024a (1 February 2012) Fares Currency from Russia 

• Expedited Resolution 012b, 024d (1 February 2012) for South Sudan 

• Baggage – Status of Automated Baggage Rules (ABR) Project 

• Resolution 302 – Baggage Provisions Selection Criteria 

- Deletion of Step 1 

- Addition of a Step

- Excess Baggage Charges and Handling Fees 

- Checked Portion: ‘Ticketed’ versus ‘Baggage-tagged’ 

- Multi-Airport Cities 

• Resolution 017b – Construction Rules for Pricing Units 

• Resolution 017f – Exchange, Reissues and Refunds 

• Resolution 017jj – Fare Selection Criteria 

- Validation of Resolution 017jj 

- Amendments to Resolution 017jj 

• Resolution 017h Fare Selection Criteria within Africa 

• Resolution 017i Carrier Selection for Fare Construction Checks 

• Currency Conversion Working Group 

• Resolution 011b – Global Indicators 

• Close of Meeting 

Attachment ‘A’ – JPSC agenda P13 - US DoT Rules on Enhacing Airline Passenger 

Protection. 

Attachment ‘B’ – DOT FAQ on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protection (19October2011) 

Attachment ‘C’ – Summary of Agreements 

Attachment ‘D’ – Attendance Record 

 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

COMPOSITE MEETING OF PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCES 

Geneva, 14 October 2011 

M I N U T E S 

OPENING OF MEETING 

 The Chairman, Mrs. Patricia George, opened the Composite Meeting of Tariff 

Coordinating Conferences at 1030 hours on Friday, 14th October 2011. The Meeting 

had been convened by Memorandum PTC COMP 1587, dated 16 September 2010. It 

comprised the following: 

 88th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 1 

166th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 2 

93rd Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 3 

 197th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 12 

 162nd Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 23 

127th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 31 

176th Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordination Conference 123 

As with all traffic conference meetings, this meeting has immunity from US anti-trust 

laws, on the condition that all agreements are submitted for specific approval by the 

US authorities. IATA would submit the agreements to the DoT in accordance with 

this condition. Consistent with this, IATA's Board of Governors determined that any 

agreement reached at this meeting must not be put into effect prior to its declaration 

of effectiveness. This ruling is contained in the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA 

Traffic Conferences and must be complied with.

ATTENDANCE RECORD 

 The Attendance Record is at Attachment 'A'. 

DETERMINATION OF VOTING MEMBERSHIP 

 The Voting Membership for the meeting was determined in accordance with the 

Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences. 

EXAMINATION OF CREDENTIALS OF ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVES AND 

ALTERNATES 

 The accreditation received by IATA was examined and found to be in accordance with 

the Provisions for the Conduct of the IATA Traffic Conferences. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 

 The following minutes were approved: 

 Composite Meeting of Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences 

 Geneva, 22 October 2010 

 Memorandum PTC COMP 1594 dated 2 November 2010 

 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

PASSENGER TARIFF CONFERENCES STEERING GROUP (PSG) 

Report 

 IATA presented a short summary of PSG activities of 2011. 

The PSG met twice via teleconference in 2011 to address issues such as; 

• Automated Baggage Rules Project 

• ‘National Carrier’ Provisions in the Flex Fares Resolutions 

• Scope of e-Tariff Sessions 

• Fare Selection Criteria 

• Status of Flex Fares 

The conference noted the the actitivies of PSG. 

 

RESOLUTION ADVISORY WORKING GROUP (RADWG) 

Background 

As endorsed by the Composite Meeting in 2009, the Resolution Advisory Working 

Group (RADWG) replaced the Resolution Advisory Panel (RAP) with the aim to 

revitalise RAP activities and make them more relevant. The main goals have been to 

broaden the areas of discussion and open the meeting to more airline and supplier 

participation. 

The second RADWG meeting was held 28 February -2 March 2011 in Montreal, 

moderated by Ms. Cynthia Towne (ITA). The meeting was participated by 10 airlines 

and 7 strategic partners. The meeting was followed by ATPCO Data App Working 

Group meeting 3-4 March at the same venue. The group made agreements on 

several items which are forwarded to the Composite Conference, via the Steering 

Group, for consideration and are reflected in the agenda for the Composite meeting. 

The next meeting is planned to take place in 1-3 November 2011 in Geneva. 

The Meeting was advised that the Fall 2012 RADWG meeting will be scheduled for 

September 2012, a month prior to the next Composite meeting. The new schedule 

will allow RADWG to assess and validate all proposals before they are tabled to the 

Composite meeting. Airlines are encouraged to submit their Composite agenda items 

to RADWG. 

Final Result: new RADWG meeting schedule approved 

The conference was encouraged to take part in the Working Group. RADWG extranet 

site (http://extranet2.iata.org/sites/Resolution-Advisory-Working-Group) has been 

established where Members and Strategic Partners can obtain all relevant 

information regarding the RADWG meetings and results. TC members who would like 

more information should register for the extranet site at 

http://www2.iata.org/registration/getemailpage.aspx?siteurl=Resolution-AdvisoryWorking-Group. 

 

RESOLUTION 024A EXPEDITED EFFECT 1 FEBRUARY 2012 

Fares Currency from Russia 

Taking into consideration the strengthening national currency, SU proposed to 

establish fares, related charges and add-ons from Russia (in Europe) (RU) and 

Russia (in Asia) (XU) in Ruble (RUB) effective 1 February 2012. The method would 

be for current fares in Euro (EUR) be converted to Ruble (RUB) using the latest 

IROE, and the resultant levels rounded in accordance with Resolution 024d. 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

The proposal was opposed by S7, UN, JL, LH, KL, CX, 9U, QR VN because they 

believed that ruble is still volatile and the current process already allows for using 

both euro and ruble. 

SU responded that the change is required to simplify and unify the process from the 

current two-currency processing to ensure better usage of automated pricing and 

revenue accounting systems. 

Opposing carriers were unable to change their positions despite the explanation from 

SU, and the chairman declared the proposal defeated. SU accepted the defeat of 

their proposal with the following statement: 

“SU understands the position of our counterparts and partly agrees with their concern 

that to prevent any possible losses it’s safer to publish the fares in the hard 

currencies. However SU is confident that ruble has become a strong currency and 

showed a significant appreciation over last two years. 

We observe that, while all Russian carriers have a facility to publish the domestic 

fares either in euro or ruble, carriers are actually publishing fares in rubles despite the 

financial risks mentioned. 

SU would have had no problem in maintaining the two currencies system had it not 

been for its decision to simplify the process. SU is the first Russian carrier to 

implement solutions such as automated exchange and refund, and fully automated 

revenue accounting processes. However the existing situation on the dual currency 

processing is an obstacle when implementing the new solutions. Our position is that 

simplification of the business should prevail over any possible financial risk especially 

when such risk is the volatility of ruble that SU do not consider as significant. 

SU is very disappointed that an agreement could not be made, but taking into 

consideration the importance of the issue for SU we would have to raise the issue to 

the attention of the Russian government to have this current regulation changed at 

the federal law level. SU is confident that it will get the support in this matter having in 

mind the government efforts in strengthening the ruble in the global economy scene. 

It should be clearly realized that in case the current Russian regulation is changed 

there will be no way to revert the establishment of fares in any other currency than 

ruble.” 

Final Result: Defeated 

 

RESOLUTIONS 012B, 024D EXPEDITED EFFECT 1 FEBRUARY 2012 

South Sudan 

1. Fares Currency from South Sudan 

 Resolution 024d – Establishing Passenger Fares and Related Charges 

In accordance with Resolution 012b, the Secretary is authorised to change the 

alpha and numeric codes of currencies, currency names and rounding units in 

Resolution 024d. 

New currency was introduced in South Sudan and has been in circulation from 

1 September 2011. The new currency replaced the Sudanese Pound (SDG) 

which was the legal tender in South Sudan. 

 The Composite meeting noted on the introduction of South Sudanese Pound 

(SSP) 

2. IATA fares from South Sudan 

There are no IATA specified fares for South Sudan, however add-ons for Juba 

(JUB) over Khartoum (KRT) exist for fares between Middle East and Africa. To 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

support interlining in the region, it is proposed to establish fares between South 

Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of existing add-ons in SDG, converting 

to SSP at the exchange rate of 1:1. The fares will be updated by Flex Fares 

process. 

 

Final Result: The Composite meeting agreed on the introduction of interlineable 

fares to/from South Sudan as proposed. 

3. Additional Information 

The meeting was advised by IATA that; 

a. as is for Sudan, South Sudan is part of Tariff Conference 2 Within Middle East 

sub-area 

b. travel between Sudan and South Sudan is international and will be subject to 

fare construction rules as outlined in Resolution 017 series 

c. IATA has not received an official guidance on the taxes/fees to be applied from 

South Sudan. Current tax applied for Sudan is not applicable for South Sudan 

KQ requested that IATA and airlines in the region confer with the South 

Sudanese government as needed and this was agreed. 

4. Implementation 

The meeting was advised that, due to complex coding required, system providers 

have advised that the new currency cannot be implemented earlier than 1 

February 2012. RADWG will address some of the technical issues at a meeting 

scheduled for 31 October – 2 November 2011 in Geneva. IATA will closely 

monitor the progress of the system providers and will advise the new 

implementation date as needed. 

 

RESOLUTION 302 

Status of Automated Baggage Rules (ABR) Project 

Resolution 302 - Baggage Provisions Selection Criteria was implemented on 1 April 

2011, and resolutions 300 and 301 expired on 31 March 2011. 

As of 9 June 2011, 301 carriers have filed their baggage rules to ATPCO, 90% of 

which are coded and released to system providers. Major GDS have gone live with 

the free baggage allowance solutions. All GDS continue to work with charges 

solution. 

DCS providers are now involved in the process. 

Final meeting of the baggage technical working group related to this project is 

scheduled took place 26-29 July 2011 in WAS to discuss enhancements required by 

the airlines to comply with US DoT new rule on disclosure, as well as to work with the 

DCS providers. Some outcomes of the meeting were proposed in the meeting. 

Since 2010, Resolution 302 has been amended to remove unnecessary terms and 

examples (Composite meeting 2010), and clarification added as for the definition of 

sub-areas in TC1 (TC1 e-Tariffs). 

AF commented that US DoT clarification is still required on their requirements. 

• IATA was requested to continue to engage US DoT for more clarification on their 

requirement, and provide summary 

• IATA will make DoT documents available to the Members 

o Attachment A (published separately): JPSC Agenda Item P13 on 

US DoT – Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Bill 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

o Attachment B (published separately): 

DOT FAQ on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protection (19October2011) 

• Conference was advised that the 24 January 2012 deadline for compliance on 

the Enhanced Airline Passenger Protection rule will not change 

• Conference was advised that JPSC agreed to disband the ABR Task Force 

Final Result: Status report noted 

 

RESOLUTION 302 1 APRIL 2012 

1. Deletion of Step 1 

Currently the process outlined for determining interline baggage provisions contains 4 

steps. The final result of both Step 1 and Step 2 is application of the MSC baggage 

provisions whether or not there are any similar baggage provisions between airlines on 

an interline journey. 

 Sample itinerary: SYD - XX - X/BKK – BB - X/DXB – CC - PAR 

 

 Step 1. Compare the rules of Carriers XX, BB, and CC to see if they are the same. 

 If they're not the same, go to step 2. 

 Step 2. The MSC (Cxr BB for BKK-DXB MSC sector) 

In essence, there is no point in determining whether any baggage provisions are the 

same, in either Step 1 or Step 2, because if there are any differences, the process 

defaults to MSC. This means that MSC provisions are applied regardless whether 

they are the same or different than other airlines on the journey. 

In a manual environment, requiring look-up and comparison of multiple airline baggage 

provisions for the purpose of identifying similarities is time consuming and produces no 

benefit. From an automation standpoint such a comparison is not done. 

In order to streamline the process and align logic with that applied in the automated 

baggage product, RADWG proposed to eliminate Step 1 from Paragraph 2) in its 

entirety. 

While the Conference recognized that the proposal is intended to delete a redundant 

step in the carrier baggage selection process, UA and LH preferred that no changes 

are made while the Resolution is still in the process of implementation by some system 

providers in particular DCS, and awaits further clarification from US DoT. 

Final Result: Defeated 

2. Additional Step 

Currently the process outlined in Resolution 302 for determining interline baggage 

provisions contains 4 steps. 

Resolution 302 proceeds directly from attempting to find through checked baggage 

allowance/charges (steps 2-3) to allowance/charges established per flown 

sector(step 4). 

It seems that progressing from step 3 to step 4 eliminates some viable possibilities for 

using multiple sector through-checked baggage allowance/charge provisions for which 

the passenger would qualify, and instead becomes extremely punitive by applying 

sector baggage allowance and charges. 

At RADWG it was questioned why there isn’t a middle step when more than 2 airlines 

are involved in the transportation of through-checked baggage, to attempt to find any 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

“MSC” carrier who has baggage allowance/charges for consecutive sectors in the 

through-checked portion of the itinerary. 

It was proposed to insert a new step between current Step 3 and Step 4 to allow for 

more reasonable attempts at finding through checked baggage provisions and charges 

before resorting to point to point application. 

5 RADWG member carriers supported the proposal in principle however, following 

concerns were raised: 

- it would be very difficult to slide & dice baggage provisions, having to look for the 

lowest combination when MSC/first check in carriers do not publish their rules. 

- A carrier was concerned that such a step may result in inconsistent output by the 

system providers. 

- A data provider pointed out that the proposal would impact automation and would 

have to be studied 

- A carrier was reserved pending further study 

Noting support from several carriers, RADWG proposed to add a step to find any 

“MSC” carrier who has baggage allowance/charges for consecutive sectors in the 

through-checked portion of the itinerary. 

The proposal was opposed by SU UA LH PG JL NH CX, with following reasons: 

• Carriers were concerned that the automation of the new step in the carrier 

baggage provision selection process may be difficult 

• Members required more clarification, i.e. how ‘consecutive sectors’ is applied, and 

if the MSC process should also be considered in such ‘consecutive sectors’ 

• Similar to the concerns expresses in the previous agenda item to delete step 1 in 

Paragraph 2) of the Resolution, airlines preferred that the Resolution remain as is 

until automation is in place 

Final Result: Defeated 

3. Excess Baggage Charges and Handling Fees 

Discussion at the second ABRTF meeting in Lisbon (September 2010) revealed there 

was considerable misunderstanding over the calculation, charging and ticketing of 

excess baggage charges and fees which already has an established process for 

ticketing and interline billing and settlement versus the emerging business model of 

collecting charges for checking in a bag. It was noted that Resolution 302 was crafted 

in a time where there was little prevalence of hold baggage fees and as such 

Resolution 302 only relates to excess baggage. There are no interline billing and 

settlement rules related to hold baggage fees and one carrier suggested that it was 

problematic to have specifically hold baggage fees identified. 

The Composite meeting 2011 subsequently attempted to define charges that would 

include the handling fees as ‘paid baggage allowance’ charge. This proposal was met 

by an opposition and defeated. 

In clarifying the application of the Federal Register 399.85 for the disclosure of 

baggage fees, US DoT determined that excess baggage charges and handling fees 

are considered the same and both should be disclosed to passenger. This clarification 

impacts: 

- Composite Resolution 012 Excess Baggage Charges definition which states, 

‘Charges applied to baggage checked in excess of free or paid baggage allowance’ 

- Automation of the charges application, which would require clarification as to whose 

handling fees should apply, MSC vs. check-in carrier 

- Prorate rules which provides for interlining and prorating process only to excess 

baggage charges 

 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

The Composite meeting was requested to provide guidance on how this should be 

addressed. 

UA commented that 

• Handling fees should not be interlineable 

• Resolution 302 is intended for the assessment of excess baggage charges only 

• UA does not apply 302, instead follow DoT requirement 

The conference was nevertheless concerned on the compliance of DoT requirement to 

disclose both excess baggage charges and handling fees. 

The chairman suggested that this be dealt by the policy group established by PSG, to 

research the possibility of establishing an IATA interlineable process/procedure for 

"handling fees” - to begin with the definition of "handling fee”, and this was agreed. 

Final Result: To be addressed by the PSG or by the new policy group to be 

established by the PSG 

4. Checked Portion – ‘Ticketed’ versus ‘Baggage-tagged’ 

At a working group meeting held in Washington 26-28 July 2011, system providers 

requested clarification on how Resolution 302 should be applied for short-tagged 

baggage. For example, ‘ticketed’ checked portion may be LON-x/FRA-DXB, in which 

case passenger would normally check the bag through to DXB, applying the provisions 

of carrier operating FRA-DXB. The passenger may, however, choose to pick up the bag 

at the transit point FRA. In this case, should the MSC be based on the ‘ticketed’ 

checked portion, FRA-DXB, or the ‘baggage’ checked portion only, which would be 

based on LON-FRA? 

The Composite meeting was requested to provide guidance on how this should be 

addressed. 

The Meeting believed that ‘short tagging’ of a baggage does not occur for a transit 

point, and agreed that the checked portion should be defined as ticketed 

Final Result: Agreed on the ‘ticketed’ checked portion

5. Multi-Airport Cities 

In case multi airport such as NRT and HND or surface sector exist in the journey, some 

GDS consider as stopover point even though transit time is less than 24 hours. 

According to the Resolution 012, stopover points are defined as transit time over 24 

hours. 

JL proposed to clarify, for the purpose of baggage provisions selection, that travel via 

multi-airport city or surface sector is considered as a stopover point regardless of 

interval time. 

The proposal was opposed by AF KL NH LH SK IR as they believed that a passenger 

should not be penalized for transiting via multi-airport cities by having their baggage 

journey broken, and systems should apply the baggage provision through. 

Final Result: Defeated. Meeting agreed that baggage provision should be applied 

through for transit via a multi-airport city. 

RESOLUTIONS 012/ 017B 1 APRIL 2012 

CTM exception for local combination 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

Agreement was reached at the Spring 2010 RADWG to eliminate the current definition 

of Special Fare Circle Trip entirely and remove the term “Normal Fare” from the current 

Normal Fare Circle Trip. 

The current ATPCO definition for circle trip does not distinguish normal and special fares 

and the removal of the distinction from the IATA definition will synchronize IATA and 

ATPCO definitions providing a standardized industry application. 

However the item was defeated at the 2010 Composite Conference by JL who were 

concerned that ambiguity remains as to what check to perform in case of a circle trip of 

mixed normal and special fare components. IATA advised that such combined trip of 

normal and special fare components is not considered a circle trip but a local 

combination. IATA additionally pointed out that no rule has been established in case of a 

circle trip with comprised of different type of special fares, i.e. a circle trip comprised of 

Excursion and PEX fares. 

The working group discussed various proposals to change the definition of "local 

combination" and/or the application of 017b to exempt CTM for "local combinations". 

Majority of carriers present voted to amend 017b to apply the CTM exemption to "local 

combinations". This will be achieved by deleting the words 'of normal and special fares' 

in 017b C)2)b)i). 

Additionally the group agreed to amend the definition of "local combinations" to a single 

pricing unit of 2 or more components (rest of current definition is essentially unchanged, 

i.e. normal/special and combination of special fares of different types). 

While majority of the airlines present voted to exempt CTM for local combinations, 

airlines were reminded that, should they require application of CTM they need to specify 

the CTM process. 

Accordingly RADWG proposed to: 

1. Exempt CTM for local combinations by deleting the words 'of normal and special 

fares' in 017b C)2)b)i) 

Final Result: Agreed 

2. Amend the definition of "local combinations" in Resolution 012 to a single pricing unit 

of 2 or more components 

Final Result: Agreed with certain amendment 

 combination of two or more fare components (normal and special fare 

or two or more different special fare types) to create a single pricing 

unit - provided the second last fare component returns to the country 

of origin of the first fare component 

 

RESOLUTION 017F 

Reissue with change to Country of Commencement (COC) 

Because the criteria which establishes COC is linked to the country from which travel 

on the first international sector occurs, there exists the possibility that COC is not the 

same country as that in which travel commences. This occurs when the first portion 

of travel on a ticket is comprised of domestic flights followed by an international 

surface sector and the original pricing does not price over the surface sector . 

Circumstances where Reissue results in a change to COC: 

1. Wholly Unused – (no change to 1st ticketed flight) 

 a. change requested to book a flight for the international surface sector, or 

b. re-price alters outbound fare component by pricing over international 

surface sector 

2. Partially Used 

a. after domestic portion is flown, passenger books flight(s) for the 

international surface sector, or 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

b. re-price alters outbound fare component by pricing over international 

surface sector 

No reference exists in 017f for how to determine fare difference when, on a reissue, 

the base fares are in different currencies. 

A proposal below was reviewed by the working group to resolve base fare amounts to 

same currency for reissue to determine ADC or residual value: 

Add logic to 017f, Section B, paragraph 3, new sub-paragraph d) and Section C, 

paragraph 2, new sub-paragraph c) as follows: 

Section B, paragraph 3, d) and Section C, paragraph 2), c) 

If the change results in a change to COC, convert original Base Fare to revised Base

Fare by historic BSR. 

 i. If the original fare in new COC is greater than the revised fare in new COC, convert

the difference back to the original COC by reversing the conversion process. This

represents the value eligible for refund/netting as applicable.

 ii. If the original fare in new COC is less than the revised fare in new COC, this

represents the amount of fare difference subject to collection from the passenger. 

It was agreed that change to COC needs to be addressed in Resolution 017f, but not 

necessarily with the language proposed in this agenda item. Three systems are 

already pricing a change to COC/reissue using at least two different processes so a 

final formula will be worked on at the next RADWG. 

The Composite meeting was requested to endorse the work of RADWG on this issue 

and submit proposal to the next working group meeting, and this was agreed. 

Final Result: Work of RADWG endorsed 

 

FARE SELECTION CRITERIA 

RESOLUTION 017JJ (PSG) 

Passenger Steering Group (PSG) agreed that Resolution 017jj on Fare Selection 

Criteria agreed at the Europe-South West Pacific e-Tariff session should be 

discussed at the Composite meeting for validation. 

Issues identified with Resolution 017jj were: 

• While the resolution applies for fare components between Europe and South West 

Pacific, almost all airlines globally are affected by the change, including carriers in 

TC1 

• Only a few airlines had an opportunity to review the proposal or vote on it 

• The new resolution may not deliver solution that the proponent was seeking 

• Numerous technical issues have been raised by system providers 

• Brings into Composite resolution concept of ‘issuing’ or ‘validating’ carrier which 

had not existed, but could have enormous impact on the commercial and 

distribution process 

The Composite meeting was requested to; 

1. review the Resolution from both commercial and technical perspective, and 

2. vote to validate the Resolution 

While some airlines were able to consider accepting the fare selection process for 

Europe- South West Pacific market with further review, others opposed to have 

exceptional process. 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

New working group was established to review the Resolution 017h as a whole. The 

group will consist of, but not limited to: 

KQ LH UA NZ AF LY PG JL KE NH CX SK KL 

This item is referred to the next RADWG, after which it is addressed by the new 

working group 

Final Result: 

- Resolution 017jj determined invalid 

- New working group established 

RESOLUTION 017JJ (NZ) 

Resolution 017jj was developed and agreed just a couple of months ago to try to 

solve the problem of valid fares not being quoted by GDSs, even though they may be 

the cheapest, just because the fare-owning carrier is not the carrier operating the first 

area-to-area crossing. Although the Resolution has since been found to have 

imperfections, NZ believed that with some fine-tuning it can be made workable, and 

will be a major advance on the otherwise-applicable Resolution 017h. 

NZ believed they have come up with a useful amended version which should be more 

suitable to GDSs, while going some way towards the solution sought by a number of 

long-haul carriers such as NZ. Composite Meeting was requested to agree on the 

amendments to 017jj. 

Final Result: To be addressed by the new working group 

RESOLUTION 017H – FARE SELECTION CRITERIA WITHIN AFRICA (KQ) 

Current Fare Selection Criteria outlined in Resolution 017h selects first international 

carrier over the long haul sector, even if the first international sector is a short haul 

flight. KQ would also like to have the possibility of bilateral fares selected in the 

process, provided such fare-owning carrier is participating in the fare component. 

KQ proposed to establish a dual fare selection process for fare components within 

Africa, where the lowest fare of either the first international carrier or the issuing 

carrier is selected. 

Final Result: To be addressed by the new working group 

 

RESOLUTION 017I 1 APRIL 2012 

Carrier Selection for Fare Construction Checks - Deletion of Examples No Longer 

Applied 

JL proposed to delete examples of the fare checks those are no longer effective. 

Examples to be deleted: 

3) Directional Minimum Check (DMC) 

4) Common Point Minimum Check (CPM) 

5) Country of Payment Check (COP) 

6) One Way Sub-journey Check (OSC) 

7) Return Sub-journey Check (RSC) 

Final Result: Agreed 

 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

RESOLUTION 024D 

IATA Passenger Tariff Coordinating (TC) Composite Conference Resolutions 024 series 

defines, for the purpose for fare filing and ticketing, 

• Currency to be used in establishing fares and charges 

• For which country US Dollar or EMU Euro should be used to establish fares instead 

of local currencies 

• Which currencies restricts acceptance only to the country concerned 

• Rounding and decimal units for each currency 

• Sources for the rates of exchange to be applied when converting the local currency 

fares to the currency of payment 

Numerous problems have been identified by RADWG as follows: 

1. Sources for the rates of exchange 

A resolution specifies sources for the rates of exchange. Currently 118 countries 

specify their source, either national banks or journals, and most (91 countries) of the 

sources update the rates on a weekly basis. Where such source is not specified, 

IATA Clearing House (ICH) Five Day Rate (FDR) is used. 

Problems: 

a. ICH rates are updated only once a month and the rates are far from market rates. 

Some systems and airlines resort to creating their own exchange rates that are 

more closely aligned to market rates. 

b. Specified sources have not been updated for decades and are outdated (only 37 

sources are from websites) 

c. Collection of the exchange rates using the list of sources and the FDR file is an 

extremely manual process, as the data are in different formats (journals, websites, 

letters, reports) from numerous sources at different time schedule, requiring 

system providers and airlines to assign numerous resources yet still leading to 

inconsistent result when pricing and ticketing. A system provider advises that they 

process 100,000 updates a month. 

Possible Solution: 

Simplify the list of sources and search for alternative source that are updated more 

frequently and data pulled with minimum intervention. 

2. Restricted currencies 

A resolution lists currencies where acceptance of such currency is restricted to the 

country concerned. 

Problems: 

a. There is no clear definition as to how some currencies are determined to be 

‘restricted’, nor is there a single neutral source that lists these restricted countries. 

The resolution therefore has not been updated for some years in this regard. 

b. We do not know the extent of the ‘restriction’, whether such restriction is only for 

refunding of the tickets, or if it also applies when tickets are being exchanged for 

another due to change in itinerary. 

c. We do not know how to ‘honour’ tickets where the fare applied is in USD or EUR 

but paid by restricted currencies 

Possible Solution: 

Link the ‘restricted’ currency definition to a source in compliant of local regulations 

3. Conversion Process 

A resolution specifies how fares for certain soft currency countries are established in 

US Dollar or EMU Euro. 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

Problem: 

Related to ICH and restricted currency issues above, there is no standardized 

conversion process for soft currency countries where often a source for rates of 

exchange has not been specified. Instead of defaulting to use ICH, some airlines and 

system providers are establishing their own conversion process using competitive 

market rates (cross rates). 

Possible Solution: 

Establish a standardized conversion process, applying a cross rate either via USD or 

EUR depending on which currency the soft currency country establish their fares. 

 

• Composite Meeting was requested to endorse the establishment of the Currency 

Conversion Working Group with the terms of reference as shown in the attachment 

• Composite Meeting to enlist volunteers for the working group 

The meeting endorsed the establishment of the new working group. The group will 

consist of, but not limited to AF KL KQ BA LH LY IR UA 

This item is referred to the next RADWG, after which it is addressed by the new working 

group. 

Final Result: 

• New working group endorsed 

• New working group established, consisting of but not limited to AF KL KQ BA LH LY 

IR UA 

 

RESOLUTION 011B 1 JUNE 2012 

CX proposed to establish a global indictor to be applied for fares between TC2 

and TC1 via the Pacific 

Examples: DXB-CX-HKG-CX-LAX 

 AUH-CX-HKG-CX-YTO 

 JNB-CX-HKG-CX-YVR 

 DMM-CX-HKG-CX-CHI 

Final Result: Agreed 

 

CLOSE OF MEETING 

The Chairman thanked the delegates and IATA staff for their support, cooperation and active 

participation in the discussion. 

The Composite Meeting was closed at 1430 hours on 14 October 2011. 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

ATTACHMENT ‘A’ 

Published Separately: JPSC Agenda Item P13 on US DoT – Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections Bill 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

ATTACHMENT ‘B’ 

Published Separately: DOT FAQ on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protection_19October2011 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

ATTACHMENT ‘C’ 

SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT 

The Composite meeting met in Singapore 14 October 2011. The changes are briefly 

described below. 

For Intended Effect 30 January 2012: 

• Fares are specified between South Sudan and Africa as constructed with use of 

existing add-ons to support interlining for travel from the newly formed nation of South 

Sudan. The fares will subsequently be updated by the Flex Fares 

For Intended Effect 1 April 2012: 

• Redundant examples in Resolution 017i Carrier Selection for Fare Construction 

Checks deleted. 

• Definition for ‘Local Combination’ amended in Resolution 012 

• Amendments made to Resolution 017c Construction Rules for Fare Components 

Paragraph C)2)b)i) related to local combination 

For Intended Effect 1 June 2012: 

• Global Indicator PA amended to include routing TC12 via the Pacific (via TC3) in 

Resolution 011b Global Indicators 

 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

 ATTACHMENT ‘D’ 

PASSENGER TARIFF COORDINATING CONFERENCE 

COMPOSITE MEETING, SINGAPORE, 14 OCTOBER 2011 

CHAIRMAN: PATTY GEORGE

Airline First Name Last Name 

Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Ivan Batanov 

Aeroflot - Russian Airlines Natalia Prokudina 

Air China Ltd Hailong Yue 

Air France Bernard Charrier 

Air Moldova Natalia Macovscaia 

Air New Zealand David Sharp 

Air Niugini Ltd John Polume 

All Nippon Airways Kuniko Hayakawa 

All Nippon Airways Mitsue Sato 

All Nippon Airways Etsuko Tada 

Bangkok Airways Co. Ltd Pakorn Rattanarod 

Bangkok Airways Co. Ltd Kanyarat Tretepvijit 

British Airways Jerry Foran 

Cathay Pacific Melody Kwok 

China Airlines Yi Ching Lee 

Egyptair Ahmed Ibrahim 

El Al Israel Airlines Ltd Linda Grinfeld 

Eva Air Helen Weng 

Hainan Airlines Guo Jiajing 

Hainan Airlines Limin Tang 

Iran Air Mansour Rezaei 

Japan Airlines Rie Hayashi 

Japan Airlines Takahiro Ishida 

Kenya Airways Agnes Kwanya 

KLM Marianne Klinkenberg 

Korean Air Keunhae Kim 

Korean Air Bongkyung Lee 

Kuwait Airlines Mansour Alsultan 

LOT Polish Airlines Elizabeth Dmowska 

LOT Polish Airlines Dorota Wronska 

Lufthansa Tanja Pritzkoleit 

Olympic Air Efharis Zervou 

Qatar Airways Stephane Baudemont 

S7 Airlines Vadim Besperstov 

S7 Airlines Irina Anokhina 

SAS Christina Falck 

SAS Elaine Rusén 

SAS Kurt Saetre 

Singapore Airlines Chiew Peng Lam 

Singapore Airlines Paak Keat Ong 

Singapore Airlines Yu Pin Toh 

Thai Airways Chollada Pasutanavin 

Thai Airways Nantavan Suvongse 

Transaero Tatiana Pidgaynaya 

United Airlines Carol Swanson 

Vietnam Airlines Nu Do thi 

Vietnam Airlines Ngoc Nguyen Thi Mhin 

Vietnam Airlines Hang Nguyen Thi Thuy 

Vietnam Airlines Uyen Vu Thi 

Virgin Australia (observer) Simon Pitt 
 

PTC COMP 1656 

SIN, Oct11

IATA 

Name Job Title Telephone Email 

Mike MULLER Head, Passenger Interline Standards +41 22 7702731 mullerm@iata.org 

David MCEWEN Manager, Passenger Interline Standards +41 22 7702086 mcewend@iata.org 

Daniel KANTER Senior Legal Counsel +15148740202 ext 3506 kanterd@iata.org 

Alban SATO Manager Interline Tariffs +41 22 7702878 satoa@iata.org 

Cristina ROTOR Manager, Tariff Solutions and Distribution +41 22 7702816 rotorc@iata.org 

Rosanna 

IANNANTUONO Manager, Mileage Products +41 22 7702824 IannantuoR@iata.org 
COMP 1656 - Attachment A JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13 

Page: 1 of 7 

 SUPP New 

Subject: US DoT – Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Bill 

Submitted by: ATA and IATA 

Background 

On April 19, 2011, the US Department of Transportation (DoT) issued the final rule for 

the Enhancing Passenger Protections to ‘improve the air travel environment for 

consumers’. The effective date of the requirements included in this rule was August 23, 

2011. Subsequently a delayed effective date of January 24, 2012 was issued for some 

of the more challenging requirements. “All air carriers” for purposes of this paper means 

U.S. or foreign carrier operating to or from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or 

more passenger seats. Below is a summary of the provisions as described in the 

regulation: 

Subject Final Rule 

Tarmac Delay 

Contingency 

Plans

Effective date: 

August 23, 

2011

• Requires all air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at least one 

aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere to 

tarmac delay contingency plans. 

• Requires all air carriers to not permit an international flight to remain 

on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without 

allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, security, and ATC 

exceptions. 

• Expands the airports at which all air carriers must adhere to the 

contingency plan terms to include small hub and non-hub airports, 

including diversion airports. 

• Expands the airports at which all air carriers must coordinate plans 

with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) at each U.S. airport regularly used for 

international flights, including diversion airports to include small hub 

and non-hub airports. 

• Requires all air carriers to provide notification regarding the status of 

delays every 30 minutes while aircraft is delayed, including reasons for 

delay if known. 

• Requires all air carriers to provide notification every 30 minutes of 

opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another 

disembarkation area with door open if the opportunity to deplane 

actually exists.

• Requires all air carriers to provide food and water no later than 2 hours 

after gate departure or touchdown at a U.S. airport unless the pilot 
determines safety or security prevents the service.
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 2 

 SUPP New 

Subject Final Rule 

Tarmac Delay 

Data

Effective date: 

August 23, 

2011

• Requires all air carriers that must adopt tarmac delay 

contingency plans to file data with the Department regarding any 

a tarmac delay of 3 hours or more at a U.S. airport. 

• The first tarmac delay report is due on or before October 17, 

2011; the reporting period is one month. 

• The first report must include data for any reportable tarmac 

delay incident that occurred between August 23, 2011, and 

September 30, 2011 at a U.S. airport. 

• All air carriers (foreign or U.S.) do not have to file any report 

(under Part 244)if you do not have a 3 hour tarmac delay 

during a report period. 

U.S. air carriers that already report flight information to DOT 

(under part 234) also do not have to file a report under part 244 

if the part 234 report already contains the delay data. 

Customer 

Service Plans

Effective date: 

August 23, 

2011

• Requires all air carriers that operate scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or 

more passenger seats to adopt, follow, audit customer service 

plans and retain audit records for 2 years for DOT inspection. 

• Establishes standards for the subjects all air carriers must cover 

in customer service plans. Examples include: 

• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing passengers 

for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost; 

• where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds 

including refund of optional fees charged to a passenger for 

services that the passenger was unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or flight cancellation; and 

• allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without 

payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is 

made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date. 
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 3 

 SUPP New 

Subject Final Rule 

Posting of 

Customer 

Service Plans 

and Tarmac 

Delay 

Contingency 

Plans 

Effective date:

August 23, 

2011

• Requires all air carriers to post their required contingency plans, 

customer service plans, and contracts of carriage on their 

websites as is already required of U.S. carriers. 

Response to 

Consumer 

Problems

Effective date:

August 23, 

2011

• Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer 

problems to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled 

passenger service to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft 

with 30 or more passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effects of 

irregular flight operations on consumers; inform consumers how 

to file a complaint with the carrier, and provide substantives 

responses to consumer complaints within 60 days). 

Oversales

Effective date:

August 23, 

2011

• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to 

200%/400% of the one-way fare up to a maximum of 

$650/$1,300. 

• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC 

limits every 2 years. 

• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders 

(e.g., holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are 

involuntarily bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the 

carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers 

who are involuntarily bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer 

for denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of 

transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash. 
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 4 

 SUPP New 

Subject Final Rule 

Full Fare 

Advertising

Effective date:

January 24, 

2012

• Enforces the full fare advertising rule as written starting January 

24, 2012 (i.e., ads which state a price must state the full price 

that include taxes and fees). 

• All air carriers may separately state the costs of taxes and fees 

in addition to the full fare price after January 24, 2012 but this 

additional disclosure may not be displayed prominently, e.g. the 

taxes and fee text must be smaller than the full fare price. 

• Until then carriers currently may exclude government taxes/fees 

imposed on a per-passenger basis. 

• Clarifies the rule applies to ticket agents. 

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that 

are not the full fare and impose stringent notice requirements in 

connection with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available 

for purchase only on a round-trip basis. 

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation. 

Baggage and 

Other Fees 

and Related 

Code-Share 

Issues

Effective date: 

August 23, 

2011

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose changes in bag 

fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include 

information regarding the free baggage allowance. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for 

optional services to consumers through a prominent link on their 

homepage. 

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any 

difference between its optional services and fees and those of 

the carrier operating the flight. Disclosure may be made 

through a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail 

the operating carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on 

its website that lists the differences in policies among codeshare partners. 
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 5 

 SUPP New 

Baggage and 

Other Fees 

and Related 

Code-Share 

Issues

Effective date: 

January 24, 

2012

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include 

on e-ticket confirmations information about the free baggage 

allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked 

bag and carry-on but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do 

so through a hyperlink. 

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to inform 

passengers on the first screen on which the ticket agent or 

carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by 

a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply 

and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees. 

• Requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply 

throughout a passenger’s journey. 

Subject Final Rule 

Post-Purchase 

Price 

Increases

Effective date: 

January 24, 

2012

• Bans the practice of post-purchase price increases in air 

transportation or air tours unless the increase is due to an 

increase in government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the 

passenger was provided full disclosure of the potential for the 

increase and affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an 

increase prior to purchase. 

Flight Status 

Changes

Effective date: 

January 23, 

2012

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers operating scheduled 

passenger service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to 

promptly notify consumers through whatever means is available 

to the carrier for passengers who subscribe to the carrier’s flight 

status notification services, in the boarding gate area, on a 

carrier’s telephone reservation system and on its website of 

delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions 

within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a change in 

the status of a flight. 

Choice-ofForum 

Provisions

Effective date: 

August 23, 

2011

• Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s 

forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue. 
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 6 

 SUPP New 

The requirement below is effective August 23, 2011 may need to be addressed to 

ensure compliance: 

14 CFR 259.7 

(b) Informing consumers how to complain. Each covered carrier shall make available 

the mailing address and e-mail or web address of the designated department in the 

airline with which to file a complaint about its scheduled service. This information shall 

be provided on the U.S. carrier’s website (if any) and the foreign carrier’s website (if 

marketed to U.S. consumers), on all e-ticket confirmations and, upon request, at each 

ticket counter and boarding gate staffed by the carrier or a contractor of the carrier. 

8 items were delayed until January 24, 2012: 

• full fare advertising section 399.84 

• baggage fees section 399.85(b) and 

• baggage fees 399.85(c) 

• baggage allowances and fees 399.87 

• post-purchase price increases section 399.88 

• disclosure of potential price increases before payment 399.89) 

• flight status notifications section 259.8 and 

• holding a reservation without payment section 259.5(b)(4) 

The requirement below is effective January 24, 2012 may need to be addressed to 

ensure compliance: 

14 CFR 399.85 

(c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air transportation within, to or from the United 

States, including the summary page at the completion of an online purchase and a postpurchase email confirmation, a U.S. carrier, a foreign air carrier, an agent of either, or a 

ticket agent that advertises or sells air transportation in the United States must include 

information regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee 

for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag. Carriers must provide this 

information in text form in the e-ticket confirmation. Agents may provide this information 

in text form in the e-ticket confirmations or through a hyperlink to the specific location on 

airline websites or their own website where this information is displayed. The fee 

information provided for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag must be 

expressed as specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer 

status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges. 
JPSC/31 PSC/33 Oct 11 

 Agenda Item: P13

 Page: 7 

 SUPP New 

The final rule is shown as Attachment A_P13. 

The postponement notice is shown as Attachment B_P13. 

A PowerPoint presentation from DoT is shown as Attachment C_P13. 

Slides 17-19 of the PowerPoint presentation clarify that a carrier or ticket agent can 

comply with this new regulation by including “a list or table in text form that shows 

baggage allowances and fees for all potential classifications of passengers regarding 

first and second checked baggage and carry-on baggage.” This is a very important 

clarification because it means the agent or carrier does not have to figure out an 

individualized baggage fee for each passenger, which would have been extremely 

difficult; the carrier or agent would have to know all factors that could impact whether 

the passenger owes a baggage fee such as a passenger’s credit card status, whether 

the passenger purchased an upgrade etc. With this DOT clarification agents and 

carriers have the option of providing a static table where the passenger can look up 

their status and find the applicable fee. Attachment D is a DOT FAQ document that 

provides additional guidance on all aspects of the DOT final rule. 

Proposed Action: 

PSC and ATA Passenger Council is asked to review this regulation on Enhancing 

Airline Passenger Protections and discuss what steps they would like IATA and ATA 

take to facilitate that airline industry procedures under the scope of passenger services 

are compliant with this US DoT mandate. 
1656 Attachment A Supplement B 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

14 CFR PARTS 244, 250, 253, 259 and 399

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140 

RIN No. 2105-AD92 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections: Limited Extension of Effective Date For Certain 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final Rule, limited extension of effective date for certain provisions 

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is extending the effective date for certain 

requirements adopted in an April 25, 2011 final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections. 

Specifically, the Department is extending the effective date from August 23, 2011 to January 24, 

2012, for requirements pertaining to baggage fees, post purchase price increases, flight status 

changes and holding a reservation without payment for twenty-four hours. The Department is also 

extending the effective date from October 24, 2011 to January 24, 2012 for requirements pertaining 

to full fare advertising. The effective date remains August 23, 2011 for all the other requirements in 

the April 25, 2011 final rule, including the requirement not to permit an international flight to remain 

on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane, the 

requirement increasing the denied boarding compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped 

from flights, and the requirement to disclose prominently all fees for optional aviation services on 

carriers’ websites. 
2 

DATES: This rule is effective on [insert date of publication in the Federal Register.] The 

effective date of the final rule published at 76 FR 23110, April 25, 2011, continues to be August 

23, 2011, except for the amendments relating to 14 CFR 399.84, 399.85(b) and (c), 399.87, 

399.88, 399.89, 259.8, and 259.5(b)(4) which become effective on January 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-

366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 25, 2011, the Department of Transportation 

published a final rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 23110), titled “Enhancing Airline Passenger 

Protections,” containing many new requirements to improve the air travel environment for 

consumers, expanding upon the improved passenger rights included in a rule published on 

December 30, 2009. More specifically, the April 25, 2011, rule (1) increases the number of 

carriers that are required to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans and includes additional 

airports at which they must adhere to the plan’s terms; (2) increases the number of carriers that 

are required to report tarmac delay information to the Department; (3) expands the group of 

carriers that are required to adopt, follow, and audit customer service plans and establishes 

minimum standards for the subjects all carriers must cover in such plans; (4) adds carriers to 

those required to include their contingency plans and customer service plans on their websites; 

(5) increases the number of carriers that must respond to consumer complaints; (6) enhances 

protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, including increasing the denied boarding 

compensation airlines must pay to passengers bumped from flights; (7) strengthens, clarifies and 

codifies the Department’s enforcement policies concerning air transportation price advertising 
3 

practices; (8) requires carriers to notify consumers of optional fees related to air transportation 

and of increases in baggage fees; (9) prohibits post-purchase price increases; (10) requires 

carriers to provide passengers timely notice of flight status changes such as delays and 

cancellations; and (11) prohibits carriers from imposing unfair contract of carriage choice-offorum provisions. As published, the effective date of the rule is August 23, 2011, except for the 

full fare advertising amendments which become effective on October 24, 2011. 

We received requests from U.S. carrier associations, foreign carrier associations and a 

travel agent association to extend the effective date of certain provisions in this rule. The Air 

Transport Association of America (ATA), the Regional Airline Association (RAA) and the Air 

Carrier Association of America (ACAA) requested that the Department of Transportation extend 

by 180 days the compliance time for the full fare advertising amendments in 14 CFR 399.84, the 

denied boarding compensation amendments in 14 CFR Part 250, the requirement to disclose 

baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations in 14 CFR 399.85(c), and the requirement in 14 CFR 

399.87 for the same baggage allowances and fees to apply to a passenger throughout an itinerary. 

These U.S. carrier associations state that they have limited their request to the four provisions 

that require deployment of additional IT resources, development of new protocols and the 

training of many employees. The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) joined the request to 

extend the effective date and stated that it also believes compliance cannot be achieved within 

the time contemplated by the regulation without undue cost to the airlines and confusion to the 

traveling public. 

According to the U.S. carrier associations, it will take more than the time allotted by the 

final rule to comply with the amendments to the denied boarding compensation rule because of 

the need to make additional systems and programming changes and the need to ensure the 
4 

appropriate offices and employees are aware of and trained on the changes to this rule. The 

carrier associations also ask for additional time to comply with the requirement to disclose 

baggage fees in e-ticket confirmations if detailed baggage fee information individualized to a 

particular passenger is required and if the notice of applicable baggage information must be in 

text form and a hyperlink is not allowed. In addition, the U.S. carrier associations assert that it 

is not possible to comply with the requirement to apply the same baggage allowances and fees to 

a passenger throughout an itinerary without an additional 180 days as no central repository for 

carrier baggage policies and fees currently exists. They note that carriers are working to develop 

an industry solution to comply with this requirement but more time is needed. 

The U.S. carrier associations are particularly concerned about the full fare advertising 

requirements, which they contend they cannot meet by the published effective date of October 

24, 2011. They state that this aspect of the final rule requires the greatest IT investment and that 

carriers are preparing to reprogram and reconfigure their online search engines to incorporate the 

new advertising requirements but that carriers would need at least an additional 180 days to 

create, modify and test these changes. The associations ask that the Department extend the 

effective date for not only online advertising but also print advertising so that consumers receive 

consistent advertising of fares through all advertising channels. 

The foreign air carrier associations have indicated their strong support of the request by 

the U.S. carrier associations and have asked that the 180-day extension be expanded to cover all 

the requirements being imposed for the first time on non-U.S. airlines. These associations are 

the International Air Transport Association (IAT), Association of Asia Pacific Airlines (AAPA), 

Association of European Airlines (AEA), and Latin and Caribbean Air Transport Association 

(ALTA). They have stated that they believe investments and changes are needed to meet the 
5 

new DOT requirements. They also state that the ability of the non-U.S. airlines to meet these 

requirements in a timely fashion is impacted by constraints on existing operations, staffing, IT 

support, local laws and regulations, labor practices and resources. 

In addition to the airlines, the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) has requested 

an extension of the effective date of the final rule. ASTA requests that the Department extend 

the effective date of the requirement in section 399.85(b) to disclose baggage fee information on 

websites when a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is selected by a consumer and the 

requirement in section 399.85(c) to disclose baggage fee information on all e-ticket 

confirmations. ASTA’s request differs from the requests of the U.S. and foreign air carrier 

associations in that ASTA is not requesting a specific amount of additional time to implement 

the requirements. Rather, ASTA is asking that the Department defer the effective date of these 

two requirements until the Department concludes its upcoming rulemaking on disclosure of fees 

for ancillary services. ASTA, like the U.S. carriers, notes its uncertainty as to whether the 

requirement to provide specific information to passengers about baggage allowances and 

baggage fees means providing individualized information about those matters. ASTA also 

asserts that the two methods the rule describes for agents to provide baggage information to 

consumers are not feasible. It calls the first method (providing a link to an airline website) “an 

act of commercial suicide” and believes the second method (referring consumers to its own site 

if it displays airlines’ baggage fees) impractical because of the labor cost to achieve it initially 

and to monitor airline websites constantly for updates. 

In addition to the requests to extend the effective date of the rule, we received a request 

from Allegiant Air and Spirit Airlines as well as Southwest Airlines to postpone or stay the 

effective date pending judicial review of various provisions in this regulation by the United 
6 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In June, Allegiant and Spirit filed 

petitions for review before that court asserting that the rule unlawfully: (1) ends the practice of 

permitting sellers of air transportation to exclude government taxes and fees from the advertised 

price; (2) prohibits the sale of nonrefundable tickets by requiring airlines to hold reservations at 

the quoted fare without payment or cancel without penalty for at least twenty-four hours after the 

reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure; (3) 

prohibits post-purchase price increases, including increases in the price of ancillary products and 

services, after the initial ticket sale; (4) requires baggage fees to be disclosed on e-ticket 

confirmations; and (5) mandates notification of flight schedule changes. Spirit’s and Allegiant’s 

request to the Department to stay the rule pending judicial review covers all the specific 

provisions that are part of the litigation. Southwest is requesting that the Department stay the 

effective date of the new full fare advertising rule. 

A few other organizations have also provided the Department their views on the requests 

to stay the rule and the requests to extend the effective date of the rule. The Consumer Travel 

Alliance (CTA) has expressed its opposition to any delay in implementation of the rulemaking. 

CTA appears particularly concerned about requests to delay the requirement to disclose baggage 

fee information to consumers. It notes that airlines have the means through the Airline Tariff 

Publishing Company (ATPCO) to disclose all baggage fee information so that both airlines and 

ticket agents can easily disclose baggage fee information to consumers. The Airports Council 

International- North America (ACI-NA) has also noted its concern with the recent filings 

requesting extensions to the effective date of the rule but states that it recognizes that the 

Department may determine that the implementation date for some portions of the regulations 
7 

may need to be extended. ACI-NA does urge the Department to not delay the implementation 

date for U.S. carriers to extend their tarmac delay plans to small and non-hub airports. 

 Similarly, an individual commenter who works in the travel industry stated that it may be 

appropriate to extend the effective date of certain provisions in the final rule such as the full fare 

advertising requirements but expressed his strong opposition to the blanket request for an 

extension of the effective date of all the consumer protection requirements in the rule. This 

individual identified the provisions pertaining to denied boarding compensation and baggage 

fees as ones that should not be delayed based on his belief that airlines can easily comply with 

these provisions and their importance to consumers. 

After carefully considering all the requests and comments provided, the Department has 

decided to extend the effective date of the requirements pertaining to full fare advertising 

(section 399.84) by an additional three months to January 24, 2012, and extend the effective 

date of certain specific requirements pertaining to baggage fees (sections 399.85(b) and (d) and 

399.87), post-purchase price increases (sections 399.88 and 399.89), flight status notifications 

(section 259.8) and holding a reservation without payment (section 259.5(b)(4)) to the same date. 

We are denying the request of U.S. carrier associations to extend the effective date of denied 

boarding compensation amendments and the request of the foreign carrier associations to extend 

the effective date of the entire rule. 

The Department took a number of factors into consideration in deciding to extend certain 

provisions of the rule until January 24, 2011, including the fact that there are limited objections 

to the requests for an extension of time. We are persuaded that additional time is needed to 

comply with the full fare advertising amendments as they relate to online advertising as they may 

require the deployment of IT resources, and to allow maximum flexibility to make alterations to 
8 

web sites with minimal disruption. We also believe that we should apply the same effective date 

to print advertising so that consumers do not see different advertising displays in different media 

which could result in consumer confusion. 

With regard to baggage fees, there appears to be some confusion regarding what the 

Department meant by the requirement in section 399.85 (b) that “specific baggage fee 

information” must be disclosed on websites when a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is 

selected by a consumer and by the requirement in section 399.85(c) that carriers must provide 

information on all e-ticket confirmations regarding the free baggage allowance and fee for a 

carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag “as specific charges taking into account any 

factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges.” We 

want to clarify that the rule does not require passenger-specific information concerning baggage 

allowances and baggage fees on e-ticket confirmations or on websites providing fare quotations. 

We used the term “specific charges” to ensure that the regulated entities understood that a range 

of fees would not be acceptable under the rule. In other words, carriers must provide specific 

information to consumers about all the factors that cause the fee for a carry-on bag or the first 

and second checked bag to vary so passengers can determine for themselves the fees that would 

apply to them. For example, it would not be sufficient for a carrier to state that the fee for the 

first checked bag ranges from $0 to $50. However, it would acceptable if the carrier states that 

the fee for the first checked bag would be $0 for its elite frequent flyer passengers or those who 

purchased their ticket with a specified credit card, $25 for passengers who pay for baggage 

online, and $50 for those passengers who pay at the airport. Of course, carriers are free to 

provide individualized baggage charge information to passengers but this is not required by the 

rule. 
9 

Although individualized baggage fee information is not required by the final rule, the 

Department still sees merit in extending the effective date of the requirements in section 

399.85(b) and (c) as the travel agencies need time to determine the method they will use to 

ensure that specific baggage fee information is available to their consumers. We are also 

persuaded that additional time is needed by the carriers as they are not permitted under the rule 

to provide the required notice of applicable baggage charges through a hyperlink. However, we 

don’t believe that it will be in the best interest of consumers to delay the effective date of these 

provisions until the Department concludes its rulemaking on disclosure of ancillary fees as 

requested by ASTA. 

With respect to the U.S. carrier associations request to delay the effective date of the 

provision requiring consistent baggage rules across an entire itinerary, the associations have 

adequately demonstrated the difficulties in applying the same baggage allowances and fees 

across an itinerary when they cannot readily access each other’s fee schedules. We are 

encouraged that they are working towards an industry solution and have provided them 

additional time so that an industry standard can be developed. We have also decided to extend the 

effective date of the provisions pertaining to post purchase price increases, flight status changes and 

holding a reservation without payment for twenty-four hours to provide additional time to overcome 

any technical difficulties in implementing the rules.

In extending the effective date for these requirements, the Department is balancing the 

benefit of having these protections in place for consumers as soon as practical with the capability 

of airlines to comply with the additional requirements being imposed upon them in a reasonable 

timeframe. We believe the January 24, 2012, date will provide the airlines adequate time to 

comply with the requirements. 
10 

REGULATORY ANALYSES AND NOTICES

A. Administrative Procedure Act

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires an agency to 

publish notice of a proposed rule making in the Federal Register. This requirement does not apply, 

however, if the agency “for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Because August 23, 2011 (the 

effective date for the April 2011 final rule) is fast approaching, the Department finds good cause that 

this action delaying the effective date should take effect immediately. Today’s final rule makes no 

substantive changes to the rule, but simply delays the effective date of certain provisions until 

January 24, 2012.

B. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures

This rulemaking action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 and the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 

DOT certifies that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. This action imposes no duties or obligations on small entities. 
11 

D. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, and therefore will not have federalism 

implications. 

E. Executive Order 13084 

This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). 

Because the provisions for which we are delaying the effective date would not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 

do not apply. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) requires that 

DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the 

public and, under the provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it conducts, sponsors, or 

requires through regulations. DOT has determined that there are no new information collection 

requirements associated with this action. The action merely postpones the effective date of a 

regulatory provision whose paperwork impact has already been analyzed by the Department, and 

consequently no additional OMB approval is necessary. 
12 

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rulemaking. 

ISSUED THIS 20th DAY OF July , 2011, IN WASHINGTON D.C. 

 

ORIGINAL SIGNED 

 Susan Kurland 

 Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 
COMP 1656 - Attachment A, Supplement A 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Parts 244, 250, 253, 259, and 399

Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140 

RIN No. 2105-AD92 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is issuing a final rule to improve the air travel 

environment for consumers by: increasing the number of carriers that are required to adopt 

tarmac delay contingency plans and the airports at which they must adhere to the plan’s terms; 

increasing the number of carriers that are required to report tarmac delay information to the 

Department; expanding the group of carriers that are required to adopt, follow, and audit 

customer service plans and establishing minimum standards for the subjects all carriers must 

cover in such plans; adding carriers to those required to include their contingency plans and 

customer service plans on their websites; increasing the number of carriers that must respond to 

consumer complaints; enhancing protections afforded passengers in oversales situations, 

including increasing the maximum denied boarding compensation airlines must pay to 

passengers bumped from flights; strengthening, codifying and clarifying the Department’s 

enforcement policies concerning air transportation price advertising practices; requiring carriers 

to notify consumers of optional fees related to air transportation and of increases in baggage fees; 

prohibiting post-purchase price increases; requiring carriers to provide passengers timely notice 
2 

of flight status changes such as delays and cancellations; and prohibiting carriers from imposing 

unfair contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions. The Department is taking this action to 

strengthen the rights of air travelers in the event of oversales, flight cancellations and delays, 

ensure that passengers have accurate and adequate information to make informed decisions when 

selecting flights, prohibit unfair and deceptive practices such as post-purchase price increases 

and contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions, and to ensure responsiveness to consumer 

complaints. 

DATES: This rule is effective [insert date 120 days after date of publication in the Federal 

Register] except for the amendments to 14 CFR 399.84 which become effective [insert date 180 

days after date of publication in the Federal Register] . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane A. Workie, Tim Kelly or Daeleen 

Chesley, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-

366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), tim.kelly@dot.gov or blane.workie@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 30, 2009, the Department published a final rule in which it required certain 

U.S. air carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; respond to consumer 

problems; post flight delay information on their websites; and adopt, follow, and audit customer 

service plans. The rule also defined chronically delayed flights and deemed them to be an 

“unfair and deceptive” practice. The majority of the provisions in that rule took effect on April 

29, 2010. See 74 FR 68983 (December 30, 2009). 
3 

 In the preamble to that final rule, the Department noted that it planned to review 

additional ways to further enhance protections afforded airline passengers and listed a number of 

subject areas that it was considering addressing in a future rulemaking. On June 8, 2010, the 

Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 75 FR 32318, in which it 

addressed the following areas: (1) contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; (2) reporting of 

tarmac delay data; (3) customer service plans; (4) contracts of carriage; (5) responding to 

consumer problems/complaints (6) oversales; (7) full fare advertising; (8) baggage and other 

ancillary fees; (9) post-purchase price increases; (10) notification to passengers of flight status 

changes; (11) choice-of-forum provisions; and (12) peanut allergies. In response to the NPRM, 

the Department received over 2100 comments, the vast majority of which were related to the 

proposal to address peanut allergies in air travel. 

The Department received comments on the NPRM from the following: U.S. carriers and 

U.S. carrier associations; foreign air carriers and foreign carrier associations; U.S. and foreign 

consumer groups; travel agents and members of organizations in the travel industry; airports and 

various airport-related industry groups; members of Congress; embassies; peanut industry groups 

and allergy associations; as well as a number of individual consumers. In addition, the 

Department received a summary of the public discussion on the NPRM proposals that occurred 

on the Regulation Room Web site, http://www.regulationroom.org. The Regulation Room site is 

a site where members of the public can learn about and discuss proposed federal regulations and 

provide feedback to agency decision makers. To support this Administration’s open government 

initiative, the Department partnered with Cornell University in this pilot project to discover the 

best ways to use Web 2.0 and social networking technologies to increase effective public 

involvement in the rulemaking process. 
4 

The Department has carefully reviewed and considered the comments received. The 

commenters’ positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM and the 

Department’s responses are set forth below, immediately following a summary of regulatory 

provisions and a summary of the regulatory analysis. 

Summary of Regulatory Provisions

Subject Final Rule 

Tarmac Delay 

Contingency 

Plans

• Requires foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at 

least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere 

to tarmac delay contingency plans. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to not permit an international 

flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four 

hours without allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, 

security, and ATC exceptions. 

• Expands the airports at which airlines must adhere to the 

contingency plan terms to include small hub and non-hub airports, 

including diversion airports. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign carriers to coordinate plans with Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security 

Administration ( TSA). 

• Requires notification regarding the status of delays every 30 minutes 

while aircraft is delayed, including reasons for delay if known. 

• Requires notification of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that 

is at the gate or another disembarkation area with door open if the 

opportunity to deplane actually exists. 

Tarmac Delay 

Data • Requires all carriers that must adopt tarmac delay contingency plans 

to file data with the Department regarding lengthy tarmac delays. 
5 

Customer 

Service Plans

• Requires foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service 

to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more 

passenger seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans. 

• Establishes standards for the subjects U.S. and foreign air carriers 

must cover in customer service plans. Examples include: 

• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing 

passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is 

lost; 

• where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds 

including refund of optional fees charged to a passenger for 

services that the passenger was unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or flight cancellation; and 

• allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without 

payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is 

made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date . 

Posting of 

Customer 

Service Plans 

and Tarmac 

Delay 

Contingency 

Plans 

• Requires foreign carriers to post their required contingency plans, 

customer service plans, and contracts of carriage on their websites as 

is already required of U.S. carriers. 

Response to 

Consumer 

Problems

• Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems 

to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service 

to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more 

passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effects of irregular flight operations 

on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the 

carrier, and provide substantives responses to consumer complaints 

within 60 days). 

Oversales 

• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to 

$650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is 

smaller. 

• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits 

every 2 years. 
6 

• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., 

holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily 

bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier 

verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are 

involuntarily bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for 

denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of 

transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash. 

Full Fare 

Advertising • Enforces the full fare advertising rule as written (i.e., ads which state 

a price must state the full price to be paid). Carriers currently may 

exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a per-passenger basis. 

• Clarifies the rule’s applicability to ticket agents. 

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that are not 

the full fare and impose stringent notice requirements in connection 

with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available for purchase 

only on a roundtrip basis. 

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation. 

Baggage and 

Other Fees and 

Related CodeShare Issues

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose changes in bag 

fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include 

information regarding the free baggage allowance. 

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include on eticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance 

and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on 

but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a hyperlink. 

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to inform 

passengers on the first screen on which the ticket agent or carrier 

offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer 

that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where 

consumers can go to see these baggage fees. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for optional 

services to consumers through a prominent link on their homepage. 
7 

• Requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply 

throughout a passenger’s journey. 

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any 

difference between its optional services and fees and those of the 

carrier operating the flight. Disclosure may be made through a 

hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating 

carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that 

lists the differences in policies among code-share partners. 

Post-Purchase 

Price Increases • Bans the practice of post-purchase price increases in air 

transportation or air tours unless the increase is due to an increase in 

government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the passenger was 

provided full disclosure of the potential for the increase and 

affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an increase prior to 

purchase. 

Flight Status 

Changes • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger 

service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to promptly notify 

consumers through whatever means is available to the carrier for 

passengers who subscribe to the carrier’s flight status notification 

services, in the boarding gate area, on a carrier’s telephone 

reservation system and on its website of delays of 30 minutes or 

more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier 

becoming aware of a change in the status of a flight. 

Choice-ofForum 

Provisions 

• Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s 

forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue 

Summary of Regulatory Analysis 

The regulatory analysis shows that the monetized benefits of the proposed requirements 

exceed their monetized costs, even without considering non-quantifiable benefits. This analysis, 

outlined in the table below, has determined that the present value of monetized net benefits for a 

10 year period at a 7% discount rate is $14.3 million. At a 3% discount rate, the present value of 

monetized net benefits is estimated to be $20.3 million. 
8 

 Present Value (millions)

10 Years, 7% discounting $45.0 Monetized Benefits 

10 Years, 3% discounting $53.5

10 Years, 7% discounting $30.7 Monetized Costs 

10 Years, 3% discounting $33.2

10 Years, 7% discounting $14.3 Monetized Net Benefits 

10 Years, 3% discounting $20.3

A comparison of the monetized benefits and costs for each of the final requirements is provided 

in the Regulatory Analysis and Notices section, set forth below, along with information on 

additional benefits and costs for which quantitative estimates could not be developed. 

Comments and Responses 

1. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans 

A. Entities Covered 

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require any foreign air carrier that operates scheduled 

passenger or public charter service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to 

have a passenger capacity of 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and comply with a tarmac 

delay contingency plan for their flights to and from the U.S. that includes minimum assurances 

identical to those currently required of U.S. carriers. As proposed, it would apply to all of a 

foreign carrier’s flights to and from a covered U.S. airport, including those involving aircraft 

with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger 

capacity of 30 or more seats to or from the U.S. 

We sought comment on whether the requirement to have a contingency plan should be 

narrowed or expanded, and if so, the cost burdens and benefits of doing so. For example, we 

proposed to include foreign carriers that operate aircraft originally designed to have a passenger 
9 

capacity of 30 or more seats to and from the U.S., but we invited interested persons to comment 

on whether, in the event that we adopt a rule requiring foreign carriers to have contingency plans, 

we should limit its applicability to foreign air carriers that operate large aircraft to and from the 

U.S.—i.e., aircraft originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 

seats. We also asked whether the requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans should 

apply not only to U.S. and foreign air carriers but also to U.S. airports. We requested that 

proponents and opponents of these or other alternative proposals provide arguments in support of 

their positions. 

 Comments: A number of U.S. and foreign airlines and airline associations support 

requiring airports to develop their own contingency plans to address lengthy tarmac delays but 

generally agree that these plans should be limited to coordinating with airlines and government 

agencies and assisting airlines during tarmac delays. Some of these commenters note that 

airports are in the best position to address the logistics associated with lengthy delays, 

particularly with respect to diverted flights. For example, they argue that an airport authority is 

most likely to know the areas in the airport where international passengers can be allowed to 

deplane without resulting in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) or Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) concerns. Commenters also note that requiring only carriers to 

have a contingency plan unreasonably places the burden of the operations of the entire air 

transport industry on carriers. Consumer groups are also in favor of requiring airports to adopt 

contingency plans. Of the airport and airport industry commenters, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport 

generally supports requiring U.S. airports to adopt a tarmac delay contingency plan but notes that 

U.S. airports do not have direct contact with airline passengers when they are on the aircraft and 

have no control over deplaning. Airports Council International (ACI) supports the airlines’ plans 
10 

being coordinated with airports but does not support requiring airports to adopt separate plans. 

ACI believes that separate airport and airline contingency plans could result in confusion and 

states that it is committed to supporting airlines in the development of their plans. 

With regard to the adoption of a tarmac delay contingency plan by foreign carriers, the 

views of foreign carrier associations and carriers differed significantly from those of other 

commenters. In general, the foreign carriers and foreign carrier association commenters object 

to the proposal that they adopt tarmac delay contingency plans as unnecessary and note that the 

same issues with tarmac delays do not arise as often with international flights as they do with 

domestic flights. The International Air Carrier Association (IACA) states that EU Regulation 

261/2004 is an EU passenger rights provision to which EU carriers are subject on all their flights, 

including flights that depart from U.S. airports, and that the Department’s proposals could 

conflict with EU laws. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) generally supports 

the principle of contingency plans, but believes such plans should be developed individually by 

each carrier according to its specific operations and conditions as opposed to having terms set by 

the government. The Arab Air Carrier Association (AACA) and the Latin American and 

Caribbean Air Transport Association (ALTA) concur with IATA, as do many foreign carriers. 

The Air Transport Users Council (AUC) and a number of European carriers point out, similar to 

IACA, that many of the provisions in the NPRM are covered under EU legislation. The National 

Airlines Council of Canada (NACC) supports the need for contingency plans in the event of 

irregular operations but states that they should be developed in the interest of enhanced customer 

service rather than being mandated by government regulation. TUI Travel notes that EU carriers 

must comply with EU regulations and asks that carriers originating outside the U.S. be excluded 
11 

from the tarmac delay contingency plan rule. Monarch Airlines commented that an exception to 

any requirement should exist for flights that do not pick up passengers in the United States. 

U.S. carrier associations such as the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) and 

National Air Carrier Association (NACA) indicated their support for requiring foreign air 

carriers to meet the same standards as U.S. carriers for adopting tarmac delay contingency plans. 

Of the U.S. carriers that commented, Spirit Airlines supports extending the rule to foreign 

carriers, while Virgin America states that DOT should not adopt any of the proposals related to 

tarmac delays. 

Most of the comments received from individuals on this issue noted that a requirement to 

develop a tarmac delay contingency plan should be extended to foreign carriers because it is 

important to protect consumers on all flights to and from the United States, not merely on flights 

operated by U.S. airlines. Among the consumer group commenters, the Consumer Travel 

Alliance (CTA) supports the expansion of the tarmac delay rules to foreign carriers, as does the 

Association for Airline Passenger Rights (AAPR), National Business Travel Association 

(NBTA), Flyersrights.org, Consumers Union and Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP). 

The American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) also supports extending the tarmac delay 

contingency plan provisions to foreign carriers and states that the rule should cover all aircraft 

types. 

Among the airports and airport industry commenters, ACI supports requiring foreign air 

carriers to adopt plans that include minimum assurances as required of U.S. airlines and strongly 

supports extending the rule to foreign air carriers operating aircraft with 30 or more seats. The 

American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) agrees that foreign carriers should comply 

with specified contingency plans in order to provide equal and fair competition. The New York 
12 

State Consumer Protection Board supports requiring foreign carriers to adopt tarmac delay 

contingency plans that provide for passengers to receive the same basic necessities that U.S. 

carriers are required to provide. 

DOT Response: After fully considering the comments received, the Department has 

decided not to promulgate a requirement that airports adopt contingency plans addressing 

lengthy tarmac delays. The Department is aware that many airports are voluntarily working with 

U.S. carriers to develop policies and procedures to address lengthy tarmac delays and to 

cooperate with U.S. carriers in the coordination of the carriers' contingency plans as required of 

U.S. airlines by the first tarmac delay rule. As such, it is not necessary to regulate in this area at 

this time. 

However, the Department thinks it is reasonable and necessary to require foreign carriers 

that operate scheduled passenger or public charter service to and from the U.S. to adopt and 

adhere to tarmac delay contingency plans. International air travel is a large and increasingly 

significant market sector, and customers who use non-U.S. airlines deserve no less protection 

from lengthy tarmac delays at U.S. airports than do customers of U.S. airlines. We also wish to 

be consistent with the application of our rules. The lengthy tarmac delays experienced by a 

number of foreign carriers at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) during and after the 

December 26, 2010, blizzard highlights the need to extend the rule to those carriers. 

In order to address commenters' concerns that certain European laws (or laws of other 

countries) may conflict with this regulation, we want to clarify that the requirement to adopt and 

follow a plan applies only to tarmac delay events that occur at a covered U.S. airport. The rule 

should not conflict with EU Regulation 261/2004, the EU rule on compensation and assistance to 

be provided to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellation or long flight 
13 

delays. The types of assistance required under the EU rule are for the most part services that 

would not be available on board an aircraft during a tarmac delay, e.g. phone calls, a hotel room, 

transportation between the airport and the hotel room, and rerouting on another flight. The 

context of the food and beverage requirement in regulation 261/2004 suggests that these services 

are to be provided in the airport terminal during a normal (i.e., non-tarmac) flight delay before 

passengers have been boarded. As such, although EU 261/2004 applies to EU carriers departing 

from or traveling to an EU member state and to non-EU carriers departing from an EU member 

state airport, we see no conflict between that rule and this one. On a tarmac delay at a U.S. 

airport, EU and non-EU carriers can comply with all provisions of both rules. 

With regard to charter flights, we agree with Monarch Airlines and TUI Travel that an 

exception should exist for foreign-originating charters that operate to and from the United States 

but do not pick up any U.S. originating passengers. Consequently, carriers will not be required 

to adopt a tarmac delay contingency plan as long as their operations fall within these parameters. 

This is consistent with 14 CFR 382.7(d) of the DOT rule on air travel by passengers with 

disabilities and with the minimal regulation of these flights by the Department’s public charter 

rule in14 CFR Part 380. 

B. Time Frame for Deplaning Passengers on International Flights 

The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a covered foreign air carrier would be required to 

include in its tarmac delay contingency plan an assurance that it will not permit an aircraft to 

remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than a set number of hours as determined by the 

carrier in its plan before allowing passengers the opportunity to deplane. The proposal included 

appropriate safety, security, and ATC exceptions. This is already required of U.S. carriers for 

their international flights under the Department’s existing rule. As for domestic flights, U.S. 
14 

carriers are required to provide an assurance that they will not permit an aircraft to remain on the 

tarmac for more than three hours without deplaning passengers subject to the same safety, 

security and ATC exceptions. In the NPRM, we noted that there are ongoing questions as to 

whether mandating a specific time frame for deplaning passengers on international flights as 

currently exists for domestic flights is in the best interest of the public. We asked for comments 

on whether any final rule that we may adopt should set a uniform standard for the time interval 

after which U.S. or foreign air carriers would be required to allow passengers on international 

flights to deplane rather than allowing the carriers to set their own tarmac delay time limit for 

such flights. We also asked commenters who support the adoption of a uniform standard to 

propose specific time limits and state why they believe these intervals to be appropriate. 

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier associations that commented, ATA objects to 

a hard time limit on tarmac delays for international flights. NACA supports requiring foreign air 

carriers to meet the same standards as U.S. carriers for adopting tarmac delay contingency plans. 

In general, the non-U.S. carriers and carrier associations object to the proposal as 

unnecessary, asserting that the same problems with tarmac delays do not exist with international 

flights as with domestic flights. For example, Condor Flugdienst Airlines (Condor) states that it 

sees no reason to enforce a mandatory deplaning requirement for a problem that occurs only very 

rarely. Many of these carriers also comment that a “one size fits all” approach is not practical and 

note that there are large differences between domestic and international operations, and between 

long-haul and short-haul operations. IATA and IACA object to a uniform time limit entitling 

passengers to deplane. IACA states that the proposal may conflict with EU passenger rights 

requirements since EU carriers must follow EU requirements on all their flights, including flights 

that depart from U.S. airports. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) and foreign airlines' 
15 

comments are similar to IATA’s. Many object to the proposal to require carriers to set a time 

limit to deplane due to various operational concerns. Specifically, a number of foreign industry 

groups and airlines noted the following: 

• international flights operate less frequently and a cancellation could result in missed 

connections with serious consequences for passengers; 

• returning to the gate and/or a flight cancellation may result in the crew “timing-out” and 

many foreign carriers do not have U.S.-based crews, which could result in a delay of 24 

hours or more; 

• international flights have limited windows of opportunity to depart due to gate constraints 

at foreign airports; 

• larger aircraft used for international flights take much longer to enplane and deplane (up 

to 40 minutes), which can cause even further delay; 

• international flights are often better equipped to meet passenger needs on-board the 

aircraft; and 

• long-haul and ultra-long haul operations can make up time while in the air. 

Some carriers, such as Air New Zealand, support a 3 hour time limit, but note that 

consideration should be given to crew restrictions and gate allocations, or situations where 

resolution of the delay is less than an hour away and deplaning would further delay the flight. 

Qantas also supports the 3 hour limit in principle, but thinks such an assurance is limited by the 

carrier’s ability to control the circumstances. Of the travel agents and other industry group 

commenters that commented on this issue, ASTA agrees that a specific standard for international 

flights is important but supports a four hour rather than three hour rule. 
16 

Among the consumer commenters, the Association for Airline Passenger Rights (AAPR) 

and Flyersrights.org strongly advocate for a maximum permissible tarmac delay of three hours 

for international flights. Flyersrights.org urges that tarmac delays of over three hours not be 

permitted for international flights and notes that the “health and inconvenience problems” are the 

same regardless of whether the flight is domestic or international. Consumer Action, along with 

Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumers League, Public Citizen, and U.S. 

PIRG support the extensive comments filed by Flyersrights.org. Some individual commenters 

also expressed concern about lengthy tarmac delays on international flights and advocated for a 

uniform time limit for deplaning passengers. Of the commenters on “Regulation Room,” almost 

half noted, generally, that the Department should apply a uniform federal time limit on tarmac 

delays to all flights and airlines, regardless of aircraft size, airport size, and whether the flight is 

domestic or international. 

DOT Response: As noted above, the Department is expanding its requirement to adopt a 

tarmac delay contingency plan to foreign carriers, as we believe that it is important to ensure that 

passengers on these carriers are also afforded protection from unreasonably lengthy tarmac 

delays. With regard to a required time period for deplaning passengers on international flights 

operated by U.S. or foreign carriers, we are requiring that these carriers provide an assurance that 

they will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours 

without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane. As in our initial rulemaking to enhance 

airline passenger protections, this new requirement will allow exceptions for safety and security 

considerations and in instances where Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that 

returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt 

airport operations. We decided to impose a uniform time limit for deplaning passengers on 
17 

international flights rather than allowing carriers to establish their own tarmac delay time limits 

because we believe the consistency in standard will provide passengers with clearer expectations 

as to when they would be allowed off aircraft in the event of a tarmac delay. A uniform standard 

will also make it clearer to the other stakeholders such as airports of the need to assist airlines in 

deplaning passengers on international flights before the four hour mark. Further, the Department 

believes that a uniform time limit will reduce or prevent lengthy tarmac delay incidents such as 

those that occurred at JFK during and after the December 26, 2010, blizzard and the resulting 

impact on passengers traveling on those flights. 

We decided to impose a four hour time limit for lengthy tarmac delays on international 

flights as opposed to the three hour limit that applies to lengthy tarmac delays on domestic flights 

for a number of reasons. First, because international flights are of much longer duration on 

average than domestic flights, it is possible that delays may not have as negative an impact on 

international passengers as they were already planning on spending a significant amount of time 

in the aircraft and some of the time spent on the tarmac can be made up while in the air. We also 

reviewed the contingency plans for the U.S. carriers as they are already required to establish their 

own tarmac delay time limits for international flights, and found that most of these carriers have 

chosen to set a four hour time limit for deplaning passengers from their international flights that 

experience a tarmac delay. In addition, we are persuaded by comments of the different 

environment in which international flights operate and the need to provide greater leeway for 

international flights than we allow for domestic flights. For these reasons, we have decided to 

impose a four hour time limit for deplaning passengers on international flights and not allow 

U.S. and foreign carriers to establish their own longer tarmac delay time limits for international 

flights. 
18 

As clarified in the first rule to enhance airline passenger protections, an international 

flight for purposes of this requirement is a nonstop flight segment that departs from the United 

States and lands in another country, or vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic technical stops. For 

example, if a U.S. carrier operates a direct flight Chicago-New York-Frankfurt, with some 

Chicago-originating passengers destined for New York and others destined for Frankfurt, and the 

aircraft experiences a tarmac delay in Chicago, then we would consider the tarmac delay to be on 

a domestic flight. This is because Chicago-New York is a domestic flight segment even though 

the final destination of the flight is Frankfurt, Germany. If, on the other hand, the aircraft only 

stops for refueling or a crew change in New York and the flight carries no Chicago-New York 

traffic and no Frankfurt-bound passengers enplane in New York, then we would consider the 

tarmac delay in Chicago to be a tarmac delay on an international flight. 

C. Provision for Adequate Food and Water, Operable Lavatories, and Medical Attention if 

Needed 

The NPRM: As proposed in the NPRM, the tarmac delay contingency plans adopted by 

foreign air carriers for international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S. airport would need 

to include: (1) an assurance that the carrier will provide adequate food and potable water no later 

than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate in the case of departure or touches down in the 

case of an arrival if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines 

that safety or security considerations preclude such service; (2) an assurance of operable lavatory 

facilities while the aircraft remains on the tarmac; and (3) an assurance of adequate medical 

attention if needed while the aircraft remains on the tarmac. These requirements already apply 

to U.S. carriers under the current rule. 

Comments: With regard to the provision for adequate food and water, ATA notes that 

generally aircraft used for international flights are able to comfortably accommodate passengers 
19 

onboard for longer periods of time, with food service and entertainment options often available 

given the type of equipment used and the expected length of these flights. Among the foreign air 

carriers that commented, Condor Airlines notes that when a longer delay becomes inevitable, 

Condor has snacks and drinks available for passengers. Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that the 

logistics of the ultra long-haul flights operated to and from the U.S. already require that Qatar 

Airways provide extra catering and potable/bottled water to allow for extra time beyond that 

scheduled during which its customers and crew may have to spend in the aircraft. Qatar explains 

that it already ensures that its customers are regularly offered water and soft drinks by cabin 

crew. Qantas indicates that it too provides passengers access to potable water and refreshments 

during tarmac delays but does not consider it reasonable to impose a mandatory requirement to 

provide food to all passengers after two hours in all cases, as the commencement of a meal 

service may lead to further delays and missed opportunities for departure. The carrier also thinks 

that the term “adequate food” is too broad and open to different interpretations. South African 

Airways wants the Department to understand that foreign airlines have significantly less 

flexibility than U.S. airlines to store extra catering items onboard. In the absence of evidence 

that lengthy delays are a problem for passengers traveling on foreign airlines, the airline believes 

the Department is not justified in imposing the costs associated with these requirements. 

Regarding assurance of operable lavatory facilities, a number of carriers noted that this is 

a reasonable requirement and that they have working lavatories and toilet serviceability is 

maintained at the highest levels. However, one carrier expressed concern about unforeseen 

maintenance issues. 

With regard to providing medical attention, Condor states that its flight attendants are 

capable of providing basic first aid when needed and have access to remote medical advice for 
20 

more serious medical emergencies. Similarly, Qatar Airways notes that its cabin crews are 

highly trained in first aid. Qantas Airlines believes that it is reasonable to require carriers to 

seek medical assistance for any onboard emergency and states that it engages the services of an 

external medical provider to provide advice and assistance as required, but thinks the extent of 

this requirement needs clarification. South African Airways expresses similar concerns as 

Qantas and notes that the NPRM is not clear regarding what comprises medical attention within 

the meaning of the proposal. South African Airways states that while its in-flight crewmembers 

have basic first-aid capabilities, the carrier relies on consultations with remote medical-care 

contractors and other passengers with medical training to provide good-Samaritan assistance. 

South African explains that it sees no practical way to ensure medical attention during tarmac 

delays that exceeds this basic assistance. The National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC) 

states that many airlines are not in a position to provide adequate medical attention as airlines are 

not medical organizations and in-flight staff in not medical staff. As such, it believes that such 

assistance is up to local authorities to provide. 

Among consumer groups and individual commenters, the AAPR urges the Department to 

require the tarmac delay contingency plans of U.S. and foreign air carriers contain minimum 

guidelines for accommodating passengers with disabilities. The New York State Consumer 

Protection Board states that foreign carriers should be required to adopt a plan that provides for 

passengers to receive the same basic necessities that U.S. carriers are required to provide, i.e., 

adequate food and water, operable lavatories, and medical attention if needed. By and large, 

individual commenters also support the Department imposing identical requirements for foreign 

and U.S. carriers. Of those that commented on Regulation Room, they generally support the 

Department requiring airlines to provide working bathrooms, water, beverages, snacks and, in 
21 

some cases, meals on delayed flights. A few commenters also mention the need for adequate 

temperature control and the ability to walk around an aircraft during a delay in order to stretch 

and use the restroom. 

DOT Response: The Department continues to believe that passengers stuck on an aircraft 

during lengthy tarmac delays deserve to be provided some type of food, potable water, operable 

lavatories, and if necessary, medical care. It appears from the comments that most carriers 

already have procedures to provide food and water during long tarmac delays, and ensure that 

their lavatory facilities are operable while the aircraft remains on the tarmac. The concern 

expressed by South African Airways about storage space for extra catering items seems to be 

based on a misconception that extensive supplies are needed. There also appears to be confusion 

as to what the Department means by the term “adequate food.” The Department would consider 

snack foods such as granola bars that carriers typically provide on flights to suffice as “adequate” 

food. Carriers are, of course, free to provide more complete meals to passengers if they so 

wish. We note that the requirement to provide food and water within two hours would not apply 

if the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security precludes such service, so the 

commencement of a meal service should not lead to further delays or missed opportunities for 

departure as feared by at least one commenter. As for the requirement to provide medical care if 

necessary, the Department’s expectation is that carriers would have the capabilities to provide 

basic first aid assistance on the aircraft and would seek further medical assistance as necessary 

for any onboard emergency, including disembarking the passenger for treatment if needed with 

the assistance of airport emergency personnel. 

D. Coordination with Covered Airports 
22 

The NPRM: In the initial rulemaking to enhance airline passenger protections, we 

required U.S. carriers to have contingency plans for tarmac delays to large-hub and medium-hub 

airports, as well as diversion airports that the carrier serves or utilizes. In the NPRM for the 

current proceeding, we proposed to extend this requirement to small hub and non-hub airports 

and to require all covered carriers (U.S. and foreign) to coordinate their plans with each covered 

U.S. airport that they serve or utilize for diversions. In making this proposal, the Department 

noted its belief that the same issues and discomfort to passengers during an extended tarmac 

delay are likely to occur regardless of airport size or layout. We also noted our strong belief that 

it is essential that airlines involve airports in developing their plans in order to enable them to 

effectively meet the needs of passengers. We invited comment on whether it was workable to 

require covered carriers coordinate with small hub and non-hub airports to which they regularly 

operate scheduled passenger or public charter service. We also asked if the rule should be 

expanded to include other commercial U.S. airports (i.e., those with less than 10,000 annual 

enplanements). Finally, we specifically solicited comments from airlines, airports and other 

industry entities on whether there are any special operational concerns affecting such airports. 

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier association commenters, ATA supports 

expanding the number of airports where carriers must coordinate plans to include small hub and 

non-hub airports. The Regional Airline Association (RAA) opposes extending the rule to smallhub and non-hub airports because it believes there is no evidence that doing so is necessary or 

beneficial and believes that the cost to expand tarmac delay contingency plans to smaller airports 

outweighs the benefits, as requiring regional and other carriers serving small airports to 

coordinate plans with all such airports would require significant resources. 
23 

In general, non-U.S. carrier and carrier association commenters object to the proposal as 

unnecessary and note that they have limited presence or service at these smaller airports. Air 

France and KLM specifically oppose this provision. On the other hand, Alitalia supports the 

idea of coordination, but believes the proposal is extremely burdensome. Singapore Airlines 

supports coordinating contingency plans with airports to handle diverted flights, but states that 

the plans should focus on customer care such as swiftly disembarking passengers, returning 

baggage, accommodating passengers if necessary in hotels or on alternate flights, and ensuring 

that passengers continue their journey. Monarch Air disagrees and states that coordination with 

airports is not necessary, as it would let the airport determine what is best for the customer. 

 Of the travel agent interests that commented, ASTA supports expanding contingency plan 

coordination obligations to include small hub and non-hub airports. TUI Travel states that 

coordinating contingency plans is not necessary, as the airport can determine what is in the best 

interest of the airline customer and notes restrictions on gate availability that may be determined 

on the day of arrival, so pre-coordination will reduce operational flexibility. 

 Of the airport and airport industry commenters, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport supports 

requiring carriers to coordinate their contingency plans with all airports that they serve and notes 

that important airport factors such as terminal capacity, equipment, and government services are 

taken into account during such coordination. ACI also supports the need for airlines to 

coordinate with airports of all sizes and states that it is committed to supporting airline 

development of contingency plans with accurate and relevant information about the airports the 

carriers serve. 

 Of the consumer and consumer group commenters, CTA supports the expansion of the 

tarmac-delay rules to smaller airports. AAPR and Flyersrights.org fully support increasing the 
24 

number of covered airports to include small hub and non-hub airports. NBTA also supports these 

provisions. The New York State Consumer Protection Board supports expanding the rule to all 

airports, as do many Regulation Room commenters, some of whom state that airlines and 

airports should be required to work together to develop and implement tarmac delay contingency 

plans. 

DOT Response: The Department is adopting the requirement that covered carriers, both 

U.S. and foreign, include small hub and non-hub airports in their tarmac delay contingency plans 

and ensure that the plan has been coordinated with airport authorities at those airports. We 

continue to maintain that the same issues and discomfort to passengers during an extended 

tarmac delay are likely to occur regardless of airport size or layout. Similar to the expansion of 

the scope of the requirement to adopt contingency plans to include foreign carriers, this 

requirement will protect a greater number of passengers at more airports. 

We are not convinced by commenters’ concerns that requiring carriers to coordinate their 

plans with small hub and non-hub airports will have a significant financial impact on carriers. 

U.S. carriers are already required to coordinate plans with large-hub and medium-hub airports 

and should be able to tailor existing plans to apply to these smaller airports. We recognize that 

the requirement to coordinate contingency plans with airports is a new requirement for foreign 

carriers, but expect that it will not be overly burdensome for foreign carriers as the large-hub and 

medium-hub airports are familiar with the coordination process after having worked with the 

U.S. carriers on tarmac delay contingency plans this past year. The need for such coordination 

was recently highlighted by the events at JFK airport following the December 26, 2010 blizzard. 

Also, during the past two years significant amount of work has been done through a project 

funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to produce a best-practice guidance 
25 

document for developing coordinated contingency plans for tarmac delays at small hub and nonhub airports. 

 The benefit of airlines coordinating with airports on contingency plans becomes 

particularly clear when there are flight diversions. In situations where flights must be diverted 

from their intended destination airports, it is imperative that airlines and the airports that 

regularly serve as their diversion airports have already discussed things such as locations within 

the airport where passengers are allowed to wait when TSA or CBP personnel are not present 

and the availability of equipment to deplane/bus passengers to the terminal to minimize the 

hardship to travelers. It is essential that airlines involve airports in developing their plans to 

enable them to effectively meet the needs of passengers. The rule on coordination with airports 

is also being clarified to ensure that at airports, like JFK, where operations such as snow removal 

and gate use are managed by entities other than the airport authority (e.g., a carrier, a consortium 

of carriers, or a contractor), carriers covered by this rule must also coordinate with these terminal 

operators. 

E. Coordination with CBP and TSA 

The NPRM: As recommended by the Tarmac Delay Task Force1

, we proposed to require 

carriers to include TSA in their coordination efforts for any large, medium, small, and non-hub 

U.S. airports, including U.S. diversion airports which they regularly use. We also proposed to 

require carriers to coordinate with CBP for any U.S. airport that the carrier regularly uses for its 

international flights, including diversion airports. We proposed these measures as it had come to 

the Department’s attention on more than one occasion that passengers on international flights 

 

1

 In January 2008, the Department established a Tarmac Delay Task Force to coordinate and develop 

contingency plans to deal with lengthy delays. The Task Force comprising of individuals who represented airlines, 

airports and consumer groups issued a report that set forth guidelines for airlines, airports, and other stakeholders to 

use when dealing with long ground delays. 
26 

were held on diverted aircraft for extended periods of time because there were reportedly no 

means to process those passengers and allow them access to terminal facilities. At that time, the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (TSA and CBP are part of DHS) had advised this 

Department that, subject to coordination with CBP regional directors, passengers on diverted 

international flights may be permitted into closed/sterile terminal areas without CBP screening. 

In the NPRM, we invited interested persons to comment on this proposal and asked what costs 

and benefits would result from imposing this requirement. 

Comments: Of the U.S. carriers and carrier associations that commented, ATA states that 

carriers already coordinate with TSA and CBP and will continue to do so but stresses that 

interagency coordination between CBP and TSA as well as coordination between the airports and 

CBP/TSA is needed in order to get diverted passengers who so desire off airplanes. USA3000 suggests 

that airports may not be properly staffed by CBP during irregular operations and urges DOT to 

review this issue with CBP and local airports. 

The non-U.S. carrier and carrier association commenters object in general to the proposal 

as unnecessary. IACA notes that tarmac delays of more than three hours are very rare and 

believes the NPRM imposes a disproportionate burden on airlines to coordinate plans not only 

with airports, but with federal agencies. IATA supports the need for the United States 

government to be more responsive to the needs of airline passenger who arrive at airports where 

TSA and CBP personnel are not normally stationed or are not present during off hours, but think 

it is the responsibility of those agencies to work together to put systems in place. The comments 

of the Association of European Airlines (AEA) and many foreign airlines' are similar to or 

support IATA, while NACA adds that DOT should work with CBP and other government 

agencies on a memorandum of understanding to address issues regarding extended tarmac 
27 

delays. The National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC) adds that carriers have limited 

influence over TSA and CBP, so obligations should be on the U.S. government to ensure these 

agencies have their own contingency plans in place. The Arab Air Carrier Association (AACA) 

states that coordinating contingency plans with diversion airports as well as TSA and CBP will 

be very costly and suggests, along with other commenters, that TSA and CBP should design their 

own contingency plans for any airport that receives international flights. 

 Some foreign carriers assert that this proposal is flawed because TSA and CBP can 

provide only limited assistance at some airports due to limited after-hours federal inspection 

capabilities or limited federal personnel available at the smaller airports. Carriers also ask how 

they can ensure that passengers will remain in one area of the airport or that a sterile area will be 

available for containing such passengers. British Airways supports the proposal that passengers 

on diverted international flights be permitted into closed terminal areas without CBP screening 

and notes, as do some other foreign carriers, that these carriers generally do not have a presence 

at diversion airports. As such, British Airways and other carriers assert that CBP and the airport 

operator should be responsible to ensure that passengers can disembark the aircraft. Cathay 

Pacific adds that the burden to coordinate plans should be on all the stakeholders, while Malaysia 

Airlines does not support coordinating delay contingency plans with CBP and TSA, but thinks 

those agencies should design their own plans. Cathay Pacific notes that not all airports can 

handle aircraft carrying 300+ passengers and states that airports not suitable for deplaning 

international passengers should fall outside the scope of the proposed rules. 

 Of the travel agents and other industry group commenters, ASTA supports extending the 

rule to include coordination with CBP and TSA. NBTA expresses concern that costs associated 

with requiring coordination with TSA and CBP may outweigh the benefits and may be passed on 
28 

to the business traveler. As such, NBTA thinks DOT should develop a clearer picture of costbenefits before implementing this provision. TUI believes that it is not necessary to coordinate 

plans with TSA or CBP, and is concerned that this would add another layer of planning. 

 Of the consumer and consumer group commenters, CTA supports rules being 

promulgated by CBP and TSA that will allow passengers on inbound international flights forced 

to land at a diversion airport to be processed, as does the AAPR, Flyersrights.org and the 

Consumers Union. Dallas/Fort Worth Airport supports requiring carriers to coordinate plans 

with CBP and TSA and states that plans should be in place to deal with the process of handling 

international passengers and allowing them access to terminal facilities at small and medium size 

airports with no CBP services. ACI applauds DOT for proposing to expand coordination to TSA 

and CBP. 

 DOT Response: After considering all the comments, the Department is adopting the 

requirement that carriers coordinate plans with CBP and TSA at large, medium, small, and nonhub airports that they regularly serve, including at diversion airports they plan to utilize. 

Because tarmac delays are a particular problem in situations where flights must be diverted from 

their intended destination airports, this rule requires carriers to coordinate their plans with 

airports that serve as diversion airports for such operations. As recommended by the Tarmac 

Delay Task Force, it is also important for carriers to include in their coordination efforts 

appropriate government authorities such as Customs and Border Protection and the 

Transportation Security Administration, when appropriate. 

 In adopting this requirement, we note that more than one incident of concern to the 

Department has occurred at a diversion airport where passengers could not deplane the aircraft 

due at least in part to security concerns or issues with processing international passengers. It is 
29 

important to ensure that there is a contingency plan in place in order to address the objective of 

deplaning passengers in those situations. The Department is actively working with TSA and 

CBP to develop policies and procedures in order to assist carriers with coordinating their plans 

and complying with this regulation. We would consider an airline to have complied with the 

requirement to coordinate its plan with CBP and TSA if the carrier submits its plan to CBP’s 

Regional Director and TSA’s Federal Security Director for that airport and considers any issues 

raised in response to those agencies. 

F. Passenger Notification 

The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require that U.S. and foreign air carriers 

update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay regarding the status of their flight and 

the reasons for the tarmac delay. We also proposed that carriers announce that passengers have 

the opportunity to deplane the aircraft when the flight is delayed and the doors are open. In 

proposing these requirements, the Department gave consideration to passengers’ frustration with 

lack of communication by carrier personnel about the reasons a flight is experiencing a long 

tarmac delay. We noted that it did not seem unreasonable or unduly burdensome to require 

carriers to address this issue and verbally inform passengers as to the flight’s operational status 

on a regular basis during a lengthy tarmac delay. We did not anticipate that a carrier’s flight 

crews will know every nuance of the reason for the delay, but we noted our expectation that they 

inform passengers of the reasons of which they are aware and make reasonable attempts to 

acquire information about the reasons for that delay. 

We also invited comment on whether carriers should be required to announce that 

passengers may deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or other disembarkation area with a 

door open. The Department’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings had previously 
30 

explained that a tarmac delay begins when passengers no longer have an option to get off an 

aircraft, which usually occurs when the doors of the aircraft are closed, and has encouraged 

carriers to announce to passengers on flights that remain at the gate with the doors open for 

lengthy periods that the passengers are allowed off the aircraft if that is the case. However, we 

noted that such an announcement is not explicitly required in the existing rule. Consequently, we 

sought comment on the benefit to consumers of mandating such announcements and asked 

commenters, including carriers and carrier associations, to address any costs and/or operational 

concerns related to implementing a rule requiring such announcements. 

 Comments: Non-U.S. carrier and carrier association comments generally object to the 

proposal to update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay regarding the status of 

their flight and the reasons for the tarmac delay, characterizing it as unnecessary. IACA states 

that notifying passengers every 30 minutes as to reason for a tarmac delay is unnecessary 

overregulation. Some foreign carriers, such as Air France and KLM note that requiring 

announcements every 30 minutes will have unintended consequences and state that keeping 

passengers informed is already important to carriers and a regulation is not needed. Other 

carriers, such as Qantas and JetStar, agree that notifying passengers every 30 minutes is 

reasonable, but state that too much detail may lead to false expectations on the part of the 

passengers. AACA expresses concern about the broad language regarding the format of 

communication and when a carrier should be aware of information to provide to the passenger, 

and the ability of airlines to prove they have relayed information to the passenger. NACC does 

not support updates every 30 minutes as this could result in relaying incomplete or inaccurate 

information to the passengers. 
31 

 U.S. carriers and carrier association commenters generally agree that it would be 

beneficial for passengers to be updated frequently on flight status changes when there is a tarmac 

delay but expressed concern that carriers are not always updated by FAA on a timely basis. Of 

the travel agents and other industry group commenters, ASTA supports the provision for carriers 

to make tarmac delay announcements every 30 minutes. However, TUI Travel does not believe 

DOT should be overly prescriptive or detail the circumstances or time intervals upon which 

updates on delays should be given, but agrees that information needs to be given and updated at 

regular intervals. 

 Consumers and consumer group commenters support a requirement to provide updates 

every 30 minutes. More specifically, AAPR and Flyersrights.org fully support requiring carriers 

to communicate with passengers during delays. Of the airport industry commenters, the AAAE 

agrees that essential communication with passengers is necessary. The New York State 

Consumer Protection Board adds that communication with passengers during a delay is 

important because failure to update the flight’s status adds to the frustration caused by the 

situation. As such, it strongly supports the proposal that air carriers update passengers every 30 

minutes during a delay. 

We received various differing comments on whether carriers should be required to 

announce that passengers may deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or other disembarkation 

area with the door open. Spirit Airlines opposes DOT requiring carriers to permit passenger to 

leave an aircraft that remains at the gate for a delay of less than three hours but notes that its 

practice is to permit deplaning after two hours. It states that deplaning could create operational 

problems and raise costs and notes that the window of time to enplane may be small, passengers 

may be hard to locate and re-boarding will be time consuming and delay departure. Spirit 
32 

believes that the airline can exercise the best judgment regarding whether passenger should be 

allowed to deplane. 

IATA also does not support the proposal to announce that passengers may deplane from 

an aircraft with the door open and states that the option to deplane raises a number of issues (e.g. 

removing baggage if a passenger doesn’t travel, DHS personal data accountability issues, 

passenger manifest issues, length of time to deplane and enplane large aircraft, short windows for 

departure). Comments of AEA and foreign airlines' comments are similar to IATA’s. Many 

foreign carriers object to the proposal to notify passengers that they can deplane due to various 

operational concerns similar to those posited by IATA and other foreign carrier associations. 

ALTA raises additional concerns with safety issues, and questions who will have control over 

passengers that temporarily deplane and, miss flights. Air France and KLM also state that a 

carrier should be given the option to make the announcement that passengers can deplane 

depending on the specific circumstances. Air Tahiti asks for clarification on whether there is a 

minimum duration an air carrier must wait for passenger to re-enplane the aircraft and whether 

deplaned passengers’ baggage must be deplaned. 

CTA states carriers should be required to communicate with passengers on a regular basis 

and agrees that carriers should inform passengers during delays while the aircraft is at a loading 

bridge with its doors open that they may deplane at any time, to stretch their legs, to be rebooked 

on another flight or to cancel their flight and get a refund. NBTA also supports this provision. 

 DOT Response: After considering the comments received, the Department has decided 

to require that carriers notify passengers every 30 minutes about the status of a tarmac delay, 

including the reasons for the delay if known. In implementing this requirement, we note that we 

expect the carrier to make reasonable attempts to acquire information about the status of the 
33 

delay and to provide this information to consumers. A carrier would not be held responsible for 

failing to provide a status that was not known to it so long as the carrier made reasonable efforts 

to find out the status. 

 We have also decided to require U.S. and foreign air carriers to notify passengers that 

they can deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door 

open, if that is the case. The purpose of this requirement is to address problems that have arisen 

since the first tarmac delay rule has been in effect where U.S. carriers have asserted that the three 

hour clock should not yet be running but where passengers did not know that the door to the 

aircraft was open and that they had the option to get off of the aircraft, particularly on a departure 

delay at the gate or on large aircraft. We are not requiring carriers to provide passengers the 

opportunity to deplane in less than three hours but simply to inform them that the opportunity to 

deplane exists, if it does. Of course, in situations where an aircraft is at the gate with the door 

open and passengers are not allowed off the aircraft, the tarmac delay begins at the point when 

passengers are no longer permitted to deplane and not when the doors of the aircraft are shut. 

 As for commenters' concerns with reconciling passenger manifests and dealing with the 

checked baggage of passengers who choose to deplane, we are not requiring airlines to re-board 

a passenger who chooses to deplane and therefore misses a flight, or to remove the checked 

baggage of a passenger that has deplaned. DHS/TSA also doesn’t require that passenger’s 

checked baggage be removed if the passenger is no longer on that flight. We encourage airlines 

to announce to passengers that they are deplaning at their own risk and that the flight could 

depart at any time without them if this is the case. 

G. Code-Share Flights 
34 

 The NPRM: We sought comment on whether, in the case of a code-share flight, we 

should expand coverage of the requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans so that the 

obligation to adopt such a plan and adhere to its terms is not only the responsibility of the 

operating carrier but also the carrier under whose code the service is marketed, if different. 

 Comments: Of the U.S. carrier and carrier association commenters, ATA states that the 

operating carrier has sole operating authority and is in sole control of how a passenger is treated, 

so it is unreasonable to also hold the marketing carrier accountable, especially if the contingency 

plans differ or are in conflict. The U.S. carriers that commented on this issue concur with ATA. 

RAA disagrees and states that, if DOT insists that operating carriers adopt contingency plans, it 

should place primary responsibility for adoption and compliance with the plan on the marketing 

carrier. RAA asserts that carriers that hold out, sell and ticket passengers should have sole 

responsibility to the Department and that liability of the operating carrier should be determined 

by its contract with the marketing carrier. 

Of the non-U.S. carrier and carrier association commenters, IATA believes that only the 

operating carrier should be responsible for the terms of the contingency plan. AEA and ALTA, 

among others, concur with IATA. Of the foreign carriers that commented, most believe that 

only operating carriers should be responsible in a code-share situation based on their assertion 

that the operating carrier has responsibility for how the passengers are treated. Some 

commenters also note that the marketing carrier might not operate its own aircraft to all of the 

airports served by its code-share partners and thus would not have a relationship with those 

airport authorities. Others, such as Air Tahiti and Swiss International, note that the proposed 

regulations fail to consider the intricacies of the code-share relationship and suggest that there 

may be issues with collusion and antitrust concerns in some jurisdictions. 
35 

 We received few comments from travel agents and other travel industry commenters on 

this issue. ASTA believes that code-share partners should be responsible for harmonizing their 

consumer protection processes so consumers don’t worry about which carrier does the 

marketing, ticketing or flying. Among the consumer and consumer group comments, CTA states 

that given the expansion of code-shares and with the antitrust immunity granted to airline 

alliances, there should be no difference between flights operated by U.S. or foreign carriers. 

AAPR supports expanding coverage of the requirement to adopt tarmac delay contingency plans 

to the carrier under whose code the service is marketed if different than the operating carrier. 

 DOT Response: After considering all the comments, the Department has decided to 

require that the tarmac delay contingency plan of the carrier under whose code the service is 

marketed governs if different from the plan of the operating carrier, unless the marketing carrier 

specifies in its contract of carriage that the operating carrier’s plan governs. In adopting this 

rule, we have considered the comments stating that the operating carrier should be responsible 

for following the terms of a plan, as it is in the best position to address passenger concerns in the 

event of a tarmac delay. However, on balance, we have concluded that the expectation of the 

types of services a passenger will be provided is based on the information given to him or her by 

the marketing carrier, as this is the carrier that held out, sold, and ticketed passengers for the 

flight. It is reasonable for a consumer to expect the marketing carrier’s tarmac delay contingency 

plan to apply unless the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of carriage that the operating 

carrier’s tarmac delay plan governs. Irrespective of whether the marketing carrier’s or operating 

carrier’s contingency plan governs in a particular situation, we intend to hold both the marketing 

carrier and the operating carrier (i.e., the carrier that sold the passenger a ticket under its name as 

well as the carrier that operates the aircraft in which that passenger travels) legally responsible. 
36 

We encourage code-share partners to the extent possible to align their tarmac delay contingency 

plans. In situations where there are multiple marketing carriers on a single flight and the 

marketing carriers have not specified in their contracts of carriage that the operating carrier’s 

plan governs, it becomes even more critical that the carriers’ plans are aligned. If not, several 

different contingency plans may apply to passengers on the same flight. 

H. Retention of Records 

The NPRM: As is the case for U.S. carriers under the existing rule, the NPRM proposed 

to require foreign carriers to retain for two years the following information on any tarmac delay 

that lasts at least three hours: the length of the delay, the specific cause of the delay, and the steps 

taken to minimize hardships for passengers (including providing food and water, maintaining 

lavatories, and providing medical assistance); whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case 

of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to the gate; and an explanation for any tarmac 

delay that exceeded three hours, including why the aircraft did not return to the gate by the 

three-hour mark. 

Comments: We received few comments on this issue. Of the carriers and carrier 

associations that did comment, they expressed concerns that this provision would be burdensome 

and time consuming. 

 DOT Response: The requirement to retain tarmac delay records already applies to U.S. 

carriers. We are extending it here to foreign carriers operating passenger service to and from the 

U.S. on at least one aircraft with a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. The tarmac delay 

information that the Department is requiring foreign airlines to retain is not available to it 

through other means. This information will help the Department obtain a more complete picture 

about lengthy tarmac delays and ensure carrier compliance with the tarmac delay requirements. 
37 

The Department also believes that the requirement to retain tarmac delay data would not be 

burdensome for carriers, since we believe most carriers would as a matter of good business 

practice, obtain this information for their own purposes and, in any event, there are relatively few 

tarmac delays of more than three hours. In addition, the Department is not prescribing the 

manner in which this information must be kept and there is no requirement that a carrier submit 

the information to the Department unless specifically requested to do so, all of which should 

reduce any costs associated with this requirement. 

2. Tarmac Delay Data

The NPRM: The proposed rule would require any U.S. or foreign carrier that operates 

passenger service (charter or scheduled) to, from or within the U.S. using any aircraft with a 

passenger capacity of 30 or more seats to submit monthly to the Department a set of data 

regarding tarmac delays of three hours or more at a U.S. airport to the extent that the carrier 

doesn’t already provide such data to the Department. If a covered carrier has no flight with 3-

hour tarmac delays, the proposed rule would require the carrier to submit a negative report, i.e., a 

report stating there are no 3-hour tarmac times. The report would be due within 15 days after the 

end of each month being reported. 

Reporting carriers (carriers that account for at least one percent of domestic scheduled 

passenger revenue which in calendar year 2009 consisted of the 16 largest U.S. carriers by 

scheduled passenger revenue plus two carriers that voluntarily file under Part 234) already file 

with the Department on-time flight performance data which includes all the data fields proposed 

to be reported here and more for their domestic scheduled flights pursuant to 14 CFR Part 234. 

In recognition of this fact, the NPRM proposed that these U.S. carriers file tarmac delay data 

only for other types of transportation covered by the proposed rule, i.e., their charter and 
38 

international flights. The NPRM proposed to require other U.S. carriers and foreign carriers to 

provide data on tarmac delays that occurred at a U.S. airport and lasted for three hours or more 

for any of their flights - scheduled and charter flights as well as domestic and international 

flights. We sought comments on whether we should limit the tarmac delay reporting 

requirement to U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate large aircraft, i.e., aircraft originally 

designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or more. 

Comments: Individual consumers or consumer groups who submitted comments on this 

proposal unanimously support this proposal. Consumers Union states that it supports expanding 

the pool of reporting carriers to all U.S. and foreign carriers that operate any aircraft with 30 or 

more seats. It maintains that such a requirement is particularly important because it will reach 

many airline passengers who are currently not protected by these policies. One individual 

commenter states that equal treatment for all carriers is necessary to ensure competitive equality. 

Consumers Union also supports requiring Part 234 reporting carriers to provide tarmac delay 

data for public charter and international flights. 

 The Association for Airline Passenger Rights points out that the Department is attentive 

to the potential burden to small carriers and has narrowed the data fields it proposed to be 

reported for tarmac delays from the comprehensive on-time reporting scheme that exists. One 

commenter adds that most carriers already collect some of the data required under this proposal 

so it should not be overly burdensome for carriers to comply with the requirements. Several 

commenters from the Regulation Room state that technology development makes compliance 

relatively easy. 

 A few consumers and consumer organization commenters believe that the Department 

should go further in this respect. FlyersRights.org suggests that, in addition to filing reports 
39 

under this Part and complying with the record retention requirement in Part 259, the Department 

should require carriers to submit a comprehensive written report within 14 days of the 

occurrence of any lengthy tarmac delay. One individual commenter asserts that data should be 

reported for tarmac delays of one hour or more to reflect a better picture of the tarmac delay 

problem. 

 Among U.S. carriers and carrier associations that commented on this proposal, ATA 

states that it generally supports expanding the reporting carrier pool. RAA, on the other hand, 

argues that all carriers that are not required to report tarmac delay data under Part 234 should be 

exempted from this reporting requirement. RAA reasons that the new reporting requirements 

are not necessary because most carriers, including carriers not covered under Part 234, are 

already required to retain tarmac delay data for two years. Thus, according to RAA, the 

Department may request such information for policy-making purpose whenever necessary. 

Additionally, RAA contends that the Department failed to provide a quantifiable cost/benefit 

analysis in the NPRM to justify such a requirement. NACA expresses its uncertainty regarding 

the purpose of requiring smaller carriers (which it defines as those that operate fewer than 25 

aircraft) to report tarmac delay data. As a compromise, NACA suggests that carriers should be 

required to file tarmac delay reports under any rule only if during any given month the 

occurrences of tarmac delays have exceeded a certain threshold, e.g., more than 10 incidents. 

 Comments provided by foreign carriers and carrier associations generally oppose this 

proposal or request that the reporting obligation be limited. Several commenters contend that the 

Department has not provided justification as to how the proposed data collection from foreign 

carriers would address the causes of tarmac delays and benefit consumers. Some commenters 

take the position that requiring foreign carriers to report tarmac delay data is not necessary 
40 

because international flights operate less frequently than domestic flights and tarmac delay 

incidents for international flights are rare. Thus, according to these commenters, the cost for 

carriers to set up a reporting infrastructure outweighs the benefit. Furthermore, they believe it is 

inappropriate to require smaller carriers to submit and retain tarmac delay data due to their lesser 

administrative resources and the small segment of the market these carriers serve. A number of 

commenters state that tarmac delays usually occur as the result of airport infrastructure problems. 

Therefore, these commenters believe that the Department should require airports to report this 

data. Likewise, some carriers argue that the data collected from this proposal is readily 

available from FAA’s Air Traffic Control System Command Center. A few commenters note 

that the burden on foreign carriers is increased if the Department maintains the proposal that 

negative reports must be filed when no reportable tarmac delay has occurred during a month. 

 Qantas and JetStar Airways state that they would not oppose a rule if it imposed the 

reporting responsibility on operating carriers instead of the marketing code-share partners and 

limited the reporting fields to the identification of aircraft, airport, relevant times, and a brief 

explanation for the tarmac delay. They also request that easy methods of report submission 

should be permitted, such as email submission. 

 Virgin Atlantic raises the concern that publishing reported data may be misleading to 

consumers who tend to judge a carrier’s performance based on raw tarmac delay records, and 

overlook the causes for such delay, which could be factors that are not under carrier’s control. 

Lufthansa also requests that any publication of the tarmac delay data by the Department should 

also include the cause of the delay. National Airlines Council of Canada further states that such 

misjudgments will cause undue commercial damage to Canadian carriers that face the most 

challenging weather conditions, which could contribute to more tarmac delays. 
41 

 Monarch Airlines and TUI Travel contend that foreign charter carriers that operate 

roundtrip flights to limited U.S. destinations should be exempted from the reporting 

requirements. In addition to consumers and industry commenters, NBTA and ACI-NA both 

provided comments in support of the Department’s proposal. 

DOT Response: After thoroughly considering all the comments received, the 

Department continues to believe that the proposed data collection requirement is crucial to 

obtaining a more complete picture of the tarmac delays at U.S. airports. Without such data, we 

do not have adequate statistical foundations to support a determination regarding whether 

lengthy tarmac delays are or will be a significant problem for consumers on international flights 

or charter flights. We reiterate that the causes of lengthy tarmac delays are comprehensive and 

there is not a universal solution that would cure all problems at all airports. We continue to 

believe that a more complete picture of lengthy tarmac delays is the first step to obtaining a 

baseline that the Department can use to analyze the issue by carrier, by region/airport, by month, 

or by the type of flight, as appropriate. 

We note that several recent tarmac delays that attracted significant public attention were 

international arrivals. Tarmac delays involving international flights, although rare, tend to be 

particularly lengthy and complicated. In that regard, we reiterate that collecting tarmac delay 

information for international flights is important. The data that we are seeking to obtain here are 

not available to us through other means. Commenters are mistaken when they assert that the 

FAA has this information readily available. Furthermore, the publication of the tarmac delay 

data would increase public awareness of the issue, providing incentives for airline management 

to focus on addressing tarmac delay problems. 
42 

 With respect to whether the costs for foreign carriers to set up the reporting infrastructure 

justifies the benefits obtained from such reports in light of the relatively less frequent occurrence 

of tarmac delay incidents on international flights, we note that none of the commenters opposing 

extension of the reporting requirement to foreign carriers has provided any cost/benefit analysis 

in support of their position. We understand that most data contained in the reporting fields under 

this proposal are already collected by the carriers internally. BTS already has a system in place 

to accept reports electronically. Reporting to the BTS would incur a one-time IT infrastructure 

setup cost and minimal maintenance expenditure. We do not expect these costs to be significant. 

We have also considered some commenters’ suggestion that we should not require a 

negative report to be filed when no reportable tarmac delay occurred during a given month. 

Based on data submitted by the reporting carriers, during the past six months the total number of 

tarmac delay incidents that lasted for two hours or more at U.S. airports was less than 0.1% of 

the total domestic scheduled passenger flights operated by those carriers for each month. We 

agree that these data indicate that international flights that experience reportable tarmac delays 

will only represent a fraction of the total number of flights. As such, the vast majority of carriers 

filing reports if the rule is adopted as proposed would be filing a negative report for most 

months. Although negative reports are an effective enforcement tool for ensuring accurate 

reporting of tarmac delay, we have decided not to require negative reports to be filed, in order to 

further reduce the carriers’ burden in complying with this rule. 

 With respect to some foreign carriers’ suggestion that for code-share arrangements we 

should require the marketing carrier rather than the operating carrier to file the report, we are of 

the opinion that it is up to the code-share partners to designate who has the responsibility to file 

the report. Based on each carrier’s resources and ability, it may be more convenient for a foreign 
43 

carrier to use its U.S. code-share partner to file the reports, but the Department will not dictate 

which carrier has the reporting responsibility and will hold both marketing and operating carriers 

legally responsible if data for a reportable tarmac delay are not timely or accurately filed. 

 Regarding some foreign carriers’ comments on roundtrip charter services between 

foreign points and U.S. destinations, we agree that as long as these flights carry only passengers 

that originate at a foreign point and do not pick up any U.S.- originating passengers, tarmac 

delays on those flights will have minimal impact on U.S. consumers. Moreover, the Department 

is not applying its requirement for carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays 

to such operations. Therefore, we have decided that this reporting requirement should not apply 

to such flights. 

 We have also considered some carriers’ concern that publishing tarmac delay information 

may lead the public to compare carriers’ performance quality based on the raw data, while 

carriers may not be at fault for all tarmac delay incidents. We are not convinced that this will 

create overall false perceptions. The public is generally well informed about the causes 

contributing to a lengthy tarmac delay, not only through Departmental reports and press releases, 

but also through supplemental resources such as the media and the Internet. This information 

will normally enable the public to look beyond the net number of tarmac delays by each carrier. 

Moreover, carriers are always free to provide the public information about the cause of their 

tarmac delays, so long as that information is correct and not misleading. 

 To address the suggestion of some consumer commenters that we should require carriers 

to report tarmac delays of less than three hours, we note that the three-hour standard is consistent 

with the current tarmac delay contingency plan regulations and have reached the conclusion that 

this threshold represents the proper balance between the reporting burden placed on carriers and 
44 

the benefits to the public. In addition, we do not believe it is necessary to mandate that a detailed 

explanation for each tarmac delay be filed with the tarmac delay report. Such detailed 

explanation is of little use to BTS, which is a data collecting and analysis agency. If the 

Department believes that a particular tarmac delay warrants further investigation, its Aviation 

Enforcement Office will request information from the carrier, which the carrier is required to 

retain for tarmac delays of more than 3 hours. 

 Finally, we would like to provide further clarification regarding the reporting duties for 

carriers that are currently filing Part 234 Airline Service Quality Performance Reports. 

According to BTS Technical Directive #20, issued on November 5, 2010, and effective on 

January 1, 2011, there are 15 U.S. carriers whose domestic scheduled passenger revenues meet 

the threshold for mandatory filing of Part 234 reports. These carriers are identified as Part 234 

“reporting air carriers.” The carriers on this list may change from time to time due to carriers’ 

revenue fluctuation and corporate restructuring, and BTS updates the list annually. In addition to 

the 15 reporting air carriers, Express Jet will submit on-time data under Part 234 in 2011 as a 

“volunteer air carrier.” Although Part 234 only requires data for domestic scheduled passenger 

flights to and from a large hub U.S. airport, all reporting carriers, including the volunteer air 

carriers, are currently filing data for all domestic scheduled flights to and from all U.S. airports, 

including medium, small, and non-hub airports. As long as they continue to do so, they are only 

required to file tarmac delay data for international and charter flights to a U.S. airport under the 

new reporting regulation, 14 CFR Part 244. However, if any Part 234 reporting carrier decides 

to report only the minimum required data under Part 234, i.e., on-time performance data for 

domestic scheduled flights to and from large hub U.S. airports, it must report any tarmac delay of 

three hours or more for domestic scheduled flights to and from a medium, small, or non-hub U.S. 
45 

airport under Part 244. The same rationale applies to any volunteer air carriers under Part 234. 

If a volunteer air carrier ceases to file any or all reports under 234, it must file tarmac delay data 

for reportable flights under Part 244. As we have explained in the NPRM, the purpose of Part 

244 is to fill in the tarmac delay data gap that is not covered by Part 234. In that regard, no 

carrier is required to file both Part 234 and Part 244 reports for the same flight. 

3. Customer Service Plans 

A. Entities Covered 

The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to increase the protections afforded consumers in the 

first Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections rule by requiring foreign air carriers to adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans, as covered U.S. carriers have been required to do since 

April 2010. We proposed to cover foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service to 

and from the U.S. that use any aircraft designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more. We 

noted that the rule would apply to all flights to and from the U.S. of those carriers, including 

flights involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, if a carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or 

more passenger seats to and from the U.S. We asked interested persons to comment on whether 

the proposed requirement for foreign air carriers to adopt, follow and audit customer service 

plans should be narrowed in any fashion. (e.g., should never apply to aircraft with fewer than 30 

seats). 

Comments: Of the foreign-carrier industry commenters, the majority expressed their 

strong belief that the customer service plans requirement should not be extended to foreign 

carriers. IACA states that DOT’s regulatory proposals ignore the fact that airlines have 

designed customer service in a way to attract their customer and asserts that these provisions 

intervene in the airline’s business and service practices. IATA strongly opposes any customer 
46 

service requirements being imposed on foreign carriers unless those requirements are 

harmonized with the regulations of other jurisdictions. IACA and IATA also assert that the 

proposals are extraterritorial in that they would apply to all flights to and from the U.S. and could 

be interpreted in such a way that these obligations would also cover sales generated outside the 

U.S. AACO, AEA and ALTA concur with IATA. 

 Of the foreign air carrier commenters, LAN Airlines (LAN Ecuador, LAN Peru, LAN 

Argentina), Emirates, and SAS, among others, oppose DOT requiring them to adopt customer 

service provisions. Swiss International contends that the application of customer service plans to 

the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil or in foreign airspace poses several issues under 

U.S. and international law related to extraterritorial application of U.S. regulations. TAP 

Portugal makes similar comments regarding extraterritorial concerns, as do, among others, 

Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines. Other carriers, such as British Airways, note that they are 

already subject to customer service provisions in their own countries (e.g. EU provisions) and, 

therefore, the Department’s proposal is unnecessary and redundant, as well as potentially 

inconsistent with those countries' requirements. Singapore Airlines adds that competition is 

more effective than government mandates in improving customer service, and the Department 

does not need to be involved in customer service matters. 

 All Nippon states that the customer service provisions should apply only to sales made 

within the U.S. Qantas states that it is not necessary, practical or efficient to require foreign 

carriers to provide customers with additional or different customer service plans when carriers 

already have such provisions in place (e.g., Qantas has a Customer Charter on its website) and 

states that any requirement should be limited to carriers that do not already have a customer 

service plan in place. JetStar essentially concurs with Qantas. JAL makes similar comments and 
47 

notes that some of its standards are more stringent than the service requirements proposed and 

that foreign airlines compete on service and should determine their own service standards. JAL 

also expresses concern about the potential costs associated with this provision, characterizes it as 

an intrusive service regulation and states that it is not justified. VivaAerobus opposes the 

Department requiring small carriers to have a customer service plan. The Washington Aviation 

Assembly, representing 35 Embassies in the U.S., notes general issues with extraterritoriality, 

operational consequences for foreign airlines, and the potential economic burden for foreign 

airlines if they are required to comply with the customer service provisions. 

 As for U.S. airlines and associations, ATA expresses concern that DOT requiring foreign 

carriers to adopt a customer service plan could drive foreign governments to retaliate against 

U.S. carriers operating outside the U.S., which could create conflicting standards and 

unnecessarily drive additional costs. Among the travel agency interests that commented, ASTA 

agrees that customer service plan rules and standards should apply equally to foreign air carriers, 

with no aircraft-size exceptions. ITSA supports in general the Department’s efforts to provide 

passengers with the means to make better informed decisions and more informed choices in 

travel. 

Commenters on “Regulation Room,” who primarily identified themselves as air travelers, 

generally support DOT’s proposal. However, some of those that commented oppose the 

regulation and fear the costs will be passed on to consumers. The consumer groups that 

commented on this issue generally supported the provision and note that passengers should have 

the ability to know that certain customer service standards will be defined and met regardless of 

the carrier that a passenger chooses to travel on. CTA notes that foreign carriers operating as 

members of any international airline alliance must be included in these rules. AAPR, Consumers 
48 

Union and Flyersrights.org generally support the proposal to require foreign air carriers to adopt, 

follow, and audit customer service plans. NBTA supports extending customer service provisions 

to foreign carriers using aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. 

DOT Response: After fully considering the comments, we have decided to require 

foreign carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft 

with 30 or more seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans. As noted previously, a 

substantial number of passengers travel to and from the U.S. on flights operated by foreign air 

carriers and the Department continues to believe that it is important to protect these passengers, 

as well as to be consistent with the application of our consumer protection rules to both U.S. and 

foreign carriers. 

Foreign carriers' and others entities’ concerns with extraterritoriality have persuaded us, 

however, that some clarifications are needed. First, we want to point out that out of the twelve 

customer service commitments in this final rule, the substance of two of them already applies to 

foreign air carriers under existing DOT rules, i.e., 14 CFR Part 250 concerning passengers who 

are “bumped” from flights that are oversold and 14 CFR Part 382 which addresses air travel of 

passengers with disabilities. Prior to issuing those final rules, the Department addressed the 

issue of extraterritoriality and determined how best to apply each of these requirements to 

foreign air carriers. For instance, the Department determined not to apply its oversales rule to 

international flights inbound to the United States and determined not to apply U.S. disability 

rules to a foreign carrier simply because a foreign carrier’s flight between two foreign points 

carried passengers under a code-sharing arrangement with a U.S. carrier. The manner in which 

we are applying these existing requirements to foreign air carriers through the customer service 

commitments is not new and is not an extraterritorial extension of U.S. jurisdiction. 
49 

We note also that several of the other customer service commitments are merely 

reinforcing new requirements imposed elsewhere in this final rule, i.e., 14 CFR 259.8 which 

addresses notification of delays and cancellations, 14 CFR 259.4 which addresses lengthy tarmac 

delays, and 14 CFR 259.7 which addresses responding to consumer complaints. Concerns with 

extraterritoriality are specifically addressed in those sections of this preamble that deal with 

those issues. In this final rule, for example, we explain in the tarmac delay section that the 

requirement to adopt and follow a tarmac delay contingency plan applies only to tarmac delay 

events that occur at a covered U.S. airport. Likewise, we clarify in the section on known delays, 

cancellations and diversions that the requirement to notify consumers of flight irregularities on a 

carrier’s website and via the carrier’s telephone reservation system applies to a foreign carrier 

only if the carrier markets to U.S. consumers. We also make clear that the requirement to make 

this information available in the boarding gate areas applies only to boarding gate areas at a U.S. 

airport. We believe that these types of clarifications address the foreign carriers’ main 

objections, which are the application of the customer service plan to sales made outside the U.S. 

and to the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil. 

We have made similar changes to other customer service commitments that involve 

foreign carriers’ websites and reservation centers to ensure that we are not applying U.S. rules to 

a foreign carrier when that carrier does not market its services to the U.S. For example, the 

customer service commitment to disclose, among other things, cancellation policies and frequent 

flyer rules on the selling carrier’s website and upon request from the selling carrier’s telephone 

reservations staff or the commitment to disclose the availability of the lowest fare on a carrier’s 

website or through its reservation center will apply to a foreign carrier only if it markets its 

services to U.S. consumers. We are also making changes to the customer service commitments 
50 

related to services to be provided generally or services to be provided at the ticket counter and 

boarding gate area to specify that such action is required only at U.S. airports. 

Finally, we want to clarify that for purposes of this section, except as otherwise provided 

in individual customer service provisions in this section, a “flight” that a foreign carrier operates 

to and from the U.S. means a continuous journey in the same aircraft or with one flight number 

that begins or ends at a U.S. airport. For example, if a carrier were to operate flight 100, a direct 

flight from San Francisco to Singapore with a stop in Hong Kong, the customer service plan 

applies to both segments of this flight with respect to U.S.-originating passengers. It would not 

apply to any Hong Kong originating passengers who board the aircraft there and go to Singapore. 

On the reverse routing, the plan would apply to passengers who board in Singapore or Hong 

Kong and travel to the U.S.; it would not apply to passengers boarding in Singapore whose 

destination is Hong Kong. Temporarily deplaning at the intermediate stop on a direct flight 

(Hong Kong in the above example) does not break the journey for purposes of the applicability 

of the customer service plan requirements for passengers who re-board and continue on that 

same flight operation. If an international passenger whose journey originates or terminates in the 

U.S. makes a connection to a flight with a different flight number, the carrier’s customer service 

plan applies only to the direct flight to or from the U.S. In the case of change of gauge, all flight 

segments with the same flight number that begin or end in the U.S. are covered by the Customer 

Service Plan even if passengers must change aircraft due to a change of gauge. 

As for the comments concerning the cost involved in adopting customer service plans, we 

note that a number of carriers state that they already have customer service plans or similar plans 

in place and that these plans contain provisions similar or more stringent than those the 

Department is requiring them to adopt, or that their governments have similar requirements. To 
51 

the extent provisions in existing plans are more stringent than the minimum standards set in this 

rule, carriers are encouraged to continue to apply these more stringent provisions. To the extent 

provisions in existing plans vary from our requirements, even if they are similar to them, it does 

not seem overly burdensome for a carrier to amend those plans with respect to flights to and 

from the U.S. to comply with this rule. Also, while we understand that some foreign countries 

have rules requiring customer service standards in air carriage, we are not aware, nor are we 

convinced based on the comments received, that any of those rules or standards conflict with the 

requirements of this provision in a manner that would prevent a carrier from complying with 

both requirements. 

B. Content of Customer Service Plan 

 The NPRM: In the NPRM, we noted that under the final rule published on December 30, 

2009, U.S. carriers are required to adopt customer service plans for their scheduled flights that 

address, at a minimum, the following service areas: (1) offering the lowest fare available; (2) 

notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3) delivering baggage on 

time; (4) allowing reservations to be held or cancelled without penalty for a defined amount of 

time; (5) providing prompt ticket refunds; (6) properly accommodating disabled and specialneeds passengers, including during tarmac delays; (7) meeting customers’ essential needs during 

lengthy on-board delays; (8) handling “bumped” passengers in the case of oversales with fairness 

and consistency; (9) disclosing travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, and 

aircraft configuration; (10) ensuring good customer service from code-share partners; (11) 

ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and (12) identifying the services they provide 

to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and misconnections. 

We proposed to extend the requirement to address these twelve subjects in the customer service 
52 

plan to foreign air carriers and requested comment on whether any of these subjects would be 

inappropriate if applied to a foreign carrier. 

The NPRM also proposed to require that U.S. and foreign carriers’ customer service 

plans meet minimum standards to ensure that the plans are specific and enforceable. The 

minimum standards that we proposed are as follows: (1) offering the lowest fare available on 

the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a customer calls the carrier’s reservation 

center to inquire about a fare or to make a reservation; (2) notifying consumers in the boarding 

gate area, on board aircraft, and via a carrier’s telephone reservation system and its website of 

known delays, cancellations, and diversions; (3) delivering baggage on time, including making 

every reasonable effort to return mishandled baggage within twenty-four hours and 

compensating passengers for reasonable expenses that result due to delay in delivery; (4) 

allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without 

penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made; (5) where ticket refunds are 

due, providing prompt refunds for credit card purchases as required by 14 CFR 374.3 and 12 

CFR Part 226, and for cash and check purchases within 20 days after receiving a complete 

refund request; (6) properly accommodating passengers with disabilities as required by 14 CFR 

Part 382 and other special-needs passengers as set forth in the carrier’s policies and procedures, 

including during lengthy tarmac delays; (7) meeting customers’ essential needs during lengthy 

tarmac delays as required by 14 CFR 259.4 and as provided for in each covered carrier’s 

contingency plan; (8) handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency in the case of 

oversales as required by 14 CFR Part 250 and as described in each carrier’s policies and 

procedures for determining boarding priority; (9) disclosing cancellation policies, frequent flyer 

rules, aircraft configuration, and lavatory availability on the selling carrier’s website, and upon 
53 

request, from the selling carrier’s telephone reservations staff; (10) notifying consumers in a 

timely manner of changes in their travel itineraries; (11) ensuring good customer service from 

code-share partners operating a flight, including making reasonable efforts to ensure that its 

code-share partner(s) have comparable customer service plans or provide comparable customer 

service levels, or have adopted the identified carrier’s customer service plan; (12) ensuring 

responsiveness to customer complaints as required by 14 CFR 259.7; and (13) identifying the 

services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and 

misconnections. 

In addition, we invited comment on whether the minimum standards for any of the 

subjects contained in the customer service plans should be modified or enhanced in some way. 

With regard to delivering baggage on time, we solicited comment on whether we should also 

include as standards (1) that carriers reimburse passengers the fee charged to transport a bag if 

that bag is lost or not timely delivered, as well as (2) the time when a bag should be considered 

not to have been timely delivered (e.g., delivered on the same or earlier flight than the passenger, 

delivered within 2 hours of the passenger’s arrival). With regard to providing prompt refunds, 

we sought comment on whether we should also include as a standard that carriers refund ticketed 

passengers, including those with non-refundable tickets, for flights that are canceled or 

significantly delayed if the passenger chooses not to travel as a result of the travel disruption. In 

addition, we requested comment on whether it is necessary to include as a standard the 

requirement that when a flight is cancelled carriers must refund not only the ticket price but also 

any fees for optional services that were charged to a passenger for that flight (e.g., baggage fees, 

“service charges” for use of frequent flyer miles when the flight is canceled by the carrier). With 

respect to notifying passengers on board aircraft of delays, we sought comment on how often 
54 

updates should be provided and whether we should require that passengers be advised when they 

may deplane from aircraft during lengthy tarmac delays. 

Finally, we requested comment as to whether it is workable to set minimum standards for 

any of the subjects contained in the customer service plans and invited those that oppose the 

notion of the Department setting minimum standards for customer service plans as unduly 

burdensome to provide evidence of the costs that they anticipate. We also sought comment on 

whether the Department should require airlines to address any other subject in their customer 

service plans. We specifically asked if mandatory disclosure to passengers and other interested 

parties of past delays or cancellations of particular flights before ticket purchase should be a new 

subject area covered in customer service plans. 

Comments: U.S. carriers and carrier associations are generally opposed to the 

Department setting minimum standards for the customer service plans, particularly if the 

Department requires that the plans be incorporated into the carriers’ contracts of carriage. ATA 

notes that, although U.S. carriers are already required under the current regulation to address 

each of the proposed customer service plan topics, the current regulation does not mandate 

minimum requirements and allows carriers to set their own standards for their customer service 

plans based on their own particular circumstances. ATA asserts that for the Department to set 

the minimum standards for carriers’ plans would face a major change to existing carrier policies 

in areas where U.S. carriers currently compete and could dampen innovation, harm competition 

and reduce the flying public’s options. Many U.S. carriers concur with ATA. 

RAA is opposed not only to the establishment of minimum standards but also to any 

continued requirement for its members to adopt customer service plans. RAA explains that most 

regional carriers do not offer fares, take reservations, ticket passengers, receive payment from 
55 

passengers, provide refunds to passengers, or have their own frequent flyer rules or cancellation 

policies. RAA maintains that the subjects to be addressed in the customer service plan would be 

inappropriate if applied to an airline that does not hold out, market, sell tickets for its operations 

and asks that the customer service requirements apply only to carriers that hold out, market, sell 

and ticket air transportation. 

 Most foreign carriers and carrier associations expressed strong opposition both to the 

requirement to have a customer service plan and for that plan to meet minimum standards set by 

the Department. A number of foreign carriers such as Air Berlin and associations such as IATA 

and IACA raised the issue of extraterritoriality and argued that the Department was overreaching 

as the customer service requirements could be interpreted in such a way as to cover sales 

generated outside the U.S. and to cover the conduct of foreign carriers on foreign soil or in 

foreign airspace. There were also assertions that the Department’s regulatory proposals ignore 

the fact that airlines have designed their customer service initiatives in a way to attract customers 

and the fact that carrier customer service plan provisions are a way for carriers to differentiate 

their services. South African Airways contends that prescriptive regulations should not take the 

place of competitive forces, especially when there is no evidence of market failure. Virgin 

Atlantic, while agreeing that defining a baseline standard is acceptable, states that forcing all 

carriers to be the same denies them the right to compete commercially and does not allow 

carriers to innovate. 

Others raised the existence of customer service requirements imposed by other entities as 

a reason for the Department not to issue a rule in this area. For instance, Air France and KLM 

state that the customer service proposals should not be finalized as to EU carriers where they are 

inconsistent with or more stringent than EU regulations. Still other foreign carriers raised 
56 

concerns that some of the minimum service levels are impracticable for a carrier to meet (for 

example, if a carrier sells a number of tickets via a travel agent and the passenger contact 

information is not passed on then the carrier may not have that passenger’s contact information 

in order to advise them of a change in itinerary). Some carriers also expressed concerns that 

certain provisions may be outside of a carrier’s control (e.g., “good customer service” from a 

code-share partner). 

Travel agent organizations such as ASTA and consumer groups such as AAPR, 

Flyersrights.org, NBTA, and CTA all support requiring carriers to adopt customer service plans 

and for those plans to meet the minimum standards as proposed in the NPRM. Most individual 

commenters also support these DOT proposals, but a few oppose the regulation as burdensome 

and fear the costs will be passed on to consumers. Many “Regulation Room” commenters want 

the Department to go further in setting minimum standards and prohibiting certain practices. 

 The Department received a number of comments on some of the minimum standards 

proposed to be included in the customer service plans as well as some of the questions we posed 

on modifying or enhancing these standards and we address those issues more fully below. 

1. Offering the lowest fare available 

Many foreign air carrier associations, including AACO and NACC, contend that 

requiring carriers to offer the lowest fare on the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a 

customer calls the carrier’s reservation center to inquire about a fare or make a reservation would 

interfere in airline business practices. ALTA seeks clarification on the meaning of “offering the 

lowest fare available” and asserts that a “one size fits all” fare will prejudice passengers by 

increasing fares and limiting competition. 
57 

 Among the foreign air carriers that commented, Cathay Pacific states it can only publish 

the fare at the time a request is made, as fares are driven by complex inventory and fare 

managing systems and a fare guarantee cannot be made. JetStar basically concurs and states that 

the proposal fails to take account of legitimate distribution and pricing practices. Qantas 

strongly opposes this requirement on the basis that it fails to take into account the numerous 

possible options and fare constructions that may be applicable to a consumer, and there may be a 

false perception that a carrier is not quoting the best price when the lowest priced inventory sells 

out. It is also concerned that carriers will not be able to enforce the proposed requirement 

against ticket agents and should not be responsible for ticket agent actions. British Airways 

states that it offers the lowest fare that meets customers’ needs and its website allows consumers 

to find the lowest fare. Similarly, JAL states that it already offers the lowest fare on its website, 

at the ticket counter and via telephone reservations as appropriate. Singapore Airlines states that, 

if this requirement is adopted, the Department should confirm that this provision is intended to 

conform with ATA’s Customers First initiative and should make it clear that the airline does not 

have to offer to a customer shopping via one point-of-sale the lowest fare available in any 

channel. 

 Of the U.S. carriers that commented, Spirit Airlines (Spirit) opposes a requirement that 

all fares available on its website should be made available through its telephone reservation 

service. Should DOT impose such a standard, it must be limited to a carrier’s generally available 

fares and not apply to special sales fares because many of these lower fares cannot be purchased 

over higher-cost channels. 

2. Allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare 
58 

A number of foreign carriers and carrier industry groups also expressed serious concerns 

with the proposal to allow reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or 

cancelled without penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made and 

thought this provision may lead to inconsistent sales policies. For example, Air New Zealand 

strongly opposes this provision because it takes inventory off the market for the duration of the 

refund period, blocking it from sale to other customers and risking that the seat may not be sold 

again. The carrier points out that passengers have the option to buy refundable fares, and 

choosing whether to allow a passenger to hold a reservation without payment is a commercial 

decision. Air France and KLM oppose this proposal primarily for the reasons stated above, as 

does Qatar Airways. Alitalia opposes this proposal and thinks the airline should be the party that 

establishes commercial terms and conditions with its customers. Singapore Airlines states that it 

is not set up to permit reservation holds and reprogramming the system to do so is costly. It also 

notes that this proposal interferes with the free market and deprives other passengers of the 

lowest fare, as well as compromises an airline's ability to adjust to overnight currency 

fluctuations. British Airways notes that its current selling systems do not allow for reservations 

to be held without penalty, but passengers that book via call centers have a “24 hour cooling off” 

period. It also states that consumers that visit BA.com have several opportunities to review 

exactly what they are booking and to confirm knowledge of details prior to booking. 

ATA strongly objects to a CSP proposal that would require a carrier to hold a reservation 

“at the quoted fare” for 24 hours for the following reasons: it eliminates the carrier’s ability to 

sell these seats to another willing buyer; the DOT has not demonstrated a market failure that 

merits this action; a consumer could hold a reservation during the last 24 hours and then cancel, 
59 

resulting in a seat that will never be sold; and this requirement would effectively prevent repricing, which ordinarily happens multiple times a day. 

 Of the U.S. carriers that commented, US Airways does not support adoption of a 24-hour 

standard as a rigid rule. The carrier suggests that DOT allow airlines flexibility to restrict 

refunds in certain situations in order to assure that the largest number of potential passengers 

have access to seats. Spirit states this proposal is an effort to impose on all airlines a practice 

that was common prior to deregulation. As a low cost carrier, it states that almost all low-fare 

carriers require payments at time of booking to guarantee the fare and that making tickets nonrefundable is a practice that is critical to its ability to keep fares low. Should a consumer choose 

to, he or she can buy refundable tickets at a higher price. The carrier states that travel agents that 

book via global distribution systems (GDS) can hold a reservation (space only) for 24 hours 

without penalty and Spirit offers a 24 hour courtesy refund for bookings made via GDS, but no 

other procedure for refunds via travel agents can be accomplished due to limited GDS functions. 

In order to comply with this provision, Spirit states that it would have to substantially change its 

business model and incur large IT cost. 

Hawaiian Airlines (Hawaiian) notes that it has “on-demand” or “walk-up” flights that run 

on a high frequency basis. As proposed, this provision would put the carrier in the position of 

turning inventory over to passengers who will make several reservations for a flight ( within a 24 

hour time period) but will pay for only one of the reservations, even though Hawaiian must 

retain a seat for them on each flight. It notes the rule could result in forcing Hawaiian to oversell 

flights to protect against the loss of seats and revenue. The carrier suggests the proposal be 

modified to allow customers to hold seats for 24 hours up until 72 hours before the departure of 

the flight. Similar to Hawaiian, JetBlue suggest that the proposal be modified and that the “24 
60 

hour rule” apply not later than 120 hours prior to departure for carriers that have a no oversales 

policy. JetBlue explains that it does not oversell seats on its flights and it is the company’s 

policy not to issue refunds to passengers that cancel their reservations (in return for a guaranteed 

seat on the flight). It notes that the proposal would allow customers to hold a reservation without 

making a financial commitment and could cause lower load factors, which would threaten 

JetBlue’s business model. ASTA supports the 24 hour “reservation hold” rule applying to travel 

agent bookings. 

3. Refunding the ticket price for flights that are canceled or significantly delayed 

In discussing a commitment to provide prompt refunds, we asked for comments on 

whether we should require carriers to refund the ticket price for flights that are canceled or 

significantly delayed if the passenger chooses not to travel as a result of the travel disruption. 

ATA opposes including as a standard in the customer service plan a requirement that carriers 

automatically provide ticketed passengers holding non-refundable tickets a refund for flights that 

are canceled or significantly delayed. ATA notes that the regulatory effort to redefine restricted 

tickets as fully refundable even when cancellation is desirable due to impending weather or 

government order would impose obligations not present in any other mode of transportation. 

ATA adds that in most cases passengers on a cancelled flight are accommodated soon after the 

originally scheduled flight. In addition, ATA provides the following reasons for its opposition: 

o The cause of the delay could be out of the carrier’s control; 

o Carriers often allow free rebooking for significant delays or cancellation; 

o This is a marketplace issue; 

o Imposing mandatory refunds when a passenger chooses not to fly would convert 

all tickets in cancel or delay situations to fully refundable tickets; 
61 

o Passengers have a choice of what type of ticket to buy; and 

o The DOT is not authorized to interfere in the marketplace in this manner. 

Of the foreign carriers and carrier associations that commented, AACO asserts that this 

provision intrudes in business practices and raises a risk that carriers cannot resell the seat postcancellation. NACC is also concerned about this proposal. Malaysia Airlines strongly opposes 

this proposal because delays are often beyond airlines' control and carriers already make efforts 

to mitigate their impact. Similarly, Qantas states that cancellations may also be out of the 

carrier’s control. 

 Lufthansa and Austrian state that, if imposed, the final rule should allow carriers to 

accommodate passengers in ways other than refunding the fare. JetStar contends that it is unfair 

to place the entire burden of costs of unforeseen delays and cancellations on the carriers and 

states that mandatory refunds may result in the operation of delayed flights empty or at a net loss. 

The carrier also believes that it is not unfair or deceptive for consumers to share some of the risk 

in return for lower priced non-refundable tickets, provided fare rules are disclosed prior to 

purchase. VivaAerobus states that it is a no frills ultra low-fare carrier that only sells non 

refundable tickets and its policy is disclosed on its website so customers can comparatively shop 

prior to purchase. The carrier asserts that it never overbooks flights and contends that it cannot 

give refunds. 

 Of the U.S. carriers that commented, US Airways notes that many of its tickets are fully 

refundable and consumers that purchase non-refundable tickets are clearly informed of the risk. 

While the carrier supports the Department’s efforts in the NPRM to enhance disclosure, it does 

not think DOT should restrict options available to passengers or competition among carriers by 

requiring refunds of non-refundable tickets. Spirit Air opposes requiring carriers to make 
62 

refunds to passengers who choose to purchase non-refundable tickets but decide not to fly 

because of a flight cancellation or significant delay. Rather, Spirit gives passengers the option of 

re-accommodation or a voucher or refund, or a passenger can purchase travel insurance. 

 Of the consumers and consumer organizations that commented on this issue, 

Flyersrights.org thinks tickets should be refunded if the flight is cancelled or significantly 

delayed for reasons within the airline's control. However, it is concerned about passengers who 

don't receive refunds of taxes and fees collected by the government for services passengers do 

not receive due to cancelled reservations. Some “Regulation Room” commenters favor airlines 

providing full refunds as well as reimbursement for hotel rooms and meals if there is a 

significant flight delay. 

With regard to defining a “significant delay” for purposes of ticket refunds, ATA opposes 

any definition of “significant” delay that would create a single government standard and 

eliminate a carrier’s latitude to create its own policies on non-refundable tickets that serve 

customer and commercial needs. It reiterates that the application of non-refundable tickets and 

carrier policies to re-accommodate passengers during an event beyond the carrier’s control is 

best left to the marketplace in a deregulated industry, which will leave customers with more 

options. Of the foreign carriers that commented on defining a “significant delay,” Cathay 

Pacific states the Department should take into account the length of delay, length of the flight 

and the circumstances. The longer the flight, then the greater the tolerance should be for the 

delay. TAP Portugal makes a similar comment and states that the definition should depend on 

the duration of the flight. It also notes that long-haul flights can make up for delays while in the 

air. Some commenters on “Regulation Room” suggest that any delay over three hours is 

“significant,” while others note they are willing to let the Department define the term. 
63 

4. Refunding fees for optional services for flights that are canceled 

In discussing prompt refunds, we specifically asked for comments on whether we should 

require, as part of any refund due a consumer, a refund of any optional fees charged a passenger 

in connection with the flight in questions. ATA opposes including as a standard in the customer 

service plan that when a flight is cancelled carriers must refund not only the ticket price but also 

any fees for optional services that were charged to a passenger for that flight. ATA states that 

its members object to the Department’s concept that cancellation in itself should create a right to 

the refund of optional fees. It urges the Department to clarify that a carrier has the opportunity 

to accommodate a passenger with other transportation options after a cancellation, instead of 

automatically refunding a ticket and ancillary fees. ATA also asks the Department to clarify that 

the proposed customer service plan requirement to provide prompt refunds “where ticket refunds 

are due” is meant to include only those situations where the passenger is unable to fly due to the 

carrier’s decision to cancel. US Airways supports refunding fees for optional services for flights 

that are canceled, but only in cases where the services in question are not ultimately provided 

(e.g. baggage fees, seating fees). It asks the Department to clarify that if the services are 

provided, refunds are not mandated. Among the foreign carriers and carrier associations that 

commented, AACO states that fees should not be reimbursed for the ticket and ancillary services 

that have been provided. Malaysia Airlines also states that this proposal should not require 

refunds of fees for services already delivered. ASTA thinks mandated refunds should include 

“optional fees” paid by a passenger. 

5. Delivering baggage on time, compensating passengers for expenses due to delay in 

delivery of baggage and refunding baggage fees 

 Of the foreign air carriers and industry groups that commented, AACO states that the 

Department needs to define what “on time” delivery of baggage means and opposes any 
64 

requirement that airlines bear the sole responsibility for areas of business that other parties have 

control over (e.g. bags may be handled by airport or TSA). Air Berlin notes that international 

baggage compensation is already governed by the Montreal Convention. South African Airways 

states that the proposal does not address Montreal or Warsaw and asks DOT to confirm that the 

rule does not apply where either Convention controls. Singapore Airlines offers similar 

comments. Air France and KLM state that the NPRM does not take into account vast differences 

between long-haul international flights and domestic U.S./transborder flights, and as such, 

returning bags within 24 hours may be impossible due to limited frequencies to a specific 

destination, absence of local services, and/or a passenger with a multi-stop and multi-country 

itinerary. 

 Among the U.S. industry groups and air carriers, US Airways believes that, before 

advancing new proposals in this area, DOT should articulate any additional facts warranting 

action beyond steps that the Department has already taken. It asserts that it is neither possible 

nor desirable to set a uniform maximum time for delivery of delayed bags or to impose remedies 

for failure to make delivery within a time frame because there are too many variables involved, 

and asks that the Department seek more input from stakeholders involved. Spirit Airlines notes 

that Part 254 already requires airlines to compensate passengers and airlines have incentives to 

locate and return bags. It also states that “every reasonable effort” to return bags is a vague 

standard, and points out that there is no evidence that the current rules are inadequate or 

passengers are being treated unfairly or with deception. 

 ATA notes that its members oppose including as a standard in the customer service plan 

that carriers reimburse passengers the fee charged to transport a bag if that bag is lost or not 

timely delivered. ATA states that bag fees are a competitive issue and whether a carrier chooses 
65 

to refund a fee in all instances is a matter the marketplace should determine. Spirit also opposes 

such a requirement although it notes that its policy is to refund fees when there is a delay in 

delivery. Flyersright.org states that fees should be refunded if the bag is not delivered on the 

same flight or an earlier one. 

6. Notifying passengers of past delays and cancellations prior to ticket purchase 

 We already require the reporting carriers (i.e., largest U.S. carriers) to provide delay and 

cancellation information on their websites and upon request provide consumers on-time 

performance information during oral reservations. We asked for comment on whether all 

carriers required to have a customer service plan should be required to disclose past delays and 

cancellations of flights to consumers before the latter purchase a ticket. Many carriers oppose 

having a customer service commitment on disclosure to passengers of past delays or 

cancellations of particular flights before ticket purchase and do not see the need for it. They 

assert that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance. Swiss 

International also states that, if imposed, the requirement to disclose past delay and cancellation 

information should not apply to reservations agents via telephone because foreign carriers utilize 

call centers that often work with multiple carriers and the proposal is not feasible. Cathay Pacific 

does not support mandatory disclosure of past delays and cancellations before ticket purchase for 

international flights that have limited operations, but notes that for domestic services operated 

more frequently there may be value. ATA members oppose additional information notices 

regarding past flight delays or cancellations before purchase of a ticket, as the Department has 

recently adopted new flight information requirements and in accordance with those rules, the 

public will have access to information on flight delays, cancellations, and flights 30 minutes late 

more than 50% of the time before purchase on the largest U.S. carriers’ websites. Of the U.S. 
66 

carrier commenters, US Airways notes, similar to ATA ,that this information is available on the 

carrier’s website and that is sufficient to provide consumers with information. It also asserts that 

historic data is unreliable, the current rule is new and more time is needed to see how effective it 

is prior to initiating new rules, and DOT already decided further disclosures were not required. 

7. Other Customer Service Provisions 

 With regard to the customer service requirement to notify consumers of itinerary changes 

in a timely manner, British Airways expressed support for this provision, but thinks it should be 

limited to passengers for which the carrier has reliable contact information. In situations where a 

passenger books his/her ticket through a travel agent, British Airways states that the travel agent 

and not the carrier should be held responsible for notifying the passenger of any itinerary 

changes. With respect to disclosing aircraft configuration, among other things, to consumers on 

the selling carrier’s website and upon request from the selling carrier’s telephone reservations 

staff, Singapore Airlines contends that there is no reason for its telephone reservations staff to 

provide this information as its customers can find this information on the carrier's website. With 

regard to responding to consumer complaints, Air Berlin is concerned that as drafted the 

proposed definition would obligate a carrier to react to complaints from non-passengers. 

 As for the requirement to ensure “good customer service” from code-share partners, a 

number of carriers and carrier associations expressed concerns with the definition of “ensuring 

good customer service” as it relates to code-share partners and claim that they cannot be held 

responsible for code-share partners' actions. More specifically, NACC contends that the 

provision to have “comparable service plans” could be an extraterritorial application of law if 

applied to more than flight segments to or from a U.S. airport. It states that the requirement to 

have comparable service is too prescriptive and is an unwarranted interference in commercial 
67 

relationships, and may discourage such arrangements, leading to less flexibility and network 

connectivity. NACC also expresses concerns that aligning customer service plans with codeshare partners may raise anti-trust issues. JetStar does not support requiring code-share 

participants to adopt each other’s customer service plans or align their service levels and states 

that this is an issue of competition best left to the marketplace. It also notes that the marketing 

carrier has the primary relationship with the consumer. US Airways states that DOT should not 

adopt rules that marketing carriers are responsible for violations by operating carriers and says 

that marketing carriers cannot control the application of uniform standards of all operating 

carriers with which they work. 

DOT Response: Having fully considered the comments, the Department has decided to 

adopt a final rule largely along the lines set forth in the NPRM, with some clarifications to 

address comments received about extraterritorial application of U.S. law and the appropriateness 

of individual customer service commitments. In adopting this approach, we believe that our 

action strikes a proper balance between ensuring that the traveling public is provided an adequate 

level of service and is not subjected to unfair or deceptive practices, while ensuring the 

marketplace governs to the extent possible. We also view our approach as striking the proper 

balance between protecting consumers on nearly all flights to and from the United States by 

requiring not just U.S. carriers but also foreign carriers to adopt and adhere to customer service 

plans, while ensuring that these requirements do not involve an extraterritorial application of 

U.S. law by limiting their application to foreign carriers to flights to and from the U.S., sales 

made within the U.S., and to the conduct of foreign carriers on U.S. soil. 

Under the final rule, foreign carriers are required to address the same subjects in their 

customer service plan as U.S. carriers. The final rule also establishes minimum standards for the 
68 

customer service plans of both U.S. and foreign carriers. In making this decision, we note that 

carriers are already required to address a number of the subjects and comply with the minimum 

standards imposed for these subjects through existing requirements [e.g., 14 CFR Part 250, Part 

254 (for U.S. carriers), and Part 382] or requirements imposed by other sections of this rule (e.g., 

14 CFR 259.4, 259.7, and 259.8 ). Additionally, based on the comments received, many carriers 

already address many of the requirements in the customer service plans and, in some cases, their 

customer service commitment is more stringent than those we are adopting. Consequently, we 

are not persuaded that it would be unduly burdensome for carriers to adopt and adhere to these 

standards. 

Commenters have convinced us that it is not appropriate to require U.S. or foreign air 

carriers to include in their customer service plans a commitment to ensure good customer service 

from their code-share partners by making certain that code-share partners have comparable 

customer service plans or provide comparable customer service levels. We agree with 

commenters that the requirement for code-share partners to have comparable service may 

unnecessarily restrict the marketplace and may unduly discourage code-sharing arrangements. 

We have also decided against requiring covered carriers to include in their customer service 

plans an assurance that they will notify consumers of past delays and cancellations. We are 

persuaded that the current availability of data about past delays and cancellations provided by the 

largest U.S. carriers on their websites as a result of action of our recent consumer rulemaking is 

sufficient and additional requirements in this area would not materially benefit consumers. 

While, as noted above, the Department has decided to establish minimum standards for 

the customer service plans of both U.S. and foreign carriers, we are modifying or clarifying a 

few of these standards based on comments received. For example, we are clarifying, as 
69 

requested by U.S. and foreign carriers and associations, that the requirement to compensate 

passengers for reasonable expenses that result due to delay in baggage delivery comports with 14 

CFR Part 254 for domestic transportation and applicable international agreements for 

international transportation. We are also adding as a standard that carriers must reimburse 

passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is lost. We have decided against 

requiring carriers to reimburse passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag that is not timely 

delivered. Arguably, as is the case with transporting passengers themselves, while delay in 

receiving baggage may be inconvenient, once the carrier delivers a bag the service has been 

performed. Consumers may, of course, seek reimbursement for damages caused by delay in the 

delivery of their baggage by filing a claim with the airline or, if dissatisfied with the airline’s 

resolution of the matter, with an appropriate civil court. 

With regard to carriers’ obligation to notify passengers of known delays, cancellations 

and diversions, we specify that the minimum standard required to comply with this obligation is 

met through compliance with a requirement imposed elsewhere in this final rule, i.e., 14 CFR 

259.8. Under section 259.8, we explain that the obligation to notify passengers of delays applies 

only to delays of 30 minutes or more and that the carrier has the obligation to inform passengers 

of such delays, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a 

change in the status of a flight. We also explain that carriers must inform consumers of 

cancellations and delays of 30 minutes or more and diversions in the boarding gate area at U.S. 

airports, on board aircraft, via a carrier’s telephone reservation system and on its website, and 

through whatever means made available by the carrier for passengers who subscribe to the 

carrier’s flight status notification services. 
70 

With respect to providing prompt refunds, we conclude that the obligation to provide 

such refunds applies not only to refunding the basic price of a ticket but also to refunding 

optional fees charged to a passenger for services that the passenger is unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or a flight cancellation. For example, if a passenger pays for premium 

economy seating, but his flight is canceled or oversold and that seating is not available on the 

flight that he/she has agreed to be re-rerouted on, then the carrier must promptly refund the 

passenger the fee paid for the premium seating. In adopting this requirement, the Department 

believes it is unfair for a carrier to refuse to provide a refund to a passenger of fees paid for 

services not provided through no fault of the passenger. 

We continue to believe that there are circumstances in which passengers would be due a 

refund, including a refund of non-refundable tickets and optional fees associated with those 

tickets due to a significant flight delay. However, we have been persuaded by industry 

commenters that the Department should not adopt a strict standard of what constitutes a 

significant delay as such a delay is difficult to define. We agree with the contention of carriers 

and carrier associations that the definition of a significant delay depends on a wide variety of 

factors such as the length of the delay, length of the flight and the passenger’s circumstances. 

The Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office will continue to monitor how carriers apply their 

non-refundability provision in the event of a significant change in scheduled departure or arrival 

time, and will determine on a case by case basis based on the facts and circumstances of the 

delay whether a failure to provide a refund in response to such a delay is an unfair and deceptive 

practice. 

We reject some carriers’ and carrier associations’ assertions that carriers are not required 

to refund a passenger’s fare when a flight is cancelled if the carrier can accommodate the 
71 

passenger with other transportation options after the cancellation. We find it to be manifestly 

unfair for a carrier to fail to provide the transportation contracted for and then to refuse to 

provide a refund if the passenger finds the offered rerouting unacceptable (e.g., greatly delayed 

or otherwise inconvenient) and he or she no longer wishes to travel. Since at least the time of an 

Industry Letter of July 15, 1996 (see http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/guidance) the Department's 

Aviation Enforcement Office has advised carriers that refusing to refund a non-refundable fare 

when a flight is canceled and the passenger wishes to cancel is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712 

(unfair or deceptive practices) and would subject a carrier to enforcement action. 

We also have determined to modify the standard regarding the availability of the lowest 

fare from what was proposed in the NPRM. In the NPRM, we proposed that a carrier offer the 

lowest fare available on the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a customer calls the 

carrier’s reservation center to inquire about a fare or to make a reservation. Having taken into 

consideration the comments received about how this requirement could unduly interfere with 

airline business models by requiring airlines offer to a consumer shopping via one point-of-sale 

the lowest fare available via any channel, we are modifying this provision to require carriers to 

disclose to consumers who contact the carrier through any of these mediums that a lower fare 

may be offered by the carrier through another channel (for example, the carrier must reveal via 

its telephone reservation service that a lower fare may be available on the carrier's website if that 

is the case). Of course, wherever the carrier offers its lowest fare, the carrier should not state that 

the lowest fare may be available elsewhere as such a statement would likely confuse consumers 

and could result in increased search time by consumers for a nonexistent lower fare. In sum, we 

are not requiring carrier personnel to offer the lowest fare available via whatever sales channel a 

consumer chooses to use, but to inform all of its customers and prospective customers that a 
72 

lower fare may be available elsewhere in the carrier's systems in order to give the consumer the 

opportunity to locate a lower fare offered by that carrier. 

We have also decided to modify the customer service proposal which would require 

carriers to allow reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without 

penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made. We agree with commenters 

who expressed concerns that allowing consumers to hold a seat without payment for twenty-four 

hours could result in loss of sales and revenue by carriers and prevent other passengers from 

purchasing the seat if the seat is not released in a timely manner prior to the flight. We find 

persuasive the comments submitted by JetBlue and Hawaiian Airlines suggesting that a set point 

in time should exist after which carriers would no longer be required to hold a passenger’s 

reservation in order to give the carrier a more realistic opportunity to sell that seat in the final 

days before the flight departs. Accordingly, we are modifying this provision to require carriers 

to hold the reservation for twenty-four hours only if a consumer makes the reservation one week 

(168 hours) or more prior to a flight’s scheduled departure. After that time, a carrier is no longer 

required to hold a reservation without payment for any period of time. The Department believes 

that this modification strikes the right balance between a consumer's desire to make travel plans 

and shop for a fare that meets his or her needs, and the carrier’s need for adequate time to sell 

seats on its flights. 

As for the remaining seven customer service requirements, we received very few 

comments on them and we are adopting them as proposed in the NPRM. These seven customer 

service requirements pertain to accommodating passengers with disabilities, meeting customers’ 

essential needs during lengthy tarmac delays, handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and 

consistency, disclosing cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft configuration, and 
73 

lavatory availability, notifying consumers of changes in their travel itineraries, ensuring 

responsiveness to customer complaints, and identifying the services the carrier provides to 

mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from flight cancellations and misconnections. In 

adopting these customer service commitments as proposed, we note our disagreement with 

comments stating that the requirement for carriers to notify consumers of itinerary changes 

should be limited to passengers who book their tickets directly with the carrier and not apply to 

passengers who book their tickets through a travel agent. A passenger has a right to know and 

benefit from knowing about changes in his/her itinerary whether that person purchased the ticket 

directly from a carrier or from a travel agent. We also disagree with comments that the 

disclosure of aircraft configuration be limited to the selling carrier’s website. While most 

consumers will have access to the Internet and be able to obtain this information from carriers’ 

websites, we also see benefit in requiring that aircraft configuration information be made 

available upon request from the selling carrier’s telephone reservations staff, particularly for 

those passengers who do not have access to the Internet or are not familiar with how to use it. 

With regard to the concern expressed by a carrier that it may be required to respond to 

complaints from non-passengers, we want to point out that “complaint” is defined in section 

259.7 as a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem which 

a person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services. 

C. Self-Auditing of Plan 

 The NPRM: The NPRM proposed that foreign air carriers audit their adherence to their 

customer service plan annually and make the results of their audits available for the 

Department’s review upon request for two years following the audit completion date. U.S. 
74 

carriers are already required to self-audit their plans and to make the audit results available for 

the Department’s review upon request for two years. 

Comments: Of the foreign carriers that commented, TAP Portugal opposes self-auditing 

and contends that it is too burdensome to audit a dozen service standards, some of which involve 

hundreds of activities performed on a daily basis. Similarly, British Airways opposes selfauditing customer service plans on the basis that the plans cover many services and involve 

different departments that are responsible for these services, and as such would necessitate 

coordination at significant additional costs. Qatar Airways states that global surveys regarding 

customer service standards already exist and audits specific to a limited number of international 

routes will not add value to consumers. Swiss International and Air Tahiti note that there is no 

guidance as to what a “self-audit” requires. 

A business travel organization supports requiring audits and states that its travel 

managers can provide their clients better protection on flights to and from the U.S. if they have 

this information available. Of the consumer groups, Flyersrights.org supports requiring foreign 

air carriers to audit customer service plans and thinks failure to adopt a plan, adhere to it, and 

make audit results available should be considered an unfair and deceptive practice. 

DOT Response: We have decided to adopt the self-auditing requirements as proposed in 

the NPRM. The final rule requires each carrier to audit its own adherence to its plan annually 

and to make the results of each audit available for the Department’s review upon request for two 

years afterwards. The Department believes that a system for verifying compliance with the 

customer service plans is essential. As noted in the first rule to enhance airline passenger 

protections, we believe that requiring covered carriers to audit their plans annually will further 

ensure that carriers will live up to their commitments. It will also enable an airline to quickly 
75 

take action if it learns that it is not in compliance with its customer service plans or if it is not 

effectively implementing its plan. A self-audit is essentially a system for the carrier to verify its 

compliance with its customer service plan. We are not requiring that such audits be conducted 

“at similar times in the year” or even that there be a single unified audit of all the subjects 

covered in the customer service plans, in order to allow each airline the flexibility to design an 

audit program that fits its particular operational environment. 

4. Contracts of Carriage 

The NPRM: This NPRM was the second time that the Department proposed 

requirements regarding incorporation of tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service 

plans into carriers’ contracts of carriage. In December 2008, the Department published in the 

Federal Register an NPRM proposing to require U.S. carriers to incorporate their tarmac delay 

contingency plans and customer service plans in their contracts of carriage, and make their 

contracts of carriage available on their websites. In December 2009, the Department issued a 

final rule where it decided not to require such incorporation. Instead, the Department strongly 

encouraged carriers to voluntarily incorporate the terms of their contingency plans and customer 

service plans in their contracts of carriage and required the carriers to post their plans and their 

contracts of carriage on their website. At that time, the Department also indicated its intention to 

address this matter again through rulemaking. 

In this proceeding, the Department again proposed to require carriers to include their 

tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans in their contracts of carriage, and for 

foreign air carriers that have a website to post their entire contract of carriage on their website in 

an easily accessible form. U.S. carriers are already required to post their contract of carriage on 

their website under the existing rule. 
76 

The Department again sought comment on whether incorporation of the contingency 

plans and customer service plans in the contract of carriage would give consumers notice of what 

might happen in the event of a long delay on the tarmac and of passengers’ rights under carriers’ 

customer service plans. As in the past, we asked commenters to address whether and to what 

extent requiring the incorporation of contingency plans in carriers’ contracts of carriage might 

weaken existing plans: that is, would the requirement encourage carriers to exclude certain key 

terms from their plans in order to avoid compromising their flexibility to deal with circumstances 

that can be both complex and unpredictable. 

Comments: RAA questions whether DOT has authority to impose a requirement for 

carriers to incorporate their tarmac delay contingency plans or customer service plans into their 

contracts of carriage. If the Department nevertheless adopts such a requirement, RAA states 

that it should not apply to regional carriers, as most regional passengers are subject to the 

ticketing carrier’s contract of carriage. 

 ATA contends that the Department would be exceeding its regulatory authority if it were 

to require that the contingency plans and customer service plans be incorporated into carriers’ 

contracts of carriage as a means of creating a private right of action. ATA asserts that Congress 

did not create a private right of action for violations of 49 U.S.C. §41712 and the Department 

cannot substitute a different enforcement process than the one Congress intended. ATA also 

states that the Department has failed to demonstrate how a carrier’s failure to incorporate either 

its tarmac delay contingency plan or its customer service plan in its contract of carriage could be 

viewed as an unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. §41712 . ATA points out that if the 

Department is interested in ensuring that passengers are more aware of their rights, then it should 
77 

be sufficient that both the contingency plan and customer service plan are available on carrier 

websites. 

 U.S. carriers that commented generally support ATA. For example, US Airways, like 

ATA, states that there is no reason to require incorporation of the contingency plans or customer 

service plans as U.S. carriers already post these plans on their websites. US Airways speculates 

that only a small percentage of visitors to its website review the page containing the Contract of 

Carriage, suggesting that the inclusion of the plans in carriers’ contracts of carriage would not 

increase passenger awareness of their rights. US Airways as well as other carriers are 

particularly concerned that this requirement would create a private right of action and subject 

airlines to a multitude of lawsuits in a variety of jurisdictions. 

Similar to the U.S. carriers and carrier association, foreign carriers and carrier 

associations strongly oppose the proposed requirement to incorporate plans into carriers’ 

contracts of carriage. IATA asserts that the DOT exceeds its authority in proposing this 

requirement and that it would substantially increase airlines’ legal costs. IATA also states that 

international airlines cannot be expected to adopt multiple contracts of carriage for each territory 

into and out of which they fly and that contracts of carriage are contracts between a carrier and 

all of its passengers, not just those that fly into the U.S. AEA generally supports and agrees with 

IATA. IACA states that placing contingency and customer service plans in a contract of carriage 

will make the contracts unreadable, as they are already detailed and will result in too much 

information for the consumer. IACA also states, similar to IATA, that for many airlines U.S. 

flights make up only a small share of the total flights, so it is inappropriate to incorporate 

information that is valid only for U.S. flights. IACA also notes that EU regulations already 
78 

require carriers to provide customers with details of their rights, so the proposal is superfluous 

and counterproductive. IACA suggests that foreign carriers be exempted from this requirement. 

 The foreign air carriers that commented generally support IATA. Many carriers note that 

rules already exist in their countries regarding customer service issues. For example, Virgin 

Atlantic notes that EC Reg 261/2004 already has passenger rights requirements covering delays 

and oversales. Others raised concerns about extraterritoriality. More specifically, JAL and TAP 

Portugal note concerns about the proposal as their Conditions of Carriage are reviewed and 

approved by their homeland regulator and any changes would need to be approved by those 

bodies. Qatar Airways states that there should be global harmonization of different government 

regulatory standards before such plans are incorporated in each carrier’s Contract of Carriage. 

Various carriers also expressed fears about the litigation risks that would exist. South African 

Airways notes that mandating terms of an airline's contract of carriage may improperly create a 

private right of action for minor lapses in service. Air France speculates that in order to avoid 

legal risks carriers may weaken plans if incorporation into carrier’s contract of carriage is 

required. Air France as well as many other carriers who object to the proposal assert, similar to 

IATA, that the Department does not have authority to impose this requirement. In a similar 

fashion, Lufthansa strongly opposes the proposal and fully supports ATA’s and IATA’s 

comments, as do Alitalia, British Airways and various other foreign carriers. 

While most foreign air carriers are opposed to including the plans in their contract of 

carriage, a number of them did support the idea of placing the contingency plans and customer 

service plans on their respective websites or state that they have already done so. For example, 

Air France and KLM agree that the plans could be placed on a website. Virgin Atlantic states 

that its Conditions of Carriage are based on IATA standards and are available on its website, as 
79 

does Qatar Airways. In addition, Virgin Atlantic suggests that contingency plans and customer 

service plans be provided, where there is a specific situation, to an affected passenger. South 

African Airways makes similar comments. 

Of the consumer groups that commented, CTA and AAPR generally support the proposal 

to include tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service plans in a carrier’s contract of 

carriage, or in the alternative on their websites. CTA also states that code-share rules should be 

included in the contract of carriage. Flyersrights.org, and its individual members that filed 

comments, support the proposal that carriers place both the tarmac delay contingency plans and 

the customer service plans in their contracts of carriage. The organization warns, however, that 

requiring carriers to incorporate plans into their contracts of carriage may result in carriers 

excluding key terms from the plan so as to make the plans unenforceable and asks that the 

Department review and monitor the plans. 

DOT Response: Having considered all the comments, the Department has decided not to 

adopt the proposal requiring U.S. and foreign carriers to include their contingency plans and 

customer service plans in their contracts of carriage. In making this decision, we note that some 

carriers have voluntarily put not only their customer service plans but also their tarmac delay 

contingency plans into their contracts of carriage since we issued the first rule to enhance airline 

passenger protections. We will continue to monitor whether other carriers choose to do so, as 

well as determine if we need to revisit this issue in the future should a problem exist. 

Further, with regard to the need to incorporate customer service plans into the contract of 

carriage, the Department believes that our decision to set minimum standards for the provisions 

in a carrier’s customer service plan gives consumers more certainty as to the quality and types of 

services they can expect. In addition, these minimum standards may make it easier for a 
80 

consumer to demonstrate to the Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office that a carrier has 

violated the law when that carrier does not meet its standard of service commitment as the 

requirements of the customer service plans are more exacting than in the past. If the minimum 

standards are not met by a given carrier, the Department can determine if enforcement action is 

appropriate in a given situation. 

Although we are not requiring tarmac delay contingency plans and customer service 

plans to be incorporated in contracts of carriage, the Department has decided to require foreign 

carriers to post their tarmac delay contingency plans, customer service plans and contracts of 

carriage on their websites. The December 2009 rule to enhance airline passenger protections 

already requires U.S. carriers to post these plans on their websites. The purpose of this 

requirement is to ensure that interested consumers can easily review an airline’s contract of 

carriage, customer service plan, and/or tarmac delay contingency plan. By having the ability to 

review these documents, consumers can find out an airline’s stated obligations to passengers and 

be better informed about their rights and a carrier’s responsibilities before purchasing tickets and 

whenever problems occur (for example, the passenger’s rights and carrier’s responsibilities if an 

airline delays or cancels a flight or loses a bag). The Department believes that having the plans 

and contracts of carriage on websites will lead to a better informed consumer. The 

Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office will periodically monitor carriers’ websites to ensure 

that the required information is available. 

5. Response to Consumer Problems

A. Designated Advocates for Passengers’ Interests 

 The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require foreign air carriers that operate scheduled 

passenger service to and from the United States using any aircraft with 30 or more seats to 

designate an employee who will be responsible for monitoring the effects of flight delays, flight 
81 

cancellations and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. We proposed that this employee have 

input into decisions about which flights to cancel and which will be delayed the longest. U.S. 

carriers must comply with this requirement under the existing rules. 

Comments: IATA, IACA, and AEA generally state that the proposal to designate an 

advocate for passenger interests intervenes too much in an airline’s operation as airlines organize 

themselves differently to monitor operational issues and address customer concerns. Lufthansa 

opposes this proposal and comments that the decision to designate an employee to monitor the 

effects of irregular operations should be left to the discretion of each carrier. Similarly, Air 

Tahiti states that requiring dedicated staff to monitor delays improperly interferes with internal 

airline operations. JAL does not think it makes sense to designate an employee for a nonproblem and asks for additional information and clarification regarding the employee’s 

responsibilities. Swiss International states that this proposal is a substantial burden and believes 

that one individual may not be effective because each airport has its own issues, so splitting these 

tasks makes more sense and would result in better data. The carrier urges the Department to 

require each airport to designate an employee responsible for monitoring delays and coordinate 

with carriers to reduce delays. Air France and KLM oppose this requirement and explain that it 

has limited resources in the U.S. to fulfill any such new role and contends that this requirement 

would impose substantial costs on foreign carriers. Air France and KLM state that, if this 

proposal is implemented, the Department should permit foreign carriers to comply by having an 

off-site employee in a specific department who is accessible by a specific telephone number 

assist in such matters, and by providing this advocacy only in the principal language of the 

carrier’s homeland (French for Air France, Dutch for KLM) and in English. Of the travel agent 

interests that commented, ASTA generally supports the proposal to have a designated employee, 
82 

but does not believe the employee should have to be available in the U.S. as long as he or she is 

accessible. We received a few comments from consumers and consumer groups, all of whom 

generally support the proposals. 

DOT Response: The final rule requires foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to designate an 

employee to monitor the effects of flight delays, flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays 

on passengers and to have input into decisions on which flights to cancel and which will be 

delayed the longest. It applies to all of a covered foreign carrier’s scheduled flights to and from 

the United States, including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates 

any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to/from the U.S. 

 We are not persuaded by commenters that the Department is excessively intervening in 

an airline’s operation by requiring an employee or employees be designated to monitor 

performance of flights and that these employees have input into decisions such as which flights 

are cancelled or subject to the longest delays. Additionally, we have taken note of foreign 

carriers' concerns regarding the potential lack of carrier personnel located in the United States or 

at specific airports where the carrier does not have a large presence. We are not requiring that 

the employees responsible for monitoring irregular flight operations be located at a U.S. airport. 

As has been permitted for covered U.S. carriers, foreign carriers can determine where its 

employees are located, as long as the designated employees can monitor flight delays and 

cancellations for the carriers’ flights to and from the U.S. throughout the carriers’ system and 

have input into decisions regarding how to best meet the needs of passengers affected by any 

irregular operations. This requirement is intended to ensure that passenger interests are 

considered by carriers when decisions on irregular flight operations are made. We are not 
83 

requiring that the designated employees make themselves available to speak with airport 

personnel or passengers and certainly are not prescribing the language to be used by the 

designated airline employees. By adopting this performance standard, the Department leaves it 

up to each carrier to determine the most efficient and effective method to monitor the effects of 

flight delays and cancellations (for example, designating one or more individuals at its systems 

operations center). This rule does not require carriers to hire new employees to comply with 

this provision as these responsibilities may be borne by current employees in addition to their 

other responsibilities. 

B. Informing Consumers How to Complain 

 The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a foreign air carrier that operates scheduled 

passenger service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats would 

be required to inform consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier (name of department, 

address, and email or web-mail address) on its website, on all e-ticket confirmations, and, upon 

request, at each ticket counter and gate. 

Comments: As with other sections of this proposal, carrier association commenters, such 

IATA, IACA, and AEA, generally state that the proposal to inform consumers how to complain 

unnecessarily and excessively intervenes in an airline’s operations. Many foreign carriers 

concur. For example, Qantas and JetStar state that if a carrier has given a consumer reasonable 

access for lodging complaints, there is no need for the Department to mandate a particular form 

of communication. Qatar Airways, among others, notes that foreign carriers already offer 

passengers a number of means by which to file a complaint. 

Foreign carriers and carrier associations also oppose the requirement to inform 

consumers how to complain as an extraterritorial application of U.S. law. IATA asserts that this 
84 

requirement would violate the Chicago Convention and U.S. Open Skies Agreement as it would 

necessitate foreign carriers modifying procedures and operations that take place outside the U.S. 

to meet U.S. regulatory requirements. For example, IATA states that this requirement would 

mandate that foreign carriers modify their home websites and foreign-issued tickets to include 

information mandated by the Department. 

NBTA generally supports the provisions, as do Consumers Union and AAPR. 

Flyersrights.org, in addition to supporting a requirement for foreign airlines to make the mailing 

address and email or web address for filing a complaint available on their website and e-ticket 

confirmations, thinks there should be contact information for the Department’s Aviation 

Consumer Protection Division on e-ticket confirmations and boarding passes. 

DOT Response: The Department is extending this provision to foreign carriers as 

proposed in the NPRM, with some clarifications to address concerns about extraterritoriality. 

First, we are requiring foreign carriers to inform consumers how to complain, upon request, at 

each ticket counter and boarding gate at U.S. airports. We are not seeking to govern the 

activities of foreign carriers outside the United States. U.S. carriers are still required to inform 

consumers how to complain upon request at all ticket counters and boarding gates staffed by the 

carrier or a contractor of the carrier, whether or not those locations are within the U.S. We are 

also specifying that the requirement to make information about how to file a complaint available 

on a carrier’s website applies to a foreign carrier only if its website markets to U.S. consumers. 

Foreign carriers would not need to modify their home websites to ensure that they are complying 

with this requirement unless those sites market to U.S. consumers. We expect foreign carriers to 

follow U.S. law in the U.S. when marketing within the U.S. and when flights are entering, 

operating within or departing from the U.S. 
85 

Also, while we acknowledge foreign commenters' concerns with the Department 

mandating avenues by which a consumer can file a complaint, we believe it is important that 

consumers have more than one avenue for registering their service-related concerns. As 

commenters note, since some foreign carriers already provide a number of means by which to 

file a complaint, the requirements of this rule should not prove overly burdensome. As with the 

December 2009 rule to enhance airline passenger protections, this rule requires carriers to only 

provide passengers their email or web-form address and their mailing address. We did not 

propose and are not now requiring that carriers provide passengers a telephone number for 

complaint calls because of concerns that telephone “talk time” would impose a high cost on 

airlines when there are other more-efficient and effective complaint processing methods 

available. Of course, in addition to accepting complaints through the Internet and postal mail, 

airlines are free to voluntarily accept customer complaints through other methods such as 

telephone. We also point out that, as is currently allowed for U.S. carriers, a foreign carrier can 

comply with the requirement to provide contact information on an e-ticket confirmation or 

itinerary by including a link to a website containing the complaint information in lieu of 

displaying the entire text of the contact information, which will take up even less space on an eticket and reduce cost. It is our opinion that requiring complaint contact information on e-tickets 

and, upon request, at each ticket counter and boarding gate instead of just on websites will be 

beneficial to consumers since a large number of passengers do not have access to the Internet 

while traveling and would not be able to access the complaint contact information through the 

airlines’ websites. 

We are not adopting the suggestion that carriers be required to provide consumers 

information as a general matter on how to file complaints with DOT. That suggestion is beyond 
86 

the scope of the notice and is not wise since it might direct consumers away from contacting 

carriers that are in the best position to quickly resolve problems. 

C. Responding to Consumer Complaints 

The NPRM: Under the NPRM, a foreign air carrier that operates scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats would be 

required to acknowledge receipt of a complaint within 30 days of receiving it and send a 

substantive response to each complainant within 60 days of receiving it. We proposed to define 

a complaint as a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem 

which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services. We solicited 

comments on any operational difficulties U.S. and foreign airlines may face in responding to 

such complaints when received through social networking mediums such as Facebook and 

Twitter. 

Comments: We received a number of comments on this issue from foreign carriers and 

carrier associations, some of whom supported this requirement. IATA, IACA, AEA, and many 

foreign carriers generally state that the proposal to respond to consumer complaints within a set 

timeframe excessively intervenes into an airline’s business practices and disregards procedures 

carriers already have in place to respond to consumer complaints. They also contend that the 

Department has not shown that this type of requirement is needed. More specifically, British 

Airways notes that the timeline is unnecessary and overly burdensome and would force carriers 

to divert personnel to unnecessary administrative and recordkeeping functions. Qantas states 

that it does not see the need to single out the airline industry for mandatory requirements related 

to customer response times and that the carrier already aims to provide substantive responses in 

less than 60 days. IATA suggests that, if adopted, any final rule should include a provision 
87 

allowing an airline to stop the clock by providing a provisional response. Lufthansa makes a 

similar suggestion that the Department allow for a “provisional” response to a customer’s 

concerns within the 60 day time frame in the event it cannot provide a full detailed response. A 

number of carriers such as Virgin Atlantic also recommend that any final rule adopted include an 

exception to the time frame established to respond to complaints for extraordinary 

circumstances, such as the Icelandic volcano incident, as the volume of complaints resulting 

from such events requires a longer response time. 

Some carriers generally agree with the proposal or note that they respond to consumers in 

a shorter time period. For example, Singapore Airlines states that it would not oppose the 

Department’s proposal to provide a substantive response in 60 days if complaints are limited to 

actual customers and flights to or from the U.S. Japan Airlines states that its response time of 14 

days surpasses the Department’s proposal and that it has many mediums by which passengers 

can contact it. Air France notes that it tries to reply to complaints within 28 days. Virgin 

Atlantic states that it already has a robust complaint handling process and generally replies to all 

written complaints within 28 days of receipt. Air New Zealand states that the suggested 

timeframes to respond to complaints are generous. 

 A number of carriers expressed concern regarding the definition of a complaint. Swiss 

International states that complaints need to include the passenger’s name, mailing address or 

email address, a copy of the ticket or boarding pass and the applicable flight number. Qatar 

Airways generally supports the principles stated in the NPRM, but states that it should only have 

to respond to complaints from passengers who use its service, i.e., the definition of a complaint 

should be limited to a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using an 

airline’s service. Similarly, South African Airways and Condor state the proposal as drafted is 
88 

burdensome and flawed because carriers would have to respond in 60 days to both customers and 

anyone else that “attempted” to use their service. They also note that the proposal fails to give 

carriers any discretion in refusing to respond to repetitive or frivolous complaints. With regard 

to complaints received through social networking mediums, U.S. and foreign carriers and carrier 

associations all oppose any mandate to communicate to passengers through such mediums. They 

recommend that the definition of complaint exclude complaints sent by passengers to carriers’ 

Facebook or Twitter accounts. 

The consumers and consumer groups that commented generally support requiring carriers 

to acknowledge and respond to complaints within the time frame set forth in the NPRM. 

Flyersrights.org states that U.S. passengers should have an avenue to file a complaint with a 

foreign carrier and to expect a timely and substantive response. CTA states that U.S. airline 

customer service personnel should be responsible for handling any foreign alliance partner 

complaint and believes there should be a clear way to contact foreign carriers through the 

Internet or by telephone number provided on the homepage of the airline. Very few consumers 

or consumer groups commented on the issue of complaints sent through social networking sites. 

Of those that did, AAPR states that social networking sites are not an appropriate venue for filing 

complaints though it supports the requirement for foreign carriers to acknowledge a complaint 

within 30 days and send a substantive response within 60 days, as does the NBTA. 

 DOT Response: We have decided to require foreign carriers to acknowledge receipt of a 

complaint within 30 days and provide a substantive response to passengers within 60 days, as is 

currently required of U.S. carriers. We believe that 30 days to acknowledge a complaint and 60 

days to provide a passenger with a substantive response allows carriers adequate time to 

investigate and respond appropriately. We are not convinced by arguments put forth by 
89 

commenters that suggest 60 days is not enough time to provide a substantive response. We note 

that more than one carrier suggests that 60 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to 

respond. 

 We acknowledge and agree with industry commenters that it may not be possible in all 

instances to provide a final reply to a passenger within 60 days. The rule speaks of a substantive 

reply, which is not necessarily a final reply. By substantive response, we mean a response that 

addresses the specific problems about which the consumer has complained. This type of 

response often but not always results in a resolution of the complaint. If a carrier is actively 

investigating a complex complaint and is not able to conclude the investigation within 60 days, it 

is still likely to know more at the 60-day point than it did when it acknowledged the complaint. 

The airline can update the complainant with all known information prior to the 60-day mark by 

sending a substantive response, continue its investigation, and thereafter send the final reply 

later. Regarding carriers' suggestions for an exception for complaints concerning unusual events 

such as the Icelandic volcano, the Department believes that such an exception is not necessary as 

many consumers complain about similar issues associated with such events (e.g., delays, 

cancellations) and carriers generally create form letters in which to respond substantively to most 

such complaints. 

 As for the definition of a complaint to which carriers must respond, the Department 

continues to believe that it is important that this definition include not just problems which a 

person experiences when using an airline’s services but also problems encountered by a person 

attempting to use an airline’s services (for example, if he or she had problems while attempting 

to book or cancel a flight on the carrier’s website). Carriers are not required to respond to 

general complaints from members of the public. We are requiring a carrier to respond to 
90 

complaints from individuals that had a problem when they used or attempted to use its services. 

As with other portions of this section, foreign air carriers are only required to respond to 

complaints from consumers that are related to a carrier’s services being marketed in the U.S. and 

its flight to or from the U.S. 

 We are persuaded by the commenters that the Department should not mandate that U.S. 

and foreign carriers respond to complaints sent through social networking sites. Carriers do use 

such sites to invite the public to communicate with them and perhaps even to monitor public 

opinion about their practices. However, we can appreciate concerns that such sites are not 

intended to be a mechanism for handling individual consumer complaints. In recognition of 

these somewhat competing interests, the final rule makes it clear that U.S. and foreign carriers 

need not to respond to such complaints so long as (1) the carrier's primary page on that social 

networking site clearly indicates that it will not reply to complaints filed via that medium, and 

(2) on that page the carrier directs the consumer to the mailing address, e-mail address, or 

website location for filing written complaints. The Department believes this approach takes into 

account the difference between social networking sites and the traditional one-on-one methods of 

text communication (e.g. a letter, email, printed complaint form, or Internet complaint form) 

while ensuring passengers know how to file a complaint that will result in a response from the 

carrier. 

 6. Oversales

A. Denied Boarding Compensation limits, rates, and CPI-U adjuster 

 The NPRM: We proposed to increase the minimum for denied boarding compensation 

(DBC) limits from the current amounts of $400 or $800 depending on the length of the bumped 

passenger's delay to $650/$1,300 to take into account fully the increase in the Consumer Price 
91 

Index – All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) since 1978. We also proposed to implement an inflation 

adjuster for these minimum DBC limits. We sought comments on whether the proposed 

increases in the DBC limits and the periodic adjustment are called for and, if so, whether the 

increased amounts are reasonable. We asked whether we should completely eliminate the DBC 

limits and require carriers to pay DBC based on 100%/200% of a passenger’s fare without limit, 

and whether the current 100%/200% formula (depending again on the length of the bumped 

passenger's delay) should be increased to, for example, 200%/400% of a passenger’s fare. 

Comments: Eighteen individuals and consumer organizations, in addition to over 60 

individuals who participated on the Regulation Room website, provided comments on the 

oversales proposals. The majority of these commenters support increasing DBC limits. Some 

commenters, however, oppose calculating DBC amounts based on the passenger’s fare, arguing 

that it will provide carriers an incentive to bump passengers with the lowest fare. As an 

alternative, one individual suggests that DBC should be based on a fixed amount. Another 

commenter suggests that DBC amounts should be based on the length of delay. 

A number of individual commenters go further by suggesting that the Department should 

abandon the oversales rule and ban oversales. These commenters reason that a ticket is a 

contract between a passenger and a carrier and that when the carrier cannot honor the ticket, it 

should run a bid or auction by continuously increasing the offer to volunteers until enough 

volunteers come forward. Most commenters on Regulation Room support eliminating DBC 

limits though a number of these commenters support a DBC amount based on 200%/400% of the 

passenger’s fare instead of the current 100%/200% of the passenger’s fare. 

Among the few individual commenters who oppose increasing DBC limits, one 

commenter questions whether raising DBC limits would result in the reduction of the number of 
92 

passengers being bumped. Another commenter states that increasing DBC limits to $650/$1,300 

would only benefit passengers whose fare is more than the current limits (i.e., $400/$800 one 

way). One commenter is concerned about the possibility that in response to the raised DBC 

limits and amounts, carriers would increase the required check-in time for the purpose of being 

eligible for DBC. 

We also received comments on a variety of other issues. With respect to the proposed biannual adjustment on DBC amounts based on CPI-U, Consumers Union as well as several 

commenters on Regulation Room expressed their full support for the proposal. FlyersRights.org 

suggests that we should declare it to be a deceptive practice to give boarding priority to 

passengers who checked in later but paid a higher fare. In addition, FlyersRights.org 

recommends that we ask carriers to increase offers to passengers solicited to volunteer. 

 Nine U.S. carriers and carrier associations as well as 27 foreign carriers and carrier 

associations commented on the oversales proposals. ATA states that it does not oppose the 

proposed increase to the DBC limits to $650/$1,300 but questions the effectiveness of such an 

increase in reducing the number of passengers being involuntarily bumped. According to ATA, 

increasing DBC limits may provide incentives to passengers who would have otherwise 

volunteered to hold out, hoping to be bumped involuntarily. ATA opposes eliminating the DBC 

limits, contending that DBC is meant to compensate passengers for the loss of time only, because 

passengers retain the value of the fare by accepting alternate transportation provided by carriers. 

Delta Air Lines does not oppose the proposed increase of DBC limits but suggests that the new 

DBC limits should not be applied to airfare purchases that occur before the effective date of the 

final rule. On the other hand, the Regional Airline Association (RAA) opposes the increase of 
93 

DBC limits to $650/$1,300, asserting that these increases far exceed the costs of most regional 

airfares. 

 Southwest Airlines asserts that the current 100%/200% of one-way fare formula works 

well and if the Department worries about the impact of fare unbundling practices on the DBC 

value, it should require that the carriers refund all ancillary fees in the event of oversales, instead 

of raising the 100%/200% rates to 200%/400%. RAA avers that the DBC limits should be 

100%/200% of the fare, and any adjustment to DBC limits should be based on fare changes. 

Spirit Airlines and Virgin America both oppose the increase of DBC limits, questioning the 

economic soundness of such increases. Virgin America argues that the new proposal is a 

departure from the hybrid calculation method that the Department established in 2008. Virgin 

America also points out that in 2007 the Department rejected the proposal to implement a CPIbased adjuster on the DBC limits. Spirit Airlines takes a similar position as Virgin America and 

further contends that as a result of the proposal, many consumers will be harmed by increased 

fares due to the windfall that the new DBC proposal will provide to a small number of 

passengers. 

 The majority of foreign carriers and carrier associations oppose the proposed increase in 

the DBC limits to $650/$1,300. Several commenters argue that increasing DBC limits will 

reduce the number of passengers who volunteer to be denied boarding and in turn increase the 

number of passengers who are involuntarily bumped, a result that is counter to the goal of the 

oversales rule. Some commenters contend that the Department has failed to provide evidence 

showing that the current DBC amounts are inadequate and also failed to recognize that air fares 

have decreased in “real” terms during the past decade. IATA and several foreign carriers 

operating long haul international flights to and from the U.S. raise the concern that passengers on 
94 

those flights will most likely get the higher limit of $1,300 in an oversales situation due to the 

infrequent schedule, and these passengers, according the commenters, will get a windfall for 

their mild inconvenience. Some long haul carriers also insist that the Department’s proposal is 

aimed at addressing the fare unbundling practice by most U.S. carriers and these foreign carriers’ 

bundled fares would be subject to inequitable and discriminatory treatment under this proposal. 

IATA further comments that the proposed $1,300 DBC limit is disproportionate to the value of 

time that a passenger denied boarding involuntarily may lose due to the delay. The Air 

Transportation Association of Canada and National Airline Council of Canada, on the other 

hand, argue that the increased DBC limits will penalize foreign carriers operating short flights, as 

these limits far exceed the cost of air fare for those flights. IACA argues that the proposal 

interferes with the European Union (EU) laws and may create uncertainty for carriers and 

passengers. Several European carriers suggest that the U.S. oversales rule should be harmonized 

with the EU rule. 

 The majority of foreign carrier commenters firmly oppose eliminating DBC limits, 

averring that without a limit, the DBC amounts would be exorbitant, especially for many longhaul carriers who do not unbundle fares. Virgin Atlantic and Air New Zealand prefer a fixed 

amount for all involuntary denied boarding situations, reasoning that this approach will avoid the 

complexity in calculating DBC amounts based on fares. 

 Most foreign carrier commenters also oppose the CPI-based bi-annual adjuster, arguing 

that air fare changes in the past are not related to CPI. The National Airlines Council of Canada 

argues that the proposal ignores the fact that fares paid by passengers are significantly lower than 

what they were ten or fifteen years ago, accounting for the inflation. Qantas and JetStar Airways 
95 

state that the interval for the CPI-U based adjuster should be every five years instead of two 

years to avoid excessive administrative costs to implement the changes. 

 DOT Response: With respect to the DBC limits increase, we have come to the 

conclusion that the proposed $650/$1,300 amounts are not only reasonable but also necessary. 

We disagree with carriers’ remarks that the increase in the DBC limits is a disincentive for 

passengers to volunteer for denied boarding and will result in an increase in the number or rate of 

passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding. To the contrary, if the DBC limits are 

increased, carriers will have a greater incentive to seek volunteers through increasing the value 

of the compensation they offer to volunteers in order to avoid the higher DBC payments to 

involuntarily bumped passengers. The ultimate result is that involuntary denied boarding should 

decrease while both volunteers and passengers who must involuntarily be denied boarding will 

receive increased compensation that more accurately reflects their inconvenience. 

 Although it is our firm belief that the DBC limits at the level of $400/$800 tend to be 

insufficient to compensate the passengers who are involuntarily denied boarding for their 

inconvenience and loss of time, we maintain that the basic structure of the regulatory regime for 

oversales remains sound. In that regard, we are declining to adopt the suggestion of some 

commenters that the Department should eliminate involuntary denied boarding and require 

carriers to run auctions until they obtain sufficient numbers of volunteers. As we have 

repeatedly stated in the past, the benefits to most consumers of a well-controlled oversales 

system outweigh the inconvenience experienced by a few. By contrast, an unlimited auction 

system could increase the cost of oversales to carriers to a prohibitive level, which would cause 

airlines to be much more conservative in overbooking flights. Considering the reduced schedule 

frequency and capacity during recent years, such an approach would result in fewer affordable 
96 

seats being available to the public in general. Running an unlimited auction for volunteers is 

both time-consuming and complex, and requiring such a system may impose other negative 

impacts on all passengers, such as causing more flight delays, increasing the number of 

misconnections, and requiring earlier check-in times. 

We are also not adopting some consumer commenters’ suggestion that we should set a 

minimum standard for the amount of compensation offered to passengers solicited to volunteer 

for denied boarding. We maintain that other than the requirement that carriers must solicit 

volunteers before bumping any passengers involuntarily, the procedures for solicitation of 

volunteers and the amounts of incentive offered to potential volunteers should remain within 

carriers’ discretion because this aspect of the system has worked well. The Department believes 

that the involuntary DBC rates and limits set by the regulation are effective tools to motivate 

carriers to offer adequate compensation for volunteers. 

 This final rule also provides that carriers must pay DBC equal to 200%/400% of the fare 

based on the length of delay experienced by passengers up to the maximum of $650/$1,300. We 

are unconvinced by the argument of some industry commenters that the regulatory mandated 

DBC limits should not be increased because airfares have not increased “in real terms.” 

Although the “fare,” in terms of the dollar amount reflected on a passenger’s ticket confirmation 

or ticket receipt, may not seem to be increasing over the past decade, the actual cost for a 

passenger to travel by air, however, has indeed increased. Such increase in air travel cost is not 

reflected in the base ticket prices that are used as the basis for calculating DBC amounts. The 

increase of the cost to passengers is evident by the fact that a passenger now must pay, in 

addition to the base airfare, for many items that were included in the fare before the unbundling 

practice became widespread, such as for checked baggage, food and beverage, in-flight 
97 

entertainment, preferred seating, advance seat selection, telephone reservations, etc. It is the 

Department’s view that carriers may continue to explore other ways to further unbundle fares, 

thus leading to base ticket prices staying flat or declining. The Department believes that DBC 

amounts based on 100%/200% of the base fare are no longer adequate, under many 

circumstances, to address the inconvenience and consequential damages suffered by passengers 

who are denied boarding involuntarily, especially passengers who purchased the most deeply 

discounted fares, and who, by virtue of the low fares, are most likely to be selected as the 

candidates for involuntary denied boarding. Realistic DBC rates are also a necessary incentive 

to encourage careful overbooking practices on the part of carriers. Precisely for these reasons, 

we are raising the 100%/200% rates in the involuntary DBC calculation to 200%/400%. In our 

opinion, this new formula, in conjunction with the raised DBC limits of $650/$1,300, strikes a 

balance between permitting carriers to continue to overbook flights, but limiting the carriers’ 

financial burden from compensating passengers due to oversales, and adequately protecting 

passengers’ interests in oversales situations. 

 We are aware that the amended DBC formula and limits may have a larger impact on 

carriers operating regional and international short-haul flights, because these flights’ base fares 

are lower in general than the fares of long haul flights. RAA has argued in its comments that the 

DBC amounts should be based on 100%/200% of the fare and that the $650/$1,300 limits far 

exceed the costs of tickets on most regional flights. Several Canadian carriers and carrier 

associations also contended that the oversales rule as proposed unfairly discriminates against 

carriers operating shorter flights by requiring the same limits of compensation depending on the 

length of delay, regardless of the length of the flights from which the passengers were 

involuntarily denied boarding. The Department has fully considered these comments but remains 
98 

unconvinced that the consequences of our amendment would be detrimental to these carriers. It 

is important to understand that the $650/$1,300 limits come into play only when the DBC 

formula would cause a passenger's DBC to exceed the limit. To the extent the fare paid by a 

passenger is low, the new $650/$1,300 limits have no effect. Fares in the $49-$59 range are still 

regularly sold and even under the 400% calculation formula, the DBC amounts would not even 

come close to the $800 limit under the previous rule. Furthermore, compared to long-haul flights 

that are usually less frequently scheduled, regional and low cost carriers typically have more 

options with regard to finding alternate transportation in a timely fashion for passengers who are 

denied boarding involuntarily. Thus, passengers on these short haul flights often have a better 

chance of getting to their destination or the next stopover without extensive delay. 

Consequently, regional and low cost carriers have a better chance of limiting their DBC exposure 

to the lower rate of 200% of the fare with a $650 limit. 

To ensure that there isn’t any confusion as to how DBC is calculated, we have added a 

definition for “fare” in section 250.1. Under this definition, carriers do not need to take into 

account any ancillary fees and/or charges for optional service paid by passengers when 

calculating DBC amounts based on the passenger’s fare. In relation to this definition, however, 

we emphasize in section 250.5 that when a passenger is denied boarding involuntarily, the carrier 

must refund all unused ancillary fees paid by that passenger. Carriers do not have to refund any 

ancillary fees that will be applied to the alternate transportation to the extent those same services 

are provided to the passenger. For instance, when a passenger denied boarding involuntarily has 

paid for seat selection and checked baggage for the original flight, the passenger should receive a 

refund for the seat selection fee if the alternate transportation arranged by the carrier does not 

allow the passenger to select his/her seat. Conversely, the carrier does not need to refund the 
99 

checked baggage fee if the passenger was able to check in the same number of bags for the 

substitute flight at no additional cost. 

 We are also clarifying the meaning of the term “minimum DBC amounts” in this final 

rule as some commenters seem to be confused by the term. These commenters believe that the 

Department is mistaken in referring in the NPRM preamble to “minimum” DBC amounts when 

it should be referring to “maximum” DBC amounts. We recognize that the source of the 

confusion was the term “maximum” used in the rule text under section 250.5. The term 

“minimum DBC amounts” as used in the preamble of the NPRM refers to the lowest amount of 

DBC that is due an involuntarily oversold passenger when the DBC calculation based on the 

passenger's one-way fare results in an amount exceeding the DBC limits (previously $400/$800 

and increased to $650/$1,300 in this Final Rule). For example, when a passenger on a domestic 

flight who paid $550 one-way for a non-stop flight is delayed for 1 hour 20 minutes due to 

having been involuntary denied boarding, the initial calculation of DBC due is based on 200% of 

the fare, which amounts to $1,100. However, the maximum amount of DBC a carrier is required 

to pay this passenger under our rule would be $650. We continue to use the term “maximum” in 

the rule text. Accordingly, in order to avoid further confusion, we have used the term “DBC 

limits” instead of the term “minimum DBC amounts” in the preamble of this final rule. 

 With regard to an automatic inflation adjustor for DBC limits, the Department has 

decided to adopt the proposed bi-annual adjustment on DBC limits. In doing so, we note our 

disagreement with some carriers’ comments that such an adjuster is not justified because air fares 

do not reflect changes in the CPI-U. DBC is not meant to fully compensate passengers for the 

loss of transportation, because carriers are obligated to offer alternate transportation for the 

passengers or refund the passengers’ fare; therefore, fare value change is not directly relevant. 
100 

DBC is meant as a form of liquidated damages to compensate passengers for their 

inconvenience, loss of time, and other incidental and consequential costs associated with the 

delay (e.g., food, lodging, ground transportation, communication etc.). To simplify the DBC 

calculation and to expedite the process, the Department uses a formula that is tied to the one-way 

airfare paid by the passenger, which does not necessarily mean DBC amounts should be changed 

according to the levels at which the average airfare has changed. We observe that the costs for 

food, lodging and other accommodations and commodities passengers need in an oversales 

situation have all increased in correlation with inflation. In addition, as noted in the NPRM and 

further discussed above, the actual total cost of flying is likely to have increased, while what is 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘fare’’ may not have increased or increased as much as a result of 

the carriers’ current practice of unbundling fares, i.e., charging extra for services once provided 

as part of the airfare. Our decision to adopt the bi-annual inflation adjustment provision for DBC 

limits is also not contradictory to our decision made two years ago that we would take up the 

issue de novo. We have indeed taken a fresh look at the issue during this rulemaking and 

ultimately reached the conclusion that the bi-annual inflation adjustment is the most efficient 

way to address the impact of inflation on the DBC limits. 

 We are also addressing the issue of airline travel vouchers vis-à-vis DBC in this final 

rule. Carriers frequently offer free or reduced-rate air transportation, most commonly in the form 

of airline travel vouchers, to passengers denied boarding involuntarily as an alternative to the 

cash or check DBC payment required by our rule. Our previous rule required that the value of 

such a voucher must be equal to or greater than the cash or check DBC payment otherwise 

required. One issue we did not address in the previous rule is whether any mandatory fees, such 

as service fees, that some carriers charge for using the voucher should be taken into account 
101 

when considering the value of the benefit of the voucher offered. In this final rule, we clarify 

that any fees that passengers must pay in order to use the voucher for future travel must be 

considered when determining the value of the voucher. For instance, if the cash or check DBC 

payment for a passenger involuntarily denied boarding is required to be $400 under the 

200%/400% calculation, and the passenger agrees to accept a travel voucher in lieu of that cash 

or check payment and there is a service fee of $50 to redeem the voucher, the minimum voucher 

value that the carrier must offer to the passenger is $450. The carrier must inform passengers, 

whether volunteers or involuntarily oversold, of any restrictions imposed on the use of the 

voucher. In addition, as described in detail below, it is unfair and deceptive for a carrier to offer 

a travel voucher as compensation, particularly in an oversale situation, without advising the 

person to whom the voucher is offered of any restrictions that may apply to the use of the 

voucher, such as service fees to redeem the voucher, and advance notice requirements or 

expiration dates. 

 Finally, we have made non-substantive revisions to the text of sections 250.5 and 250.9 

in order to provide the most straightforward explanations of the methodology applicable under 

different circumstances for calculating DBC amounts. In a counterintuitive way, the previous 

rule describes the maximum DBC rate (200% at that time) and then states the circumstances 

under which the DBC amount will be reduced by half. We have encountered confusion on the 

part of both carriers and the public regarding this somewhat convoluted description. In this final 

rule, we discuss the DBC calculation for domestic flights and for international flights separately. 

In each category, we specify the amounts of DBC required under each of the three circumstances 

based on the length of delays incurred by a passenger using alternate transportation due to the 

involuntary denied boarding: no compensation; 200% of the fare subject to the $650 limit; and 
102 

400% of fare subject to the $1,300 limit. These categories and classifications are summarized in 

the two tables that we added in the written notice that carriers must provide to passengers who 

are denied boarding involuntarily and to anyone else upon request. These tables are meant to be 

used by carriers as a quick reference to assist bumped passengers so they can better understand 

the DBC limits and calculations when those passengers may be confused and under time pressure 

during an involuntary bumping situation. 

 We have also added a definition for “alternate transportation” in section 250.1 to capture 

the two components of this term. The first component is what was described as “comparable air 

transportation” under the previous rule. In order to qualify as “alternate transportation” and 

consequently allow the carrier to limit its DBC exposure to less than the 400% rate, any air 

transportation offered to passengers involuntarily denied boarding as a substitute for the original 

flight must be operated by a carrier as defined in Part 250, i.e., a U.S. certificated or commuter 

air carrier or a foreign carrier that has been duly authorized by the Department to operate 

scheduled air services. Thus, if the carrier offered a substitute flight operated by an air taxi 

operator that is not a commuter carrier, that flight would not qualify as “alternate transportation.” 

Furthermore, in order to qualify as "alternate transportation" carriers must offer a confirmed 

reservation on that alternative flight. The second component of the concept of “alternate 

transportation” includes non-air transportation (such as bus, rail, or taxi) and air transportation 

that does not meet the definition above of “alternate transportation” arranged by the carrier. In 

order for these modes of transportation to qualify as “alternate transportation,” the carrier must 

obtain the passenger’s consent that the passenger will accept the proposed form of transportation 

in lieu of air transportation. To further explain the concept and application of “alternate 

transportation,” we emphasize that carriers are free to offer substitute transportation that does not 
103 

meet the definition of "alternate transportation" in this rule (e.g., a flight on an air taxi that is not 

a commuter carrier, transportation on a scheduled flight without a confirmed reservation, or on a 

charter flight, or surface transportation), but the bumped passenger has "veto rights" over such 

arrangements. If the bumped passenger declines this "non-alternate" transportation, he or she is 

due DBC at the 400% rate because the carrier did not offer "alternate transportation" as defined 

in section 250.1. However, if the passenger chooses to accept the carrier-offered transportation 

that does not qualify as “alternate transportation,” the carrier is free to avail itself of the lower 

200% DBC rate in the case of rerouting within 2/4 hours, and need not pay DBC at all if the nonalternate transportation accepted by the passenger will arrive at the passenger's destination less 

than one hour after the planned arrival time of the passenger's original flight. The passenger has 

no such veto right over "alternate transportation." If the carrier offers alternate transportation 

and the passenger declines it, the carrier is still free to limit DBC to 200% or zero as applicable. 

 Also in section 250.1, we have deleted the definitions for “sum of the values of the 

remaining flight coupons” and “comparable air transportation” as these terms are no longer used 

in the rule text. 

B. Zero Fare Tickets 

 The NPRM: We proposed to clarify in the rule text that DBC must be offered to “zero 

fare ticket” holders who are involuntarily denied boarding. We asked the public to comment on 

whether these passengers should be protected by the oversales rule, and whether the proposed 

calculation method for their DBC amounts is reasonable (i.e., the “passenger fare” for purposes 

of DBC would be the fare of the lowest priced ticket paid for a comparable class of ticket on the 

same flight). We also invited the public to suggest any alternative method of establishing denied 

boarding compensation for zero fare ticket holders, including whether we should allow carriers 
104 

to compensate these passengers using the same “currency” (e.g., frequent flyer miles or 

vouchers) in which the tickets were obtained. 

Comments: The individual and consumer organization commenters generally support 

affording zero fare ticket holders who are involuntarily denied boarding the same protection and 

rights as passengers with other tickets. Regarding the form of compensation, some commenters 

suggest that compensation may be in the same form of “currency” as that was used in acquiring 

the tickets; others are in support of the Department’s proposal, i.e., providing zero fare tickets 

holders DBC in the form of cash or check based on the lowest fare paid for a ticket on the same 

flight for a comparable class of service. Some commenters support payment in either form. 

 The majority of the industry commenters do not oppose applying the oversales rule to 

zero fare ticket holders who are involuntarily denied boarding. However, these commenters are 

adamant that zero fare tickets covered under the oversales rule should not include non-revenue 

tickets such as airline employee passes. With respect to the form of DBC payment to zero fare 

ticket holders, several commenters are in support of compensating those passengers in the same 

form of “currency” that they used to acquire the tickets. ATA state that carriers should have the 

discretion to pay DBC in the same form of “currency,” in travel vouchers, in cash/check, or in 

any combination thereof. ATA reasons that a mandatory cash payment requirement would create 

problems for carriers because gate agents cannot assign a cash value to the passenger’s fare as 

they do not have information on the lowest comparable fare sold on the same flight. On similar 

grounds, the National Airlines Council of Canada avers that it is virtually impossible to figure 

out the value of a ticket in the comparable class of service “on the spot” as it is subject to a wide 

range of variables. 
105 

 JAL opposes the inclusion of zero fare ticket holders under the oversales rule, stating that 

it should be left to a carriers’ commercial judgment as to whether to compensate zero fare ticket 

holders; JAL further states that the Department should not assume that carriers’ decisions would 

be adverse to passengers’ interests. Also in opposition to the proposal, South African Airways 

states that such a requirement would drastically reduce the carriers’ ability to offer zero fare 

tickets. 

DOT Response: The majority of commenters from both consumer and industry 

representatives seem to agree that certain types of zero fare ticket holders should be compensated 

when they are denied boarding involuntarily in an oversale situation. The Department agrees 

with most industry commenters that compensable zero fare tickets should exclude “nonrevenue” tickets as that term has traditionally been used in the industry. In that regard, we have 

added a definition in the final rule that defines “zero fare tickets” to cover only tickets acquired 

with frequent flyer miles and airline travel vouchers, as well as consolidator tickets that are 

purchased with money but do not display a dollar amount on the ticket. In our view and the 

view of most commenters, zero fare ticket holders provided something of value in exchange for 

their air transportation and when they are bumped, they should be compensated. The 

Department also wishes to point out that, for most non-revenue tickets such as airline employee 

and employee family travel vouchers, the terms and conditions accompanying these tickets have 

already explicitly excluded them from any compensation for involuntarily denied boarding. We 

note that under the definition of “zero fare ticket,” a passenger who paid a nominal monetary 

amount in connection with a ticket may still qualify as a zero fare ticket holder. Therefore, a 

carrier must in those cases treat a passenger as a zero fare ticketholder even if the passenger’s 

fare is not “zero” in a literal sense, e.g., where the passenger has paid by cash or credit card the 
106 

requisite taxes or “processing fees” and “service fees” for the redemption of travel vouchers or 

frequent flyer miles. On the other hand, if a passenger has paid substantial monetary value for 

the air transportation, e.g., paid cash for an economy class seat and used frequent flyer miles to 

upgrade to a business class seat, this passenger should not be treated as a zero fare ticket holder 

if bumped from the flight and the amount of DBC the passenger receives should be based on the 

economy class fare paid by that passenger. However, the carrier must credit the amount of 

frequent flyer miles used for an upgrade back to the passenger’s account if any substitute 

transportation provided is not in the class of service that he or she used the frequent-flyer miles 

to acquire. 

 With respect to the form of DBC for zero fare ticket holders, some consumer 

commenters urge the Department to require all DBC to be paid in cash or check while many 

industry commenters either oppose paying DBC to zero fare ticket holders or at a minimum, 

argue that the Department should allow those passengers to be compensated by means other than 

cash or check. The Department has fully evaluated the reasons presented by the carriers for why 

we should not mandate cash or check DBC payments to zero fare ticket holders, but we have 

decided to apply the same DBC standard by requiring carriers to offer DBC to these passengers 

in the form of cash or check. DBC in non-monetary forms such as frequent flyer miles would 

not compensate a passenger for food, lodging and other expenses that may be associated with 

delays caused by the denied boarding. Furthermore, we reject some commenters’ notion that 

requiring carriers to pay cash to these passengers may result in harm to consumers, such as 

making frequent flyer tickets more expensive and restrictive for consumers. We note that under 

section 250.5(c), carriers may offer free or reduced rate air transportation to any involuntarily 

bumped passengers, including zero fare ticket holders, in lieu of cash payment. Carriers should 
107 

not assume that zero fare ticket holders would almost always opt to receive cash or check 

compensation, as the cash or check DBC amount is calculated with the lowest comparable fare as 

the base amount. We also disagree with some carriers’ suggestion that procedurally paying 

DBC in cash or by check based on the lowest comparable fare is unworkable because the gate 

agents may not have the lowest fare information “on the spot.” Just as is permitted for DBC 

payment to passengers who purchased their tickets with money, carriers are being afforded up to 

24 hours after the involuntary denied boarding occurred to tender a check to the affected 

passengers. We believe the 24-hour window is sufficient for the carriers to obtain necessary fare 

information and calculate the appropriate DBC amount for the zero fare ticket holders. 

 In calculating the DBC amounts for zero fare ticket holders, we clarify in the rule text as 

well as here that the applicable lowest comparable fare paid by cash, check, or credit card refers 

to the fare in the same class of service as the zero fare ticket. By adding a new definition for 

“class of service,” we explain that we are referring to the lowest fare within the same service 

class or cabin such as first class, business class, economy/coach class, or economy plus 

(premium economy) class. For instance, when a passenger holding a zero fare ticket in economy 

plus class is bumped, as the base fare for DBC calculation purposes, the carrier should identify 

the lowest fare paid by cash, check, or credit card in the economy plus class on that flight, not the 

economy class. 

C. Disclosure requirements 

 The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require that (1) carriers offer cash/check DBC 

options verbally if they verbally offer a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are 

involuntarily denied boarding, and (2) carriers inform passengers solicited to volunteer for 

denied boarding about their principal boarding priority rules applicable to that specific flight, the 
108 

availability of alternate transportation, and all material restrictions on the use of any 

transportation vouchers that may be offered as compensation for giving up the passenger's 

reservation. We asked whether there are any other forms of disclosure that may better inform 

passengers being solicited to volunteer or those involuntarily bumped of their rights and carriers’ 

obligations. 

Comments: Most consumer advocacy groups and associations support imposing more 

disclosure rules regarding oversales. CTA proposes more disclosure to passengers solicited as 

volunteers, such as informing them of the oversales rule in writing and orally prior to the 

negotiation, and providing them information on whether they will receive confirmed seats and 

when they are expected to arrive at the destination on the alternative flight. CTA also 

recommends that carriers provide their boarding priority rules to the passengers when soliciting 

volunteers. FlyersRights.org suggests that carriers should be required to publish their principal 

boarding priority rules on their websites and inform passengers of their risks of being bumped 

before ticket sales. Comments posted on the website of Regulation Room generally support our 

proposal of requiring carriers to verbally inform passengers of the cash or check option for DBC 

payment if carriers verbally offer these passengers travel vouchers as DBC. These commenters 

also support the proposal that both passengers solicited as volunteers and passengers denied 

boarding involuntarily should be clearly informed of their options, the amount of compensation 

they can receive, and details of alternative flights. They also recommend enhancing disclosures 

regarding oversales prior to and at the time of ticket sales, such as requiring carriers to ask 

whether a passenger is willing to be bumped at the time of making the reservation and to 

provide notice to all passengers 24 hours before the departure if the flight is oversold. 
109 

 ASTA supports the idea of disclosing oversales rule at the time of ticket purchase and 

advising passengers of the risk involved if they do not secure a seat assignment. ASTA also 

recommends that carriers be prohibited from “gaming the system” by making it impossible to 

obtain seat assignments. ASTA points out that all disclosures regarding oversales should be 

made earlier because providing an explanation to passengers at the gate is time consuming and it 

may create chaos and passenger confusion. 

 Most carrier and carrier association commenters oppose all the proposed verbal 

disclosure requirements. These commenters are generally concerned about the additional time 

they assert would be needed for gate agents to comply with the various verbal notification 

requirements, arguing that these requirements would impose hardship on the agents who are 

under time pressure to board passengers and close out the flight. These commenters also contend 

that this information is available in the written notice and assert that verbal notification is not 

necessary and may be hard to enforce. Some carriers also point out that if the gate agents are not 

familiar with the oversales rule, verbal notification may result in inaccurate or incomplete 

information being passed on to consumers, causing further confusion. 

DOT Response: As we have stated in the NPRM, we believe disclosure in an oversales 

situation is essential for the passengers to fully understand their rights and options. After 

thoroughly evaluating all the comments, we have decided to adopt some but not all of our 

proposals in this regard. We will discuss each proposal individually. 

 With respect to the requirement that carriers must verbally offer the cash option when 

they verbally advise passengers bumped involuntarily that a carrier voucher as a form of DBC is 

available, we have reached the conclusion that this requirement is in fact critical to ensuring that 

passengers are fully informed when they are given the opportunity to choose what form of DBC 
110 

they are willing to take. Although the cash option is clearly stated in the written notice that 

carriers are required to provide to passengers denied boarding involuntarily, it is likely that due 

to the time pressure and occasional confusion associated with involuntarily denied boarding, 

passengers may not have the opportunity to fully review the written notice before they choose 

the form of DBC that they are willing to accept. Thus, it is the Department’s view that when 

carriers verbally offer a voucher option but omit (either inadvertently or intentionally) 

mentioning the cash option, it is unfair and deceptive to the passengers. Furthermore we 

consider that to the extent carriers are willing to explain to passengers their option of receiving 

carrier vouchers as DBC payment, the additional time needed to add a few words about the 

cash/check option should not be substantial. In any event, if carriers are concerned about the 

additional time needed to verbally inform passengers of all options, it is permissible to not 

verbally advise passengers of DBC options at all. They can simply hand the passengers a written 

notice. 

 On similar grounds we have decided to adopt the proposed requirement that carriers must 

disclose any material restrictions on airline travel vouchers offered to both passengers solicited 

to be volunteers and passengers denied boarding involuntarily. Some carriers argue that the 

process of informing passengers is too time-consuming. The Department disagrees although we 

note that the more time-consuming such a notice is, the more restrictions must apply to the 

voucher, necessitating more than ever that notice of such restrictions be provided. To provide a 

brief summary covering all the material restrictions on vouchers should not take more than a few 

moments. For example, when the carrier announces at the gate that it needs volunteers who will 

receive a roundtrip voucher for any destination within the continental U.S., to add a description 

of conditions on the use of vouchers such as “the vouchers are not transferrable, subject to 
111 

certain blackout dates and service charges and will expire after two years...” would not require 

more than a few moments, and carriers may encourage anyone who wants to learn more details 

to speak to the gate agent directly. Typical examples of material restrictions and conditions are 

expiration dates, blackout dates, advance booking requirements, transferability restrictions, 

administrative fees and flight choice restrictions. We emphasize that this is not an exhaustive list 

and by the term “material” we refer to all the restrictions and conditions that might reasonably be 

expected to affect a passenger’s decision regarding whether to accept the voucher. 

 Since the substance of any restrictions and conditions on the airline vouchers varies by 

carrier and is not incorporated in the general written notice mandated by section 250.9, we 

require that any verbal offer of a travel voucher by carriers, either to passengers solicited to 

volunteer or to passengers denied boarding involuntarily, must be accompanied by a verbal 

explanation of any material restrictions and conditions imposed on that voucher. In the event 

carriers make a written offer of travel vouchers, but no verbal offer, carriers should provide a 

written explanation of the restrictions and conditions on travel vouchers, along with the general 

written notice required by section 250.9. 

 In adopting these disclosure requirements, we clarify that we do not intend to require 

carriers to give every passenger who is in danger of being denied boarding involuntarily a 

“personal presentation” of their rights. The Department’s goal is to ensure that when carriers 

opt to verbally provide any information to the passengers, the information is not presented in a 

misleading manner regarding any material terms. 

 In the NPRM, we also proposed to require carriers to inform passengers solicited to 

volunteer of their principal boarding priority rules and the availability of comparable air 

transportation. Our intention in proposing these two requirements was to provide passengers 
112 

more information upon which they would be able to determine whether volunteering to give up 

their confirmed reservations would be in their best interests. After considering all the comments 

in this regard, we are convinced that these proposals, as well as some other disclosure measures 

not proposed by us but recommended by consumer commenters, may not achieve the expected 

goal. Although we disagree with some carriers’ comments that providing such information will 

only assist some passengers to “game” the system to the detriment of the majority of other 

passengers, we note that providing such information at the gate is time consuming and carriers’ 

principal boarding priority rules can be found in the written notice prescribed in section 250.9, as 

well as on most carriers’ websites and/or in the contracts of carriage. We conclude that the 

burden on carriers of verbally providing such information at the boarding gates outweighs the 

benefits. Furthermore, we reject some commenters’ suggestions that all passengers should be 

informed of the carriers’ principal boarding priority rules and whether a particular flight was 

oversold at the time they make their reservations. We note that oversales might not occur until 

close to the departure time or date and, due to no-shows, many overbooked flights will not be 

oversold on the day of departure. We believe requiring carriers to provide these two types of 

information through their reservation systems may not be beneficial to consumers yet will 

increase the operational costs of carriers, depress revenues and limit seat availability. These 

costs and restrictions ultimately will be borne by the consumers. 

 Related to the boarding priority rule disclosure proposal, FlyersRights.org and some other 

consumer commenters also suggested that we should not allow carriers to set their boarding 

priority rules based on the amounts of passengers’ fares. FlyersRights.org went further to urge 

the Department to declare that bumping a passenger who checked in earlier but who paid a lower 

fare is an unfair and deceptive practice. We cannot agree. With the exception of unlawful 
113 

discrimination, the Department has traditionally allowed carriers extensive flexibility to set their 

boarding priority rules based on several criteria, including passengers’ fares. We believe 

affording carriers such flexibility is an important marketplace tool and permits carriers to 

proactively control the costs of oversales so they are able to continue to offer the maximum 

numbers of seats to the traveling public. It makes perfect sense that passengers who pay more for 

a ticket to get the last available seat and the right to obtain a full refund also want to be assured 

that they will be the last person to be bumped from an oversold flight. We do agree that 

passengers seeking the lowest fare on a flight are most likely budget-conscious consumers and 

are most likely to be the ones bumped by some carriers. In this final rule, we have adopted 

provisions to increase the DBC limits and rates based on the passengers’ fare which should help 

them. 

 With respect to the proposal to require disclosure of the availability of alternate 

transportation at the time of volunteer solicitation, we have come to the conclusion that such a 

requirement is unworkable under most circumstances. The availability of alternate transportation 

is a fluid issue and is subject to many variables. Due to these variables, what carriers may offer 

at the time of volunteer solicitation could change by the time the alternate transportation is 

provided to the volunteer. Should such change occur, the expectation created by the earlier 

information may cause passengers further confusion and frustration. Thus, we are not going to 

require such information to be provided at the time of volunteer solicitation. 

D. Covered Entities and Other Miscellaneous Issues 

The NPRM: The oversales rule currently covers scheduled passenger service using 

aircraft with 30 or more seats. We solicited comments on whether the oversales rule should be 
114 

expanded, either in its entirety or partially, to cover scheduled services using aircraft with 19-29 

seats and whether we should allow these flights to be oversold at all. 

Comments: CTA believes that the oversales rule should apply to all flights of major 

carriers, regardless of the size of the aircraft. Comments from RegulationsRoom.org generally 

support applying the oversales rule to all aircraft sizes. Some of these commenters urge the 

Department to ban oversales on small aircraft, arguing that being bumped from those flights is 

more disruptive and costly to passengers. ASTA supports extending the oversales rule to 

aircraft with 19-29 seats, stating that involuntary denied boarding on short-haul flights operated 

by small aircraft has drastic effects on passengers who are connecting to long-haul flights and 

these passengers are often surprised after being bumped to discover they have no protection from 

the Department’s oversales rule. 

 On the carriers’ side, ATA supports maintaining the status quo, i.e., allowing 

overbooking on flights operated with aircraft with 19-29 seats and not applying the oversales rule 

to these flights. ATA argues that banning oversales on these flights will threaten the existence of 

small community air services and imposing the oversales rule on these flights would be too 

costly to carriers. RAA also opposes banning oversales on regional flights, arguing that such a 

ban would eliminate the ability of carriers to serve small communities, as carriers would not be 

able to bear the costs of running flights with empty seats. RAA also contends that the denied 

boarding risk is low on regional flights operated by small aircraft because regional carriers’ load 

factors lag behind large aircraft operators. 

DOT Response: The Department has been persuaded that it should not extend the 

oversales rule to flights operated with aircraft with 19-29 seats. Aircraft of this size make up a 

small and diminishing portion of scheduled-service operations, particularly in the case of the 
115 

code-share partners that were the predicate for this proposal. After being bumped from a shorthaul segment, the cost of paying DBC based on the fare to a passenger’s downline destination — 

up to 400% of the fare and $1,300 under the final rule — would be an unreasonable burden for 

operators of 19-29-seat aircraft. These carriers are most likely to be the very small entities to 

which the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires federal agencies to afford special consideration in 

rulemaking. Based on similar rationale, we have also decided that it is not in the best interests of 

the public to ban oversales on these flights because doing so will further reduce the capacity of 

flights serving smaller airports and communities and cause price increases. 

 Although not proposed in the NPRM, there are several issues raised by the commenters 

that the Department feels it is important to address in order to clarify what appears to be 

confusion associated with the oversales rule. First, several foreign carriers urge the Department 

to harmonize its oversales rule with the rules of other jurisdictions, such as the European Union. 

The Department agrees in principle that the U.S. oversales rule should not conflict with the rules 

of other jurisdictions. The Department has worked diligently to that end, and sees no direct 

conflict between our oversales rule and the rules of other jurisdictions. We disagree with some 

commenters’ claim that the rule as proposed and finalized here will cause confusion among 

carrier staff and passengers. With respect to both domestic and international flights, the U.S. 

rule applies only to denied boardings that occur at a U.S. airport, a relatively straightforward 

applicability standard that is similar to the approach taken in the EU oversales rule for flights of 

non-EU carriers. Thus, passengers are clear that when they are denied boarding at a U.S. airport, 

the U.S. oversales rule applies. The carriers have the responsibility to train their staffs to be 

familiar with rules of the jurisdictions to and from which they operate. We note that the EU 

oversales rule has an exception for denied boardings that are subject to compensation 
116 

requirements of other jurisdictions. To the extent that flights of EU carriers from the U.S. to an 

EU state may also be subject to the EU oversales rule, those carriers should be able to comply 

with both the U.S. and EU rules (e.g., by paying the higher compensation amount if the required 

amounts differ). 

 CTA and FlyersRights.org both suggest that the Department should not exempt carriers 

from complying with the oversales rule when the involuntary denied boarding is caused by an 

equipment change due to factors that are within carriers’ control, e.g., crew schedule or 

maintenance issues. We have carefully examined this suggestion but are not convinced that this 

proposal is consistent with the underlying rationale of our oversales rule. The Department’s 

longstanding policy of exempting carriers from paying DBC when an involuntary denied 

boarding was caused by equipment change is based on the grounds that in this situation, the 

resulting denied boardings were not caused by overbooking, a practice that absent compensation 

is fundamentally unfair to the passengers who have paid for confirmed seats but are not 

permitted to board the flight because their promised seat was sold to another person. 

Accordingly, we will not change our rule involving oversales that result from substitution of 

equipment of lesser capacity. 

 Also raised by several foreign carriers is the issue of an alternative to “cash” payment of 

DBC. These carriers are under the impression that in order to comply with our rule, they must 

keep a large amount of cash (currency) at the U.S. airports they serve for the purpose of making 

cash payments to passengers denied boarding involuntarily. These carriers assert that such a 

cash reserve at their stations in U.S. airports, many of which are staffed by third-party 

contractors, imposes security concerns. Thus, these carriers urge the Department to allow them 

to tender DBC payments to passengers in the form of a debit card or other forms of electronic 
117 

funds. The Department wishes to clarify that under our rule, carriers are permitted to tender a 

check, in lieu of cash payment, to passengers denied boarding involuntarily, and to do so up to 

24 hours after the denied boarding occurred. The check may be mailed to the address that a 

passenger has provided. Therefore, it is not required that carriers maintain large amounts of cash 

at airports. We acknowledge the convenience and security features offered by electronic funds, 

but have not had the opportunity to fully examine the benefits and limitations of using this 

procedure as an alternative to cash/check DBC payments in this rulemaking proceeding. We 

may further explore this issue in future rulemaking. 

 Finally, we have decided not to adopt Delta’s recommendation that the revised oversales 

rule should be applied only to tickets purchased on or after the effective date of the final rule. 

Such application would inevitably result in the situation where passengers bumped from the 

same flight will be subject to different rules. Additional delays may occur at the boarding gates 

when the gate agents have to spend additional time to determine the purchase dates of the tickets 

in order to determine which rule applies. For this reason, we will require that all denied 

boardings and other DBC-related processes covered by this rule that occur on or after the 

effective date of the final rule must comply with the new rule, regardless of the transaction dates 

of the ticket sales. 

We note that this final rule also includes a technical amendment concerning reporting of 

oversales. We are correcting a technical inconsistency in the oversales reporting requirements in 

section 250.10. One sentence in that section states “The reporting basis shall be flights 

originating or terminating at or serving, a point within the United States.” The last sentence of 

that section reads: “No reports need be filed for inbound international flights on which the 

protections of this part do not apply.” Apparently, when the rule was amended many years ago 
118 

to remove applicability to international flights inbound to the United States, the second sentence 

quoted above was added but the first sentence was not revised to remove the reference to flights 

"terminating in” or “serving a point within” the United States. The intent and the practice has 

been not to include international flights that terminate in the U.S. (i.e., inbound international 

flights) in these Form 251 data. This has been clear in paragraphs (A) and (E) in the instructions 

to the form (see http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/forms/pdf/form_251.pdf). We 

are not aware of any instances in which data for inbound international flights have been 

inadvertently included in Form 251 reports. 

7. Full Fare Advertising 

 A. Change in Enforcement Policy 

 The NPRM: The Department’s price advertising rule (14 CFR 399.84) states that any 

advertised price for air transportation, an air tour or an air tour component must be the entire 

price to be paid by the customer for that transportation, tour or tour component. However, the 

Department’s enforcement policy with regard to this rule has permitted sellers of air 

transportation to state separately from the advertised price government-imposed taxes and fees, 

provided that they are not ad valorem in nature, are collected by the seller on a per-passenger 

basis, and their existence and amount are clearly indicated in the advertisement so that the 

consumer can determine the full price to be paid. The Department has prohibited sellers of air 

transportation from breaking out any other seller imposed fees, including fuel surcharges and 

service fees, and taxes imposed on an ad valorem basis. 

In the NPRM, the Department proposed enforcing the price adverting rule as it is written. 

This proposal would change the existing enforcement policy by ending the practice of permitting 

sellers to exclude government taxes and fees from the advertised price, and would instead require 
119 

that the price advertised include all mandatory fees. The Department invited comments on how 

sellers of air transportation foresee this change in enforcement policy affecting the methods they 

use to advertise fares and how consumers view the change. The Department also requested 

comment on the potential cost of changing the current advertising structures that carriers and 

ticket agents have in place in order to adhere to the proposed policy shift. 

Comments: Individuals and consumer organizations such as Flyersrights.org, in addition 

to individuals who participated on Regulation Room, support the proposal that advertisements 

for air transportation state the total price to be paid by the consumer. Some commenters 

participating in discussions through Regulation Room reported that there were occasions when 

they thought they were going to pay one price for air transportation, but the final price was much 

higher due to additional taxes and fees. Regulation Room commenters also stated that the current 

advertising method borders on bait-and-switch tactics. Some individual commenters expressed 

similar sentiments, noting how they have been surprised by the total amount to be paid at the end 

of a purchase online and their preference to know the total amount to be paid earlier. Some 

consumers and consumer groups go further by suggesting that the Department should require 

that the true cost of travel, including ancillary fees, be disclosed earlier in the booking process. 

For example, CTA states that even if the price advertising rule requires the disclosure of all 

mandatory fees, consumers may still have trouble finding out the true cost of travel due to the 

proliferation of many kinds of ancillary fees for optional services. 

U.S. carriers and carrier associations generally oppose the Department changing its 

enforcement policy to enforce the full price advertising rule as written. ATA states that its 

members support fare transparency, but notes that the Department declined to revise its full-fare 

rule four years ago and contends that the airfare advertising landscape has not changed since that 
120 

time in a manner that would justify a change in 25 years of enforcement policy. ATA notes that 

several other industries advertise without including government-imposed taxes and fees, and 

states that the air transportation industry should not be treated differently. It asserts that this 

policy shift would suppress valuable information to consumers about how much of their total 

price consists of government-imposed taxes and fees. In addition, ATA argues that this policy 

shift would negatively impact competition because government-imposed taxes and fees vary 

from airport to airport and routing to routing. ATA contends that this means that an airline that 

has a competitive fare, but also has a routing that subjects the fare to higher taxes and fees, will 

be disadvantaged if it is required to include those taxes and fees in the advertised price. It 

remarks that this could negatively impact service to smaller communities. ATA also raised 

concerns about the cost implications of the proposal, because the proposal would require airlines 

to perform additional route pricing analysis, programming changes, website changes, and 

auditing and testing of changes. Many U.S. carriers raise similar points. 

The views of foreign carriers and associations varied, with many opposing the proposed 

mandate that the advertised fare be the full fare to be paid by the customer but some supporting 

it. IATA believes that there is no evidence of widespread advertising deception to justify a 

change in the Department’s enforcement policy. Additionally IATA notes that the complexity of 

non-airline charges makes listing a full fare with “all mandatory fees” difficult, and would only 

confuse air travel consumers because this complexity prevents a true fare comparison as the 

actual fare is obscured by the additional government-imposed taxes and fees. IATA also notes 

that passengers are made fully aware of the purchase price before purchase. Most foreign 

airlines support IATA’s comments. Some foreign carriers, such as Singapore Airlines, Qatar 

Airways, and Jetstar Airways, support the proposed mandate that advertisements state the total 
121 

price to be paid by the consumer. Many of these airlines state that they already advertise the 

total price to be paid by consumers due to regulations of other governments. Some foreign 

carriers expressed concerns about the applicability of this rule to advertisements on websites that 

are not domiciled in the United States or directed to United States customers. 

Among other industry interests that commented, ASTA and ITSA support this policy 

shift and note that full fare disclosure is the best way to eliminate passenger confusion and 

ensure that passengers understand the total cost of their air travel. ASTA asserts that the full fare 

displayed in advertisements should include all mandatory fees, regardless of their source. The 

United States Tour Operators Association (USTOA) disagrees and states that the proposed 

change will place costly burdens on travel agents while doing very little to ease customer 

confusion in airline pricing. USTOA contends, as does ATA and many U.S. airlines, that ending 

the practice of permitting sellers to exclude government taxes and fees from the advertised price 

is not justified because the airfare advertising landscape has not changed since the Department 

last declined to revise the full-fare advertising rule. USTOA states that tour operators would be 

especially negatively affected by this shift in policy because government-imposed fees vary 

widely depending on where the consumers choose to start their trip, and therefore a tour operator 

would not be able to advertise a tour effectively since the purchaser usually has the option of a 

number of gateways. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided to adopt the proposed policy change in 

relation to the full-fare advertising rule. We disagree with comments that the Department has not 

shown true harm to consumers in not having the full price quoted to them up front. On the 

contrary, comments from individual commenters and persons participating in Regulation Room 

show consumers feel deceived when the total price, including taxes and fees, is not quoted to 
122 

them after an initial fare inquiry. Many consumers feel that advertising fares that exclude 

mandatory charges is a “bait and switch” tactic by travel sellers. The Department has also 

received complaints regarding fare advertising, some of which specifically mention feeling 

deceived when they are not quoted the full price to be paid after an initial inquiry. 

Also, contrary to the assertions of some commenters, the Department has seen changes in 

the advertising methods used by sellers of air transportation since the Department declined to 

revise its full-fare rule in 2006. Sellers are now marketing air transportation through a variety of 

methods that they were not using then. For example, some carriers have started to sell tickets 

through Facebook and some have Twitter feeds dedicated solely to advertising sale fares. 

Additionally, in recent years, carriers are increasingly unbundling the cost of air travel, which 

further obscures the total fare to be paid by the consumer. Carriers and online travel agencies 

have also started to offer more complicated routings with multiple connections in order to 

provide the “lowest” airfare to consumers. However, with these changes in routings, taxes and 

fees can increase and become a significant portion of the price to be paid by consumers. In those 

cases, consumers need a full picture of the total price to be paid in order to compare fares and 

routings. In order to understand the true cost of travel, consumers need to be able to see the 

entire price they need to pay to get to their destination the first time the airfare is presented to 

them. 

We also are not persuaded by argument that the Department should not require that the 

advertised price for air transportation, a tour or tour component be the total price to be paid by 

the customer for that transportation, tour or tour component because other industries advertise 

without including government-imposed taxes and fees. Airfares are different from products in 

other industries for a variety of reasons, including the multitude of methods of advertising that 
123 

sellers of air transportation employ and the various taxes and government fees that apply. We 

believe that consumers are deceived when presented with fares that do not include numerous 

required charges and, in our view, air travelers will be better able to make price comparisons 

when they can see the entire price of the air transportation, tour or tour component being 

advertised. The advertised fare under this policy shift must include all government-imposed 

taxes and fees as well as mandatory carrier-imposed charges, including booking fees if the only 

way the consumer can obtain the air transportation is by paying the booking fee. While a carrier 

or ticket agent generally is not required to include a booking fee in its advertised fare if there are 

other means for the passenger to obtain the air transportation (e.g., a booking fee only applies for 

tickets that are purchased over the telephone), where airfares are advertised via an Internet site 

that permits consumers to purchase fares, the fares advertised on the site must include all charges 

required to make the purchase on the site. For example, it would be unfair and deceptive to hold 

out on such an Internet site a fare that can be purchased only at airport ticket counters but that 

excludes a convenience fee that is applied to Internet sales. 

In regard to the costs related to this change, online travel agencies that will face many of 

the same marketing and programming challenges as carriers do, if not more, feel that the 

operational costs of adhering to the rule will be overly burdensome. Sellers of air transportation 

are constantly updating their fare matrices and the methods by which they display fares. In 

addition, we believe many carriers may already have programs in place to accommodate this 

policy shift, as some foreign governmental entities such as Australia and the European Union 

already require the total price to be shown to consumers. We note also that the requirement for 

advertisements to state the total price is limited to advertisements published in the United States, 

including via the Internet if accessible in the U.S. Further, recognizing the amount of print 
124 

advertising slated for use by tour operators that would need to be pulled thereby increasing costs 

of print advertising revision, we have decided that the new full fare adverting requirements will 

not take effect until 180 days after the publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This 

should reduce the costs related to this requirement. 

Some airlines were concerned that passengers would not know how much of their total 

price consists of government imposed taxes and fees. We want to assure these carriers that 

nothing in this rule prohibits them from making this information available to consumers. This 

final rule allows carriers to advise the public in their fare solicitations about government taxes 

and fees, or other mandatory carrier or ticket agent imposed charges applicable to their airfares. 

Sellers of air transportation may have pop-ups or links adjacent to an advertised price to take the 

consumer to a listing of such charges, or they may display these charges on the same page in fine 

print if they prefer. Such charges must accurately reflect the actual costs to the carrier of the 

service or matter covered, be displayed on a per passenger basis, and be displayed in a manner 

that otherwise does not deceive consumers. Consequently, the rule requires that any such listing 

not be displayed prominently and be presented in significantly smaller type than the listing of the 

total price to ensure that consumers are not confused about the total price they must pay. Also, 

we are prohibiting the presentation of any “total” fares in advertising that exclude taxes, fees or 

other charges since the major impact of such presentations is to confuse and deceive consumers. 

B. Explicit Inclusion of Ticket Agents 

 The NPRM: The Department proposed to explicitly apply the price adverting rule to 

ticket agents. We have for years considered ticket agents to be subject to the price advertising 

rule since the Department’s statutory authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices and 

unfair methods of competition applies to both carriers and ticket agents. However, the 
125 

Department’s price advertising rule doesn’t specifically indicate that ticket agents are covered by 

the rule. 

Comments: Comments received from airlines, travel agents, consumer groups and others 

all supported the inclusion of ticket agents in the price advertising rule. Air New Zealand and 

Qantas indicate that their support for including ticket agents in the rule is contingent on airlines 

not being responsible for the compliance of ticket agents. 

DOT Response: The final rule explicitly includes ticket agents in the price advertising 

rule. This is consistent with longstanding Department policy and we did not receive any adverse 

comments. This inclusion will ensure that consumers are more fully protected. With regard to 

the Air New Zealand and Qantas comment, airlines have always been legally responsible along 

with their agents for their agents’ advertising violations and they will continue to be under the 

revised rule. 

C. Each-Way Advertising 

 The NPRM: The Department proposed to codify its enforcement policy on each-way 

airfare advertising. Under this policy, advertisement of an each-way airfare that is contingent on 

a round-trip purchase is an unfair and deceptive practice unless the airfare is advertised as “each 

way” and the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in a 

location that is prominent and proximate to the advertised fare amount. The Department invited 

interested parties to comment on this proposal and on whether the Department should adopt a 

similar rule for air/hotel packages that advertise a single price but are sold at that price on a 

double occupancy basis, i.e., two individuals must purchase the package to obtain the advertised 

fare. 
126 

Comments: Individual consumers and consumer groups had divergent views on whether 

the Department should allow each-way airfare advertising even if the round-trip purchase 

requirement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed proximately and prominently to the 

advertised fare. Flyersrights.org opposes this proposal, believing that disclosure of the full 

round-trip purchase price is most helpful to consumers. Consumers Union and AAPR support 

the proposed regulation, as long as the round-trip purchase requirement is clear and conspicuous. 

Most of the commenters on Regulation Room and individual commenters generally support this 

proposal but some, like Flyersrights.org, suggest the Department require that the full round-trip 

purchase price be disclosed. Airlines, airline associations and travel agency groups express 

support for the each-way advertising regulation. ATA requests clarification as to whether “one 

way” advertising would be allowed if there was no round-trip purchase requirement. ASTA 

supports this proposal as well, noting that specifically prohibiting the use of “one way” to 

advertise fares that are contingent on round-trip purchases will allow consumers to better 

comparison shop among fare quotes. 

We received relatively few comments on whether the Department should adopt a rule 

requiring specific disclosure for air/hotel packages that advertise a single price but are sold at 

that price only on a double occupancy basis. Some commenters participating in the Regulation 

Room discussion state that clear and conspicuous disclosure concerning occupancy-related rates 

should be required. ASTA comments that double occupancy rates should still be allowed, as 

long as the “per person” requirement is disclosed. 

DOT Response: The Department is codifying existing enforcement policy allowing 

sellers of air transportation to advertise an each-way price that is contingent on a round-trip 

ticket purchase so long as the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously 
127 

disclosed in a location that is prominent and proximate to the advertised fare. This codification 

of longstanding enforcement policy allows sellers of air transportation to be flexible in the way 

they advertise round-trip fares while still requiring all pertinent disclosures to consumers. While 

the Department understands that some consumers would prefer the full round-trip price to be 

displayed, the Department has not found that the current regime has led to consumer confusion 

or deception and it does permit certain types of advertising that are beneficial. We note also that 

this final rule specifically prohibits referring to such an airfare as “one way” even if the roundtrip purchase requirement is clearly disclosed, which should minimize or prevent consumer 

confusion. In response to ATA’s request for clarification, we agree that “one way” advertising is 

allowed when purchase of that fare is not contingent on a round-trip purchase. We are deferring 

to a later date any requirement regarding double occupancy advertisements as we received few 

comments on this matter. We do not have enough information at this point to determine if 

consumers feel deceived by double occupancy rates, and consequently we will not formulate a 

specific regulation regarding the methods of such advertising at this time. “Double occupancy” 

advertising will still be subject to the general provisions of 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

D. Opt-Out Provisions 

 The NPRM: The Department proposed to prohibit “opt-out” provisions by sellers of air 

transportation. “Opt-out” provisions involve situations where a consumer is purchasing air travel 

or an air tour package online and certain fees for ancillary services or products are pre-selected 

for the consumer and added to the total price to be paid by the consumer at the end of the 

transaction. The consumer is deemed to have selected these services (and the charges for them) 

unless the consumer “unchecks” the pre-selected box or boxes for the relevant services. The 

NPRM proposed prohibiting this practice as unfair and deceptive in violation of 49 U.S.C. 
128 

§41712 and allowing carriers and ticket agents to add an optional service to the total airfare to be 

paid by the consumer only if the consumer affirmatively “opts in” to accept and purchase that 

service. 

Comments: There was wide support among individual commenters and consumer groups 

for a prohibition against opt-out provisions. A few individual commenters noted that this 

prohibition will allow consumers to avoid unwanted fees. All of the individuals commenting 

through the discussion on Regulation Room stated that all optional services should be presented 

to consumers as an “opt-in” choice. Individual consumers recounted how they were sometimes 

faced with paying for travel insurance they did not need or a seat selection fee they were not 

aware of because those options were “pre-selected” by the seller of air transportation. 

Many industry commenters, though not all, also agree with a prohibition on “opt-out” 

features in advertising. ATA and most U.S. carriers, such as US Airways and Delta Air Lines, 

support this proposal. American Airlines states that non-aviation services should be offered on 

an “opt in” basis, but that aviation services that most consumers expect as part of their travel 

should be pre-selected. American notes that this will allow consumers to customize their travel 

options. IATA does not oppose the prohibition on opt-out provisions. AEA notes that EU 

Regulation 1008/2008 already has an opt-in requirement. Qantas Airlines opposes this 

regulation, stating that it feels customers appreciate pre-selected options. ASTA supports a 

prohibition on “opt-out” features in price advertising. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided to prohibit the use of opt-out provisions by 

carriers and ticket agents. The fact that consumers often don’t realize that optional services are 

included in the total price of the ticket due to the deceptive nature of such opt-out provisions, is 

borne out by consumer comments. Many industry organizations also support prohibiting opt-out 
129 

provisions. In addition, this action will align the United States with the consumer protection 

laws of other jurisdictions which prohibit opt-out provisions, including the European Union 

through its regulation 1008/2008. We do not agree with airline comments that consumers like 

having certain airline related services preselected for convenience sake so that they can see the 

total cost of travel with those services. We believe that having opt-in selections achieves the 

same goals of allowing travelers to customize their air transportation packages to their travel 

needs and see the total cost of travel with those service while eliminating the unfair and 

deceptive practice of pre-selecting items that the consumer has not selected and does not 

necessarily realize are pre-selected until late in the process — sometimes after a purchase is 

complete. This rule would prohibit opt-out provisions for any ancillary fee for an optional 

service such as seat selection, seat upgrades, pre-boarding, travel insurance, rental cars, and 

transfers to and from the airport. Under this rule, an optional service can be added to the total 

airfare to be paid by the consumer only if the consumer affirmatively agrees to pay a fee for such 

service, i.e. by checking a box for that service or other concrete action. 

 8. Baggage and Other Fees and Related Code-Share Issues 

A. Covered Entities 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department proposed to require all U.S. and foreign air 

carriers that have websites accessible to the general public in the United States through which 

tickets are sold to provide notice to consumers about baggage fees and allowances and other 

ancillary fees that the carrier may charge. More specifically, the NPRM proposed: (1) 

disclosure on the homepage for at least three months of any increase in the fee for passenger 

baggage or any change in the free baggage allowance for checked or carry-on baggage; (2) 

notice on e-ticket confirmations regarding the free baggage allowance for that flight and any 
130 

applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on bag; and (3) disclosure of all 

fees for optional services in one central place on the seller’s website. The Department noted that 

the recent trend to unbundle services and charge separate fees for services that may have once 

been included in the cost of a ticket has led to consumers having difficulty determining the total 

price they must pay to travel by air. The Department requested comment on whether these 

requirements to disclose baggage and other fees should apply to ticket agents as well as carriers. 

We also invited comment on alternative proposals, including whether the Department should 

limit the applicability of the disclosure requirements to all flights operated by U.S. carriers, U.S. 

and foreign carriers that operate any aircraft with 60 or more seats, or U.S. and foreign air 

carriers that operate any aircraft with or 30 or more seats. 

Comments: Many consumers state that the type of fee disclosures contemplated in the 

proposed rule should apply to all sellers of air transportation. Some consumers relayed 

experiences where they felt fees were hidden when booking on online travel agency websites. 

CTA and BTC state that this section should apply to ticket agents as well as carriers, but they 

both note that the agents need accurate and up to date information from the airlines via the GDSs 

in order to provide accurate information to consumers. 

USTOA contends that the disclosure requirements, as proposed, should not be applied to 

ticket agents because the airlines are updating and changing fees constantly, and the cost to 

agents to ensure that the various airline fees they display are correct would be burdensome. 

USTOA proposes that instead ticket agents simply be required to inform consumers on their 

websites and on e-ticket confirmations that baggage and other charges may apply by stating that 

“airline fees for baggage and other optional services may apply to your journey; please consult 

with your airline for information on those fees.” USTOA further states that in the event that the 
131 

Department concludes that additional specific information should be provided by ticket agents, 

it should allow ticket agents to provide hyperlinks to the locations on the airline websites where 

specific information may be obtained. ITSA does not object to extending the requirements to 

disclose baggage and other fees to ticket agents, but notes that if the information is not provided 

to the GDSs, the costs associated with agencies constantly updating information are high and the 

possibility exists that the information may not be accurate. ASTA takes a similar position to 

ITSA in regards to applying the disclosure requirements to ticket agents. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided that the requirements to provide specific 

notice to consumers about baggage fees and allowances and other ancillary fees shall apply to all 

U.S. and foreign carriers that advertise or sell air transportation in the U.S. We are not limiting 

the applicability of the disclosure requirements to flights of only U.S. carriers, as the harm to the 

consumer is the same whether the lack of information about baggage and other ancillary fees 

involve flights operated by a U.S. carrier or a foreign carrier. We are also not limiting the 

applicability of these requirements based on the size of the aircraft that carriers operate as we 

believe that disclosure of add-on fees is an issue of sufficient significance to warrant application 

of this requirement to aircraft of all sizes. Consumers want to be informed of the fees that they 

will be required to pay for optional services regardless of the size of the aircraft on which they 

travel. 

The Department also believes that it is important to ensure that consumers are alerted to 

airline-imposed fees that may be applicable to itineraries purchased through ticket agencies. 

However, we are persuaded by USTOA and others to apply a more limited requirement to ticket 

agents, particularly since the Department is deferring decision on whether to require U.S. and 

foreign carriers to give ancillary fee information to GDSs. Therefore, unlike the case for U.S. 
132 

and foreign air carriers, this final rule does not require ticket agents to disclose on their website 

information about changes in baggage fees or allowances or to list on their website all of the 

airlines’ fees for optional services. The final rule does, however, require ticket agents (and 

carriers) to inform passengers on the first screen in which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare 

quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage 

may apply and where consumers can go to see these baggage fees. This notification on the 

website must be clear, conspicuous and prominent. To comply with this requirement, ticket 

agents can choose between referring consumers to their own site where the baggage fees are 

displayed or to the airline websites where specific information may be obtained. This 

requirement is consistent with prior guidance provided by the Department’s Aviation 

Enforcement Office. See, Notice of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings, Guidance on Disclosure of Policies and Charges Associated with Checked 

Baggage, May 13, 2008, http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/guidance.htm. The final rule also 

requires ticket agents (and carriers) to include on e-ticket confirmations information about the 

free baggage allowance and the applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on 

but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a hyperlink. We also want to make 

clear that when using the term “ticket agents” we are referring not only to agents of the carriers 

but also others who meet the definition of “ticket agent” contained at 49 U.S.C. 40102 (a)(40), 

i.e., one who as a principal sells, offers for sale, negotiates for or holds itself out as selling, 

providing or arranging for air transportation. 

B. Disclosure of Baggage Fees 

 The NPRM: In 2008, the Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office issued guidance 

concerning the disclosure of baggage fees to the public. In that notice, the office stated that it 
133 

views a carrier’s failure to clearly disclose significant conditions applicable to air fares, such as 

baggage fees, to be an unfair and deceptive practice and unfair method of competition in 

violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712. It described steps that carriers should take to ensure that they 

are providing prominent and timely notice of their baggage policies and charges. For example, 

the office suggested carriers place a notice on the home page of their website highlighting new 

baggage policies and charges. See, Notice of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 

Enforcement and Proceedings, Guidance on Disclosure of Policies and Charges Associated with 

Checked Baggage, May 13, 2008, http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/guidance.htm. 

In the instant proceeding, the Department proposed to codify this guidance document by 

requiring carriers that maintain a website that is accessible to the general public to prominently 

disclose on the homepage of that website for at least three months any increase in the fee for 

passenger baggage or any change in the free baggage allowance for checked or carry-on 

baggage. The Department proposed that this notice could appear in its entirety on the home page 

or could be accomplished through a prominent, conspicuous hyperlink (e.g., "Revised Baggage 

Fees") that leads to an explanation of the carrier’s baggage policies and fees. The Department 

invited comment on this proposal, including comment on how long the notice should remain on 

the page and the best options for displaying the information to consumers. 

The NPRM also proposed to require carriers that issue e-ticket confirmations to include 

information on that confirmation regarding the free baggage allowance for that flight and the 

applicable fee for the first and second checked bag and carry-on bag. The goal of this proposed 

rule was to provide the specific information regarding a particular consumer’s baggage 

allowance well before that consumer arrives at the airport with bags packed. The Department 

invited comment on this proposed section. 
134 

Comments: Most individual commenters and commenters from consumer groups did not 

address this proposal specifically, but overwhelmingly commented that, in general, they 

supported more disclosures. Individual commenters, through the Docket and through Regulation 

Room, noted how they are sometimes surprised by additional baggage fees when they check-in 

at the airport. CTA states that two out of three travelers responding to their survey were 

surprised by fees upon checking in for a flight at the airport. Many commenters wanted the 

Department to limit the carrier’s ability to unbundle certain fees from the base fare, particularly 

baggage fees for the first checked bag. These commenters feel that carriers are “nickel and 

diming” passengers instead of trying to improve service. Other commenters found value in the a 

la carte pricing models of carriers because the models allow travelers to customize their trips. 

The individual commenters who were not opposed to unbundling fees generally support more 

disclosure of fees to the consumer before purchase. 

ATA and most U.S. carriers support more disclosure regarding changes in baggage fees. 

ATA supports the proposal to put notice of fee changes on a carrier’s homepage and states that 

the best method for providing this notice is to put a hyperlink on the homepage. ATA notes that 

three months is a long enough time to require the information on the change to be on the website. 

Most U.S. carriers submitted comments similar to ATA’s on the proposal to disclose baggage fee 

changes. Virgin America states, however, that the Department should refrain from establishing 

too much specificity or detail because such a regulation would detract from competitive market 

forces on how airlines design and set up their own websites. Furthermore, Virgin America notes 

that many carriers are developing mobile applications where screen space is limited. Allegiant 

Airlines opposes what it sees as attempts by the Department to micromanage how websites 
135 

appear and how information is shared with consumers in the absence of a clear attempt by 

carriers to deceive consumers. 

Foreign carriers and carrier associations generally were not in favor of what they view as 

increased U.S. government regulation of the appearance of websites that are not maintained in 

the United States. IATA warns that this proposal could be an extraterritorial application of U.S. 

law. IATA further states that most carriers already have baggage fee information readily 

available on their website, and most carriers do not charge for one or two checked pieces of 

baggage to or from the United States, so adding extra notice and advertising requirements to a 

carrier’s website would increase costs greatly. The National Airlines Council of Canada agrees 

with disclosure of fees on websites, but disagrees with the requirement to place a link to the 

disclosure on the homepage. Jetstar Airways opposes posting notice about the change directly 

on the homepage of the carrier, asserting that space issues could limit airlines’ ability to clearly 

disclose the changes and advertise products and services. Qantas raises similar concerns, noting 

that the Department should not dictate the content of a carrier’s website or homepage. Lufthansa 

believes that the Department did not establish why these disclosure rules are necessary, but does 

note that it already provides most of this information. Condor Flugdienst notes its objection to 

requiring changes to baggage allowances to be posted on the homepage, stating that failure to 

provide notice of a change is a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 under Department guidance and 

that there is no need, therefore, for the Department to codify this requirement. Air France and 

KLM contend that having the information regarding baggage fee changes stand alone on the 

homepage would be costly. Those carriers suggest that this information’s location on the 

website should be left to the airline’s discretion and that a time period of one to two months 

would be enough time for consumers to be aware of the change. 
136 

With regard to disclosure of baggage information on e-ticket confirmations, as with the 

proposal to disclose such information on carriers’ websites, most individual consumers and 

consumer groups support any provision that provides the consumer with more information and 

prevents consumers from being surprised about hidden fees. Some individuals specifically 

contend that baggage allowance disclosures should also include information regarding excess 

weight and excess baggage charges. Many consumers feel that the disclosure of baggage fees 

should occur earlier in the process, not after purchasing the ticket. One commenter noted that eticket confirmations are not required, and that some carriers still use paper tickets. This 

commenter noted that any requirement for disclosure of baggage fees on an e-ticket confirmation 

would not help consumers who are provided paper tickets because those consumers would not 

have that information. This commenter believes that the Department should clearly define what 

a ticket is, and then require baggage fee disclosures to be in the same method as the purchaser 

receives the ticket. 

ATA and most U.S. airlines do not have an objection to this requirement, as many 

carriers currently provide this information in the e-ticket confirmation. US Airways and Delta 

Air Lines support baggage disclosures on e-tickets. Spirit Airlines supports baggage fee 

disclosures on e-tickets through a hyperlink to baggage information. IATA is not opposed to a 

provision requiring airlines to include information regarding optional services in e-tickets after a 

purchase is complete. AEA also states that it is not opposed to providing this information on an 

e-ticket. AEA points out that EU Regulation 1008/2008 mandates that optional price 

supplements be communicated in a “clear, transparent and unambiguous way.” Some foreign 

carriers assert that requiring the information on the e-ticket confirmation is regulatory overkill, as 

a consumer cannot complete a purchase without becoming aware of the fees due to other 
137 

government regulations. Other carriers state that due to the abundance of disclosure prior to 

completion of purchase, a carrier should not be required to provide all of the information in full 

on an e-ticket as that would be costly. All Nippon Airways expressed concerns about the costs 

of redesigning their e-ticket confirmations, noting that a recent overhaul cost upwards of 

$145,000. Some carriers, such as Air France and KLM, note that they already have a system in 

place to provide information about baggage on the e-boarding pass issued via Internet check-in. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided to require U.S. and foreign carriers that 

advertise or sell air transportation in the United States to promptly and prominently disclose any 

increase in its fees for carry-on or checked baggage and any change in the checked baggage 

allowance for a passenger on the carrier’s homepage. Such notice must remain on the homepage 

for at least three months after the change becomes effective. This rule is consistent with current 

enforcement policies regarding the disclosure of changes in baggage fees. Additionally, the 

Department feels that this rule will prevent passenger surprise about changes in baggage fees or 

allowances. We agree with consumers and consumer groups, who advocate that greater 

disclosure of fees, and particularly baggage fees, is needed. Recognizing the concerns raised by 

carriers, particularly foreign carriers, about space on a carrier’s homepage and a carrier’s 

legitimate need to be able to design a website that is competitive and presents information in a 

clear way, the Department will allow carriers to fulfill the notice requirements by providing a 

link from the homepage directly to a pop-up or a place on another webpage that details the 

change in baggage allowance or fees and the effective dates of such changes. The link on the 

homepage needs to be descriptive, clear and conspicuous, i.e., easy for a consumer to locate. 

The link need only remain on the homepage for a period of three months after the change 
138 

becomes effective. Most commenters agreed that three months is a long enough time to ensure 

that consumers are aware of any change in baggage fees or allowances. 

The Department disagrees with Air France and KLM, which suggest that the carriers be 

allowed to decide where on their website to display the information and that the information 

should only remain active on the website for one or two months. Changes that occur need to be 

posted on the website for a sufficient time in order to allow consumers to review the changes not 

only prior to choosing a flight but also after they chose a flight and are preparing to travel. The 

Department believes that allowing carriers to decide where the notice should be given may result 

in some carriers placing the information in an inconspicuous location on the website. If such 

information is difficult for consumers to find, they may not be aware of the change until after 

arrival at the airport and the consumer cannot evaluate the impact of the change in baggage fees 

and allowances on his or her scheduled transportation, which limits consumer choice. 

The Department has also determined that there is value in providing a consumer 

information regarding baggage fees and allowances after the consumer completes a purchase for 

air travel. Therefore, the final rule requires U.S. carriers and foreign carriers and ticket agents 

that advertise or sell air transportation in the United States to provide information on e-ticket 

confirmations regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a 

carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag. By “applicable fee,” we mean the baggage 

fee information provided on the e-ticket confirmation cannot simply be a range of fees but must 

include information about any price that may exist for a carry-on bag and the first and second 

checked bag and any differing price that may exist depending on the passenger’s status (e.g., 

frequent flyer, military personnel), on when the payment for the bag is made, or and on whether 

a consumer checks his or her bag online rather than at the airport. As explained in the section on 
139 

covered entities, because they may not know the most recent carrier baggage policies, ticket 

agents may provide details on where to obtain this information by a hyperlink to the locations on 

the airline websites where specific information may be obtained since the airlines often update 

and change fees. The Department notes that this requirement will benefit consumers because it 

will reduce confusion over whether, and, if so, how much they will have to pay to check or 

carry-on bags. Additionally, this will save the time of both consumers and airline employees at 

the airport, because consumers will be notified in advance of check-in what the applicable fees 

are for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bags. The Department notes that carriers 

are already providing this information to consumers in compliance with existing enforcement 

policies. We disagree with the assertion by some carriers that consumers cannot complete a 

purchase without first becoming aware of the applicable baggage fees. Given the advent of new 

fees, such as fees for carry-on bags, the differing price for first and second checked bags, and the 

price difference that sometimes exists if a consumer checks his or her bag online versus checking 

the bag in at the airport, the Department believes that it is not a simple matter for consumers to 

determine the total price to transport their baggage. Additionally, the Department disagrees with 

airlines that assert that the disclosure requirements are burdensome, as most carriers already 

provide this information in one form or another.

C. Disclosure of all Ancillary Fees 

The NPRM: The Department proposed to require carriers that have a website accessible 

to the general public to disclose all fees for optional aviation services in one central place on 

their website, so that consumers have an easily accessible reference guide for the cost of these 

services. This disclosure was proposed to be made through a link from the carrier’s homepage 

directly to a listing of those fees. The Department invited general comment on this proposal. 
140 

We also asked for comment on whether only “significant” fees for optional services should have 

to be listed and, if so, how to define a “significant fee.” The Department also asked for 

suggestions for alternatives to the easily accessible link from the homepage for this disclosure. 

Comments: Generally, the majority of consumers and consumer groups agreed with 

requiring carriers to disclose ancillary fees on their website. They contend that airlines hide 

their fees, and that requiring disclosure will benefit consumers' ability to comparison shop and 

avoid surprise fees. Many consumer commenters urge the Department to require that the listing 

of optional fees on carriers’ websites be standardized. However, some commenters, 

commenting through the discussion on Regulation Room, expressed concern that a large fee 

table could be confusing to inexperienced or unsavvy casual travelers. Some consumers and 

consumer organizations assert that requiring the disclosure of ancillary fees does not go far 

enough and ask that the Department establish a list of ancillary services for which airlines are 

prohibited from charging a fee. 

ATA generally supports the proposal requiring airlines to disclose fees for ancillary 

services on a carrier’s website through a link, but feels that disclosure of such fees on e-ticket 

confirmations would be burdensome. ATA contends that some fees vary based on the flight and 

itinerary, such as food and beverage items. ATA, as well as industry groups such as ASTA and 

ITSA, do not see a reason why the disclosure should be limited to significant fees. US Airways 

generally supports this proposal, but requests sufficient lead time to fully implement the website 

changes required to list the fee information. US Airways notes that if the Department requires 

disclosure of these fees earlier in the process, the programming costs would increase to cover the 

complexity of new programming, and sufficient lead time would be required. Delta states that it 
141 

already has a page that lists these fees, and does not object to a requirement that all carriers 

maintain such pages. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided to require U.S. and foreign carriers to have 

one, central webpage on their website, linked from the carrier’s homepage, which lists all 

ancillary fees. The reason for this requirement is that Department considers it too difficult 

currently for consumers to effectively comparison shop and determine the total cost for travel, 

including ancillary fees for optional services. Not all carriers provide information regarding 

charges for various services, such as seat assignments, extra leg room, priority boarding, 

telephone reservations, and seat upgrades in a centralized location so that it is easily accessible 

for the consumer to review prior to purchase. The Department considers it to be unfair and 

deceptive to charge an ancillary fee to a consumer, when that consumer had no simple, practical, 

and reasonable way of knowing about the fee prior to purchasing the ticket. Having a single 

listing of all of the ancillary fees that a carrier charges for optional services allows the consumer 

access to greater information without unduly burdening the carrier or stifling the carrier’s need to 

compete on such services. 

The Department agrees with commenters that state that all fees should be listed. We 

believe that there is no practical way to identify what is “significant,” as each traveler, and even 

airline, might differ over what is significant. Therefore, the Department believes that to ensure 

adequate protection of consumers, as well as to ensure a level playing field among airlines, it is 

best to require carriers to list all fees. This includes, but is not limited to, fees for checked 

baggage, carry-on baggage, overweight bags, meals, on-board entertainment, Internet 

connections, pillows, blankets, advanced or upgraded seating assignments, telephone 

reservations, early boarding, canceling or changing reservations, unaccompanied minors, and pet 
142 

transportation. ATPCO has identified more than a hundred optional services and assigned each 

of those services a code. While the ATPCO list may not be an exhaustive list of services that are 

now offered or that will in the future be offered, the Department suggests that carriers may wish 

to use the ATPCO list of charges as a reference in developing a list of all optional services and 

fees to put on their websites. 

The Department understands the carriers' concern that the availability and price of some 

items vary depending on a number of factors such as the type of aircraft being used, the frequent 

flyer elite status of a passenger, the flight on which a passenger is booked, or the time at which a 

passenger pays for the optional service. For non-baggage related optional services, carriers can 

provide a range of fees, acknowledging that they vary based on those types of factors. For 

example, if food and beverage service prices vary among flights, an airline can state that meals 

or snacks are available for purchase, and then give a range of prices for such meals and snacks. 

This use of a range of fees would not, however, be acceptable under the rule with regard 

to fees in connection with checked or carry-on baggage, which are so fundamental to air travel 

and have until relatively recently been included in the price paid for travel on all carriers. With 

regard to those fees, we are specifically requiring that carriers, at a minimum, provide 

information about (1) any differing price that may exist for the first, second, third, or more 

checked and carry-on bag or overweight/oversized bag and (2) any differing price and allocation 

(e.g., whether or not a bag checked for free counts toward overall allowance) that may exist for 

each bag depending on the passenger’s status (e.g., frequent flyer, military personnel), on when 

the payment for the bag is made, or whether a consumer checks his or her bag online versus 

checking the bag at the airport. If an airline offers discounted baggage fees through status as a 

member in a paid or unpaid membership “club,” information regarding these programs should be 
143 

offered as well. The Department believes that listing the fees in one place will allow consumers 

greater access to information, prevent the problem of hidden fees, and prevent confusion at the 

airport or in-flight due to an unexpected charge. It should also enhance competition, as 

consumers will be better able to compare costs among carriers for the trip that they plan to take 

with the services that they would like to have. With regard to commenters who wanted the 

Department to mandate certain ancillary items that must be free, the law does not provide us the 

authority to do so.

D. Global Distribution Systems 

The NPRM: The Department stated in the NPRM that it was considering requiring 

carriers to make information about charges for optional services available to global distribution 

systems (GDSs). The Department considered this proposal due to the fact that a significant 

portion of consumers purchase their air travel and air tours though travel agencies, both online 

and traditional brick-and-mortar agencies. The Department invited comments on the ability of 

carriers to provide this information in a usable format and the potential costs and benefits 

associated with providing this information to GDSs. 

Comments: ATA and most of its members strongly oppose a requirement that forces 

airlines to provide ancillary fee information to GDSs. First, ATA notes that this is a competitive 

issue and would interfere with ongoing negotiations among carriers, GDSs, and travel agents, 

and would inject government regulation into private market decision making.. ATA notes that 

GDSs already have a great share of the market for air transportation bookings, and warns that 

fares could increase to cover the charges the GDSs would likely levy on carriers that are required 
144 

to provide this information to them. ATA also questions the existence of any unfair or deceptive 

practice this requirement would prevent. 

Most U.S. carriers agree with ATA’s position. US Airways does not believe the 

Department should mandate disclosure in a particular format, seeing this as interference with 

market forces. Delta Air Lines believes that this rule would affect its bargaining position with 

the GDSs and their ability to explore different options for sharing of this information with the 

GDSs. American Airlines contends that a carrier should have the ability and power to decide 

how to market its ancillary services. American states that requiring disclosure would unfairly 

bolster the GDS market power. In a joint filing, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta 

Air Lines, United Air Lines, and US Airways reiterate the carriers' commitment to providing fee 

information to consumers, but assert that interfering in market negotiations would harm 

competition and ultimately would harm consumers. These airlines note that providing fee 

information about optional services to consumers is good for the airlines because airlines are in 

the business of selling tickets and selling these ancillary services. They assert that carriers 

should be allowed to market their services how they see fit and to decide how to provide their 

customers with the greatest access to information and choice. The carriers reiterate ATA’s point 

that requiring airlines to furnish this information to GDSs would harm consumers by increasing 

airline distribution costs, arguing that GDSs would charge the airlines fees to upload the 

information into the GDS system. The carriers note that many travel agents, including online 

travel agents, already have access to and disclose fee information, referring to the Expedia 

website which has a chart of baggage fees. The carriers contend that the GDS distribution 

system is anti-competitive and not efficient, and that requiring the airlines to provide fee 
145 

information will further bolster the market power of the GDSs without allowing for substantive 

competition from third-party vendors. 

Two U.S. carriers did not object to providing ancillary fee information to GDSs. Spirit 

Airlines does not oppose the proposal, unless it would impose significant costs on carriers to 

change the format the carriers already use to provide the information to the GDSs. Southwest 

Airlines supports limited transmittal of fee information to GDSs in order to provide information 

to all consumers, regardless of how they book their flights. Southwest states, however, that the 

requirement should only obligate carriers to furnish this information to existing GDS partners. 

Southwest opposes allowing GDSs to charge fees for collecting data on ancillary services. 

Southwest notes that carrier participation in GDSs and other distribution channels for selling air 

transportation is a strategic business decision by each carrier. The carrier also supports a 

provision that would require all carrier-imposed surcharges, such as seasonal fare adjustments, to 

be included in the fare information provided to GDSs 

IATA and most of the other foreign air carrier organizations oppose requiring carriers to 

provide ancillary fee information to GDSs as well, although they support carriers providing 

information about ancillary fees and services on carrier websites. The National Airlines Council 

of Canada agrees with the disclosure of fees in general, but recommends that the Department not 

mandate the method of disclosure. It notes that this information is most effective when presented 

to the customer within the flow of the transaction, as Air Canada does on its website. Some 

carriers, such as Jetstar Airways and Qantas, oppose providing the fees for optional services to 

consumers via a static webpage, stating that it is more helpful for consumers and airlines to focus 

ancillary fee information to a particular booking. Other carriers, such as Virgin Atlantic, note 

that they already file this information with ATPCO, thus allowing for access by GDSs. 
146 

The vast majority of consumers and consumer groups (e.g., BTC, CTA, Flyersrights.org) 

support the Department requiring airlines to disclose their ancillary fee information to the GDSs. 

BTC and CTA urge the Department to establish uniform standards for fee disclosures, on the 

basis that airlines may add new fees in the future. Both of those organizations state that airlines 

artificially deflate the cost of a fare so that they can tack on high ancillary fee charges that are 

hidden from the consumer during an initial fare search. 

ITSA and ASTA implore the Department to require airlines to share ancillary fees with 

the GDSs. ITSA notes that a passenger who wants to search for a fare that includes a checked 

bag and a pre-assigned seat will have to spend a great deal of time and have to be especially 

computer savvy to find the total amount he or she would have to pay for their travel because the 

fees are hidden on carriers' websites. ITSA, representing GDSs, states that at least 50% and 

possibly as high as 60% of the traveling public relies on travel agents to comparison shop for 

fares. ITSA argues that without this information from GDSs, brick and mortar travel agencies 

and online travel agencies cannot adequately state the total cost of travel to their clients. ITSA 

notes that the Department already requires information beyond the base fare to be provided to the 

GDSs such as code-share information and change of gauge information. ITSA asserts that the 

costs of this requirement would be low as it believes the technology is already in place to 

distribute the fee information. ITSA further adds that the Department’s mandate to prevent 

unfair and deceptive practices trumps claims that disclosure should be left to private market 

negotiations. ITSA believes that merely requiring carriers to post the fee information on a 

webpage is not adequate to alleviate the problems of hidden fares or reduce the time it takes to 

comparison shop. Uniglobe Travel, Travizon, Inc., and individual travel agents that commented 
147 

in the docket support the proposal to require that carriers provide ancillary fee information to 

GDSs. 

Many third party commenters submitted comments related to providing ancillary fee 

information to GDSs. Several members of Congress wrote in support of a requirement 

obligating carriers to submit their ancillary fee information to GDSs. A member of the European 

Parliament also expressed his support for issuing a rule so that passengers booking through a 

GDS system are aware of the total price of the ticket before purchase. The New York State 

Consumer Protection Board states a similar position that information about fees should be 

distributed to consumers through a wide variety of channels, not just through a link on the 

carrier’s website. 

Farelogix, a third party distribution and management technology firm, opposes the 

proposal to require that the carriers provide information to GDSs. Farelogix believes that GDSs 

should coordinate directly with the airline. The firm does not think that the GDSs should be able 

to mandate the format of the information. Farelogix notes that the GDSs are resistant to third 

party technology to transfer information in order to preserve their place in the travel market, and 

states that this proposed requirement will further limit third parties from entering the travel 

technology marketplace. An airline consultant makes several similar points. This consultant 

points out that if the Department requires carriers to provide information about fees for optional 

services to GDSs, the airlines’ bargaining leverage is eroded and the higher distribution costs the 

airlines will face will be passed on to consumers. The consultant notes that negotiations to sell 

ancillary services are working in some respects, using examples of United Airlines selling 

Economy Plus service through Sabre, Midwest Airlines selling seat assignments through Sabre, 

and Finnair selling ancillary services through Amadeus. This individual believes that these fees 
148 

are not hidden, and notes that most of these fees are not charged until check-in or onboard the 

flight. A professor at Harvard Business School comments that compelling airlines to provide fee 

information to GDSs will have far-reaching and unintended consequences on existing contractual 

structures between airlines and GDSs. He believes that if a requirement to provide fees for 

optional services is adopted, the GDSs will mark up prices considerably because airlines will be 

forced to disclose pursuant to government rule. The Airline Tariff Publishing Company 

(ATPCO), without taking a position on the merits of the proposal, notes that it has systems in 

place that could help implement any requirement regarding carriers sharing fee information with 

GDSs. 

DOT Response: We have decided to defer final action on this proposal. The 

Department’s goal to protect consumers from hidden and deceptive fees and to allow consumers 

to price shop for air transportation in an effective manner remains paramount. The Department’s 

goal is to provide all air travel consumers with easy access to information about fares and 

optional fees, particularly baggage fees. As discussed earlier, this final rule requires U.S. and 

foreign carriers to disclose on their website information about changes in baggage fees or 

allowances and to list on their website all of the airlines’ fees for optional services. The final rule 

also requires both carriers and ticket agents to provide information on the first screen in which 

the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer 

that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to access these 

baggage fees. In addition, ticket agents and carriers must include on e-ticket confirmations 

information about the free baggage allowance and the applicable fee for the first and second 

checked bag and carry-on. We believe that these steps partially address the problem of hidden 

and deceptive fees and allow consumers to price shop for air transportation. The Department is 
149 

cognizant that some parties feel that requiring carriers to provide information on their ancillary 

fees to GDSs would be a reasonable way, if not the best way, to ensure consumers can easily 

comparison shop for air fares. We cannot at this time agree that it is in the public interest to 

mandate that step, since we lack information critical to a decision on the issue. Thus, in order to 

permit us time to obtain additional information about costs, benefits and consequences of 

requiring U.S. and foreign carriers to provide ancillary fee information to GDSs, including those 

involving competition, the Department is deferring final action on this matter. The Department 

wants to ensure that any action it takes does not have unintended consequences, particularly 

given the sensitive nature of the market and the negotiations currently taking place between 

carriers and the GDSs. 

E. Display of Two Fares in Advertising 

The NPRM: The Department asked for comment on the costs and benefits of displaying 

two fares in airfare advertising. The first price would be the full fare (i.e., fare with all 

mandatory charges) and the second price would be that full fare plus the cost of baggage charges 

that traditionally have been included in the price of the ticket, if these prices differ. The 

Department asked whether the second fare should only include the price of baggage charges or 

whether it should also include other services traditionally included in air travel such as obtaining 

a seat assignment in advance. The Department also solicited comment on the cost and feasibility 

of requiring sellers of air transportation to allow consumers to conduct fare queries for their 

specific needs (e.g., airfare and two checked bags, or airfare, one checked bag and extra 

legroom) and select the services they wish to include in the price of the travel. 

Comments: Individual consumers and consumer groups are divided on the helpfulness of 

any requirement for a carrier to display two fares in response to a fare inquiry. Some 
150 

commenters and groups assert that this type of fare display system could be helpful for 

comparison shopping. Commenters who participated in the discussion on the Regulation Room 

site were divided. Some state that such a dual fare display could be helpful, but others claim it 

would be confusing. Individuals commenting to the docket expressed similar opinions. Most 

were in favor of more robust disclosure, especially regarding baggage fees. Many who favored a 

dual fare disclosure disagreed, however, on what should be included in the second fare of a twofare display system. Some state that just the cost of baggage should be included. Others contend 

that baggage, blankets, pillow, and a seat assignment should also be included. The idea that 

consumers could select the ancillary services they wished before receiving a fare quote had many 

supporters. CTA supports the approach to airfare searching that would allow a consumer to 

select the services and fees they wish to be included in their travel. 

ATA does not support the two-fare model. ATA states it would be confusing for 

passengers. It adds that the Department does not have enough information to impose this 

requirement. ATA and certain U.S. carriers note that there are questions and ambiguities as to 

what is “traditionally included in the price of a ticket.” As many U.S. carriers noted, each 

passenger’s needs are different, so the second fare would be confusing or of little help to many 

consumers. 

IATA contends that a two-fare display system could be confusing and should not be 

mandated, as many carriers already have an established online advertising regime that includes 

an online menu of optional services presented to the consumer through the course of their 

purchase. IATA asserts that requiring a two-fare model would be an unwarranted government 

intrusion on business practices. The Arab Air Carriers Organization states that a two-fare model 

would be unworkable and prohibitively expensive, as most carriers’ reservations systems would 
151 

have to be reworked to accommodate a two-fare requirement. Many individual foreign carriers 

echoed the sentiments of IATA, including South African Airways and Lufthansa, which note that 

a carrier can always choose to adopt a two-fare system. British Airways states that if this 

proposal were to become a requirement, the requirement should only apply to fares that do not 

include one checked bag, and this requirement should apply to GDSs and travel agents as well as 

carriers. ITSA is not opposed to a two-fare system, as long as the Department is clear about 

what would be included in the price. ATPCO notes that it has technology that could implement 

any required two-fare pricing model or a consumer self-selection model. 

DOT Response: The Department agrees with the commenters who feel that a “two-fare” 

display system would be too confusing for travelers. We agree that each traveler is unique with 

regard to what ancillary services he or she needs or wants on a particular flight, and therefore one 

“all-inclusive” price that includes baggage and a seat assignment may not be helpful to most 

passengers. The Department will also not require, at this time, that sellers of air transportation 

revise their online systems to allow consumers to conduct queries for specific optional services 

and the fees for those services before displaying a price. Although the Department understands 

that some websites may exist that have these capabilities and that some carriers utilize online 

menus for consumers from which to choose services during the booking process, the Department 

does not have enough information regarding the costs of implementing such a system to require 

that every carrier implement such an online system. 

F. Services Provided by Code-Share Partners 

The NPRM: The Department sought comments as to whether in a code-share situation 

the marketing/ticketing carrier should be required to disclose through reservation agents, 

websites, and/or e-ticket confirmations any differences in services and fees applicable to a 
152 

consumer between the marketing carrier and the operating carrier. The Department also asked 

whether there were any ancillary fees for services that should not be permitted to vary among 

code-share partners, such as the allowances and charges for baggage. The Department noted that 

its policy states that, for passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, 

the baggage rules that apply at the beginning of the itinerary apply throughout the itinerary and 

provides that the marketing carrier’s rules take precedence. 

Comments: Most individual commenters and consumer groups, including 

Flyersrights.org, favor a rule that would require the marketing or ticketing carrier’s fees to apply 

for the whole trip. Some commenters, through Regulation Room, expressed the opinion that the 

lesser of the two fees should apply if the marketing carrier’s fees differ from the operating 

carrier’s fees. Most commenters support greater notice requirements regarding differing fee 

structures between code-share partners. Some commenters on Regulation Room specifically felt 

that the marketing carrier should provide greater information, especially if the operating carrier 

has more stringent or restrictive luggage requirements. 

ATA believes that disclosure of fees between code-share partners can be accomplished 

effectively through a hyperlink on the marketing carrier’s website directly to the operating 

carrier’s fee list. It opposes any attempt by the Department to standardize optional fees amongst 

code-share partners. ATA notes that attempts at standardization would be counter to the goals of 

deregulation and could be anti-competitive. It further states that standardization of fees could be 

impractical and costly for flights that have multiple code-share partners selling tickets on the 

same flight. US Airways comments that applying the marketing carrier’s rule is not feasible and 

would create different classes of passengers on the same aircraft. Delta states that ancillary fees 
153 

should not be uniform amongst carriers and code-share partners as that requirement would stifle 

competition. 

IATA states that requiring the marketing carrier to disclose fees of operating carriers is 

consistent with the Department’s policy regarding code-share situations. IATA believes this 

notice can be accomplished through a hyperlink to the code-share partner’s website that details 

their fees. Singapore Airlines notes that it already provides information to consumers regarding 

significant differences in services and fees among partners. It states that the best way to 

accomplish this is to provide a link to the partner’s listing. The carrier also notes that its call 

center agents are trained to provide this information. However, Singapore Airlines states that if 

the Department proposes a harmonized scheme it should incorporate reasonable and 

commercially viable allowances and fees. Qatar Airways refers the Department to IATA 

Resolution 302 (“Baggage Provisions Selection Criteria”) which will go into effect in April 

2011. The carrier states that under this resolution, there will be no standard baggage allowances 

or charges, and each carrier will publish its own rules. Qatar Airways notes that in the event of a 

conflict between baggage allowances, the provision of the “Most Significant Carrier,” as 

determined by the Resolution, would apply. Qatar Airways urges the Department to adopt a 

similar proposal. Many foreign carriers such as Qantas, Air France, and KLM oppose a 

Department rule that would prohibit differences in baggage fees between the marketing and 

operating carrier, but do support disclosure of any differences between the carriers. 

DOT Response: After considering the comments regarding the differences between the 

ancillary services and fees between code-share and interline carriers, the Department has decided 

not to require code-share carriers to standardize their optional services and fees but to specify 

with respect to baggage which carrier’s allowances and fees apply. We believe that baggage 
154 

rules and fees should be treated differently from fees for other optional services, as variations in 

baggage fees among code-share and interline partners are likely to result in significant 

inconvenience and confusion for many passengers. The Department has received complaints 

from consumers who have been faced with multiple, differing, and uncertain baggage allowances 

and charges on both code-share and interline flights. Passengers experience significant 

difficulties when the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of their trip differ 

from what is applied later because their itineraries include sectors where the baggage rules differ, 

notwithstanding the fact that the passenger was traveling on a single, code-share or interline 

ticket, service that carriers continue to tout as “seamless.” 

This final rule requires that for passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is 

a U.S. point, the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of the itinerary apply 

throughout the itinerary. In the case of code-share flights that form part of an itinerary whose 

ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a point in the U.S., the final rule requires that the 

baggage allowances and fees of the marketing carrier apply throughout the itinerary to the extent 

that they differ between the marketing carrier and the operating carrier. The Department is 

aware that these requirements may result in the situation foreseen by ATA and US Airways of 

consumers on the same flight being subject to different baggage allowances or fees. The 

Department does not find anything unfair or deceptive about passengers on the same flight being 

subject to different baggage provisions — just as many passengers on the flight would have 

typically paid different fares. Further, we believe this method of determining baggage rules is 

consistent with Department policy and affords the greatest protection to consumers from unfair 

application of baggage rules throughout their itineraries. The Department also believes these 

requirements align with the goals of IATA Resolution 302, which was adopted by IATA 
155 

members to bring transparency and clarity to baggage rules on code-share and interline 

itineraries 

As to whether in the case of code-share flights whether the marketing/ticketing carrier 

should be required to disclose all of the operating carrier’s fees for optional services, we have 

decided to require the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any difference between its 

optional services and fees and those of the carrier operating the flight. This disclosure may be 

made through providing a hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating 

carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that lists the differences in policies 

amongst code-share partners. A marketing/ticketing carrier may also choose to make this 

information available to consumers through notice on its own website of differences between its 

optional services and fees and those of the carrier operating the flight. We are not requiring 

disclosure of the fees for optional services of the operating carrier through reservation agents or 

e-ticket confirmations because we believe the costs to carriers of providing this information in 

those formats far outweigh the benefit to consumers, particularly since this final rule already 

requires U.S. and foreign carriers to list on their website all of their fees for optional services. 

Further, of all the fees for optional services charged by airlines, consumers are generally most 

interested in fees charged for baggage and the final rule already requires ticket agents and 

carriers to disclose baggage fees and allowances on e-ticket confirmations. As discussed earlier, 

the final rule also requires carriers and ticket agents to inform passengers on the first screen in 

which the ticket agent or carrier offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a 

consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can go to see 

these baggage fees. 
156 

9. Post-Purchase Price Increase 

The NPRM: The Department proposed to revise its current regulation in 14 CFR 253.7 

which allows post purchase price increases as long as the consumer receives direct notice on or 

with the ticket of any contract of carriage term that allows a carrier to increase the price after 

purchase. Under the proposed rule, the Department would prohibit all post-purchase price 

increases by carriers, tour operators, or other sellers of air transportation, tours or tour 

components. The seller would be prohibited from increasing the price after the consumer 

completes the purchase. The Department asked for comment on the proposal to ban postpurchase price increases as well as two alternatives. The first proposed alternative would allow 

post-purchase price increases, as long as the seller of air transportation conspicuously disclosed 

to the consumer the potential for such an increase and the maximum amount of such increase 

before the consumer purchased the air transportation, and the consumer affirmatively agreed to 

such an increase prior to the completion of the purchase. The second alternative would allow 

post-purchase price increases (with disclosure) that the consumer agrees to in advance of 

purchasing the ticket, but would prohibit such an increase within thirty or sixty days of the first 

flight in the purchased itinerary. 

Comments: Individual travelers and consumer organizations representing travelers 

support the proposal to ban post-purchase price increases in air transportation or tours by carriers 

and ticket agents. Most consumer commenters state that an outright ban on post-purchase price 

increases is fair. One commenter asserts that the practice of increasing the price after purchase is 

egregious, especially in the case of tour operators that raise prices due to fuel surcharges. 

Another commenter asks for clarification on what an increase in the price of the ticket means, 

because the commenter is concerned about change fees being applied to an already purchased 
157 

ticket. Most commenters participating in Regulation Room favor an outright ban, rejecting the 

alternatives that allow for conspicuous disclosure of a potential price increase. A small number 

felt that the proposed alternative of requiring conspicuous notice of a potential maximum amount 

of an increase would adequately protect consumers. 

We also received comments from carriers and carrier organizations regarding this 

proposal. ATA and its members support the primary proposal to ban post-purchase price 

increases outright, and do not feel that any alternative is necessary. ATA states that this is 

consistent with industry practice. IATA and many foreign carriers are not opposed to this 

proposal, but they do request that an exception be made for post-purchase imposition of 

government-imposed taxes and fees. AEA, ALTA, and AACO all support a limited exception to 

a complete ban in the case of an increase in government-imposed taxes and fees. IACA states 

that an outright ban on post-purchase increases is not consistent with the European Union 

regulations which allow post-purchase price increases in limited circumstances and with certain 

disclosures. IACA seems to support one of the alternatives which would allow some increase in 

the purchase price after purchase is completed. 

Air France, KLM and Qantas generally support the proposal with the exception of 

government-imposed taxes and fees. Additionally Air France, KLM and Qantas ask for 

clarification on when a “purchase” is complete. Both airlines suggest that a booking that is being 

“held” by the airline but has not been purchased should not be a completed purchase for purposes 

of this rule. Air New Zealand further comments that change fees should be allowed because 

those apply when a consumer is purchasing a new ticket and not traveling on the same ticket. 

USTOA is against the proposal for an outright ban without some contingency built into the rule 

regarding tax increases and partial customer payments. USTOA views a purchase as being 
158 

complete if the consumer has paid in full. USTOA also states that an exception to a ban on 

post-purchase increases should be made for increases in government taxes and fees, provided 

that the consumer is made aware of such a potential increase. USTOA points out that the tour 

operators have no control over the increase of the price of scheduled air transportation. USTOA 

supports the alternatives, but believes that sellers should not be required to state the maximum 

amount of a price increase because the tour operator will not know the maximum amount. 

ASTA contends that in order to protect all sellers, a post-purchase price increase should 

only be applied on ticketed reservations, contracted group travel arrangements, and business to 

business transactions between tour operators and airlines. ASTA states that a travel agent does 

not impose the additional increases in price; rather, the government or carriers impose taxes, fees 

and fuel surcharges. ASTA prefers the first alternative which allows a post-purchase price 

increase with specific notice of the increase and a maximum amount of such increase identified 

to the consumer. ASTA suggests modifying the first alternative so that the sellers of air 

transportation also identify when they have imposed such post-purchase price increases in the 

past. 

DOT Response: After fully considering the comments received, the Department has 

decided to adopt the rule as proposed, but allow for an exception related to an increase in 

government-imposed taxes and fees. Although taxes and fees are not retroactively applied in the 

United States, the Department is aware that government-imposed taxes and fees levied by 

entities outside of the United States might be applied retroactively to a completed ticket 

purchase. As these fees and taxes are outside of the control of the seller of air transportation, the 

Department agrees with ASTA and foreign carriers that sellers should be protected from having 

to absorb the costs imposed by retroactive application of government taxes and fees. This 
159 

exception to a total ban on post-purchase price increases is limited to government-imposed taxes 

and fees imposed on a per-passenger basis. It does not include increases in fuel surcharges or 

other carrier or ticket agent imposed charges. The Department recognizes that changes may be 

necessary in the way a tour operator prices or advertises packages to comply with the prohibition 

on post-purchase prices increases with an exception only for government-imposed taxes and fees 

imposed on a per-passenger basis. 

The final rule also requires sellers of air transportation to disclose the potential for a postpurchase price increase related to an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee in a clear and 

conspicuous manner to the consumer. The consumer must affirmatively agree to the potential 

for such an increase prior to the purchase, for example by checking a box on the final page prior 

to purchase. After purchase, the seller of air transportation can only impose an increase due to 

government-imposed taxes or fees if such an increase applies to that particular consumer (e.g., 

the increase cannot be collected from consumers to whom a general increase did not apply 

because they had purchased and fully paid for their ticket months earlier, and/or because an 

increase has been announced but is not yet in effect). For purposes of this section, a purchase is 

not deemed to have occurred until the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. 

Therefore, in the context of a tour that contains an air component, a purchase is complete when 

the consumer tenders the entire amount paid for the tour to the tour operator. The Department 

finds it to be unfair for consumers to bear the brunt of any increase in price after they have paid 

the full amount agreed upon for air transportation or a tour. 

To further protect consumers, the final rule requires sellers of air transportation, tours or 

tour components to notify a consumer of the potential for a price increase that could take place 

prior to the time that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer, including but 
160 

not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of 

passenger baggage, an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, or an increase in a governmentimposed tax or fee. These entities must provide the consumer an opportunity to decline the 

purchase without penalty or affirmatively agree to the potential for such an increase prior to 

making any payment for the scheduled air transportation, or tour or tour component that includes 

scheduled air transportation. The Department believes that such a disclosure will provide 

consumers with important information to help them determine whether they want to purchase the 

air transportation or tour and if so, the appropriate time to make payment. 

With regard to the comments relating to change fees, the Department agrees with 

commenters that change fees do not constitute an increase in the price of an already-purchased 

ticket, as technically the consumer is purchasing a new ticket for new travel. However, the 

Department considers it to be an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 

41712 for a seller of air transportation to impose any fee on a consumer to change a travel 

itinerary unless this possibility was disclosed to the consumer prior to purchase. Additionally, to 

address the comments about the applicability of this section to tickets marketed and sold in 

Europe, the final rule specifies that with respect to ticket agents and foreign air carriers, these 

requirements only apply to advertising or selling in the United States of air transportation or 

tours. 

10. Flight Status Change 

The NPRM: In the NPRM we proposed to require U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 

percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenues (reporting carriers) to promptly provide 

passengers and other interested parties notice of flight status changes, defined as a cancellation 

of a flight or a delay of 30 minutes or more, for their domestic scheduled passenger flights. We 
161 

proposed to require that this notification take place within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes 

aware or should have become aware of the status change. A carrier would be required to provide 

such information updates at boarding gate areas, on airport display boards that are under a 

carrier’s control, on the homepage of a carrier’s websites and through a carrier’s telephone 

reservation systems. To the extent that carriers permit passengers and other interested persons to 

subscribe to receive flight information updates, we proposed that carriers provide those updates 

in a timely fashion, i.e., providing the information and subsequent updates within 30 minutes 

after the carrier becomes aware or should have become aware of such information. 

We sought comments on whether these flight status notification requirements should be 

extended to smaller U.S. carriers and/or international operations of U.S. and foreign carriers, 

particularly since we proposed to require U.S. and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled 

passenger service with at least one aircraft with 30 or more seats to adopt a customer service plan 

that pledged to notify consumers in the boarding gate area, on board aircraft, via a carrier’s 

telephone reservation system and on a carrier’s website of known delays, cancellations and 

diversions. We specifically asked for information about the cost or benefit of applying these 

requirements to smaller carriers. We also asked for comments on whether the proposed means of 

notification, i.e., website, telephone reservation system, airport display boards under carriers’ 

control, and boarding area, should be mandatory, or whether we should leave it to the carriers to 

determine what means they prefer to use. With respect to the timeliness standard, we invited the 

public to comment on whether “within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware or should 

have become aware” is a reasonable standard. We also sought public opinion on whether the 

proposed requirement that updated information should be provided for flight delays of 30 

minutes or more is an appropriate standard. 
162 

Comments: Comments from consumers and consumer rights advocacy groups 

overwhelmingly support our proposal for the largest U.S. carriers to promptly notify passengers 

of changes in the status of particular flights as a result of delays or cancellations. The New York 

State Consumer Protection Board, AAPR, FlyersRights.org, Consumers Union, and most 

commenters on RegulationRoom.org support expanding the requirements to cover smaller U.S. 

carriers and international operations of U.S. and foreign carriers. ACI-NA suggests that the rule 

should include small carriers that serve small and non-hub airports, arguing that the impact of 

delays and cancellation occurring at those airports may have great adverse effect on larger 

connection hubs. 

 Several foreign carriers specifically oppose applying the notification requirements to 

foreign carriers. IACA states that the proposed rule may potentially be an extraterritorial 

application of U.S. law to activities in a foreign jurisdiction. Qantas and JetStar Airways aver 

that the rule should not apply to foreign marketing code-share partners, as the operating carriers 

are in the best position to notify passengers of any flight status changes. ATA, on the other 

hand, states that the marketing carrier should have the responsibility to update flight information 

up until the date of flight departure, at which point the operating carrier should be responsible for 

the notification. ANA raises the issue of technical difficulties faced by foreign carriers in 

complying with the electronic notification rule when they must conduct extensive automation 

modifications including sharing data with code-share partners. Many carriers contend that when 

information is not timely transmitted to carriers by FAA, carriers should not be held liable. TUI 

Travel asks that foreign leisure travel charter operators be exempted from the rule based on its 

assertion that there are already established communication channels between passengers and 

carriers through the tour operators. 
163 

 With respect to the means of notification, many commenters from the consumer side urge 

the Department to mandate all four methods (i.e., at gate boarding areas, on airport display 

boards that are under carrier’s control, and through carriers’ website and telephone reservation 

systems) . The New York State Consumer Protection Board also recommends that we require 

carriers to offer passengers the opportunity to subscribe to flight status service updates via 

voicemail and electronic media. Industry commenters, however, argue that the Department 

should provide carriers flexibility in choosing what means they use. ATA specifically requests 

that the Department not require any new technology or program that is not currently 

implemented by the carriers. 

 ATA raises concern that our proposal on flight status change notification may conflict 

with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act rule. 

In a March 2010 NPRM, the FCC proposed to require consumers’ prior written consent for 

prerecorded calls, eliminating the exemption for parties that have already established business 

relationships (75 Fed. Reg. 13471, March 22, 2010). If adopted, the FCC rule would prohibit 

carriers from leaving prerecorded telephone messages concerning flight delays and cancellations 

with any passengers from whom carriers do not have prior written consent. 

 Regarding the proposed timeliness standard, the New York State Consumer Protection 

Board states that the 30-minute standard is good but urges the Department to adopt a more 

stringent standard that requires notification to be provided “no later than 20-minutes” after the 

carrier is aware or should have become aware of the flight status change. Other commenters 

from the consumer side generally welcome the 30-minute standard as being reasonable and not 

too burdensome to the carriers. Among the carriers and carrier associations that commented on 

this proposal, there is little objection to the “30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware” 
164 

requirement. However, most of those commenters are concerned about the “30 minutes after the 

carrier should have become aware of the flight status change” standard. IATA asks the 

Department to clarify the meaning of this standard, and ATA argues that this is a subjective 

standard that makes compliance difficult. Southwest Airlines supports ATA’s position and states 

that this standard is too vague and is likely to be inconsistently applied and enforced. 

 Regarding the proposal that notification should be provided to passengers for any flight 

delays that are expected to last for 30 minutes or more, both consumers and carrier commenters 

are supportive of this standard. ATA also recommends that the Department require the airports 

to update display boards under the airports’ control every 30 minutes when a flight’s status 

changes. ASTA supports ATA’s position and states that it is important that the information 

provided by the carriers and airports be current in order to avoid passenger confusion. 

DOT Response: The final rule requires U.S. and foreign carriers conducting scheduled 

passenger service to and from the U.S. with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to make 

information available to passengers and other interested parties about a change in flight status. It 

is important for passengers as well as persons dropping passengers off for outbound flights or 

meeting passengers on incoming flights to stay informed on a timely basis of delays, diversions 

or cancellations affecting their flights in order to avoid unnecessary waits at, or pointless trips to, 

an airport. The need for, and importance of timely notification regarding flight delays, 

diversions and cancellations exists whether it is a U.S. or foreign carrier operating the flight and 

whether it is a non-reporting or reporting carrier operating the flight. On code-shares, the final 

rule leaves it up to the carriers to determine whether the marketing or operating carrier will 

provide the required notification about change in flight status. We expect that foreign carriers 

and non-reporting U.S. carriers will work with their code-share reporting-carrier partners, most 
165 

of which already have the necessary systems in place, to comply with the notification 

requirements contained in this final rule. For enforcement purposes, the Department’s Aviation 

Enforcement Office will hold both the code-share marketing carrier and the operating carrier 

responsible, jointly and severally, for failure to comply with this rule. 

 The final rule mandates that the flight status notifications be provided through the four 

methods proposed: at the boarding gate area, on carriers’ websites, through carriers’ telephone 

reservations systems, and by airport display boards that are under the carriers’ control. If an 

airport-controlled display system accepts flight status updates from carriers, covered carriers 

must furnish this information to that airport within the timeframes provided in this rule. We do 

not believe mandating all four methods is burdensome to carriers as it is our opinion that these 

four methods represent the most common ways used by carriers to communicate with passengers 

and other interested parties who seek and obtain information about the status of the schedules for 

their flights. 

These varied flight status notification methods make it more likely that passengers and 

other interested parties will be able to access this information when they need it. For example, 

individuals who do not have access to the Internet may call a carriers’ reservation telephone 

system to learn about delays, cancellations, or diversions. Notification at the airports through the 

airport display boards and in the boarding gate area is also essential when passengers are already 

at the airports. Regarding notification at the boarding gate area, the responsibility of a carrier to 

notify passengers does not begin until the gate is staffed for the specific flight in question. With 

respect to notification provided through carriers’ telephone reservation systems, we clarify that 

such notification is only required upon the request by a consumer. 
166 

 In addition to these four methods, we are also requiring carriers that offer passengers the 

opportunity to subscribe to a flight status update service to ensure that required information is 

provided promptly and accurately. We note that many carriers already have in place subscription 

services for passengers to receive flight status notifications through various widely used media, 

including computer-generated telephone/voicemail, text messages and emails. To the extent such 

services are offered to the public, this final rule requires that the notifications be delivered to the 

passenger by whatever means is available to the carrier and of the passenger’s choice within 30 

minutes after the carrier becomes aware of a change in the status of a flight. We do not believe, 

as asserted by some commenters, that applying this standard will dissuade carriers from 

voluntarily providing such subscription services for fear of the potential enforcement 

consequences. We are confident that market forces and competition will continue to be the 

driving force for carriers to improve the quality of their customer care. 

 In response to ATA’s concern that the Department’s flight status notification requirement 

may conflict with the FCC’s rule, the Department wishes to provide the following clarification. 

The Department has submitted comments on the FCC’s rulemaking, requesting the FCC to 

maintain its current “established business relationship” exemption to the extent necessary to 

permit carriers to notify their customers of flight status changes through telephone messages 

without obtaining each customer's prior written consent. To the extent FCC adopts a final rule as 

it proposed, the Department does not see a direct conflict between the FCC rule and our rule. In 

this final rule, we do not require carriers to call each passenger on the affected flight to notify 

them about the flight status change. Likewise we do not mandate subscription services. 

Therefore, if carriers choose to provide subscription services, they could either eliminate the voice 
167 

message choice from the choices of contact available to subscribers, or obtain the subscribers’ 

written consent at the time of subscription. 

 Most carriers that commented on the proposals objected to the “30 minutes after the 

carrier should have become aware of flight status change” standard for notifying consumers about 

the flight irregularity, arguing that it is vague and subjective. The Department agrees with the 

concerns expressed that this standard may become challenging to comply with and enforce. 

Therefore, we are removing the “should have become aware” standard from the final rule. With 

respect to the “30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware” standard, we believe further 

clarification is necessary. For enforcement purpose, we consider that the carrier has become 

aware of the flight status change as soon as the carrier’s system operation control center (SOCC) 

or equivalent facility, if it goes by another name, learns of it. We recognize that carriers cancel, 

delay and divert flights based on information from many sources, both internal as well as from 

third parties, such as FAA and airports. Whatever the source of information leading to the 

decision for a flight status change, it is the carrier’s sole responsibility to distribute the 

information, within 30 minutes, to the downstream operational staff, such as webmasters, airport 

station managers, reservation system managers, and gate agents. A carrier has an affirmative duty 

at all times to keep track of flight status changes and maintain open channels of communication. 

We consider it an unfair and deceptive practice when the carrier’s failure to obtain and pass on to 

consumers up-to-date and accurate information is caused by the carrier’s own procedural 

shortcomings. 

 Much less contested is our proposed standard that carriers notify passengers and other 

interested parties regarding flight delays of 30 minutes or more. Many consumer and industry 

commenters agree that this is a reasonable standard that strikes a balance between providing the 
168 

most useful and accurate update to the passengers and the costs incurred by the carriers associated 

with providing such information. Consequently, the final rule maintains this standard. We 

emphasize that this is a minimum standard and carriers are free to and urged to provide 

notification about briefer delays, as many already have done for their subscription services. 

 Under the final rule, the “30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of the flight status 

change” standard also applies to any information updates provided to passengers who have 

already received previous notification regarding the status change of their flights. We disagree 

with some commenters’ contention that updating flight status change every 30 minutes if the 

flight is delayed again is not necessary if it is close to the scheduled departure time and 

passengers are already at the airport. This information is important for passengers whose flights 

downline depend on the schedule of aircraft used for the flight experiencing the irregularity, as 

well as for persons who may be meeting passengers on the affected flight. Finally, we note that 

the Department does not directly have the authority to require airports to provide flight status 

information to consumers as some commenters suggested. 

11. Choice-of-Forum Provisions 

The NPRM: The Department proposed to codify the policy of the Department’s Aviation 

Enforcement Office that choice-of-forum provisions are unfair and deceptive for air 

transportation sold in the U.S. when used to limit a passenger’s legal forum to a particular 

inconvenient venue. The proposed rule would specifically permit consumers to file suit where 

they live provided that the carrier does business within that jurisdiction. The Department 

requested comments on this proposal and on the use of such choice-of-forum provisions in 

contracts of carriage. 
169 

Comments: Consumer groups and individual consumers support this proposal. 

Flyersrights.org, while supporting the proposal, does not think the proposal goes far enough to 

address the real barrier to legal relief for consumers in court, which they say is Federal 

preemption of state laws. ATA and most carriers support this proposal, most noting that they do 

not have such restrictive choice-of-forum provisions in their contracts of carriage. Spirit Airlines 

opposes this provision. Spirit believes small carriers should not have to face the costs and 

burdens associated with litigating complaints in jurisdictions far from their headquarters location. 

IATA and IACA, in addition to many foreign airlines expressed, concerns about this provision’s 

applicability to foreign airlines and interference with European rules governing the forum for 

claims. The Air Transport Association of Canada does not feel the use of choice-of-forum 

restrictions should be banned and feels that making clear the forum in which consumers must 

litigate consumer complaints is helpful to consumers. 

DOT Response: The Department has decided to adopt the rule as proposed, i.e., to 

prohibit a U.S. carrier from including language in its contract of carriage precluding a passenger 

from bringing a consumer-related claim involving a domestic flight against the carrier in any 

court of competent jurisdiction. The Department feels that if a carrier reaches out to do business 

in a particular jurisdiction, i.e., reaches out to solicit business within that jurisdiction, and sells 

tickets in a jurisdiction, then it is fair and reasonable to expect that the carrier can defend itself 

against litigation brought by a consumer who resides in that jurisdiction. The cost of this 

proposal is minimal, as most U.S. carriers already face litigation throughout the United States. 

As a point of clarification, the forum for consumer claims related to travel on international flights 

to or from the United States is governed by the Montreal Convention or Warsaw Convention, 

depending on the type of flight and its origination/destination. Additionally this change does not 
170 

apply to charter flights. The choice of forum for charter flights can be addressed in the 

individual contracts between the charter operator and the participant. 

12. Peanut Allergies 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, the Department described various measures to provide greater 

access to air travel for individuals with severe peanut allergies. The Department solicited 

comment on several alternatives to accommodate air travelers with severe peanut allergies 

including (1) banning the serving of peanuts and all peanut products by both U.S. and foreign 

carriers on flights covered by the Department’s disability rule; (2) banning the serving of peanuts 

and all peanut products on all such flights where a passenger with a peanut allergy is on board 

and has requested a peanut-free flight in advance; or (3) requiring a peanut-free buffer zone in 

the immediate area of a passenger with a medically documented severe allergy to peanuts if the 

passenger has requested a peanut-free flight in advance. The Department asked several questions 

associated with accommodating passengers who have a severe peanut allergy on flights. For 

instance, we asked about the likelihood of a person with a severe allergy experiencing a serious 

adverse health reaction due to exposure to airborne peanut particles onboard an aircraft. The 

Department asked about steps a person with a severe peanut allergy could take to prepare for a 

flight. We also asked about how we should define a peanut product if we chose to take action on 

the issue. 

Comments: Most of the comments regarding accommodations for persons with peanut 

allergies were from individual consumers who favor a total ban on peanuts and peanut products 

on aircraft, including peanut products that other passengers bring on board aircraft. Most of 

these consumers either suffer from a peanut allergy or are related to someone with an allergy. A 

smaller number of individual commenters oppose any ban on peanut products while others 
171 

support prohibiting carriers from serving peanuts or peanut products on aircraft. Commenters 

who oppose a ban on peanut and peanut products as well as commenters who favor only a 

service ban on peanut and peanut products contend that a total ban on peanuts and peanut 

products is impractical and unenforceable because there is no way to stop passengers from 

bringing peanut products into the cabin. There was also disagreement as to whether peanut-free 

flights or peanut buffer zones are a viable option. Many commenters assert that neither peanutfree flights nor peanut buffer zones are a feasible option since the peanut protein could be present 

in the buffer zones or on the ‘peanut free’ flight as residue from previous flights. These 

consumers state that it is unreasonable to expect, and unlikely, that a carrier would thoroughly 

clean the aircraft between each flight to ensure that all peanut residue is removed from the cabin. 

The peanut trade organizations, led by the American Peanut Council (APC), Peanut & 

Tree Nut Processors Association (PTNPA) and the Western Peanut Growers Association 

(WPGA), oppose any Department action that would limit the availability of peanuts on 

commercial aircraft. All three organizations point out the Department is restricted from issuing 

any regulation regarding the service of peanuts on aircraft per Public Law 106-69, which is 

discussed below. APC also states that research indicates that a severe anaphylactic reaction to 

peanuts can only occur when there is oral ingestion. 

The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) states that the scientific literature 

does not, at this time, address whether a passenger would have a severe adverse reaction by 

being exposed to airborne peanut particles but notes that airborne reactions have been 

anecdotally reported. FAAN, and other allergy support organizations, believe that the most 

practical solution is for carriers not to serve packaged peanut snacks on flights. FAAN 

acknowledges that many carriers, both U.S. and foreign, are already taking this approach. 
172 

FAAN is opposed to the creation of “buffer zones” as it believes that to be effective the seats in a 

buffer zone would need to be peanut-free for all flights on a particular aircraft. 

Twenty-five members of the U.S. House of Representatives submitted a joint letter 

expressing their opposition to any ban on peanuts and peanut products and requesting that the 

Department not proceed with a rulemaking or any other anti-peanut measures pending the 

completion of a peer-reviewed study as described in Public Law 106-69. Senator Christopher 

Dodd also commented, stating that a complete ban on peanuts and tree nuts would be the most 

direct solution but that this step is drastic in nature and impractical. Senator Dodd suggests that 

DOT encourage a focus on further education and training for airline employees regarding 

passengers with peanut allergies as well as a consistent application of policies by individual 

airlines. 

ATA, the Air Transport Association of Canada, and IACA are against a ban on peanuts, 

stating that carriers cannot ensure that other passengers will not bring their own peanut products 

on board for consumption. ATA and IACA also state that carriers have adopted their own 

policies and procedures to handle accommodations for peanut allergies. In general, individual 

carriers have deferred this topic to their respective trade organizations. However, some carriers 

such as Southwest and Delta point out that they already have voluntarily adopted policies 

regarding buffer-zones for peanut allergy sufferers. Some foreign carriers, such as Lufthansa, 

Air France and KLM, state that a service ban on peanut products is not efficient and would create 

increased burdens and costs for airlines. Additionally Lufthansa points out that the creation of a 

service ban on peanut products could give a passenger the false impression that the flight is 

totally safe and free of peanuts. 
173 

DOT Response: On June 25, 2010, DOT published a clarification notice stating that the 

Department will comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, Public Law 106-69—Oct. 9, 1999. This law states: 

Hereafter, none of the funds made available under this Act, or any other Act, may be used 

to implement, carry out, or enforce any regulation issued under section 41705 of title 49, 

United States Code, including any regulation contained in Part 382 of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, or any other provision of law (including any Act of Congress, 

regulation, or Executive order or any official guidance or correspondence thereto), that 

requires or encourages an air carrier (as that term is defined in section 40102 of title 49, 

United States Code) to, on intrastate or interstate air transportation (as those terms are 

defined in section 40102 of title 49, United States Code) – (1) provide a peanut-free 

buffer zone or any other related peanut-restricted area; or (2)restrict the distribution of 

peanuts, until 90 days after submission to the Congress and the Secretary of a peerreviewed scientific study that determines that there are severe reactions by passengers to 

peanuts as a result of contact with very small airborne peanut particles of the kind that 

passengers might encounter in an aircraft. 

At this time, given the provisions of Public Law 106-69, the Department will decline to take 

action due to a lack of the peer-reviewed study referred to in the law. 

13. Effective Date of Rule 

The NPRM: In the NPRM, we proposed that the final rule take effect 180 days after its 

publication in the Federal Register. We stated that we believe 180 days would allow sufficient 

time for carriers to comply with the various proposed requirements and invited comment on 

whether 180 days is the appropriate interval for completing the changes. 

Comments: We received few comments on the effective date of the final rule. Among 

carrier and carrier association commenters, RAA states that its members need a minimum of 180 

days to implement the new rule. On the consumer side, AAPR supports the Department’s 180-

day proposal. FlyersRights.org and its supporters suggest that the effective date should be no 

longer than 120 days after the final rule’s publication date. CTA believes the rule should 

become effective 120-150 days after the publication date so it will become effective before the 
174 

summer travel season starts. One consumer stated that 180 days is reasonable for implementing 

most items but carriers may need additional time for some of the proposed changes. 

DOT Response: Based on our experience in implementing the December 2009 final 

rule, which became effective on April 29, 2010, we believe that 120 days is sufficient for U.S. 

and foreign carriers to implement the various requirements in this final rule, with the exception 

of the requirements pertaining to full-fare advertising. The new full fare adverting requirements 

will not take effect until 180 days after the publication of this final rule in the Federal Register to 

mitigate the costs of print advertising revision by reducing the amount of advertising slated for 

use that will have to be pulled. We are imposing a 120-day effective date for the other 

requirements in the final rule to enable consumers to begin benefiting from these requirements as 

soon as possible. 

REGULATORY ANALYSES AND NOTICES

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures, and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

 This action has been determined to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the 

Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders. Executive Order 13563 refers to 

nonquantifiable values, including equity and fairness. This rule promotes such values by 

improving transparency, and by preventing unexpected charges to passengers. The final 

Regulatory Evaluation concludes that the monetized benefits of the final rule exceed its 

monetized costs, even without considering non-quantifiable benefits. The expected present value 
175 

of monetized passenger benefits from the final rule over a 10 year period using a 7% discount 

rate is estimated at $45.0 million and the expected present value of monetized costs incurred by 

carriers and other sellers of air transportation to comply with the final rule over a 10 year period 

using a 7% discount rate is $30.7 million. The present value of monetized net benefits over a 10 

year period at a 7% discount rate is $14.3 million. 

 Below, we have included a table outlining the costs and benefits of the requirements in 

this final rule. A copy of the final Regulatory Evaluation has been placed in the docket. 

COMPARISON OF REQUIREMENT-SPECIFIC BENEFITS AND COSTS, 2012-2021 

(Discounted at 7 percent annually to 2012 $ millions)

Area 1: Expansion of tarmac contingency plan requirements and

extension of EAPP1 requirements to cover foreign carriers Total

Monetized Benefits $1.2

Monetized Costs $3.0

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$1.8

Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this

rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Improved Management of Flight Delays

Decreased Anxiety with Regard to Flying

Reduced Stress among Delayed Passengers and Crew

Improved Overall Carrier Operations

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Additional Gate Return Costs Incurred by Carriers

Time Required for Airport/Terminal Authorities, CBP/TSA to Coordinate Plans

Area 2: Expanded tarmac delay reporting and application to foreign

carriers Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0

Monetized Costs $0.8

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$0.8

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Increased Efficiency of US DOT Oversight and Enforcement Office Operations

Improved Management of Flight Delays

Area 3: Establishment of minimum standards for customer service plans

(CSPs) and extension of EAPP1 Final Rule Areas to cover foreign carriers Total

Monetized Benefits $7.7

Monetized Costs $7.4
176 

Monetized Net Benefits $0.3

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Decreased Confusion and Uncertainty Regarding Department CSP Requirements

Improved Customer Service from Foreign Carrier Self‐Auditing of Adherence to CSPs

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Area 4: Foreign carrier posting of tarmac delay contingency plans, CSPs,

and contracts of carriage on websites Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0

Monetized Costs $1.0

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$1.0

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Decreased Occurrence of and Improved Resolution of Customer Complaints

Area 5: Extension of EAPP1 Final Rule Areas for carriers to respond to

consumer complaints to cover foreign carriers Total

Monetized Benefits $0.0

Monetized Costs $1.9

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$1.9

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Decreased Anger toward Carriers During Resolution of Complaints

Area 6: Changes in denied boarding compensation (DBC) requirements Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0

Monetized Costs $1.0

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$1.0

Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this

rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Decreased Confusion Regarding DBC Provisions

Decreased Resentment among Some Passengers Regarding Different Compensation Received

Programming and Training Costs for Foreign Carriers

Area 7: Full‐fare advertising and prohibition on opt‐out provisions Total

Monetized Benefits $29.0

Monetized Costs $6.8

Monetized Net Benefits $22.2

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Travelers Less Likely to Mistakenly Purchase Unwanted Services and Amenities

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Area 8: Expanded disclosure of baggage and other optional fees Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0
177 

Monetized Costs $7.9

Monetized Net Benefits ‐$7.9

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Decreased Time at Check‐in

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Area 9: Limitations on post‐purchase price increases Total

Monetized Benefits $7.2

Monetized Costs $1.1

Monetized Net Benefits $6.1

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Area 10: Prompt passenger notification of flight status changes Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0

Monetized Costs* $0.0

Monetized Net Benefits $0.0

Additional unquantifiable benefits that are directly or indirectly related to this rulemaking,

which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Greater Comfort and Certainty from Knowing that Information Will Be Available In Timely

Manner

Area 11: Limitations on venue provisions in contracts of carriage Total

Monetized Benefits* $0.0

Monetized Costs* $0.0

Monetized Net Benefits $0.0

Additional unquantifiable benefits and costs that are directly or indirectly related to this

rulemaking, which result in benefits that the Department has determined justify the costs:

Improved Customer Good Will toward Carriers

Reduced Costs for Consumers to File/Adjudicate Claims

Increased Costs for Carriers to Settle/Adjudicate Claims

Requirement Areas 1 ‐11 Total Total

Monetized Benefits $45.0

Monetized Costs $30.7

Monetized Net Benefits $14.3

*Monetized estimates could not be developed from the information available on the record.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

 The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to review 

regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not 

expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Our 
178 

analysis identified a total of 50 small U.S. air carriers (i.e., carriers that provide air transportation 

exclusively with aircraft that seat no more than 60 passengers), 50 small airports (i.e., privatelyowned airports that have annual revenues of no more than $7 million or publicly-owned airports 

owned by jurisdictions with less than 50,000 inhabitants) , as many as 11,625 small travel 

agencies (i.e., travel agencies with no more than $3.5 million in annual revenues) and as many as 

2,720 small tour operators (i.e., tour operators with no more than $7.0 million in annual 

revenues) potentially affected by the requirements of the final rule. While most regulation of 

the air transportation sector is concerned with carriers, certain elements of this final rule impose 

new requirements on small travel agents and tour operators. Small U.S. carriers will need to 

comply with additional requirements relating to coordination of tarmac contingency plans, 

reporting tarmac delays, specific customer service plan provisions, denied boarding 

compensation, advertising of air fares, and disclosure of baggage and other optional fees. Small 

travel agents and tour operators will have to comply with the requirements relating to advertising 

of air fares, disclosure of baggage and other optional fees, and pre-purchase disclosures on price 

increases. 

The Department believes that the economic impact will not be significant for a number of 

reasons. First, most small U.S. air carriers operate passenger service exclusively with aircraft 

that have fewer than 30 seats. The requirements relating to tarmac contingency plans, reporting 

tarmac delays, specific customer service plan provisions, and denied boarding compensation will 

not apply to these carriers. In addition, the per-carrier and per-ticket agent compliance costs 

estimated in the final regulatory analysis for the remaining requirements are very small—less 

than $17,000 per affected small carrier operating aircraft with between 30 and 60 seats, less than 

$4,500 per small carrier operating aircraft with fewer than 30 seats, and about $3,500 per small 
179 

travel agent or tour operator with online booking capability to achieve compliance during the 

first year the final rule takes effect and no more than a few hundred dollars to maintain 

compliance in subsequent years. On the basis of this examination, the Department certifies that 

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A 

copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been placed in docket. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not include any 

provision that: (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local 

governments; or (3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this 

area by the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding 

requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply. 

D. Executive Order 13084

 This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria 

contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments''). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on 

them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

 As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has submitted the 

Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and 
180 

Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides whether to approve those proposed collections of 

information that are part of this final rule and issue a control number, the public must be 

provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on 

the collection information requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503, and should also send a copy of 

their comments to: Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 

20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information 

requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in 

the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if 

OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. 

 We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this rule. OST may not impose a penalty on persons for violating 

information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if 

required. OST intends to renew current OMB control numbers for the three new information 

collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action. The OMB control number, when 

renewed, will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register. 

 The ICRs were previously published in the Federal Register as part of NPRM (75 FR 

32318, June 8, 2010) and the Department invited interested persons to submit comments on any 

aspect of each of these three information collections, including the following: (1) the necessity 

and utility of the information collection, (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden, (3) ways 
181 

to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) ways to 

minimize the burden of collection without reducing the quality of the collected information. 

 The final rule contains three new information collection requirements. The first is a 

requirement that foreign air carriers that operate passenger service (scheduled and charter) to or 

from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more seats collect and retain for two years the 

following information about any ground delay that lasts at least three hours: the length of the 

delay, the precise cause of the delay, the actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers, 

whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to 

the gate; and an explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 hours. The Department plans 

to use the information to investigate instances of long delays on the ground and to identify any 

trends and patterns that may develop. The assumptions upon which the calculations for this 

requirement are based as well as the information collection burden hours have changed. We 

have increased our estimate for the maximum number of tarmac delays that a single carrier may 

experience. 

 The second is a requirement that U.S. carriers and foreign carriers that operate any 

aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats report monthly 

tarmac delay data to the Department with respect to their operations at a U.S. airport for any 

tarmac delay of three hours or more, including diverted flights. This requirement would apply to 

reporting carriers under 14 CFR Part 234 only with respect to their public charter service and 

international service, as reporting carriers already submit tarmac delay data to the Department for 

their domestic scheduled passenger service. The Department plans to use this information to 

obtain more precise data to compare tarmac delay incidents by carrier, by airport, and by specific 

time frame, for use in making future policy decisions and developing rulemakings. We have 
182 

modified the information collection burden hours for this requirement because carriers are not 

required to file negative reports as proposed in the NPRM. Covered carriers will only need to 

submit the report if the one or more flights experience delays that exceed 3 hours. 

 The third is a requirement that any foreign air carrier that operates scheduled passenger 

service to and from the U.S. using any aircraft with 30 or more seats adopt a customer service 

plan, audit its adherence to the plan annually, and retain the results of each audit for two years. 

The Department plans to review the audits to monitor carriers' compliance with their plans and 

take enforcement action when appropriate. Although we have made some modest changes to the 

customer service plan requirements from what was proposed in the NPRM, these changes do not 

impact the assumption upon which the calculations for retaining the results of each audit are 

based. The information collection burden hours have increased slightly as our estimate of the 

number of carriers covered by this requirement has changed. 

 For each of these information collections, the title, a description of the respondents, and 

an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and periodic reporting burden are set forth below: 

1. Requirement to retain for two years information about any ground delay that lasts at least 

three hours. 

Respondents: Foreign air carriers that operate passenger service to and from the U.S. using any 

aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: A maximum of 54 hours per respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,226 hours for all respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to retain per three hour plus tarmac delay for each respondent. 

2. Requirement that carrier report certain tarmac delay data for tarmac delays exceeding 3 

hours to the Department on a monthly basis. 

Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate passenger service using any aircraft with 30 or more 

seats, and foreign air carriers that operate passenger service to and from the United States using 

any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. 
183 

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.5 to 10 hours per domestic respondent and 0.5 to 

4.5 hours per foreign respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 134 4 hours for all respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to submit per month for each respondent that experiences a 

tarmac delay of more than 3 hours at a U.S. airport. 

3. Requirement that carrier retain for two years the results of its annual self-audit of its 

compliance with its Customer Service Plan. 

Respondents: Foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service to and from the U.S. 

using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 15 minutes per year for each respondent. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: A maximum of 25 hours and 15 minutes for all respondents. 

Frequency: One information set to retain per year for each respondent. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

 The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice. 

Issued This 18th Day of April, 2011, in Washington, D.C. 

 ORIGINAL SIGNED 

 __________________________ 

 Ray LaHood 

 Secretary of Transportation 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Parts 250 and 259 

Air Carriers, Consumer Protection, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 

14 CFR Part 244 
184 

Air Carriers, Consumer Protection, Tarmac Delay Data 

14 CFR Part 253 

Air Carriers, Consumer Protection, Contract of Carriage 

14 CFR Part 399 

Administrative Practice and Procedure, Air Carriers, Air Rates and Fares, Air Taxis, Consumer 

Protection, Small Businesses. 

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 14 CFR Chapter II as 

follows: 

1. Add part 244 to read as follows: 

PART 244—REPORTING TARMAC DELAY DATA 

Sec. 

244.1 Definitions. 

244.2 Applicability. 

244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712. 

§ 244.1 Definitions. 

Arrival time is the instant when the pilot sets the aircraft parking brake after arriving at the 

airport gate or passenger unloading area. If the parking brake is not set, record the time for the 

opening of the passenger door. Also, for purposes of section 244.3 carriers using a Docking 

Guidance System (DGS) may record the official "gate-arrival time" when the aircraft is stopped 

at the appropriate parking mark. 
185 

Cancelled flight means a flight operation that was not operated, but was listed in an air carrier or 

a foreign air carrier’s computer reservation system within seven calendar days of the scheduled 

departure. 

Certificated air carrier means a U.S. carrier holding a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 

to conduct passenger service or holding an exemption to conduct passenger operations under 49 

U.S.C. 40109. 

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. carrier that has been found fit under 49 U.S.C. 41738 and is 

authorized to carry passengers on at least five round trips per week on at least one route between 

two or more points according to a published flight schedule using small aircraft as defined in 14 

CFR 298.2. 

Covered carrier means a certificated carrier, a commuter carrier, or a foreign air carrier 

operating to, from, or within the United States, conducting scheduled passenger service or public 

charter service with at least one aircraft having a designed passenger seating capacity of 30 or 

more seats. 

Diverted flight means a flight which is operated from the scheduled origin point to a point other 

than the scheduled destination point in the carrier’s published schedule. For example, a carrier 

has a published schedule for a flight from A to B to C. If the carrier were to actually fly an A to 

C operation, the A to B segment is a diverted flight, and the B to C segment is a cancelled flight. 

The same would apply if the flight were to operate from A to an airport other than B or C. 

Foreign air carrier means a carrier that is not a citizen of the United States as defined in 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a) that holds a foreign air carrier permit issued under 49 U.S.C. 41302 or an 

exemption issued under 49 U.S.C. 40109 authorizing direct foreign air transportation.
186 

Gate departure time is the instant when the pilot releases the aircraft parking brake after 

passengers have boarded and aircraft doors have closed. In cases where the flight returned to the 

departure gate before wheels-off time and departs a second time, the reportable gate departure 

time for purposes of this Part is the last gate departure time before wheels-off time. In cases of a 

return to the gate after wheels-off time, the reportable gate departure time is the last gate 

departure time before the gate return. If passengers were boarded without the parking brake 

being set, the reportable gate departure time is the time that the last passenger door was closed. 

Also, the official "gate-departure time" may be based on aircraft movement for carriers using a 

Docking Guidance System (DGS). For example, one DGS records gate departure time when the 

aircraft moves more than 1 meter from the appropriate parking mark within 15 seconds. Fifteen 

seconds is then subtracted from the recorded time to obtain the appropriate “out” time. 

Gate Return time means the time that an aircraft that has left the boarding gate returns to a gate 

or other position at an airport for the purpose of allowing passengers the opportunity to 

disembark from the aircraft. 

Large hub airport means an airport that accounts for at least 1.00 percent of the total 

enplanements in the United States. 

Medium hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.25 percent but less than 1.00 

percent of the total enplanements in the United States. 

Non-hub airport means an airport with 10,000 or more annual enplanements but less than 0.05 

percent of the total enplanements in the United States. 

Small hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.05 percent but less than 0.25 percent 

of the total enplanements in the United States. 
187 

Tarmac delay means the holding of an aircraft on the ground either before taking off or after 

landing with no opportunity for its passengers to deplane. 

§ 244.2 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to U.S. certificated 

air carriers, U.S. commuter air carriers and foreign air carriers that operate passenger service to 

or from a U.S. airport with at least one aircraft that has an original manufacturer’s design 

capacity of 30 or more seats. Covered carriers must report all passenger operations that 

experience a tarmac time of 3 hours or more at a U.S. airport. 

(b) For foreign air carriers that operate charter flights from foreign airports to U.S. airports, 

and return to foreign airports, and do not pick up any new passengers in the U.S., the charter 

flights are not flights subject to the reporting requirements of this part. 

(c) U.S. carriers that submit Part 234 Airline Service Quality Performance Reports must 

submit 3-hour tarmac delay information for public charter flights and international passenger 

flights to or from any U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub 

airport. These carriers are already required to submit such information for domestic scheduled 

flights to or from U.S. large hub airports under art 234 of this chapter. These carriers that are 

covered by part 234 need only submit information for flights with tarmac delays of more than 3 

hours under this part 244 for domestic scheduled passenger flights to or from any U.S. medium 

hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport to the extent they do not report such 

information under 14 CFR 234.7. 

§ 244.3 Reporting of tarmac delay data. 

(a) Each covered carrier shall file BTS Form 244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the Office of 
188 

Airline Information of the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics on a monthly basis, 

setting forth the information for each of its covered flights that experienced a tarmac delay of 

three hours or more, including diverted flights and cancelled flights on which the passengers 

were boarded and then deplaned before the cancellation. The reports are due within 15 days after 

the end of the month during which the carrier experienced any tarmac delay of three hours or 

more. The reports shall be made in the form and manner set forth in accounting and reporting 

directives issued by the Director, Office of Airline Information, and shall contain the following 

information: 

(1) Carrier code 

(2) Flight number 

(3) Departure airport (three letter code) 

(4) Arrival airport (three letter code) 

(5) Date of flight operation (year/month/day) 

(6) Gate departure time (actual) in local time 

(7) Gate arrival time (actual) in local time 

(8) Wheels-off time (actual) in local time 

(9) Wheels-on time (actual) in local time 

(10) Aircraft tail number 

(11) Total ground time away from gate for all gate return/fly return at origin airports 

including cancelled flights 

(12) Longest time away from gate for gate return or canceled flight 

(13) Three letter code of airport where flight diverted 

(14) Wheels-on time at diverted airport 
189 

(15) Total time away from gate at diverted airport 

(16) Longest time away from gate at diverted airport 

(17) Wheels-off time at diverted airport 

(b) The same information required by paragraph (a)(13) through (17) of this section must be 

provided for each subsequent diverted airport landing. 

PART 250 – OVERSALES 

2. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 250 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401, 411, 413 and 417. 

3. Section 250.1 is amended by removing the definition of “sum of the values of the remaining 

flight coupons” and “comparable air transportation,” revising the definition for “confirmed 

reserved space,” and adding a definition for “alternate transportation,” “class of service,” “fare,” 

and “zero fare ticket” to read as follows: 

§ 250.1 Definitions 

* * * * * 

Alternate transportation means air transportation with a confirmed reservation at no additional 

charge, operated by a carrier as defined below, or other transportation accepted and used by the 

passenger in the case of denied boarding. 

* * * * * 

Class of service means seating in the same cabin class such as First, Business, or Economy class, 

or in the same seating zone if the carrier has more than one seating product in the same cabin 

such as Economy and Premium Economy class. 

Confirmed reserved space means space on a specific date and on a specific flight and class of 

service of a carrier which has been requested by a passenger, including a passenger with a “zero 
190 

fare ticket,” and which the carrier or its agent has verified, by appropriate notation on the ticket 

or in any other manner provided therefore by the carrier, as being reserved for the 

accommodation of the passenger. 

Fare means the price paid for air transportation including all mandatory taxes and fees. It does 

not include ancillary fees for optional services. 

* * * * * 

Zero fare ticket means a ticket acquired without a substantial monetary payment such as by using 

frequent flyer miles or vouchers, or a consolidator ticket obtained after a monetary payment that 

does not show a fare amount on the ticket. A zero fare ticket does not include free or reduced 

rate air transportation provided to airline employees and guests. 

4. Section 250.2b is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 250.2b Carriers to request volunteers for denied boarding. 

***** 

(c) If a carrier offers free or reduced rate air transportation as compensation to volunteers, the 

carrier must disclose all material restrictions, including but not limited to administrative fees, 

advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer before the 

passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed reserved space on that flight in 

exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation. 

5. Section 250.5 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 250.5 Amount of denied boarding compensation for passengers denied boarding 

involuntarily. 
191 

(a) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as 

described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation in interstate air transportation to passengers who are 

denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight as follows: 

(1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the 

arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if 

none, the airport of the passenger’s final destination not later than one hour after the planned 

arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; 

(2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with 

a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement 

is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if none, the airport 

of the passenger’s final destination more than one hour but less than two hours after the planned 

arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and 

(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with 

a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the 

arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if 

none, the airport of the passenger’s final destination less than two hours after the planned arrival 

time of the passenger’s original flight. 

 (b) Subject to the exceptions provided in § 250.6, a carrier to whom this part applies as 

described in § 250.2 shall pay compensation to passengers in foreign air transportation who are 

denied boarding involuntarily at a U.S. airport from an oversold flight as follows: 

(1) No compensation is required if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the 

arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if 
192 

not, the airport of the passenger’s final destination not later than one hour after the planned 

arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; 

(2) Compensation shall be 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with 

a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that, at the time the arrangement 

is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if not, the airport 

of the passenger’s final destination more than one hour but less than four hours after the planned 

arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and 

(3) Compensation shall be 400% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with 

a maximum of $1,300, if the carrier does not offer alternate transportation that, at the time the 

arrangement is made, is planned to arrive at the airport of the passenger’s first stopover, or if not, 

the airport of the passenger’s final destination less than four hours after the planned arrival time 

of the passenger’s original flight. 

 (c) Carriers may offer free or reduced rate air transportation in lieu of the cash or check due 

under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if— 

 (1) The value of the transportation benefit offered, excluding any fees or other mandatory 

charges applicable for using the free or reduced rate air transportation, is equal to or greater than 

the cash/check payment otherwise required; 

(2) The carrier fully informs the passenger of the amount of cash/check compensation that would 

otherwise be due and that the passenger may decline the transportation benefit and receive the 

cash/check payment; and 

(3) The carrier fully discloses all material restrictions, including but not limited to, administrative 

fees, advance purchase or capacity restrictions, and blackout dates applicable to the offer, on the 
193 

use of such free or reduced rate transportation before the passenger decides to give up the 

cash/check payment in exchange for such transportation. 

(d) The requirements of this section apply to passengers with “zero fare tickets.” The fare 

paid by these passengers for purposes of calculating denied boarding compensation shall be the 

lowest cash, check, or credit card payment charged for a ticket in the same class of service on 

that flight. 

(e) The Department of Transportation will review the maximum denied boarding 

compensation amounts prescribed in this part every two years except for the first review, which 

will take place in 2012 in order to put the reviews specified in this section on the same cycle as 

the reviews of domestic baggage liability limits specified in 14 CFR 254.6. The Department will 

use any increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as of July of 

each review year to calculate the increased maximum compensation amounts. The Department 

will use the following formula: 

(1) Current Denied Boarding Compensation limit in section 250.5(a)(2) multiplied by 

(a/b) rounded to the nearest $25 where: 

a = July CPI-U of year of current adjustment 

b = the CPI-U figure in [insert month and year of the effective date of final 

rule] when the inflation adjustment provision was added to Part 250. 

 (2) The Denied Boarding Compensation limit in § 250.5(a)(3) shall be twice the revised 

limit for § 250.5(a)(2). 

(f) In addition to the denied boarding compensation specified in this part, a carrier shall 

refund all unused ancillary fees for optional services paid by a passenger who is voluntarily or 
194 

involuntarily denied boarding. The carrier is not required to refund the ancillary fees for services 

that are provided with respect to the passenger’s alternate transportation. 

6 . In § 250.9, the section heading and paragraph (b) are revised and paragraph (c) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.9 Written explanation of denied boarding compensation and boarding priorities, and 

verbal notification of denied boarding compensation. 

***** 

(b) The statement shall read as follows: 

Compensation For Denied Boarding 

If you have been denied a reserved seat on (name of air carrier), you are probably entitled to 

monetary compensation. This notice explains the airline’s obligation and the passenger’s 

rights in the case of an oversold flight, in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation. 

Volunteers and Boarding Priorities 

If a flight is oversold (more passengers hold confirmed reservations than there are seats 

available), no one may be denied boarding against his or her will until airline personnel first 

ask for volunteers who will give up their reservation willingly, in exchange for compensation 

of the airline’s choosing. If there are not enough volunteers, other passengers may be denied 

boarding involuntarily in accordance with the following boarding priority of (name of air 

carrier): (In this space the carrier inserts its boarding priority rules or a summary thereof, in a 

manner to be understandable to the average passenger.) 

Compensation for Involuntary Denied Boarding 

If you are denied boarding involuntarily, you are entitled to a payment of “denied boarding 

compensation” from the airline unless: 

(1) you have not fully complied with the airline’s ticketing, check-in and reconfirmation 

requirements, or you are not acceptable for transportation under the airline’s usual rules and 

practices; or 

(2) you are denied boarding because the flight is canceled; or 

(3) you are denied boarding because a smaller capacity aircraft was substituted for safety or 

operational reasons; or 

(4) on a flight operated with an aircraft having 60 or fewer seats, you are denied boarding due 

to safety-related weight/balance restrictions that limit payload; or 
195 

(5) you are offered accommodations in a section of the aircraft other than specified in your 

ticket, at no extra charge (a passenger seated in a section for which a lower fare is charged 

must be given an appropriate refund); or 

(6) the airline is able to place you on another flight or flights that are planned to reach your 

next stopover or final destination within one hour of the planned arrival time of your original 

flight. 

Amount of Denied Boarding Compensation 

Domestic Transportation

Passengers traveling between points within the United States (including the territories and 

possessions) who are denied boarding involuntarily from an oversold flight are entitled to: 

(1) no compensation if the carrier offers alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at 

the passenger’s destination or first stopover not later than one hour after the planned arrival 

time of the passenger’s original flight; (2) 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or 

first stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that is 

planned to arrive at the passenger’s destination or first stopover more than one hour but less 

than two hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) 400% 

of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the 

carrier does not offer alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the 

passenger’s destination or first stopover less than two hours after the planned arrival time of 

the passenger’s original flight. 

0 to 1 hour arrival delay No compensation 

1 to 2 hour arrival delay 200% of one-way fare 

(but no more than $650) 

Over 2 hours arrival delay 400% of one-way fare 

(but no more than $1,300) 

International Transportation

Passengers traveling from the United States to a foreign point who are denied boarding 

involuntarily from an oversold flight originating at a U.S. airport are entitled to: (1) no 

compensation if the carrier offers alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the 

passenger’s destination or first stopover not later than one hour after the planned arrival time 

of the passenger’s original flight; (2) 200% of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first 

stopover, with a maximum of $650, if the carrier offers alternate transportation that is 

planned to arrive at the passenger’s destination or first stopover more than one hour but less 

than four hours after the planned arrival time of the passenger’s original flight; and (3) 400% 

of the fare to the passenger’s destination or first stopover, with a maximum of $1,300, if the 

carrier does not offer alternate transportation that is planned to arrive at the airport of the 

passenger’s destination or first stopover less than four hours after the planned arrival time of 

the passenger’s original flight. 

0 to 1 hour arrival delay No compensation 

1 to 4 hour arrival delay 200% of one-way fare 

(but no more than $650) 
196 

Over 4 hours arrival delay 400% of one-way fare 

(but no more than $1,300) 

Alternate Transportation

“Alternate transportation” is air transportation with a confirmed reservation at no additional 

charge (by any scheduled airline licensed by DOT), or other transportation accepted and used 

by the passenger in the case of denied boarding. 

Method of Payment 

Except as provided below, the airline must give each passenger who qualifies for involuntary 

denied boarding compensation a payment by cash or check for the amount specified above, 

on the day and at the place the involuntary denied boarding occurs. If the airline arranges 

alternate transportation for the passenger’s convenience that departs before the payment can 

be made, the payment shall be sent to the passenger within 24 hours. The air carrier may 

offer free or discounted transportation in place of the cash payment. In that event, the carrier 

must disclose all material restrictions on the use of the free or discounted transportation 

before the passenger decides whether to accept the transportation in lieu of a cash or check 

payment. The passenger may insist on the cash/check payment or refuse all compensation 

and bring private legal action. 

Passenger’s Options 

Acceptance of the compensation may relieve (name of air carrier) from any further liability 

to the passenger caused by its failure to honor the confirmed reservation. However, the 

passenger may decline the payment and seek to recover damages in a court of law or in some 

other manner. 

(c) In addition to furnishing passengers with the carrier’s written statement as specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, if the carrier orally advises involuntarily bumped 

passengers that they are entitled to receive free or discounted transportation as denied boarding 

compensation, the carrier must also orally advise the passengers of any material restrictions or 

conditions applicable to the free or discounted transportation and that they are entitled to choose 

a check instead (or cash if that option is offered by the carrier). 

7. Section 250.10 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 250.10 Report of passengers denied confirmed space. 
197 

Every reporting carrier as defined in §234.2 of this chapter and any carrier that voluntarily 

submits data pursuant to §234.7 of this chapter shall file, on a quarterly basis, the information 

specified in BTS Form 251. The reporting basis shall be flight segments originating in the 

United States. The reports are to be submitted within 30 days after the end of the quarter 

covered by the report. The calendar quarters end March 31, June 30, September 30 and 

December 31. "Total Boardings" on Line 7 of Form 251 shall include only passengers on flights 

for which confirmed reservations are offered. Data shall not be included for inbound 

international flights. 

PART 253 – NOTICE OF TERMS OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE 

8. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 253 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 415 and 417. 

9. Section 253.7 is revised to read as follows: 

§253.7 Direct notice of certain terms. 

A carrier may not impose any terms restricting refunds of the ticket price, imposing monetary 

penalties on passengers, or raising the ticket price consistent with §399.87 of the chapter, unless 

the passenger receives conspicuous written notice of the salient features of those terms on or 

with the ticket. 

10. Section 253.10 is added to read as follows: 

§ 253.10: Notice of contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions. 

No carrier may impose any contract of carriage provision containing a choice-of-forum clause 

that attempts to preclude a passenger, or a person who purchases a ticket for air transportation on 

behalf of a passenger, from bringing a claim against a carrier in any court of competent 
198 

jurisdiction, including a court within the jurisdiction of that passenger’s residence in the United 

States (provided that the carrier does business within that jurisdiction). 

PART 259 – ENHANCED PROTECTIONS FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS 

11. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 259 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. §§40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702, and 41712. 

12. Section 259.2 is revised to read as follows: 

§259.2 Applicability. 

This part applies to all the flights of a certificated or commuter air carrier if the carrier operates 

scheduled passenger service or public charter service using any aircraft originally designed to 

have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, and to all flights to and from the U.S. of a foreign 

carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger service or public charter service to and from 

the U.S. using any aircraft originally designed to have a passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, 

except as otherwise provided in this part. This part does not apply to foreign carrier charters 

that operate to and from the United States if no new passengers are picked up in the United 

States. 

13. Section 259.3 is revised to read as follows: 

§259.3. Definitions. 

Certificated air carrier means a U.S. carrier holding a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 

to conduct passenger service or holding an exemption to conduct passenger operations under 49 

U.S.C. 41102. 

Commuter air carrier means a U.S. carrier that has been found fit under 49 USC 41738 and is 

authorized to carry passengers on at least five round trips per week on at least one route between 
199 

two or more points according to a published flight schedule using small aircraft as defined in 14 

CFR 298.2. 

Covered carrier means a certificated carrier, a commuter carrier, or a foreign air carrier 

operating to, from or within the United States, conducting scheduled passenger service or public 

charter service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of 30 or more seats. 

Foreign air carrier means a carrier that is not a citizen of the United States as defined in 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a) that holds a foreign air carrier permit issued under 49 U.S.C. 41302 or an 

exemption issued under 49 U.S.C. 40109 authorizing direct foreign air transportation. 

Large hub airport means an airport that accounts for at least 1.00 percent of the total 

enplanements in the United States. 

Medium hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.25 percent but less than 1.00 

percent of the total enplanements in the United States. 

Non-hub airport means an airport with 10,000 or more annual enplanements but less than 0.05 

percent of the country's annual passenger boardings. 

Small hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.05 percent but less than 0.25 percent 

of the total enplanements in the United States. 

Tarmac delay means the holding of an aircraft on the ground either before taking off or after 

landing with no opportunity for its passengers to deplane. 

14. Section 259.4 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 259.4 Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays. 

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a Contingency Plan for Lengthy 

Tarmac Delays for its scheduled and public charter flights at each U.S. large hub airport, medium 
200 

hub airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport at which it operates or markets such air service 

and shall adhere to its plan’s terms. 

(b) Contents of Plan. Each Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall include, at a 

minimum, the following: 

(1) For domestic flights, assurance that the covered U.S. air carrier will not permit an 

aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours before allowing passengers to 

deplane unless: 

(i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related 

reason (e.g. weather, a directive from an appropriate government agency) why the 

aircraft cannot leave its position on the tarmac to deplane passengers; or 

(ii) Air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or 

another disembarkation point elsewhere in order to deplane passengers would 

significantly disrupt airport operations. 

(2) For international flights operated by covered carriers that depart from or arrive at 

a U.S. airport, assurance that the carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the 

tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four hours before allowing passengers to deplane, 

unless: 

(i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related 

reason why the aircraft cannot leave its position on the tarmac to deplane 

passengers; or 

(ii) Air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or 

another disembarkation point elsewhere in order to deplane passengers would 

significantly disrupt airport operations. 
201 

(3) For all flights, assurance that the carrier will provide adequate food and potable 

water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a departure) 

or touches down (in the case of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the 

pilot-in-command determines that safety or security considerations preclude such service; 

(4) For all flights, assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as well as adequate 

medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the tarmac; 

(5) For all flights, assurance that the passengers on the delayed flight will receive 

notifications regarding the status of the delay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is 

delayed, including the reasons for the tarmac delay, if known; 

(6) For all flights, assurance that the passengers on the delayed flight will be notified 

beginning 30 minutes after scheduled departure time (including any revised departure 

time that passengers were notified about before boarding) and every 30 minutes thereafter 

that they have the opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another 

disembarkation area with the door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists; 

 (7) Assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; and 

 (8) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport authorities (including 

terminal facility operators where applicable) at each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub 

airport, small hub airport and non-hub airport that the carrier serves, as well as its regular 

U.S. diversion airports; 

(9) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) at each large U.S. hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub airport 

and non-hub airport that is regularly used for that carrier’s international flights, including 

diversion airports; and 
202 

(10) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) at each U.S. large hub airport, medium hub airport, small hub 

airport and non-hub airport that the carrier serves, including diversion airports. 

(c) Code-Share Responsibility. The tarmac delay contingency plan of the carrier under 

whose code the service is marketed governs, if different from the operating carrier, unless the 

marketing carrier specifies in its contract of carriage that the operating carrier’s plan governs. 

(d) Amendment of plan. At any time, a carrier may amend its Contingency Plan for Lengthy 

Tarmac Delays to decrease the time for aircraft to remain on the tarmac for domestic flights 

covered in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, for aircraft to remain on the tarmac for international 

flights covered in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and for the trigger point for food and water 

covered in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. A carrier may also amend its plan to increase these 

intervals (up to the limits in this rule), in which case the amended plan shall apply only to 

departures that are first offered for sale after the plan’s amendment. 

(e) Retention of records. Each carrier that is required to adopt a Contingency Plan for 

Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall retain for two years the following information about any tarmac 

delay that lasts more than three hours: 

 (1) The length of the delay; 

 (2) The precise cause of the delay; 

 (3) The actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers, including the provision 

of food and water, the maintenance and servicing of lavatories, and medical assistance; 

(4) Whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or 

diversion) or returned to the gate; and 
203 

(5) An explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 hours (i.e., why the aircraft 

did not return to the gate by the 3-hour mark). 

 (f) Unfair and deceptive practice. A carrier’s failure to comply with the assurances required 

by this rule and contained in its Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be considered 

to be an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 that is subject to 

enforcement action by the Department. 

15. Section 259.5 is revised to read as follows: 

§259.5 Customer Service Plan. 

(a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a Customer Service Plan applicable 

to its scheduled flights and shall adhere to the plan’s terms. 

(b) Contents of Plan. Each Customer Service Plan shall address the following subjects and 

comply with the minimum standards set forth: 

(1) Disclosing on the carrier’s website, at the ticket counter, or when a customer calls 

the carrier’s reservation center to inquire about a fare or to make a reservation, that the 

lowest fare offered by the carrier may be available elsewhere if that is the case; 

(2) Notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions as required 

by 14 CFR 259.8 of this chapter; 

(3) Delivering baggage on time, including making every reasonable effort to return 

mishandled baggage within twenty-four hours, compensating passengers for reasonable 

expenses that result due to delay in delivery, as required by 14 CFR part 254 for domestic 

flights and as required by applicable international agreements for international flights, 

and reimbursing passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if that bag is lost; 
204 

(4) Allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without payment, or cancelled 

without penalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made if the 

reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure; 

(5) Where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds, as required by 14 CFR 

374.3 and 12 CFR part 226 for credit card purchases, and within 20 days after receiving a 

complete refund request for cash and check purchases, including refunding fees charged 

to a passenger for optional services that the passenger was unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or flight cancellation; 

(6) Properly accommodating passengers with disabilities, as required by part 382 of 

this chapter, and other special-needs passengers as set forth in the carrier’s policies and 

procedures, including during lengthy tarmac delays; 

(7) Meeting customers’ essential needs during lengthy tarmac delays as required by § 

259.4 of this chapter and as provided for in each covered carrier’s contingency plan; 

(8) Handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency in the case of 

oversales as required by part 250 of this chapter and as described in each carrier’s 

policies and procedures for determining boarding priority; 

(9) Disclosing cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft seating 

configuration, and lavatory availability on the selling carrier’s website, and upon request, 

from the selling carrier’s telephone reservations staff; 

(10) Notifying consumers in a timely manner of changes in their travel itineraries; 

(11) Ensuring responsiveness to consumer problems as required by § 259.7 of this 

chapter; and 
205 

(12) Identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting 

from flight cancellations and misconnections. 

(c) Self-auditing of plan and retention of records. Each carrier that is required to adopt a 

Customer Service Plan shall audit its own adherence to its plan annually. Carriers shall make the 

results of their audits available for the Department’s review upon request for two years following 

the date any audit is completed.

16. Section 259.6 is revised to read as follows: 

§259.6 Posting of Contracts of Carriage, Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans and Customer 

Service Plans on websites. 

(a) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website and each foreign air carrier that has a website 

marketed to U.S. consumers, and that is required to adopt a contingency plan for lengthy tarmac 

delays, shall post its current contingency plan on its website in easily accessible form. 

(b) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website and each foreign air carrier that has a website 

marketed to U.S. consumers, and that is required to adopt a customer service plan, shall post its 

current customer service plan on its website in easily accessible form. 

(c) Each U.S. air carrier that has a website and each foreign air carrier that has a website 

marketed to U.S. consumers shall post its current contract of carriage on its website in easily 

accessible form. 

17. Section 259.7 is revised to read as follows: 

§259.7 Response to consumer problems. 

(a) Designated advocates for passengers’ interests. Each covered carrier shall designate for 

its scheduled flights an employee who shall be responsible for monitoring the effects of flight 
206 

delays, flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. This employee shall have 

input into decisions on which flights to cancel and which will be delayed the longest. 

(b) Informing consumers how to complain. Each covered carrier shall make available the 

mailing address and e-mail or web address of the designated department in the airline with which 

to file a complaint about its scheduled service. This information shall be provided on the U.S. 

carrier’s website (if any) and the foreign carrier’s website (if marketed to U.S. consumers), on all 

e-ticket confirmations and, upon request, at each ticket counter and boarding gate staffed by the 

carrier or a contractor of the carrier. 

(c) Response to complaints. Each covered carrier shall acknowledge in writing receipt of 

each complaint regarding its scheduled service to the complainant within 30 days of receiving it 

and shall send a substantive written response to each complainant within 60 days of receiving the 

complaint. A complaint is a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty 

or problem which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services. 

(d) Social networking sites. Each covered carrier that uses a social networking site (e.g. 

Facebook, Twitter) and that does not intend for that site to be a vehicle for receipt of written 

consumer complaints subject to this section shall clearly indicate on the carrier’s primary page 

on that social networking site that it will not reply to consumer complaints on that site and shall 

direct consumers to the carrier’s mailing address and e-mail or website location for filing written 

complaints. 

18. Section 259.8 is added to read as follows: 

§ 259.8 Notify passengers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions. 

(a) Each covered carrier for its scheduled flights to, from or within the U.S. must promptly 

provide to passengers who are ticketed or hold reservations, and to the public, information about 
207 

a change in the status of a flight within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of such a 

change in the status of a flight. A change in the status of a flight means, at a minimum, 

cancellation of a flight, a delay of 30 minutes or more in the planned operation of a flight, or a 

diversion. The flight status information must at a minimum be provided in the boarding gate 

area for the flight at a U.S. airport, on the carrier’s website, and via the carrier’s telephone 

reservation system upon inquiry by any person. 

(1) With respect to any U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier that permits passengers to 

subscribe to flight status notification services, the carrier must deliver such notification to 

such passengers, by whatever means is available to the carrier and of the passenger’s 

choice, within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of such a change in the status 

of a flight. 

(2) The U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier shall incorporate such notification service 

commitment into its Customer Service Plan as specified in section 259.5 of this chapter. 

(b) For its scheduled flights to, from or within the U.S, within 30 minutes after the carrier 

becomes aware of a flight cancellation, a flight delay of 30 minutes or more, or a flight diversion, 

each covered carrier must update all flight status displays and other sources of flight information 

that are under the carrier’s control at U.S. airports with information on that flight irregularity. 

(c) If an airport-controlled display system at a U.S. airport accepts flight status updates from 

carriers, covered carriers must provide flight irregularity information to that airport for the 

carrier’s scheduled flights to, from or within the U.S. within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes 

aware of such a change in the status of a flight. Flight irregularity refers to flight cancellations, 

flight delays of 30 minutes or more, and diversions. 

PART 399—STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY 
208 

19. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 399 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq. 

20. Effective [insert date 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register], § 399.84 is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 399.84 Price advertising and opt-out provisions. 

(a) The Department considers any advertising or solicitation by a direct air carrier, indirect 

air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent, for passenger air transportation, a tour (i.e., a 

combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour component (e.g., 

a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air transportation that states a price for such air 

transportation, tour, or tour component to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 

U.S.C. 41712, unless the price stated is the entire price to be paid by the customer to the carrier, 

or agent, for such air transportation, tour, or tour component. Although charges included within 

the single total price listed (e.g., government taxes) may be stated separately or through links or 

“pop ups” on websites that display the total price, such charges may not be false or misleading, 

may not be displayed prominently, may not be presented in the same or larger size as the total 

price, and must provide cost information on a per passenger basis that accurately reflects the cost 

of the item covered by the charge. 

(b) The Department considers any advertising by the entities listed in paragraph (a) of this 

section of an each-way airfare that is available only when purchased for round-trip travel to be an 

unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712, unless such airfare is advertised as 

“each way” and in such a manner so that the disclosure of the round-trip purchase requirement is 

clearly and conspicuously noted in the advertisement and is stated prominently and proximately 

to the each-way fare amount. The Department considers it to be an unfair and deceptive practice 
209 

to advertise each-way fares contingent on a round-trip purchase requirement as “one-way” fares, 

even if accompanied by prominent and proximate disclosure of the round trip purchase 

requirement. 

(c) When offering a ticket for purchase by a consumer, for passenger air transportation or for 

a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations) or tour 

component (e.g., a hotel stay) that must be purchased with air transportation, a direct air carrier, 

indirect air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent, may not offer additional optional services 

in connection with air transportation, a tour, or tour component whereby the optional service is 

automatically added to the consumer’s purchase if the consumer takes no other action, i.e., if the 

consumer does not opt out. The consumer must affirmatively “opt in” (i.e., agree) to such a 

service and the fee for it before that fee is added to the total price for the air transportationrelated purchase. The Department considers the use of “opt-out” provisions to be an unfair and 

deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

21. Section 399.85 is added to read as follows: 

§ 399.85 Notice of baggage fees and other fees. 

(a) If a U. S. or foreign air carrier has a website accessible for ticket purchases by the general 

public in the U.S., the carrier must promptly and prominently disclose any increase in its fee for 

carry-on or first and second checked bags and any change in the first and second checked bags or 

carry-on allowance for a passenger on the homepage of that website (e.g., provide a link that 

says “changed bag rules” or similarly descriptive language and takes the consumer from the 

homepage directly to a pop-up or a place on another webpage that details the change in baggage 

allowance or fees and the effective dates of such changes). Such notice must remain on the 

homepage for at least three months after the change becomes effective. 
210 

(b) If a U.S. carrier, a foreign air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent has a website 

accessible for ticket purchases by the general public in the U.S., the carrier or agent must clearly 

and prominently disclose on the first screen in which the agent or carrier offers a fare quotation 

for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer that additional airline fees for baggage may apply 

and where consumers can see these baggage fees. An agent may refer consumers to the airline 

websites where specific baggage fee information may be obtained or to its own site if it displays 

airlines’ baggage fees. 

(c) On all e-ticket confirmations for air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

including the summary page at the completion of an online purchase and a post-purchase email 

confirmation, a U.S. carrier, a foreign air carrier, an agent of either, or a ticket agent that 

advertises or sells air transportation in the United States must include information regarding the 

passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and 

second checked bag. Carriers must provide this information in text form in the e-ticket 

confirmation. Agents may provide this information in text form in the e-ticket confirmations or 

through a hyperlink to the specific location on airline websites or their own website where this 

information is displayed. The fee information provided for a carry-on bag and the first and 

second checked bag must be expressed as specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g., 

frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges. 

(d) If a U.S. or foreign air carrier has a website marketed to U.S. consumers where it 

advertises or sells air transportation, the carrier must prominently disclose on its website 

information on fees for all optional services that are available to a passenger purchasing air 

transportation. Such disclosure must be clear, with a conspicuous link from the carrier’s 

homepage directly to a page or a place on a page where all such optional services and related 
211 

fees are disclosed. For purposes of this section, the term “optional services” is defined as any 

service the airline provides, for a fee, beyond passenger air transportation. Such fees include, but 

are not limited to, charges for checked or carry-on baggage, advance seat selection, in-flight 

beverages, snacks and meals, pillows and blankets and seat upgrades. In general, fees for 

particular services may be expressed as a range; however, baggage fees must be expressed as 

specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so 

forth) that affect those charges. 

 (e) For air transportation within, to or from the United States, a carrier marketing a flight 

under its identity that is operated by a different carrier, otherwise known as a code-share flight, 

must through its website disclose to consumers booked on a code-share flight any differences 

between its optional services and related fees and those of the carrier operating the flight. This 

disclosure may be made through a conspicuous notice of the existence of such differences on the 

marketing carrier’s website or a conspicuous hyperlink taking the reader directly to the operating 

carrier’s fee listing or to a page on the marketing carrier’s website that lists the differences in 

policies among code-share partners. 

 (f) The Department considers the failure to give the appropriate notice described in 

paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section to be an unfair and deceptive practice within the 

meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

22. Section 399.87 is added to read as follows: 

§ 399.87 Baggage allowances and fees. 

For passengers whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, U.S. and foreign 

carriers must apply the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger's 

itinerary throughout his or her entire itinerary. In the case of code-share flights that form part of 
212 

an itinerary whose ultimate ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point, U.S. and foreign carriers 

must apply the baggage allowances and fees of the marketing carrier throughout the itinerary to 

the extent that they differ from those of any operating carrier. 

23. Section 399.88 is added to read as follows: 

§ 399.88 Prohibition on post-purchase price increase. 

(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any 

seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a 

combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including 

but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of 

passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has 

been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax 

or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid 

by the consumer. 

(b) A seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States or a tour (i.e., 

a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

must notify a consumer of the potential for a post-purchase price increase due to an increase in a 

government-imposed tax or fee and must obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential 

for such an increase prior to purchase of the scheduled air transportation, tour or tour component 

that includes scheduled air transportation. Imposition of any such increase without providing the 
213 

consumer the appropriate notice and without obtaining his or her written consent of the potential 

increase constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 

24. Section 399.89 is added to read as follows: 

§ 399.89 Disclosure of potential for price increase before payment. 

Any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a 

combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component 

(e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

must notify a consumer of the potential for a price increase that could take place prior to the time 

that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer, including but not limited to an 

increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, an 

increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, or an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee and 

must obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to 

accepting any payment for the scheduled air transportation, or tour or tour component that 

includes scheduled air transportation. Imposition of any such increase without providing the 

consumer the appropriate notice and obtaining his or her written consent to the potential increase 

constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712. 
COMP 1656 Attachment B 

COMP 1656 Attachment B 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

_________________________________________ 

Issued August 19, 2011; revised September 6, 2011 and October 19, 2011 

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Enforcement of the Second 

Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (EAPP #2) 

[Note: This document includes updated questions and answers to the FAQs covering EAPP #1 

published on April 28, 2010, and that are amended by this second rule to enhance airline 

passenger protections. New FAQs will be added to the document when completed.]

I. Overview

1. What are the main provisions of the second final rule on enhancing airline passenger 

protections? 

The following chart summarizes the rule’s main provisions: 

Subject Final Rule 

Tarmac Delay 

Contingency 

Plans

• Requires foreign air carriers operating to or from the U.S. with at 

least one aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to adopt and adhere 

to tarmac delay contingency plans. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to not permit an international 

flight to remain on the tarmac at a U.S. airport for more than four 

hours without allowing passengers to deplane subject to safety, 

security, and ATC exceptions. 

• Expands the airports at which airlines must adhere to the 

contingency plan terms to include small hub and non-hub airports, 

including diversion airports. 

• Requires U.S. and foreign carriers to coordinate plans with Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA). 

• Requires notification regarding the status of delays every 30 minutes 

while aircraft is delayed, including reasons for delay, if known. 

• Requires notification of opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that 

is at the gate or another disembarkation area with door open if the 
 

2

opportunity to deplane actually exists. 

Tarmac Delay 

Data • Requires all carriers that must adopt tarmac delay contingency plans 

to file data with the Department regarding lengthy tarmac delays. 

Customer 

Service Plans • Requires foreign air carriers that operate scheduled passenger service 

to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more 

passenger seats to adopt, follow and audit customer service plans. 

• Establishes standards for the subjects U.S. and foreign air carriers 

must cover in customer service plans. Examples include: 

• delivering baggage on time, including reimbursing 

passengers for any fee charged to transport a bag if the bag is 

lost; 

• where ticket refunds are due, providing prompt refunds 

including refund of optional fees charged to a passenger for 

services that the passenger was unable to use due to an 

oversale situation or flight cancellation; and 

• allowing reservations to be held at the quoted fare without 

payment, or cancelled without penalty, for at least twentyfour hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is 

made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date . 

Posting of 

Customer 

Service Plans 

and Tarmac 

Delay 

Contingency 

Plans 

• Requires foreign carriers to post their required contingency plans, 

customer service plans, and contracts of carriage on their websites as 

is already required of U.S. carriers. 

Response to 

Consumer 

Problems

• Expands the pool of carriers that must respond to consumer problems 

to include foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger service 

to and from the U.S. with at least one aircraft with 30 or more 

passenger seats (i.e., monitor the effects of irregular flight operations 

on consumers; inform consumers how to file a complaint with the 

carrier, and provide substantives responses to consumer complaints 

within 60 days). 

Oversales 

• Increases the minimum denied boarding compensation limits to 
 

3

$650/$1,300 or 200%/400% of the one-way fare, whichever is 

smaller. 

• Implements an automatic inflation adjuster for minimum DBC limits 

every 2 years. 

• Clarifies that DBC must be offered to “zero fare ticket” holders (e.g., 

holders of frequent flyer award tickets) who are involuntarily 

bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier verbally offer cash/check DBC if the carrier 

verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to passengers who are 

involuntarily bumped. 

• Requires that a carrier inform passengers solicited to volunteer for 

denied boarding about all material restrictions on the use of 

transportation vouchers offered in lieu of cash. 

Full Fare 

Advertising • Enforces the full fare advertising rule as written (i.e., ads which state 

a price must state the full price to be paid). Carriers currently may 

exclude government taxes/fees imposed on a per-passenger basis. 

• Clarifies the rule’s applicability to ticket agents. 

• Prohibits carriers and ticket agents from advertising fares that are not 

the full fare and imposes stringent notice requirements in connection 

with the advertisement of “each-way” fares available for purchase 

only on a round-trip basis. 

• Prohibits opt-out provisions in ads for air transportation. 

Baggage and 

Other Fees and 

Related CodeShare Issues

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose changes in bag 

fees/allowances on their homepage for three months, to include 

information regarding the free baggage allowance. 

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to include on eticket confirmations information about the free baggage allowance 

and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry-on 

but allows ticket agents, unlike carriers, to do so through a hyperlink. 

• Requires carriers (U.S. and foreign) and ticket agents to inform 

passengers on the first screen on which the ticket agent or carrier 

offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary selected by a consumer 

that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where 

consumers can go to see these baggage fees. 
 

4

• Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers to disclose all fees for optional 

services to consumers through a prominent link on their homepage. 

• Requires that the same baggage allowances and baggage fees apply 

throughout a passenger’s journey. 

• Requires the marketing carrier to disclose on its website any 

difference between its optional services and fees and those of the 

carrier operating the flight. Disclosure may be made through a 

hyperlink to the operating carriers’ websites that detail the operating 

carriers’ fees for optional services, or to a page on its website that 

lists the differences in policies among code-share partners. 

Post-Purchase 

Price Increases • Bans the practice of post-purchase price increases in air 

transportation or air tours unless the increase is due to an increase in 

government-imposed taxes or fees and only if the passenger was 

provided full disclosure of the potential for the increase and 

affirmatively agreed to the potential for such an increase prior to 

purchase. 

• Requires any seller of scheduled air transportation to notify a consumer 

of the potential for a price increase for the scheduled air transportation 

prior to the time that the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the 

consumer and to obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential 

for such an increase prior to accepting any payment, including a partial 

payment. 

Flight Status 

Changes • Requires U.S. and foreign air carriers operating scheduled passenger 

service with any aircraft with 30 or more seats to notify consumers 

through whatever means is available to the carrier for passengers 

who subscribe to the carrier’s flight status notification services, in 

the boarding gate area, on a carrier’s telephone reservation system 

and on its website of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and 

diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of a 

change in the status of a flight. 

Choice-ofForum 

Provisions 

• Prohibits U.S. and foreign air carriers from limiting a passenger’s 

forum to pursue litigation to a particular inconvenient venue 

2. When will these passenger protections become effective? 
 

5

Most provisions in the second final rule on enhancing airline passenger protections (EAPP #2) become 

effective on August 23, 2011. The Department delayed the effective date from August 23, 2011, to January 

24, 2012, for requirements pertaining to baggage fees, post purchase price increases, flight status changes 

and holding a reservation without payment for twenty-four hours. The Department also delayed the effective 

date from October 24, 2011, to January 24, 2012, for requirements pertaining to full fare advertising. The 

effective date remains August 23, 2011, for all the others requirement in the final rule. 

II. Reporting Tarmac Delay Data (14 CFR Part 244) 

1. When is the first tarmac delay report due? Must a covered carrier include any reportable 

tarmac delay that occurred between August 1, 2011, and August 22, 2011, in the first report? 

The first tarmac delay report is due on or before October 17, 2011. This report must include data for any 

reportable tarmac delay incident that occurred between August 23, 2011, and September 30, 2011. If you do 

not have any reportable tarmac delay incident during this period, or your Part 234 report already includes 

data for that incident, you do not need to file a report under Part 244. Tarmac delay incidents that occurred 

before August 23, 2011, are not to be reported under Part 244. 

2. What is a “reportable tarmac delay”? When does the 3-hour clock start to run? 

A reportable tarmac delay is a tarmac delay at a large, medium, small, or non-hub U.S. airport that lasts for 

more than three hours. The 3-hour limit begins when passengers no longer have the option to get off of the 

aircraft, which usually occurs when the doors of the aircraft are closed. However, if an aircraft is at the gate 

with the doors open, and passengers are not allowed off the aircraft, the time limit would start at the point 

when passengers were no longer permitted to deplane. If the flight that experienced the reportable tarmac 

delay is reported under the Airline Service Quality Reports required by 14 CFR Part 234, the data for that 

flight should be reported under Part 234 instead of Part 244. 

In the final rule, we state that covered carriers should file Part 244 reports for any reportable tarmac delay of 

“three hours or more.” This standard is inconsistent with the tarmac delay contingency plan requirements 

under Part 259 and the existing reporting requirements of the Department’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), both of which use a “more than three hours” standard. We intend to correct this 

inconsistency in a future rulemaking to make it clear that carriers do not need to file a report for a tarmac 

delay of exactly three hours. In the meantime, as a matter of enforcement policy, we will accept reports 

under Part 244 that meet the “more than three hours” criteria. For additional information, please refer to 

BTS Accounting and Reporting Directive No. 303A, issued on August 12, 2011. 

3. On a flight operated under a code-share or wet lease arrangement, who has the duty to file a 

Part 244 tarmac delay report ― the marketing carrier or the operating carrier? 

With respect to code-share arrangement, we state in the preamble that it is up to the code-share partners to 

decide who has the responsibility to file the report. Based on each carrier’s resources and ability, it may be 

more convenient for a foreign carrier to have its U.S. code-share partner file the reports, but the Department 

will not dictate which carrier must file the report and we will hold both marketing and operating carriers 

legally responsible if data for reportable tarmac delays are not timely or accurately filed. Consistent with the 

BTS reporting directive noted above in question #1, we will apply the same principle to other joint service 

operations, such as wet lease services and substitution of services. 
 

6

III. Oversales (14 CFR Part 250) 

1. If a passenger purchased a ticket before August 23, 2011, but the travel will not commence until 

on or after August 23, 2011, do the new Part 250 provisions (e.g., DBC formula and limits) apply if 

that passenger is bumped involuntarily? 

The new Part 250 provisions apply to any flight that commences on or after August 23, 2011, even if the 

ticket for that travel was purchased before that date. 

2. Does the Department’s definition for “zero fare tickets” include free or reduced-rate travel 

vouchers that carriers provide to ticket agents as incentives based on their volume of sales? 

Discounted or free travel earned by ticket agents through a carrier’s wholesale/retail incentive programs 

(e.g., incentives earned based on the volume of an agent’s sales of the airline’s tickets) are deemed internal to 

the industry, similar to the free or discounted travel vouchers offered to airline employees. Air transportation 

obtained by these travel agents or ticket agents are not considered “zero fare tickets” and therefore the DBC 

rule does not apply. 

3. Does the Department consider a ticket offered to the public through an auction or a raffle 

drawing in a charity event a “zero fare ticket” for denied boarding compensation purposes? 

Yes. Although the recipients of these tickets sometimes may not pay anything in exchange for these tickets, 

carriers do gain publicity and establish public goodwill from offering these tickets. In addition, there is an 

expectation by the recipients of the tickets that they are like any other ticket and the recipients may incur 

other expenses associated with the travel or the expectation of the travel. These passengers should be, and 

are, protected by the DBC rules. Carriers may not impose conditions on those tickets that preclude the 

application of DBC rule. 

4. What is a “substantial monetary payment” as referred to in the definition of “zero fare ticket”? 

A “zero fare ticket” is a ticket acquired without substantial monetary payment. The word “zero” should not 

be construed literally because a ticket that carries a partial monetary payment could still qualify as a “zero 

fare ticket.” To determine whether the monetary payment is substantial we focus on various factors such as 

the total market value of the ticket, the service(s) acquired with each kind of consideration, and the 

proportion of the value acquired with each kind of consideration in comparison to that total value. For 

example, if a passenger used frequent flier miles to obtain a ticket and paid cash for the requisite 

administrative fee, that ticket is still a “zero fare ticket.” On the other hand, if the passenger paid cash for a 

coach class ticket and used frequent flier miles to upgrade to a business class seat, that ticket will not be 

considered a “zero fare ticket.” In the latter example, when calculating DBC for that passenger the base fare 

should be the one-way fare for that coach ticket. However, if the carrier did not provide business class 

service on the alternate flight, it must credit the frequent flier miles used for the upgrade back to the 

passenger’s account. 

5. When calculating the base fare for DBC for a “zero fare ticket”, should carriers use the lowest 

fare ever offered to the public on the same flight as the base fare? 

When calculating the base fare for DBC for a zero fare ticket holder, carriers must use an amount no lower 

than the lowest cash, check, or credit card payment charged for the same class of service on the same flight, 

i.e., paid by a passenger. If there was a lower fare available but no purchase at that price was ever made, the 

carrier may not use that lower fare as the base for calculating DBC. 
 

7

6. Must a carrier offer “zero fare ticket” holders DBC by cash or check at the airport following an 

involuntary denied boarding? If the carrier is unable to determine the lowest cash, check or credit 

card payment for a ticket in the same class of service on the bumped passenger’s original flight at the 

airport, how can the carrier present to the bumped passenger meaningful options between DBC based 

on cash/check vs. travel vouchers? 

To the extent feasible, a carrier should offer a bumped zero fare ticket holder DBC by cash or check at the 

airport following the involuntary denied boarding. If the carrier is unable to do so at that time, our rule 

allows the carrier up to 24 hours after the denied boarding occurs (or by the next business day if the denied 

boarding occurs on a Friday or a day before a federal holiday) to send a check by mail or other means to the 

passenger. If the carrier wishes to offer the passenger a travel voucher as an alternative to DBC, it must do 

so at the same time it makes the cash/check offer, by including in the same mailing a travel voucher with 

clear disclosure of any material restrictions, and instructing the passenger to mail back the check should he 

or she wish to accept the travel voucher offer. 

7. What are “unused ancillary fees” referred to in section 250.5(f) that a carrier must refund to 

passengers who are denied boarding involuntarily? 

“Unused ancillary fees” are any ancillary fees for optional services paid by a passenger who is denied 

boarding (either voluntary or involuntary) where the services covered by the fees were not received on the 

alternate transportation provided the bumped passenger. For example, if a passenger paid $25 for a checked 

bag, and the bag was transported on the alternate flight that has the same baggage fee without additional cost 

to the passenger, the baggage transportation service is ultimately used by the passenger and the carrier does 

not need to refund the baggage fee. On the other hand, if the passenger paid $10 for extra leg room on the 

original flight, and did not receive the extra leg room on the alternative flight, that $10 fee must be refunded. 

8. If an involuntarily bumped passenger is put on a flight of another carrier, and the passenger 

has to pay more for ancillary services on the alternative flight, is the first carrier responsible for the 

additional fees? What if the second carrier’s ancillary fees are less than that of the first carrier? 

In order to limit its DBC liability, a carrier must offer alternate transportation, in the form of “air 

transportation” with a confirmed reservation at no additional charge to the passenger, or in the form of other 

transportation accepted and used by the passenger. We consider the transportation of baggage a part of the 

“air transportation” of the bumped passenger. If this passenger must pay more for his or her substitute air 

transportation (including baggage), then this passenger has not received “alternate transportation” as defined 

in Part 250 and consequently is entitled to the 400% denied boarding compensation rate. If the second 

carrier’s fees for checked or carryon baggage are higher than the first carrier’s charges, the first carrier must 

cover the difference or the passenger would be entitled to the maximum DBC (e.g., 400% of one-way fare up 

to $1,300). If the second carrier’s baggage charges are lower than those of the first carrier, the first carrier 

must refund the difference. With respect to other ancillary fees such as food, beverage, seat selection, and 

in-flight entertainment, because they are not considered part of the “air transportation,” the first carrier would 

not be responsible for any additional charges that the second carrier may impose. To the extent the first 

carrier had collected fees for such optional services from the passenger in advance of the flight from which 

he or she is bumped and those services are not applicable to the alternate transportation (e.g., the alternate 

transportation is on another carrier or on the same carrier but not available on the alternate aircraft), a carrier 

must refund those fees to the bumped passenger. 
 

8

9. Must a carrier disclose any additional ancillary fees that a passenger will pay on an alternative 

flight when offering such flight to a passenger (either a volunteer or an involuntarily bumped 

passenger)? 

As a general matter, a carrier does not need to disclose to a bumped passenger any fee for which it assumes 

responsibility. For example, as discussed above in response to question #9, in an involuntary denied 

boarding situation, because the carrier that bumped the passenger from its flight is responsible for any 

additional baggage fees charged by the second carrier, the first carrier does not need to disclose such 

difference in fees to the passenger. For other ancillary fees, in a voluntary denied boarding situation, a 

carrier must disclose any ancillary fees the passenger may have to pay (and any fee difference, if applicable) 

so the passenger can make an informed decision about whether to volunteer. 

10. When a carrier verbally offers travel vouchers to passengers that are solicited to be volunteers, 

does the carrier have to verbally disclose all material restrictions for the use of the travel vouchers? 

According to 14 CFR § 250.9(c), when a carrier verbally offers a travel voucher as DBC to a passenger who 

is involuntarily denied boarding, the carrier must verbally disclose all material restrictions for the use of that 

travel voucher. In the preamble of the rule, we discussed extensively the reason for applying such a 

requirement to both involuntary and voluntary denied boarding situations. However, inadvertently, the rule 

text in 14 CFR 250.2b(c) does not specify the “verbal” disclosure requirement applicable to voluntarily 

denied boarding. Therefore, we are not requiring that when the carrier verbally offers vouchers to a potential 

volunteer, it must verbally disclose any material restrictions on the use of such vouchers. However, if verbal 

disclosure is not provided, written disclosure of material restrictions must be included in the voucher 

solicitation documents that the carrier hands to any volunteers. Under section 250.2b(c), when offering 

travel vouchers to prospective volunteers, the carrier must disclose all material restrictions on the vouchers 

“before the passenger decides whether to give up his or her confirmed reserved space on that flight in 

exchange for the free or reduced rate transportation (emphasis added).” We will consider addressing this 

matter in a future rulemaking to reflect our intent as discussed in the preamble. 

11. Must a carrier verbally describe all material restrictions on a travel voucher in detail when 

verbally offering such voucher to each passenger who is involuntarily denied boarding? 

We are mindful that in an involuntary denied boarding situation, the gate agents are often under tremendous 

time pressure to resolve the oversales situation as well as handle the boarding process. Thus, the carrier is 

not required to give each individual who is denied boarding involuntarily a personal presentation. The 

disclosure briefing can be conducted in a group setting with all passengers involuntarily denied boarding 

present. The description of the material restrictions can be general as long as the passengers are aware of the 

nature of each restriction. For example, a sentence like the following can be used: “The number of seats on 

each flight for which these travel vouchers can be used is limited, the vouchers cannot be transferred to 

another person, and they expire in two years.” 

12. If a carrier decides that it will not verbally make a travel voucher offer to a bumped passenger 

at all, how can the carrier communicate with the passenger regarding what options he or she has? 

If a carrier does not want to make any verbal offer at all, it can simply put all offers (including cash or check 

DBC and the travel voucher option) and restrictions associated with those offers in writing and verbally 

inform the passenger that he or she has been involuntarily denied boarding and has certain options. Then the 

carrier can hand over the written notice and statements to the passenger and request that the passenger review 

the material and advise the agent of his/her choices. 
 

9

13. With respect to the revised written statement in 14 CFR 250.9 that a carrier must provide to 

bumped passengers, and to any other interested person upon request at an airport, may a foreign air 

carrier that solely markets and operates international flights to and from the United States edit the 

text of the statement to omit the text that solely deals with denied boarding compensation for domestic 

flights? 

Yes. On August 5, 2011, the Department issued a notice that permits a foreign air carrier to omit the 

“Domestic Transportation” portion of the “Amount of Denied Boarding Compensation” section of the 

written explanation, and requires that the remainder of the written explanation must be the verbatim text of 

the notice that appears in 14 CFR 250.9. 

The Notice is available at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/ . 

IV. Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans (14 CFR 259.4) 

1. Which carriers must have contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays? 

The rule requires a U.S. carrier and foreign carrier operating passenger service (scheduled or charter) using 

any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more passenger seats to adopt a contingency plan for lengthy 

tarmac delays. The requirement to develop and implement contingency plans would apply to all aircraft of 

those carriers, including those with fewer than 30 seats. 

2. Which airports must be covered by the contingency plans adopted by U.S. carriers? 

A covered U.S. and foreign carrier must have a contingency plan covering each large, medium, small and 

non-hub airport at which it operates. A large hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 1.00 

percent of the total enplanements in the United States. A medium hub airport means an airport accounting 

for at least 0.25 percent but less than 1.00 percent of the total enplanements in the United States. A small 

hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.05%, but less than 0.25% of the total enplanements in 

the United States. A non hub airport means an airport accounting for enplanements of more than 10,000 

passengers but less than 0.05% of the total enplanements in the United States. Information about airport 

sizes is available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/. 

3. How many large, medium, small, and non-hub airports are there? 

According to the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, in calendar year 2009 (latest 

available data), there were 29 large hub airports, 36 medium hub airports, 72 small hub, and 231 non hub 

airports. A list of airport information, including name, location, and size is available on the web at 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/cy09_cs_enplane

ments.pdf. Note that for purposes of this rule, in defining the hub size of an airport, the Department uses the 

airport-specific enplanement thresholds published by BTS and does not aggregate airport enplanement data 

on a community basis as is done for other purposes. 

4. What must be included in the contingency plans? 

– Assurance that a U.S. carrier will not permit aircraft to remain for more than three hours on 

the tarmac for domestic flights without providing passengers an opportunity to deplane, 

subject to safety, security and Air Traffic Control (ATC)-related exceptions; 
 

10

– Assurance that a U.S. or foreign carrier will not permit aircraft to remain on the tarmac for 

more than four hours for international flights without providing passengers an opportunity to 

deplane, subject to safety, security, or ATC-related reasons; 

– Assurance of food and water for passengers after 2 hours without a chance to deplane, unless 

safety or security considerations preclude such service; 

– Assurance of operable lavatory facilities while on the tarmac, and adequate medical attention 

if needed; 

– Assurance of sufficient resources to carry out the plan; 

– Assurance of coordination with airport authorities (including terminal facility operators where 

applicable) at all large, medium, small, and non-hub airports, including diversion airports; 

– Assurance of coordination with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA) at all large, medium, small and non-hub airports, including 

diversion airports; 

– Assurance that passengers on the delayed flight will receive notifications regarding the status 

of the delay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is delayed; and 

– Assurance that the passengers on the delayed flight will be notified beginning 30 minutes 

after the scheduled departure time and every 30 minutes thereafter that they have the 

opportunity to deplane from an aircraft that is at the gate or another disembarkation area with 

the door open if the opportunity to deplane actually exists. 

 

5. Is a carrier in compliance with the requirement in the tarmac delay rule to provide passengers 

an opportunity to deplane after three hours for domestic flights if the aircraft begins the 

process of returning to the gate or another disembarkation point at the three-hour mark for 

domestic flights or the four-hour mark for international flights?

No. A carrier must give passengers an opportunity to deplane at the three-hour mark for domestic flights or 

at the four-hour mark for international flights. It is not sufficient for a carrier to begin the process of 

returning to the gate or another disembarkation point at that time. 

6. Should carriers record the door closing time in order to keep track of the “clock” for purposes 

of a lengthy tarmac delay?

There is no requirement in the tarmac delay rule that a carrier record the door closing time. What is 

important to note, however, is that the clock on a tarmac delay during departure starts running from — and 

thus carriers should keep track of — the last time that passengers had an opportunity to deplane, which could 

be when the door is closed or even before the door has been closed if passengers have been boarded but the 

aircraft does not push back and, despite the doors remaining open, the passengers are not provided the 

opportunity to deplane. In the event that the Department determines it necessary to investigate an incident 

involving a lengthy tarmac delay, we expect that carriers will have adequate information to provide a 

timeline of events. 
 

11

7. For a departure delay, if the aircraft is not allowed to "remain on the tarmac" longer than 

three hours for domestic flights or four hours for international flights without providing 

passengers an opportunity to deplane, does this mean that it must return to the gate, even if 

just momentarily, to let passengers off but can then return to the tarmac or taxiway? 

Yes. The aircraft must return to the gate or another disembarkation point before three hours elapses for 

domestic flights or four hours as determined by a U.S. or foreign carrier for international flights if passengers 

have not been provided the opportunity to deplane unless there is a valid safety, security or ATC reason not 

to do so. Once the aircraft returns to the gate or another disembarkation point and passengers are permitted 

to deplane, a carrier may decide to continue the flight’s operation immediately, reschedule it for a later time, 

or cancel the flight. When the plane returns to the gate, any passenger who wishes must have the chance to 

deplane, after which the carrier may continue the flight with those passengers who decide not to deplane. Of 

course, once the flight leaves the gate again, the clock begins anew. In other words, the passengers who 

decided not to deplane must be given another opportunity to deplane if the aircraft is subsequently delayed 

on the tarmac for another three hours in the case of a domestic flight or four hours in the case of an 

international flight. 

8. For a departure delay, is a flight required to return to the terminal to deplane passengers 

within the 3-hour (domestic flight) or 4-hour (international flight) limit if it appears the flight 

may be next in line for take-off or passengers do not want to return to the terminal? 

Regarding the “next in line” issue, carriers must take into account the time needed to taxi back to the gate or 

other disembarkation point in order to comply with the applicable time limit. All facts involving a given 

situation, including a carrier’s decisions, and when it made them, will be taken into account in determining 

whether an actionable violation of the rule occurred. Regarding the desire of passengers to wait out a delay 

that may extend past the applicable time limit, carriers have always been able to poll passengers regarding 

whether or not they would like to return to the gate in the event of a long tarmac delay and the rule does not 

change this fact. The Department deliberated on whether to include a requirement to poll passengers but 

determined that it may not be practicable to require polling in every case. However, in the event of a 

question about compliance with the rule, we have the discretion to consider the totality of the circumstances 

and would take into account all matters brought to our attention, such as all passengers agreeing to forego 

their right to deplane. 

9. If a carrier offers passengers the opportunity to deplane consistent with this rule and the flight 

subsequently prepares to depart again, does the carrier have to re-board passengers or wait for 

passengers that chose to deplane? 

No, but should the carrier choose not to do so, we recommend that a carrier advise any passenger who 

desires to deplane that the flight may or will leave without him or her. 

10. For a departure delay, what are carriers’ responsibilities to passengers once an aircraft returns 

to the gate? 

After an aircraft returns to the gate, the decision whether to re-board passengers and operate the same aircraft 

or to cancel the flight is an operational matter left to the carrier. The carrier does have a responsibility to 

follow any policy and procedures in its contract of carriage for rebooking passengers and providing 

amenities and refunds. A carrier is not required to re-board a passenger who chooses to deplane the aircraft. 

We encourage carriers to announce to deplaning passengers that the flight will or may leave without him/her. 
 

12

11. Does a carrier have to offload checked bags for passengers who opt to deplane because of 

tarmac delays? 

We are not requiring carriers to do so. However, entities such as CBP, TSA, or a foreign government may 

have rules requiring deplaned passengers’ luggage to be off-loaded along with the passenger and carriers 

should check with those entities for their requirements. We do recommend that, even in the absence of any 

government requirement to off-load luggage, carriers do so if circumstances permit. 

12. Are there other requirements the carrier must comply with to deal with lengthy tarmac delays? 

Yes. A carrier must assure that it has sufficient resources to carry out the plan and that it will coordinate 

with airport authorities, CBP, and TSA at all large, medium, small, and non-hub airports that the carrier 

serves, including diversion airports. A carrier must also make announcements every 30 minutes regarding 

the status of the delay and of the opportunity to deplane, where applicable. 

13. The rule requires carriers to coordinate their plans with “diversion” airports. Which diversion 

airports are expected to be included in this process? 

We expect carriers to work with large, medium, small, and non-hub airports to which they regularly divert 

aircraft when an irregular operation exists. 

14. How can a carrier demonstrate that it has adequately coordinated its tarmac delay contingency 

plan with airports authorities (including terminal operators where applicable), CBP and TSA? 

We expect carriers to provide the appropriate government personnel/office or airport authority with a copy of 

its contingency plan and to ask those entities to advise it on the adequacy of the plans, as related to that 

agency’s responsibilities. We suggest that a carrier retain evidence of its efforts to coordinate with the 

airport authority (including terminal facility operators where applicable), CBP, and TSA to facilitate any 

review of such information by the Department and help demonstrate compliance with the rule. 

15. Does a carrier have an obligation to coordinate its contingency plan with Fixed Base Operators 

(FBOs) or another carrier that may assist with deplaning passengers that experience a lengthy 

tarmac delay? 

The rule does not require a carrier to coordinate its plans with such entities, but the Department recommends 

that carriers do so in the event that such an entity may be able to assist with an incident involving a lengthy 

tarmac delay (e.g., deplaning passengers, providing ground handling services). Evidence of such 

coordination will also assist the Department in determining if a carrier is meeting the requirement that it has 

“sufficient resources to implement the plan.” 

16. The rule requires that a carrier notify passengers about the status of a delay every 30 minutes 

while the aircraft is delayed. What if at the end of a 30 minute period the aircraft is in taxi 

mode, a time during which the flight deck crew members are concerned with other matters that 

would prevent them from making public announcements? Would the carrier be excused from 

complying with the rule under that scenario? 

 To the extent FAA rules prohibit extraneous conversations by flight crew, they need not make the public 

announcements. For example, a carrier may be able to make announcements while holding in a queue on an 
 

13

active taxi way, but not while actively taxiing or waiting for takeoff clearance at the front of the line if FAA 

rules prohibit such activity. 

17. The rule requires that passengers on a delayed flight receive notification regarding the status of 

the delay every 30 minutes while the aircraft is delayed. Does this requirement primarily apply 

to arrival delays? Was the Department’s intent to require an announcement to be made 30 

minutes from the time the aircraft touched down if it is delayed getting into a gate? 

The requirement to make public announcements at 30-minute intervals applies to both inbound and outbound 

tarmac delays. 

18. Does the requirement to notify passengers on a delayed flight 30 minutes after scheduled 

departure time and every 30 minutes thereafter that they have the opportunity to deplane 

apply only to passengers onboard an aircraft (as opposed to those still in the terminal)? 

This requirement applies only to passengers aboard an aircraft after they have been boarded but before the 

aircraft closes its doors. This rule covers situations where after the boarding process, a flight will sit at the 

gate for a lengthy period of time with the door open and passengers, particularly passengers in the rear of the 

aircraft, have no idea whether they are free to deplane. All passengers should be told they can deplane if that 

is the case. If after all passengers are boarded, the doors remain open but passengers are not free to deplane, 

the tarmac delay clock is running. 

19. Did the Department intend for the clock to start based on the time of scheduled departure, as 

that scenario could result in carriers having to announce to passengers that they have the 

opportunity to deplane while passengers are still boarding? 

The rule specifies that the 30-minute period begins after scheduled departure time “(including any revised 

departure time that passengers were notified about prior to boarding).” Since the carrier has discretion to 

announce any changed departure time at the gate either before or during boarding, the first announcement 

regarding deplaning should be within 30 minutes of that last announced departure time. 

20. In the event of a lengthy tarmac delay on a code-share flight, which carrier is responsible for 

implementation of the plan? 

Generally, the plan of the carrier under whose code the service is marketed governs (if different from the 

operating carrier), unless the marketing carrier specifies in its contract of carriage that the operating carrier’s 

plan governs.

21. Is a carrier required to retain certain information “about any tarmac delay that lasts more 

than three hours,” even for a tarmac delay on an international flight that lasts more than three 

hours but less than the allowed four hours? 

Yes. The requirement that carriers retain data for tarmac delays lasting more than three hours is the same for 

domestic and international flights. In addition to desiring to have consistent data for both types of 

operations, the Department plans to use this information to determine the effect of lengthy tarmac delays and 

its rules on consumers and carriers. 
 

14

V. Carriers’ Adherence to Customer Service Plans (14 CFR 259.5) 

1. Which carriers must comply with the requirement to adopt and adhere to their customer 

service plans? 

This rule applies to all the flights of a U.S. or foreign carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger 

service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more passenger seats. It applies to all of a covered 

U.S. carrier’s flights, both domestic and international, and to all of a foreign carrier’s flights to and from the 

U.S. including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if the carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or 

more passenger seats. 

2. Does the rule specify consumer protection requirements that carriers must follow as part of 

their customer service plans? 

The rule effective August 23, 2011 requires that covered U.S. and foreign carriers adopt customer service 

plans and that those plans address the 12 subjects below. The rule also sets forth minimum standards for 

each of those subjects. Other DOT rules cover some of these subjects, e.g., accommodating the needs of 

disabled air travelers, meeting customers’ essential needs, and oversale situations. 

1. Offering the lowest fare available and notifying the consumer that the fare may be available 

elsewhere, if that is the case; 

2. Notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions; 

3. Delivering baggage on time, including making reasonable efforts to return mishandled 

baggage within twenty-four hours; 

4. Allowing reservations to be held or cancelled for at least twenty-four hours without penalty if 

the reservation is made one week or more prior to a flight’s departure; 

5. Providing prompt ticket refunds, including refunding fees charged for optional services if a 

passenger was unable to use those services due to an oversale situation or a flight 

cancellation; 

6. Properly accommodating disabled and special-needs passengers, including during tarmac 

delays; 

7. Meeting customers’ essential needs during long on-aircraft delays; 

8. Handling “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency in the case of oversales; 

9. Disclosing cancellation policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft seating configuration, and 

lavatory availability; 

10. Notifying consumers in a timely manner of changes in their travel itineraries; 

11. Ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and 

12. Identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger inconveniences resulting from 

cancellations and misconnects. 

3. How will the Department ensure that carriers are complying with their customer service plans? 
 

15

The rule requires each carrier to audit its adherence to its plan annually and retain the results of its audit for 

two years following the date any audit is completed. These audit results must be provided upon request to 

the Department, including its Aviation Enforcement Office, for review. We encourage carriers to use the 

audit to monitor their own level of compliance with the provisions of the rule. 

4. Is a carrier required to inform a consumer where he or she can find the lowest fare that may be 

available? 

Airlines are required to disclose that the lowest fare offered by the carrier may be offered by the carrier 

elsewhere if this is the case. Whether or not carriers are required to state where the fare may be found (e.g., 

website or airport ticket counter) depends on the nature of a given carrier’s business model. For example, in 

many cases, a carrier’s lowest fare may be purchased through any of its outlets, with the exception of 

occasional sales that may only be found elsewhere, e.g., via Twitter or on its website, in which case it will be 

sufficient for carriers to provide notice to consumers by stating, on their telephone reservations systems and 

at airport ticket counters, that “lower fares may be available via our website” (or Twitter, as the case may 

be). On the other hand, the fares of some carriers are for the most part lower if purchased at their airport 

ticket counters, as opposed to being purchased via the Internet or through a telephone reservation agent, due 

to carrier-imposed fees associated with the website or telephone purchases. In those cases, carriers should 

advise consumers on their website and during calls to their reservations center, that “lower fares generally 

are available” through purchases at airport ticket counters. The notice should be provided either at the outset 

of the communication (e.g., during the initial recording in telephone reservation calls) or commensurate with 

a fare solicitation or quote (e.g., the first web page on which a fare is stated). This notice requirement does 

not apply to lower fares for a carrier’s flights that may be available from a source other than the carrier itself, 

e.g. from a consolidator. 

5. If the airline delivers a passenger’s bag a week late (e.g. after a passenger has arrived home 

from vacation), must it refund any bag fee that this passenger had paid? 

The Department’s rule does not require a refund of baggage fees in the event of a delay in delivery of the 

bag. A carrier must reimburse passengers for fees charged to transport a bag only if that bag is lost. Carriers 

should note, however, that under the Department’s baggage liability rule, 14 CFR Part 254, carriers are 

responsible for provable direct or consequential damages resulting from loss, damage, or delay in delivery of 

luggage, up to certain limits. 

6. In the case of a lost bag, do the airlines have a specific amount of time to find it before the 

mandatory refund on the checked-bag fee kicks in? 

We have not defined “lost” for purposes of the new rule mandating a refund of the baggage fee for lost bags, 

just as we have never defined the term “loss” for our long-standing rule stating that carriers are responsible 

for damages occasioned by loss, damage, or delay in delivery of luggage, up to certain limits. However, if a 

carrier unreasonably refuses to consider a bag to be lost after it has been missing for a considerable period of 

time, it could be subject to enforcement action for violating the statutory prohibition against unfair and 

deceptive practices. 

7. At what point is a carrier required to hold a reservation and fare for 24 hours without payment 

or to permit the consumer to cancel without penalty? 

A carrier is not required to hold a reservation and fare without payment or to permit the purchaser to cancel 

without penalty on reservations made less than a week prior to that flight’s scheduled departure time. This 
 

16

rule does apply if a consumer makes the reservation one week or more prior to a flight’s scheduled 

departure. 

8. Does a carrier have to offer a consumer the opportunity to either “hold a reservation for 24-

hours without payment” or to “cancel a reservation within 24 hours without penalty?” 

No, a carrier is not required to offer both options. But if a carrier accepts reservations without payment, it 

must allow the consumer to cancel the reservation within 24 hours without penalty, and if the carrier requires 

payment with a reservation, it must allow the consumer to cancel the payment and reservation within 24 

hours and receive a full refund. 

9. Does the requirement to allow a consumer to hold a reservation without payment or cancel 

without penalty for 24 hours apply to ticket agents? 

No. This requirement stems from the customer service plans covered carriers are required to follow and does 

not apply to ticket agents, although to maintain equivalent customer service levels agents may wish to apply 

the same or similar procedures. 

10. What are some examples of situations where “optional fees” must be refunded to a passenger 

under section 259.5(b)(5)? 

If a passenger pays for a seat with more leg room (e.g. economy plus) on one flight and then he or she is 

bumped and placed on an aircraft where that type of seat is not provided to that passenger, the carrier must 

refund the fee the passenger paid for the seat upgrade. Another example of where the rule would require a 

refund would be where a passenger paid to be able to choose a seat but, due to a flight irregularity or 

bumping situation, was unable to use the service for which he or she had paid. 

11. Are carriers required by section 259.5(b)(9) to disclose on their own websites the cancellation 

policies, frequent flyer rules, aircraft seating configuration and lavatory availability of codeshare partners? If so, may this be done by a hyperlink to the code-share partner's website? 

No. The customer service plan requirements in section 259.5 apply only to the scheduled flights operated by 

the selling carrier and not the flights operated by its code-share partners. 

12. What does the Department mean by notifying passengers “in a timely manner” of a change in 

their itinerary? 

The phrase “in a timely manner” depends on the circumstances of the passenger involved. In general, the 

closer in time to a passenger’s scheduled flight an itinerary change occurs, the earlier a passenger should be 

notified. For example, the phrase must be read in conjunction with section 259.8, which requires that all 

passengers be notified about a change in the status of a flight within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes 

aware of any such change. A carrier must notify passengers of the change within 30 minutes if that flight is 

scheduled to occur in the next seven days. For travel itinerary changes involving passengers whose flights 

are scheduled more than a week in the future, notification should be provided to the passengers as soon as 

practical. In such circumstances, if notification is made less than 48 hours after the carrier becomes aware of 

such change, we would consider the notification to be timely. 
 

17

VI. Posting of Contracts of Carriage, Customer Service Plans and Tarmac Delay

Contingency Plans on Websites (14 CFR 259.6) 

1. Which carriers are required to post copies of their contracts of carriage, customer service plans 

and tarmac delay contingency plans on their websites? 

The requirement to post contracts of carriage as well as customer service plans and tarmac delay contingency 

plans applies to all U.S. carriers that are required to adopt such plans and that have a website, and to all 

foreign carriers that are required to adopt such plans and that have a website marketed to U.S. consumers. 

The rule applies to carriers that operate any aircraft with 30 or more seats, including aircraft with less than 30 

seats. 

2. The rule (259.6(b)) requires each U.S air carrier with a website and each foreign air carrier 

that has a website marketed to U.S. consumers and that is required to adopt a customer service 

plan to post that plan on its website. As the customer service provisions regarding placing a 24-

hour hold on reservations (259.5(b)(4)) and notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, 

and diversions (259.8) are not effective until January 24, 2012, is a carrier required to post the 

entire customer service plan on its website by August 23, 2011? 

Carriers are required to post on their websites by August 23, 2011, only those provisions that are effective as 

of that date. Since the two provisions noted above are not effective until January 24, 2012, it is not necessary 

for a carrier, either foreign or U.S., to post them on their websites until that time. Should an air carrier 

choose to do so, it can add a “placeholder” for those provisions, advising consumers of the date on which 

those provisions become effective. 

3. How does the Department define “marketed to U.S. consumers” for purposes of determining 

when a provision of the rule is applicable to a foreign carrier (e.g., 259.6 and 259.7)? 

The Department has not defined this term specifically, but will make the determination on a case-by-case 

basis. Among the things we will look for when evaluating whether a site is marketed to U.S. consumers are 

1) if the website is in English, 2) if tickets are sold in U.S. dollars, 3) if it lists flights to or from the U.S., 4) 

whether sales are blocked for customers with U.S. addresses or telephone numbers, and 5) even if a site is in 

a language other than English, if the site is marketed toward a particular segment of the U.S. market (e.g., 

website in Spanish and geared toward consumers in Miami). 

VII. Response to Consumer Problems (14 CFR 259.7) 

1. Which carriers must comply with the requirement to respond to consumer problems? 

All U.S. and foreign carriers that operate scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with a design 

capacity of 30 or more passenger seats must respond to consumer problems as required by the rule. 

2. Where does the employee designated to monitor the effects of irregular flight operations on 

passengers need to be located and what is the Department’s intent regarding her or his 

function? 

The employee designated to monitor the effects of irregular flight operations on passengers does not need to 

be located in the United States as long as he or she has the ability to provide input to company personnel 
 

18

regarding any flight delay at issue. Nor does the carrier need to hire a new employee to perform this task. 

The requirement is intended to ensure that passenger interests are considered by carriers when making 

decisions on irregular flight operations. The rule does not require that the designated employee be available 

to speak with passengers. 

3. Section 259.7(b) requires a carrier to make information available to a consumer regarding 

where to file a complaint about its scheduled service on all e-ticket confirmations. Is it 

acceptable for a carrier to provide the consumer with two separate receipts (e.g., one containing 

payment information and one containing itinerary information), as long as the carrier provides 

the required information in one of the e-ticket confirmations? 

A carrier may provide a consumer with separate receipts covering payment information and itinerary 

information, but the information about where to file a complaint must be located on the e-ticket confirmation 

that provides information regarding the passenger’s itinerary and ticket number. The Department would 

view a document containing information such as a passenger’s name and credit card information as a receipt 

for payment, rather than a “confirmation” for purposes of the rule. 

4. How does the Department define “substantive response” in section 259.7(c)? 

By “substantive response” we mean a response that addresses the specific problems about which the 

consumer has complained. This type of response often results in a resolution of the complaint. We are also 

clarifying that by “complaint” we mean a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a 

difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services and 

that contains sufficient information for the carrier to identify the passenger. 

5. How should a carrier address a consumer’s concerns when there are multiple issues in the 

complaint? 

When an individual complains in writing about more than one issue, the rule requires carriers to respond 

substantively to each specific allegation. For example, in the event of an incident involving a lengthy tarmac 

delay incident, if a passenger were to allege that a carrier held passengers onboard an aircraft without the 

opportunity to deplane for more than three hours on a domestic fight and also did not provide passengers 

with food and water, the rule would require the carrier to address substantively both the length of delay 

complaint and the food and water complaint. A carrier’s failure to address substantively either of those 

complaints would violate the rule. 

6. Does a carrier need to send a “final” reply within 60 days? 

No, for difficult cases involving complex issues a carrier can provide a substantive response to the passenger 

within 60 days based on what the carrier knows at that time, continue its investigation, if necessary, and send 

a final reply once the investigation is complete. 

 7. The Department requires that acknowledgments and substantive responses to passenger 

complaints must be in writing. Some carriers have a practice of calling certain complainants to 

address the issues. Does this practice satisfy the requirements of this provision? 

As a matter of policy, the Enforcement Office will not pursue enforcement action for telephone replies if the 

carrier retains a record of the conversation(s), including the name of the carrier employee, the name of the 

individual that the employee spoke with, the date and time of the call, and a summary of the substance of the 
 

19

conversation sufficient to permit a reviewer to determine whether the principal issues in the complaint were 

addressed as required by the rule. By rule such records must be retained by the carrier for at least three 

years, the record-retention period for consumer complaints as specified in 14 CFR 249.20. However, if the 

carrier calls a passenger who had submitted a written complaint and during the call the complainant requests 

a written reply, the carrier should comply with the request or face possible enforcement action. 

8. Is a carrier required to respond to a consumer’s complaint if that complaint is filed using 

Facebook or Twitter? 

No, under section 259.7(d), a carrier is not required to respond to all written complaints concerning a 

difficulty or a problem which a person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services on 

its social networking site. However, if the social networking site is not intended to be a vehicle for written 

consumer complaints, the carrier must clearly indicate on that website’s primary page that it will not reply to 

consumer complaints on that site and the carrier must direct consumers to the carrier’s mailing address and email or website location for filing written complaints. 

VIII. Notifying Passengers of Flight Status Changes (14 CFR 259.8) 

1. What are the differences in the various 30-minute thresholds and deadlines under Part 259 in 

the new rules? 

14 CFR 259.4 sets forth provisions that carriers must comply with during a lengthy tarmac delay and there 

are two provisions that contain a 30-minute time limit. According to 14 CFR 259.4(b)(5), after the 

passengers have boarded the aircraft and before the aircraft takes off (departure tarmac delay) or after the 

aircraft has landed and before the passengers are permitted to deplane (arrival tarmac delay), carriers are 

required to make announcements every 30 minutes while the delay continues in order to notify passengers of 

the status of the delay, and to provide the reason for the delay, if known. Pursuant to 14 CFR 259.4(b)(6), if 

after the passengers have boarded the aircraft for departure the aircraft remains at the gate with its doors 

open, carriers must notify passengers that they may still deplane, if that is the case, starting at least 30 

minutes after the scheduled departure time, and every 30 minutes thereafter. In the absence of such notice, 

the Enforcement Office could consider the tarmac-delay clock to be running. 

In contrast, the various notification requirements set forth in 14 CFR 259.8 relate to notifying passengers and 

the public about flight irregularities of all types, including cancellations, diversions, and delays that are over 

30 minutes (not only tarmac delays). The notifications under this section must be provided within 30 

minutes after a carrier becomes aware of any such change to the flight status. 

2. Do the notification requirements in 14 CFR 259.8 apply to all flight schedule changes that occur 

before the scheduled departure? 

As a matter of enforcement policy, the Enforcement Office will enforce section 259.8 only with regard to 

flight status changes that occur within 7 days of the scheduled date of the flight in question. 

As stated in the preamble, the main purpose of this rule is to avoid unnecessary waits at, or pointless trips to, 

an airport. Flight cancellations or changes in departure or arrival time that occur far in advance of the date of 

departure are more likely to have much less impact on the passengers’ and other persons’ schedules and 

planning than changes that occur closer to departure time. The Enforcement Office considers flight changes 

outside of the 7-day time period to be “schedule changes” that amount to “changes in a travel itinerary” to 
 

20

which section 259.5(b)(10) applies. Under that provision, carriers must provide “timely” notice, which we 

interpret to mean “as soon as practicable.” The itinerary change notification provision would also apply to 

schedule changes not covered by the 30-minute notification rule (e.g., flight number changes involving no 

time changes and changes involving earlier arrival or departure times.) 

3. How is the “seven-calendar-day” time period computed? 

To determine the seven-calendar-day period for a particular flight, carriers should start from the midnight on 

the date of the scheduled operation, counting backwards seven full calendar days. For instance, if a flight’s 

scheduled departure time is at 2:00 p.m. on August 7, the seven-calendar-day span will start at 12:01 a.m. on 

August 1. Under this scenario, for example, notice must be provided in accord with section 259.8 of any 

changes in flight status, such as a flight cancellation or change in departure time of 30 minutes or more that 

occurs after 12:01 a.m. on August 1. Any flight status change that occurs before 12:01 a.m. on August 1 

would be considered a “travel itinerary change” for which reasonably timely notice must be provided. 

4. Does the “seven-calendar-day” timeframe apply to all mandatory means of notification (i.e., 

boarding gate area, airport display, carrier’s website and telephone reservation system)? 

The notification requirements of section 259.8 apply to any notification means by which a carrier is 

providing schedule information regarding that flight at the time of the status change. For example, in the 

absence of displays under a carrier’s control at the boarding gate, notification at the boarding gate area is not 

required until the boarding gate is staffed for the affected flight, which may be several hours before departure 

time on the date of the scheduled operation. 

Notification via an airport display is not required until the information for the affected flight begins to appear 

on that media, usually on the day of the scheduled operation, or the night before for an early morning 

operation. 

For notification through a carrier’s telephone reservation system, carriers must update the system with any 

known flight status changes according to the “within 30 minutes after the carrier becomes aware of a flight 

status change” standard for any status changes that occur within the seven calendar day timeframe. 

Any schedule information that a carrier has on its website must be updated to reflect a flight status change 

(i.e., cancellation, diversion, or delay of 30 minutes or more). This must be accomplished within 30 minutes 

of the time the carrier becomes aware of the change in the case of flights within the seven-calendar-day 

timeframe, and in a timely manner in the case of flights operating beyond the seven-calendar-day timeframe. 

Such schedule information includes, for example, a general schedule database that can be queried to produce 

information for a specific flight and date, as well as a “flight status” or similar feature where the carrier 

offers schedule status for a timeframe of several days (for example, a “yesterday-today-tomorrow” format or 

“yesterday- today- tomorrow- the day after tomorrow” format). A carrier is not required to implement such 

flight status or schedule information services on its website nor to expand the time span it currently has in 

place regarding flight status or schedule information. 

5. Does the requirement in 14 CFR 259.8 apply to flight status changes that occur after the flight 

departed on time (e.g., tarmac delay after landing at the destination airport)? 

Yes. The requirements of section 259.8 cover flight status changes, including diversions and arrival delays 

that occur after a flight has departed. 
 

21

6. Does the requirement in 14 CFR 259.8 apply to any flight status changes involving departures 

earlier than shown in the schedule? 

No, but it would be considered to be an itinerary change requiring timely notification under 14 CFR 

259.5(b)(10). 

7. How does the Department interpret the “timely” standard when applying the requirement 

regarding notification of travel itinerary change under 14 CFR 259.5(b) (10)? 

The term “timely” in section 259.5(b)(10) means “as soon as practicable.” In any event, a notification that 

takes place more than 48 hours after the carrier becomes aware of such change would likely not be viewed as 

timely. 

8. For a passenger who purchased his or her ticket from a travel agent or other ticket agent, if the 

carrier has no contact information for that passenger on record is the carrier still responsible for 

providing travel itinerary change notifications as required by 14 CFR 259.5(b)(10)? 

No, but we would expect the carriers to notify the agencies through which the tickets were purchased. 

9. How do carriers comply with the notification requirement for telephone reservation systems? 

A carrier must implement a mechanism within its telephone reservation system for any person to call and 

inquire about the status of a specific flight. The flight status change notification can be provided by an 

automated system or a live person. The carrier does not need to set up a separate telephone number for the 

notification service and the telephone number does not have to be a toll-free number. 

10. Under the new rule, a carrier is required to provide notification to subscribers of flight status 

notification systems within 30 minutes after the carrier learns of the flight status change. How may a 

carrier avoid upsetting a customer who subscribed to receive live phone call updates when the flight 

status change occurs during the middle of the night? 

A carrier is not required to provide notification subscription services that include notification by live phone 

calls. If a carrier chooses to provide such service, it may avoid unnecessary “midnight” phone calls by 

prescribing a “blackout” time period during which all live phone calls will be suspended. The carrier should 

provide conspicuous disclosure to subscribers about the blackout time period at the time of subscription, and 

the notification must be provided to all subscribers by telephone calls as soon as practical after the blackout 

period ends. 

11. What are the specific requirements regarding updating flight status change information that 

has already been provided to the passengers and other interested parties? 

If there are further changes to a flight for which a status change has previously been provided, carriers must 

provide updated information consistent with the requirements of section 259.8. The update notification must 

be provided through all mandatory methods. 

12. Who has the duty to provide flight status change notification for a flight operated under a codeshare arrangement? 
 

22

The final rule leaves it up to the carriers to determine whether the marketing or operating carrier will provide 

the required notification about the change of flight status. For enforcement purpose, the Department will 

hold both carriers responsible for failure to comply with the rule. 

13. If a carrier is expecting a “rolling delay” situation caused by bad weather or air traffic 

congestion, how can the carrier comply with the notification requirement yet avoid prematurely 

notifying passengers of any expected delay that ultimately fails to materialize? 

Carriers are required to notify passengers and others of any “known” delay, diversion, and cancellation. We 

do not consider that a carrier has become aware of a delay or cancellation when the carrier is still in the 

process of determining whether such a change may occur. Furthermore, when providing notification to 

passengers of any known status change, carriers are free to add a remark that, as with all schedules, flight 

status may change again, and encourage the passengers and other persons to check back with the carrier. 

IX. Price Advertising and Opt-out Provisions (14 CFR 399.84) 

1. To whom does the full fare rule apply? 

Section 399.84 applies to U.S. and foreign air carriers and ticket agents that advertise in the U.S., including 

via the internet, for air transportation within, to or from the United States and U.S. and foreign tour operators 

that advertise in the U.S. including via the internet tours with air transportation within, to or from the United 

States. The Enforcement Office will look at a number of factors such as whether the fares are displayed in 

U.S. dollars and whether sales can be made to persons with addresses or telephone numbers in the U.S. to 

determine if an advertisement via the internet is being marketed to the general public in the U.S. and thus 

occurred in the U.S. The Enforcement Office does not intend to apply the rule to advertising that takes place 

solely outside the United States and is not directed at consumers in the U.S. 

2. When is the new section 399.84 effective? 

The effective date for the entire new section 399.84 is January 24, 2012. However, the Enforcement Office 

will continue to enforce the existing price advertising rule as it has in the past until that date. Information on 

how the Enforcement Office has been enforcing section 399.84 and related enforcement orders are detailed 

elsewhere on this website. 

3. Under section 399.84(a), sellers of air transportation must state the entire price to be paid by a 

passenger, including government-imposed taxes and fees and mandatory carrier- or agentimposed fees, but the rule does permit a separate statement of such fees if they are not 

“prominent.” What are acceptable methods of breaking out the taxes and fees as permitted by 

this section? What does “prominent” mean? 

Under the full fare rule, a seller of air transportation must always list the total price to be paid by the 

consumer, inclusive of all taxes, fees, and other mandatory charges. Because several commenters to the 

proposed rule expressed an interest in informing the consumer of the source of the total price, so that the 

consumer can see the base fare as well as the taxes and fees, the Department decided to include a provision 

permitting a seller of air transportation to break-out these charges while still displaying the total price to be 

paid by the consumer. A separate statement of these taxes and fees, however, must not be false or 

misleading, must be provided on a per-passenger basis and must accurately reflect the cost of the charge to 
 

23

the carrier, and may not be displayed prominently. The purpose of the rule is to ensure consumers are not 

misled regarding the total cost of the purchase. 

“Prominent” under this rule means that the break-out of per-person charges cannot be in a more prominent 

place on a web page or in a print advertisement than the advertised total fare. For example, the break-out 

cannot be at the top of the page, ahead of the total price. The total price should be in larger font. The breakout of charges should not have special highlighting that sets it apart and makes it more prominent than the 

total price (e.g., bold font, underlined, or italicized). 

4. What website advertisements are covered by the full fare rule? Are only websites marketed to 

United States consumers covered? 

As outlined in the answer to question number 1, above, advertisements marketed to United States consumers 

for air transportation within, to or from the U.S. are covered by the rule. With regard to the marketing of 

fares via websites, the Enforcement Office will look at a variety of factors to determine if a website is 

marketed to United States consumers, including but not limited to whether the website is in English, whether 

the seller of air transportation displays prices in U.S. dollars, whether the seller uses banner advertisements 

or highlights special deals for flights to or from the United States, and whether the seller has an option on its 

website that differentiates sites or pages designed for U.S. and for other consumers. 

5. How can a carrier display frequent-flyer award ticket costs when the consumer must “pay” in 

miles and separately pay for taxes and fees? 

In the case of an award ticket, the full fare would be the total amount of miles a consumer needs to redeem 

an award ticket plus any monetary amount the consumer must pay in order to redeem the award ticket. 

Therefore, the mileage amount and the cash amount must be in equal prominence in the display, as they are 

both components of the full fare. The monetary amount must include any mandatory charge that the carrier 

imposes in order to redeem the award amount, including service/processing charges, taxes, and fees. 

 

6. How can a tour package that includes airfare be advertised when the taxes and fees will vary 

based on the passenger’s selected origin city? 

The Enforcement Office foresees two alternatives for print advertisements and Internet banner 

advertisements that advertise a tour package that includes an air component. First, the seller could advertise 

the total price from a specific city with disclosure that the advertisement applies to tour packages that 

originate in that specific gateway city and that prices from other cities are higher or “may differ.” 

Alternatively, a tour operator could list a range of prices, but the range must be accurate and reflect the full 

price from the various cities. This means that the lowest price advertised must be an actual total price for an 

actual origin-destination and must be available for purchase in reasonable quantities. 

7. How can a carrier or agent that advertises airfares on a per-leg basis comply with the rule? 

(e.g., consumers are offered separate lists of departure flights and return flights, and they select 

a departure flight first and then a return flight, and then at the bottom of the screen a total 

price is displayed.) 

The rule requires that wherever a seller of air transportation advertises a fare, that fare must be the full fare 

the consumer pays inclusive of taxes, fees, and mandatory charges. Therefore, if a seller decides to advertise 
 

24

airfares on a per-leg basis, the fare displayed for each leg must be the full price for the leg, including all 

taxes, fees and mandatory charges applicable to that leg, and state prominently that “prices are quoted for 

each leg of travel but are only available for a roundtrip purchase.” A carrier could also choose not to display 

any price until a consumer chooses an outbound flight and a return flight. 

8. Does the new rule allow for minor variations in advertised prices to account for currency 

exchange rate fluctuations? This question applies in the context of post-purchase price 

increases as well. 

Yes. Longstanding Enforcement Office policy allows for such minor variations, as long as they are 

adequately disclosed to the consumer and are actual variations based on the currency exchange rate. This 

latitude continues to be permitted under the new rule. 

9. Does the new section 399.84(a) apply to government taxes and fees applicable to transportation 

that are not collected by the airline? For example, some countries have a departure tax that is 

payable at the airport directly to a government official or government agent. Would carriers 

or ticket agents be required to include these types of taxes and fees in the advertised fare 

amount? 

The new section 399.84(a) applies only to taxes and fees collected by the seller of the air transportation. 

This rule does not apply to government taxes and fees that the seller does not collect. Taxes and fees that the 

seller does not collect are not required to be included in the advertised fare. Nevertheless, as we have in the 

past, we continue to advise sellers of air transportation that it is in their best interest and the best interests of 

their customers to provide their customers notice of any such charges that are known, in order to avoid 

confusion and complaints. 

X. Baggage Issues and Fees (14 CFR 399.85)

Questions regarding Section 399.85(a) 

1. Does the requirement in section 399.85(a) to promptly and prominently disclose on a website’s 

homepage any increase in fees for carry-on or first and second checked bag and any change in 

the carry-on or first and second checked bag allowance for a passenger apply to ticket agents or 

only carriers? 

It applies only to U.S. and foreign carriers with websites marketed towards the general public in the U.S. In 

section 399.85(a) and 399.85(b), the final rule inadvertently refers to websites “accessible” in the United 

States. It was the Department’s intent, and it remains our intention as a matter of enforcement policy, to 

apply these provisions to websites marketed towards U.S. consumers (language that is used elsewhere in the 

rule). The incorrect reference to websites that are “accessible for ticket purchases by the general public in 

the U.S.” will be corrected. 

2. What is the effective date for section 399.85(a)? 

 

Section 399.85(a) became effective on August 23, 2011. 
 

25

3. If a carrier already has a link on its homepage to baggage information, is that link sufficient as 

long as the baggage information is updated when any changes to carry-on, first and second 

checked bag allowance and fees are made? 

No, the required link about a change in these baggage allowances or fees must be descriptive, e.g., “changed 

bag rules,” and link directly to a pop-up or the specific location on another webpage that describes the 

changes in bag allowance and/or fees and the effective dates of the changes. 

4. If the increase in fees for carry-ons and first and second checked bags and the change in 

allowance is minor and would not impact a significant number of passengers, can a carrier 

remove the link on its homepage in less than 3 months? 

No, the link to the page or window disclosing changes to the carrier’s baggage fees or 

allowance must remain on the carrier’s homepage for at least 3 months if it impacts the general public in the 

U.S. To the extent the information is only applicable to a limited number of passengers, the link can be 

specific and descriptive about the change, e.g., “Changed baggage allowance on flights to Mexico and the 

Caribbean.” 

5. Is it acceptable to provide multiple links to changes to baggage information so that the 

consumer can select the link that they are interested in (e.g., a link to baggage information, a 

link to changed carry-on, first and second bag allowance and fees, and a link to other changes 

in baggage fees)? 

As long as the links are adequately descriptive and a consumer can link “directly” (i.e., in one click and no 

scrolling) to the changed carry-on, first and second bag allowance and fee information, multiple links would 

be acceptable. However, the information should not be provided in such a manner that the consumer must 

“click through” multiple pages to arrive at the page that has information regarding changed fees or 

allowances. 

6. Is a link to a page or window that only describes any changes to carry-on, first and second bag 

allowance and fees sufficient even if it does not provide the carrier’s complete rules regarding 

baggage fees and allowances? 

Section 399.85(a) only requires disclosure of any increases in fees and changes in baggage allowance for 

carry-ons and first and second checked bags, but under section 399.85(d), a carrier is required to provide a 

conspicuous link from the homepage directly to a page that lists the fees for all optional services, including 

baggage. If information regarding any increase in fees and changes in baggage allowance for carry-on, first 

and second bags is on the same webpage as all other baggage allowance and fees information, the link on the 

homepage to those changes must take a consumer directly to those changes and not simply to the page 

containing the carrier’s complete baggage rules and fees. 

Questions regarding Section 399.85(b) 

7. Section 399.85(b) requires U.S. and foreign carriers, agents of either, and ticket agents that 

advertise or sell air transportation in the United States and maintain a website to clearly and 

prominently disclose, on the first screen where a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is 

provided, that additional airline fees for baggage may apply and where consumers can see these 

baggage fees. Does this rule apply to carrier or agent websites available in the U.S. but not 

marketed to U.S. consumers? 
 

26

The websites of U.S. and foreign carriers, agents of either, and ticket agents that are marketed to U.S. 

consumers should have the required information and disclosures if those carriers or ticket agents advertise or 

sell air transportation in the United States. To the extent that carriers and ticket agents to whom this rule 

applies maintain, in addition to their website(s) that are marketed to U.S. consumers, any websites that are 

not marketed to U.S. consumers but can be accessed from the United States, it is sufficient to have the 

required information and disclosures on only the website marketed to U.S. consumers. In section 399.85(a) 

and 399.85(b), the final rule incorrectly refers to websites “accessible” in the United States but, as stated 

above in the response to question one, the Department plans to amend this language to refer to websites 

marketed towards United States consumers ― language that is used elsewhere in the rule ― and in the 

meantime we shall apply the latter language as a matter of enforcement policy. Indicia of whether a website 

is marketed to U.S. consumers include, but are not limited to, whether the website is in English, whether the 

seller of air transportation displays prices in U.S. dollars, whether the seller uses banner advertisements or 

highlights special deals for flights to or from the United States, and whether the seller has an option on its 

website that differentiates sites or pages designed for U.S. and for other consumers. 

8. What is the effective date for section 399.85(b)? 

 

Section 399.85(b) is effective on January 24, 2012. 

9. Are ticket agents required to provide links to carrier websites for baggage fee information? 

Ticket agents that have their own websites marketed toward U.S. consumers that provide fare quotes must 

comply with section 399.85(b). These ticket agents are free to do this by referring consumers to the website 

of the appropriate airline, although they are not required to do so. If they do not provide a link to a carrier 

website, ticket agents must display baggage fee information on their own websites and it must remain 

complete and reasonably accurate at all times. To the extent ticket agents direct passengers to a chart, they 

should direct or link the passenger to the correct carrier on the chart and not require the passenger to scroll 

down through a lengthy list of carriers and rules. Additionally, where a passenger’s itinerary involves flights 

operated by more than one carrier (e.g., codeshare or interline service), the ticket agent must provide 

information to that passenger about the baggage allowance and fees that will apply to the passenger’s 

transportation pursuant 14 CFR 399.87. 

10. Is a summary of baggage fees sufficient under section 399.85(b) or is it necessary to provide all 

possible baggage fees? 

Under section 399.85(b) carriers and ticket agents must state that baggage fees may apply and state where 

specific baggage fee information may be obtained in response to a specific itinerary request from a 

consumer. Section 399.85(b) does not limit the obligation to provide baggage fee information to a summary 

or to a certain type of bag fee. Nevertheless, as a matter of enforcement policy we would not take action 

against ticket agents for providing more limited baggage information in recognition of the fact that ticket 

agents would have a harder time compiling the information regarding all baggage charges for all carriers for 

which they sell tickets and putting the information into a usable and consumer-friendly format. More 

specifically, the Enforcement Office would not pursue enforcement action against ticket agents who provide 

information regarding the standard checked baggage allowance (including size and weight limitations), the 

standard allowance (and fee, if applicable) for carry-on baggage, and the standard fee for the first and second 

checked bag, along with the information that additional discounts may apply depending on flyer-specific 

factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, military, credit card used for purchase, early purchase over the internet, 

etc.). 
 

27

11. Is the disclosure provided by ticket agents in search results limited to the cost of a carry-on bag 

and first and second checked bag or do agents have to disclose size and weight limitations as 

well? 

Please see the answer to question number ten, above. An agent must disclose the standard size and weight 

limits for baggage and that the fact that excess and overweight baggage charges may apply. 

12. If a ticket agent provides a summary page of baggage information based on the information it 

gathers and a carrier does not provide real-time updates to its agents, will an agent face 

enforcement action? 

The Department will consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. For example, we do not anticipate real-time 

updates by ticket agents where carriers themselves have not made the information readily available. 

However, if the information on an agent’s website is outdated by several weeks or is not updated on a routine 

basis, the agent’s summary would not be compliant with the rule. 

13. Some ticket agents advertise and sell air transportation for hundreds of different carriers. 

Does a ticket agent have the option to provide its own summary page for certain carriers and 

link to the websites of other carriers? 

It may be easier for ticket agents to obtain the information for their largest-volume carriers but, for other 

carriers for which they do not sell as many tickets, it may be easier to provide a link. A ticket agent may use 

hyperlinks to some carriers’ websites and summarize other carriers’ information so long as the information is 

accurate. 

Questions regarding Section 399.85(c) 

14. When must U.S. and foreign carriers, agents of either, and ticket agents begin including 

information regarding the passenger’s free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fees for a 

carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag on e-ticket confirmations for air 

transportation within, to or from the United States as set forth in section 399.85(c)? 

 

Section 399.85(c) is effective on January 24, 2012. 

15. Is it acceptable for a carrier to simply list the carrier’s standard baggage fees or to provide a 

range for carry-on, first and second checked bag fees on the e-ticket confirmation? 

No, neither is acceptable. A carrier must provide specific information to consumers about all the factors that 

cause the fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag to vary so passengers can determine for 

themselves the fees that would apply to them. 

A range is not sufficiently specific. For example, it would not be sufficient for a carrier to state that the fee 

for the first checked bag ranges from $0 to $50. However, it would be acceptable for the carrier to state that 

the fee for the first checked bag would be $0 for its elite frequent flyer passengers or those who purchased 

their ticket with a specified credit card, $25 for passengers who pay for baggage online, and $50 for those 

passengers who pay at the airport. 
 

28

Carriers are encouraged to provide individualized baggage charge information to passengers but this is not 

required by the rule. 

16. On e-ticket confirmations, are ticket agents required to provide specific baggage information 

by providing a link to a carrier’s website or is it acceptable for a ticket agent to link to a display 

page on the ticket agent’s website? 

Under section 399.85(c), a ticket agent is required to provide specific baggage information on the e-ticket 

information but may provide the information in text format or through a hyperlink to the specific location on 

airline websites or their own website where this information is displayed. However, as a matter of 

enforcement policy and for the reasons explained above, we would not take action against a ticket agent that 

does not provide specific baggage information on the e-ticket confirmation for carry-on and first and second 

checked bag so long as a ticket agent provides information regarding the standard first and second checked 

baggage allowance (including size and weight limitations), the standard allowance (and fee, if applicable) for 

carry-on baggage, and the standard fee for the first and second checked bag, along with the information that 

additional discounts may apply depending on flyer-specific factors (e.g., frequent flyer status, military, credit 

card used for purchase, early purchase over the internet, etc.). 

17. Are carriers or ticket agents responsible for providing information on e-ticket confirmations 

regarding baggage fees on code-share or interline itineraries? 

Under section 399.85(c), both ticket agents and carriers are responsible for providing correct, specific 

baggage allowance and fee information on e-ticket confirmations sufficient for consumers to determine the 

allowances and fees that apply to their travel, including travel on code-share and interline itineraries. Under 

section 399.87, the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of an itinerary must apply 

throughout. Therefore, any disclosure under section 399.85(c) must take into account the fees that apply to 

that itinerary pursuant to section 399.87. 

As a matter of enforcement policy, we would not take action against ticket agents for not providing specific 

baggage allowance and fee information for code-share or interline itineraries so long as the standard baggage 

allowance (including size and weight limits) and fees for carry-on and first and second bag for the 

passenger’s code-share or interline itinerary is provided on the e-ticket confirmation and it includes 

information regarding additional factors, e.g., frequent flyer status, credit card used for purchase, early 

purchase over the internet, etc., that may apply. 

18. To the extent a ticket agent or carrier makes a passenger’s flight information accessible to the 

passenger via an online account after the booking, is the ticket agent or carrier required to 

display baggage allowance and fee information on the online account page(s) that contain the 

customer’s flight information? 

No, the requirement only applies to the summary page at the end of a purchase and the e-ticket confirmation 

emailed to the consumer. 

18a Do the provisions of 14 CFR Part 399.85(c) apply to transactions that occur in a foreign 

country on a website that is not directed towards US consumers? 

Under section 399.85(c), once a consumer has bought air transportation within, to or from the United States, 

baggage information must be provided to the consumer by the seller of air transportation on any e-ticket 

confirmation, to include any summary page at the completion of an online purchase and any post-purchase 
 

29

email confirmation. Several non-U.S. air carriers have raised concerns about the cost to comply with this 

section with respect to re-programming websites that have the capability of selling air transportation to or 

from the U.S. but that are not directed towards U.S. consumers. After reviewing the matter, the Enforcement 

Office has, as a matter of policy, decided to limit the application of section 399.85(c) to websites marketed 

towards U.S. consumers. This enforcement policy interpretation aligns section 399.85(c) with sections 

399.85(a) and 399.85(b) and addresses concerns raised by non-U.S. carriers and ticket agents with respect to 

their websites directed only to the general public outside of the U.S. The Enforcement Office believes that 

this enforcement policy still achieves the goal of 399.85(c) which is to ensure that U.S.-based consumers are 

not surprised by baggage fees at the airport at the beginning of their journey. 

Questions regarding Section 399.85(d) 

19. Does the requirement in section 399.85(d) to prominently disclose on a website the fees for all 

optional services that are available to a passenger purchasing air transportation apply to ticket 

agents? 

No, ticket agents are not required to disclose carriers’ fees for all optional services on their websites. 

 However, a ticket agent is subject to the requirements in sections 399.85(b) and (c) to provide information 

about baggage fees on the first screen in which it offers a fare quotation for a specific itinerary and in e-ticket 

confirmations. Ticket agents are free to satisfy these requirements by linking to the appropriate airline web 

page where this information is available or its own web page if it displays the relevant airline baggage fees. 

20. When is section 399.85(d) effective? 

Section 399.85(d) became effective on August 23, 2011. 

21. On the web page referred to in section 399.85(d), can fees (other than baggage fees) be disclosed 

in a range? 

Yes, fees for optional services (other than baggage) may be disclosed as a range. Examples of optional fees 

that may be listed as a range are: advance seat selection; in-flight beverages, snacks, or meals; pillows and 

blankets and similar amenities; internet access; seat upgrades, etc. 

Questions regarding Section 399.85(e) 

22. What is the effective date of the requirement in section 399.85(e) that a marketing/ticketing 

carrier disclose through its websites to consumers booked on a code-share flight any differences 

between its optional services and related fees and those of the carrier operating the flight? 

Section 399.85(e) became effective on August 23, 2011. 

23. If a carrier code-shares with many different carriers, is the marketing carrier responsible for 

disclosing the differences between its optional services and fees and those of each of its codeshare partners? 

Yes. The marketing carrier must disclose the differences between its optional services and related fees and 

those of each of its code-share partners. The disclosure may be through a notice of the differences on the 

marketing carrier’s website. That notice could provide a hyperlink taking the reader directly to each 
 

30

operating carrier’s fee listing, or to a page on the marketing carrier’s website that lists the differences in 

policies among code-share partners. For example, the marketing carrier can provide an explanatory 

statement that the operating carrier’s optional services and fees apply to flights operated by a code-share 

partner, provided that the marketing carrier also lists each code-share partner and provides a hyperlink to the 

page on the operating carrier’s website that lists its optional services and fees. 

24. To the extent that there are no differences in optional services and fees, does the carrier have to 

disclose that fact? 

If there are no differences in services or fees, there is no requirement to disclose the lack of difference. 

Questions regarding section 399.87 

25. What is the effective date of the requirement that U.S. and foreign carriers apply the baggage 

allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary throughout his or her 

entire itinerary as set forth in section 399.87? 

Section 399.87 is effective on January 24, 2012. 

26. Does Section 399.87 apply to multiple-ticket itineraries in which there is not a single PNR? 

In the case of a passenger itinerary composed of more than one ticket, the rule does not require a downline 

carrier to apply the baggage allowances or fees of the first carrier if the flight of the first carrier is on a 

separate ticket from the other flights. 

Example 1: Passenger books a round trip ticket on Carrier A from Dallas to New York, returning to Dallas 

and books a separate round trip ticket on Carrier B from New York to Paris, returning to New York. 

Because those are two separate tickets, the passenger is subject to Carrier A’s baggage fees and allowances 

for flights operated by Carrier A and to Carrier B’s baggage fees and allowances on the flights operated by 

Carrier B. 

When there is a single ticket, one set of baggage allowances and fees apply throughout the itinerary, as 

discussed below. 

27. How is the rule applied to domestic single-ticket interline and code-share itineraries? 

Example 2 (domestic interline): Passenger books a ticket from Miami, with a stopover in Washington, 

continuing to New York, and returning to Miami via New York. The ticket indicates the operating carrier’s 

code and flight number for each segment. Carrier A operates the Miami-Washington and New York-Miami 

segments, and Carrier B operates the Washington-New York segment. The baggage allowances and fees of 

Carrier A, the first operating carrier, apply throughout the itinerary. 

Example 3 (domestic code-share): As in example 2, Carrier A operates the Miami-Washington and New 

York-Miami segments, and Carrier B operates the Washington-New York segment. However, Carrier B’s 

code and flight number are shown on the ticket for the Miami-Washington and Washington-New York 

segments, and Carrier A’s code and flight number are shown for the New York-Miami segment. Because the 

first flight is a code-share and Carrier B is the marketing carrier for that flight, Carrier B’s baggage 

allowances and fees apply throughout the itinerary. 
 

31

28. On a domestic itinerary with multiple carriers, which carrier’s baggage rules apply if there is a 

stopover? 

The baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary apply to the entire 

itinerary, regardless of whether there are any stopovers in the itinerary. 

29. The Department has accepted, with some conditions, the “most significant carrier” (MSC) 

methodology set forth in IATA Resolution 302. Does section 399.87 permit carriers to use the 

MSC methodology to determine which carrier’s baggage rules apply to international singleticket interline and code-share itineraries? 

The section 399.87 requirement that U.S. and foreign carriers apply the baggage allowances and fees that 

apply at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary throughout his or her entire itinerary does not prohibit 

carriers from using the “most significant carrier” (MSC) methodology for international flights set forth in 

IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by DOT Order 2009-9-20, to determine which carrier’s baggage rules 

apply to international itineraries. However, as is the case with all IATA resolutions, Resolution 302 is not 

binding on IATA or non-IATA carriers. 

Accordingly, if the first segment of a ticket is not a code-share flight, then the airline operating that segment 

determines the baggage fees and allowances that apply throughout that passenger’s journey/itinerary. If the 

first segment of a ticket is a code-share flight, then the marketing carrier for that segment determines the 

baggage allowances and fees that would apply on all the remaining flights on that ticket. 

The carrier for the first flight on the ticket is free to apply the MSC approach, as conditioned by DOT. In 

that event, the MSC carrier’s baggage allowances and fees apply to all segments on that ticket, including the 

first segment. Note, however, that whatever methodology the carrier follows to determine the applicable 

baggage allowance and fees, the baggage information must be disclosed in a number of different ways --- on 

the first screen where a fare quotation for a specific itinerary is provided as required in section 399.85(b), on 

e-ticket confirmations as required in section 399.85 (c), and on the website where fees for optional services 

are listed as required in section 399.85(d). 

Example 4 (international interline): Passenger books a ticket from Dallas, changing planes in New York, 

with a stopover in Amsterdam, continuing to Madrid, and returning to Dallas via Amsterdam and New 

York, with no stopovers on the return. The ticket indicates the operating carrier’s code and flight number for 

each segment (there are no code-shares). 

• Dallas‐New York segment is operated by Carrier A (outbound and return)

• New York – Amsterdam segment is operated by Carrier B (outbound and return)

• Amsterdam‐Madrid segment is operated by Carrier C (outbound and return)  

The first carrier (Carrier A), has the option to use the MSC methodology to determine which carrier’s 

baggage allowance and fees to apply. If Carrier A chooses to apply the MSC methodology, as conditioned, 

Carrier B’s baggage allowances and fees would apply for the entire itinerary. The MSC in this example 

would be Carrier B, the carrier operating across the Atlantic. Alternatively, Carrier A could choose to apply 

its own, and not the MSC, baggage allowances and fees, and those would apply for the entire itinerary. 

Example 5 (international code-share): Same as example 4, except that Carrier B’s code and flight number 

are shown on the ticket for the Dallas to New York segment. 
 

32

Carrier B, as the marketing carrier whose code appears on the ticket for the first segment, has the option to 

use the MSC methodology, as conditioned by DOT, to determine which carrier’s baggage allowance and fees 

to apply. The baggage allowances and fees determined by Carrier B would apply to the entire itinerary 

regardless of whether it applied an MSC methodology. 

30. In many parts of the world small carriers that do not file tariffs with the US government are 

“feeding” passengers onto flights operated by a larger carrier with transatlantic or transpacific 

routes. Those small carriers generally have not filed a tariff or in any other way “identified” 

their baggage rules to the U.S. government. Could such a carrier whose code and flight 

number was shown on the first segment of a passenger’s ticket on an international itinerary 

decide not to use the MSC methodology to determine which baggage allowance and fees to 

apply and instead apply its own baggage policy? 

The Department of Transportation permits but does not require carriers to use the MSC methodology set 

forth in IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by DOT, and section 399.87 does not limit carriers to baggage 

rules that are contained in tariffs that have been filed with, or have been “identified” to, the U.S. government. 

The carrier whose flight number and code is on the ticket for the first flight is responsible for determining 

which carrier’s baggage rules to apply. It is the marketing or selling carrier’s responsibility to ensure that it 

has the relevant baggage information and discloses which baggage rules apply in instances such as those 

outlined in the question. Specifically, the carrier selling the ticket must provide proper disclosure regarding 

baggage allowances and fees to the consumer. 

To the extent that carriers are marketing or selling itineraries that include flights on other carriers, the 

carriers presumably have a commercial relationship, such as a ticketing and baggage agreement, and are 

jointly responsible for sharing information regarding the baggage rules that will apply to those itineraries and 

ensuring that passengers are not charged additional or higher baggage fees than those that were disclosed at 

the time of sale. 

31. In the case of a carrier that charges a baggage “handling” fee, may the carrier charge the fee 

regardless of which carrier’s baggage fee rules apply and must that fee be disclosed? 

All fees for baggage, including “handling” fees, are treated the same under the rule. All baggage fees are 

subject to the disclosure requirements in section 399.85. In addition, the requirement in section 399.87 to 

apply the baggage fee that applies at the beginning of a passenger’s itinerary to all of the remaining flights 

includes any baggage “handling” fees. 

 

32. Are there disclosure requirements regarding taxes on baggage fees?

Government imposed taxes on baggage fees are subject to the disclosure requirements in section 399.85. 

33. Some carriers’ baggage fees vary based on the currency of the flight’s departure city. For 

example, the checked bag fee may be $25.00 for flights originating in the United States and 

€25.00 for flights originating in the European Union. 

Charging the bag fee in different currencies depending on a passenger’s departure city is permitted but the 

fee applied at the beginning of the passenger’s itinerary (or its close equivalent in another currency) must 

apply throughout. In the example above, the carrier is not permitted to charge a fee that is higher than the 

$25.00 fee that applies for U.S.-originating passengers on the passenger’s return flight from Europe. 
 

33

Similarly, carriers are not permitted to charge a fee that is higher than the €25.00 fee that applies for a 

Europe-originating passenger on that passengers return flight from the U.S. In each case, the carrier could 

collect the fee for the return flight in the national currency at the point of check-in, converted at the current 

exchange rate from the fee applied at the beginning of the passenger’s itinerary. 

34. Does the rule apply to excess, oversize, and special baggage fees, in addition to standard 

checked baggage fees? 

 

Yes. One carrier’s allowance and fees, including excess and oversize and special baggage fees, must apply 

for the entire itinerary. 

35. Can a passenger be charged an additional bag fee when that passenger adds a bag during the 

journey or adds more items to his/her bag making the bag an overweight bag (e.g., a passenger 

has a stopover and checks an additional bag for the next segment)? If yes, which carrier’s 

baggage fee applies? 

Yes. A passenger can be charged for an additional bag or a bag that has become overweight because of 

additional items being placed in the bag. The baggage rules selected by the first carrier (the marketing 

carrier in the case of a code-share on the first flight) would apply. The purpose of the rule is to ensure 

passengers are not surprised by higher fees or more restrictive allowances part of the way through their 

journey; therefore, the same carrier rules that apply at the beginning of the journey apply throughout the 

journey including fees for an additional or overweight bag. The purpose of the rule would not be served if 

consumers were expected to know all airlines’ baggage rules, e.g., to understand that if they purchased items 

on their journey and checked an additional bag, they would have to pay a different carrier’s bag fee. 

36. On a domestic itinerary with more than one leg each way, is there a limit to the number of 

times a carrier can charge a baggage fee, for example, if the passenger re-checks a bag after a 

stopover? 

The rule does not prevent a carrier from charging a baggage fee each time the baggage is re-checked for 

domestic itineraries. 

37. On an international itinerary, is there a limit to the number of times a carrier can charge 

baggage fees in the event of a stopover? 

On round-trip international itineraries, industry practice and carriers’ filed tariffs often apply baggage fees 

one time in each direction, even if there are stopovers; however, section 399.87 does not prohibit carriers 

from charging an additional baggage fee in the event of a stopover, provided that the passenger is notified of 

multiple charges at the time of fare quote and ticketing, as required by section 399.85. That said, if a 

carrier’s contract of carriage, filed tariff, or published policy is to charge baggage fees only one time in each 

direction on international itineraries, then it must comply with its own policy. If a carrier that currently 

charges baggage fees once per direction changes its policy, it must re-file its tariff rules and alter its website 

disclosures. Failure to comply with the terms of a contract of carriage, filed tariff, and/or published policy to 

the disadvantage of a consumer could be considered to be an unfair and deceptive practice under 49 U.S.C. § 

41712. 

Questions regarding baggage rules in post-ticketing situations: 
 

34

38. If a carrier makes changes to a passenger’s itinerary after a passenger books a flight - for 

example, if there is an equipment downgrade and the replacement aircraft has a reduced 

checked and/or carry-on baggage allowance - how can a carrier comply with sections 399.85 

and 399.87? 

A carrier cannot apply a reduced allowance or charge higher baggage fees after a ticket is purchased. To 

change the applicable baggage rules post-purchase would violate the post-purchase changes provision of 14 

CFR 399.88. In the situation described above, a carrier must accommodate a passenger’s baggage at no 

additional cost. For example, if the substitute equipment cannot accommodate a passenger’s carry-on bag 

that would have been accommodated without charge in the overhead bin of the aircraft originally scheduled 

for the flight and the bag must be checked, a carrier may not charge the passenger to check the bag. 

Similarly, if safety reasons (e.g., weight restrictions) prevent a passenger’s baggage from being 

accommodated on the passenger’s flight, then the carrier should transport the baggage on another flight, but 

may not charge an additional fee for such transportation. 

Although a carrier may not charge additional baggage fees in the situations outlined above, a carrier may 

provide post-purchase notice regarding size and weight restrictions, so that passengers may plan accordingly. 

For example, passengers may be provided with advance notice when there has been a post-purchase 

equipment downgrade and the replacement aircraft has a reduced carry-on baggage allowance so that 

passengers have the opportunity to pack fewer or smaller carry-on bags, or make similar adjustments. 

However, any such advance notice should make clear to passengers that they will only be charged in 

accordance with the originally applicable baggage fees. For example, if a large carry-on bag would have 

been permitted without a fee before the equipment downgrade but after the downgrade it must be checked, 

the notice should make clear that the large carry-on bag will be carried as checked baggage for no additional 

fee. 

39. If a passenger requests post-purchase itinerary changes that affect the applicable baggage 

rules, e.g., the passenger requests an itinerary change that results in a different first carrier, 

can the carrier change the applicable baggage fees, and is the carrier required to notify the 

passenger? 

Yes to both questions. The baggage allowances and fees applicable to the new itinerary may be applied, as 

this is a passenger-driven change in the itinerary. Additionally, the consumer must be informed about the 

change in baggage fees that will result from his or her voluntary change in itinerary. 

XI. Post-Purchase Price Increases (399.88 and 399.89)

1. What entities are covered by the sections 399.88 and 399.89? 

Both sections 399.88 and 399.89 apply to U.S. and foreign carriers and ticket agents (including travel agents) 

that sell scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States and tour operators that sell tours 

with scheduled air transportation as a component within, to or from the United States. 

2. When are sections 399.88 and 399.89 effective? 

Both sections 399.88 and 399.89 are effective on January 24, 2012. 
 

35

3. Certain entities subject to this rule, especially tour operators, note that currently payment is 

often accepted over the telephone, and an email or receipt is subsequently sent to the consumer. 

When a transaction occurs over the telephone, how can a seller of scheduled air transportation 

comply with the requirement in the new sections 399.88 and 399.89 that written consent of the 

consumer be obtained in order to pass along a post-purchase price increase? 

Section 399.88 prohibits an increase in the price of air travel or an air tour after a consumer has fully paid. 

This section allows a limited exception for an increase in government taxes and fees if a consumer is notified 

of the potential for such an increase and gives his or her written consent to such an increase prior to full 

payment of the purchase price. 

Section 399.89 deals with price increases in air transportation for consumers who have not paid the full 

amount (e.g., consumers who have paid a deposit to reserve an air tour). Section 399.89 allows increases 

prior to the time of full payment as long as the potential for such an increase is clearly disclosed to the 

consumer and the consumer consents to such an increase in writing prior to accepting any payment. 

If the seller of scheduled air transportation does not pass on an increase to consumers who purchase over the 

telephone, then written consent is not needed. However, if the seller wishes to pass on an increase to a 

consumer who pays over the telephone, the seller must obtain the consumer’s written consent. As a matter 

of enforcement policy, the following methods of obtaining consent would be considered to be equivalent to 

obtaining a written consent and would be acceptable to the Enforcement Office. 

a) If a seller chooses to record a reservation telephone call with a consumer in which the disclosure 

for a potential increase is clear and unambiguous and the consumer’s oral consent is also clear 

and unambiguous, the Enforcement Office would consider that to be an equivalent alternative to 

the written consent requirement and would not take enforcement action in such a case if a postpurchase price increase is imposed. In this scenario, the consumer must consent in advance to 

such a recording, and the seller must maintain records of the recording to show that it received the 

consent of the consumer (or have the consumer repeat the consent once the recording begins). 

b) A seller may take a passenger’s payment information over the telephone after explaining to the 

passenger that the reservation will be held, without charging for the payment, for a specified 

period of time (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days) until written consent to a potential increase is received. 

The seller can release the reservation after the specified period of time if the written consent is not 

received. 

c) A seller may take a passenger’s payment information over the telephone, after explaining that the 

credit card will be charged immediately, but that the reservation will be canceled and the charge 

will be automatically credited (refunded) if written consent is not received within a specified 

short time period (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days). 

4. Sections 399.88 and 399.89 state that a seller of scheduled air transportation must notify a 

consumer of the potential for a price increase that can take place before departure and must 

obtain the consumer’s written consent to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase. 

Does this mean that sellers must obtain this written consent even if it is their policy not to pass 

along such increases? 

No. If a given seller does not pass along such increases, there is no “potential for a price increase” and 

consequently the seller need not request or obtain the consumer’s written consent to such increases. This 

policy can be applied on a passenger-specific basis, e.g., a seller can solicit written consent from all of its 
 

36

customers and would comply with the rule so long as the seller applied any subsequent increase only to those 

customers who have appropriately consented to such increase. 

5. Section 399.88(b) states that in order to pass along a post-purchase price increase due to an 

increase in a government-imposed tax or fee, a seller must “obtain the consumer’s written 

consent to the potential for such an increase prior to purchase of the scheduled air 

transportation, tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation.” What 

should a carrier do if a government-imposed tax or fee increases after purchase and the 

increase is implemented just before the passenger travels? 

So long as the seller has obtained the passenger’s written consent to pass along any such increase, the seller 

may collect the increase in taxes from the consumer. If not, the seller may not impose the new government 

taxes/fees and must “swallow” those charges. 

6. How can a tour operator who sells packages to consumers via a third-party agent obtain 

written consent when it does not have contact information for the passengers or the means to 

obtain the written consent? 

It is important to note that, in all cases where a tour package including scheduled air transportation is sold, 

including those sold through an agent, a passenger’s consent must be obtained in order for the tour operator 

to collect any price increase from a passenger permitted by the rules. No such consent is required if the 

operator does not intend to pass through to the consumer any price increase. The relationship between a 

particular tour operator and any particular agent that sell its tours is a commercial matter between those 

companies. Accordingly, the Enforcement Office cannot describe all methods by which compliance with the 

rule can be effected. However, the following are examples of how written consent required by DOT rules 

may take place in a transaction involving a third-party agent. 

a) The tour operator could make the written consent a mandatory part of selling the tour package, 

i.e., include the consent language in every package sold, and require the agent, who presumably is 

in direct contact with the consumer, to obtain the consent as a condition of each sale. 

b) A tour operator could accept payment information from the agent, but inform the agent that the 

passenger’s reservation is being held for a specified period of time and the credit card will not be 

processed until the agent obtains the written consent of the passenger. Under this arrangement, 

neither the operator nor the agent can charge the credit card or collect any money until the 

consent is received by the tour operator. 

c) A similar acceptable “reservation hold arrangement” would permit the agent to take a passenger’s 

payment information, after explaining that the credit card will be charged immediately, but that 

the reservation will be canceled and the charge will be automatically credited (refunded) if 

written consent is not received by the agent within a short specified time period (e.g., 72 hours, 7 

days). 

7. Does section 399.88(a) prohibit an increase in the price of ancillary services an airline may 

charge to a passenger? What if the ancillary services are not purchased at the same time as the 

ticket?

 

Yes. Section 399.88(a) prohibits an increase in the price of air transportation and related charges that has 

been purchased by a consumer, except for an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee where the 

purchaser has given written consent to such an increase. The rule text specifically states that this prohibition 

on post-purchase price increases includes, but is not limited to, increases on the price for the carriage of 
 

37

passenger baggage, the price of a seat, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge. With regard to other 

ancillary services, the Enforcement Office realizes that there are many services related to air transportation 

that a passenger might not purchase until closer to the date of travel or on the date of travel. Under the rule, 

however, an increase in the prices of those services cannot be applied to a passenger who has previously 

purchased a ticket. Under sections 399.85(b), (c), and (d) a carrier must inform consumers of the price of all 

ancillary services, including the price for first and second checked bags. These notices come in the form of 

web pages and hyperlinks on the carrier’s website and on all e-ticket confirmations. A consumer bases his or 

her purchase decision on this information. If, after the purchase, the information the consumer relied on is 

retroactively changed, the Enforcement Office would consider that to be an unfair and deceptive practice. 

Carriers are allowed to present most ancillary services as a range of prices that can vary based on the 

passenger’s status, the type of flight, the duration of flight, etc. (only baggage fees must be presented in a 

more specific manner). As long as the range is accurate and truthful, section 399.88 does not prevent a 

carrier from charging a passenger a fee within that range of prices for an ancillary service that was made 

available to the consumer at the time of ticket purchase but was not purchased at that time. 

Originally issued on 08/19/2011 by the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.