Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

GROWTH OF DOMESTIC AIRLINE CODE 

SHARING WARRANTS INCREASED 

ATTENTION 

Office of the Secretary and the 

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number: AV-2013-045

Date Issued: February 14, 2013
U.S. Department of

Memorandum

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Office of Inspector General

Subject: ACTION: Growth of Domestic Airline Code 

Sharing Warrants Increased Attention

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number AV-2013-045

Date: February 14, 2013

From: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Aviation and Special Program Audits

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10

To: General Counsel

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

 International Affairs

Federal Aviation Administrator

Over the past decade, the aviation industry has experienced significant growth in 

the regional airline sector. The number of passengers traveling on regional aircraft 

ticketed by mainline carriers1 grew 115 percent from 2000 to 2010.2

The 2009 accident of a Continental Connection flight, operated by Colgan Air,

raised concerns regarding the role a mainline carrier plays in advancing the safety 

of its regional partner and the processes used to disclose a code share carrier to 

passengers. In response to this accident, on June 15, 2009, the Secretary of 

To gain 

market share and reduce costs, mainline carriers have increasingly moved to joint 

marketing arrangements, often called “code share agreements.” In these 

agreements, mainline carriers purchase seat capacity from an independent regional 

airline or contract for the services of a regional airline to fly passengers to their 

larger hub airports. Today, regional airlines account for over half of all scheduled 

commercial passenger flights, operating more than 13,000 flights daily and 

carrying approximately 160 million passengers annually. 

 1 For purposes of this report, a mainline carrier is a passenger air carrier with annual operating revenues greater than 

$1 billion that is also the predominant marketing carrier in a code share relationship with a smaller domestic regional 

airline. 2 Percentage derived from OIG analysis of approximately 118 million legs of travel in 2000 and 2010 as reported in 

BTS’s Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B) database, which represents a 10 percent sample of 35-39 large 

certificated carriers, depending on the quarter.
2

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator 

initiated a Call to Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training for FAA, air carriers, 

and labor organizations to jointly identify and implement safety improvements to 

ensure a common level of safety between domestic code sharing partners. 

The ranking members of the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Aviation requested that we review 

regulatory oversight of domestic code sharing. Accordingly, our audit objectives 

were to (1) examine the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) and FAA’s roles 

in reviewing agreements between mainline air carriers and their regional partners,

(2) assess FAA policies and procedures to ensure an equivalent level of safety 

between mainline carriers and their regional partners, and (3) determine whether 

passengers have adequate information to make informed decisions when 

purchasing an airline ticket. Although there are other types of code share 

arrangements, the sole focus of this audit is on code share relationships between 

major U.S. air carriers and their domestic regional partners. During our audit, we 

reviewed four major and eight regional carriers who participate in code share 

agreements.

We conducted this review in accordance with generally accepted Government 

auditing standards. Exhibit A details our scope and methodology.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

DOT’s Office of the Secretary (OST) and FAA do not review most domestic code 

share agreements. OST is required to assess potential economic impacts on 

competition for domestic code share agreements between two major carriers. 

However, because just 20 percent of active Part 121 carriers are considered 

“major,” the number of agreements that OST is required to review is limited. OST 

is not required to maintain a list of domestic agreements that it has reviewed and 

does not track the number of active domestic code share agreements. FAA, as 

safety regulator, is not required to review any domestic code share agreements and 

does not voluntarily do so. FAA considers domestic code share agreements to be 

purely financial arrangements and relies on its oversight of individual carriers to 

ensure the safe operation of passenger flights. As a result, most domestic code 

share agreements go into effect without being reviewed by any DOT regulatory 

entity.

FAA does not have procedures to advance the Agency’s commitment to ensure the 

same level of safety between mainline air carriers and their code share partners. As 

part of the Call to Action, FAA officials stated that mainline air carriers should 

find specific ways to ensure that their partner carriers implement the most 

effective safety practices. While FAA sponsors biannual information sharing 
3

events across the industry, it has not taken steps to encourage mainline carriers to 

consistently share safety information and best practices with their code share 

partners. As a result, some safety programs developed internally between code 

sharing partners are more robust than others. For example, one major carrier meets 

with its code share partners on a monthly basis to discuss safety 

initiatives/practices but some of the major carriers we reviewed do not meet as 

frequently with their code share partners. Further, because FAA does not review 

domestic code share arrangements, the Agency has not assessed whether certain 

aspects of these agreements, such as financial incentives based on performance, 

could have unintended safety consequences.

Passengers have sufficient pricing and scheduling information to make ticketing 

decisions, but some confusion still exists about which airline is operating their 

flight because carriers, travel agencies, and advertisers all disclose this information 

differently. For example, online ticket sellers have considerable latitude in the 

manner in which they disclose code share information. While some Web sites 

display the operating carrier prominently on the itinerary, others name the 

operating carrier in small footnotes at the end of the itinerary, causing the 

consumer to have to search for the information. Conversely, while travel agents 

are required to follow specific rules for verbally disclosing code share operators, 

14 of 16 randomly selected travel agents we surveyed were not following these 

rules. However, according to OST, travel agents are not prioritized for oversight 

because there are too many of them and the percentage of passengers traveling 

with tickets purchased from travel agents is relatively low. Passengers also do not 

have access to reliable information on airline customer service and complaint 

records. OST provides some of this information, but it is inconsistently presented 

and does not include all carriers in accordance with OST guidelines. For example, 

airline complaint records may group regional code share operator data with the 

mainline code share partner data under a business name, such as United Express, 

so consumers are not able to distinguish which operator actually received the 

complaint. 

We are making recommendations to enhance OST and FAA monitoring of 

domestic code share relationships and to increase consumer awareness of code 

sharing.

BACKGROUND

Most mainline air carriers and their regional counterparts create joint marketing 

agreements, often referred to as code share agreements, whereby the airlines 

coordinate their flight schedules to facilitate the interchange of passengers. Under 

these agreements, the mainline carrier often allows the regional airline to (1) use 

the mainline carrier’s flight designator code to identify flights and fares in 
4

computer reservation systems, (2) use the mainline carrier’s logos and uniforms,

and (3) participate in joint promotion and advertising activities.

Code sharing provides benefits to passengers, regional carriers, and mainline

carriers. Passengers can benefit from lower fares and more seamless travel. For 

example, code sharing focuses the passenger on the marketing carrier to resolve 

issues throughout the passenger’s flight experience, giving them “one stop” for 

complaints, concerns, or issues. Regional carriers benefit from the connection to 

the mainline carrier, since the mainline carrier sells the tickets, schedules the 

aircraft, and often provides ground and fuel services. Mainline carriers benefit by 

gaining access to additional and smaller aircraft for bringing passengers to hub

airports with no ownership stake. 

Major passenger air carriers have increased the number of their advertised flights 

operated by regional airlines under code-sharing agreements in an effort to cut 

costs and gather feeder traffic from smaller cities. For example, in 2011, the 

percentage of the advertised flights of American, Delta, United, and US Airways 

operated by code-share regional air carriers was 61 percent, up from 40 percent in 

2000.3

Ticket sellers are required to disclose the operator of a flight during itinerary 

searches but the name of the operating carrier is often minimized because regional 

carriers use the marketing and branding of their mainline partners. For example, 

some regional carriers have code share agreements with multiple mainline carriers, 

and use different “doing business as” names when operating for their major carrier 

partners on different domestic routes (see figure 1).

 3 Southwest Airlines and its merger partner AirTran were excluded from this analysis since neither airline uses

domestic code sharing in their operations.
5

Figure 1. Different Business Names of One Code Sharing Airline

Source: Airline Web sites, March 2012

NEITHER OST NOR FAA ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REVIEW 

ALL DOMESTIC CODE SHARE AGREEMENTS

OST and FAA are not required to review all domestic code share agreements, 

despite the increased prevalence of these agreements in the marketplace. While the 

number of domestic code share partnerships has increased in recent years—up 

16 percent in the past year alone4

Most Domestic Code Share Agreements Are Not Reviewed for Their 

Potential Economic Impact, and None Are Reviewed for Their Safety 

Impact

—current law requires that OST review only a 

small portion of domestic code share agreements and does not require FAA to 

review any of them for potential safety impacts. As a result, most domestic code 

share agreements go into effect without being reviewed by any DOT regulatory 

entity.

OST, under its responsibility to review certain domestic code share agreements for 

unfair competition, is only required to review those agreements between two 

major carriers based upon their operating revenue and percentage of market 

 4 U.S. General Services Administration Code Share Fact Sheets for FY 2011 and FY 2012.
6

capacity.5 A “major” carrier is one defined by the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics as having at least $1 billion in annual operating revenue. However, only 

20 percent of active Part 121 certificate holders are considered “major.” As a 

result, the number of agreements between mainline and regional carriers that OST 

is required to review is limited. According to our analysis,

6

Figure 2. OST-Required Review of Domestic Code Share Agreements

in 2012, OST would 

only have been required to review about 22 percent of active domestic code share 

agreements, as shown in figure 2 below.

Source: OIG analysis of domestic carrier code share agreements

* Indicates OST review required if the agreement affects more than 15% of 

available seat miles

OST does not voluntarily review other agreements because it believes that 

agreements between major carriers are the only ones with the potential to 

adversely impact the market. Consequently, most domestic code share agreements 

are not reviewed by OST. However, the addition or cancellation of code share 

agreements between major carriers and non-major carriers may affect competition 

and consumer access in smaller markets (e.g., subsequent to its merger with 

Northwest, Delta announced that it was suspending its Delta Connection service to

24 smaller markets as the carrier seeks to adjust service to these markets). By 

reviewing only the domestic agreements between the largest carriers, OST may be 

missing competitive and economic impacts on those smaller markets.

FAA, in its role as aviation safety regulator, is not required to review any domestic 

code share agreements for their potential safety impacts even though they may 

 5 Under 49 U.S.C. § 41720, OST must review any agreement “between two or more major air carriers that affects 

more than 15 percent of the total number of available seat miles offered by the major air carriers.” 6 Because OST does not maintain any records or lists of domestic code share agreements and does not approve all 

domestic agreements, the percentage cited is based on an OIG analysis of the number of active domestic code share 

relationships between "major carriers" (as defined by Bureau of Transportation Statistics) compared to ALL active 

domestic code share relationships.
7

request code share agreements from air carriers. In its 2009 Call to Action on 

Aviation Safety and Pilot Training, FAA committed to work with DOT “to 

develop the authority to review agreements between air carriers and their regional 

partners.” Despite this commitment, FAA did not pursue this effort because it 

believed that the largest passenger airlines had already taken steps to increase 

communication, data sharing, and cooperation with their partner airlines. As a 

result, domestic code share agreements go into effect without consideration of 

their possible impact on air carrier safety.

OST Does Not Have Sufficient Information Regarding the Current 

State of Domestic Code Sharing

OST does not (1) have a documented process for reviewing domestic code share 

agreements, (2) keep records of which agreements it has reviewed, or (3) maintain 

a list of active domestic agreements. As such, OST does not know how many 

domestic code share agreements exist at any given time. This is despite the fact 

that as code share partnerships have evolved, the current code share landscape has 

become extraordinarily complex, as shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3. Domestic Airline Code Share Agreements as of December 2012

Source: OIG analysis of FAA, RAA, and air carrier data

* Dashed lines indicate subsidiary relationships. A subsidiary corporation or company is one in 

which another, generally larger, corporation, known as the parent corporation, owns all or at least 

a majority of the shares. As the owner of the subsidiary, the parent corporation may control the 

activities of the subsidiary.
8

OST’s limited review of this complex domestic code share environment coupled 

with its lack of recordkeeping for the domestic agreements it does review leaves a 

gap in DOT awareness of the code sharing economic landscape. This puts the 

Department and FAA at a disadvantage as they attempt to understand carrier 

relationships and partnership responsibilities.

FAA LACKS PROCEDURES TO ADVANCE AN EQUIVALENT

LEVEL OF SAFETY BETWEEN MAINLINE CARRIERS AND THEIR 

REGIONAL PARTNERS

FAA does not take an active role in reviewing domestic code share agreements for 

possible safety impacts. Even though the 2009 Colgan accident revealed different 

operating standards between that regional operator and its mainline partner, FAA 

has not developed policies to ensure that code share partners advance a common 

level of safety. 

FAA Has Not Taken Steps To Encourage Implementation of SafetySharing Programs Between Code Share Partners

FAA has not provided guidance to the industry on how best to implement safety

information-sharing programs or outlined its expectations for sharing best 

practices within code share partnerships. Due to differences in airline safety 

practices, safety information sharing between code share partners is imperative. 

For example, NTSB determined that the Crew Resource Management training 

provided to the pilots of Colgan Air Flight 3407 was not as robust as their code 

share partner’s (Continental Airlines) training. Following the accident, Colgan 

officials expanded their Crew Resource Management training to include some of 

the components of Continental’s program.

FAA officials stated in the 2009 Call to Action that major air carriers should seek 

specific and concrete ways to ensure that their code share partners adopt and 

implement the larger company’s most effective practices for safety. We found that 

mainline carriers have begun implementing safety information sharing practices—

five mainline carriers we reviewed have established code share safety programs 

with their regional partners. Yet, we found differences in the amount, type, and 

frequency of information being shared between carrier partnerships. For example, 

one mainline air carrier we reviewed tracks and reviews airline safety metrics and 

then shares this information with its regional partners on a monthly basis. 

However, not all mainline carriers review, track, and/or trend such metrics.
9

FAA Does Not Assess the Effects of Code Share Agreements on 

Safety 

FAA does not review performance metrics contained in code share agreements to 

ensure they do not have an adverse impact on safety. This is because FAA 

officials believe oversight of each individual air carrier will ensure the safety of 

the airline industry. However, most code share agreements contain compensation 

models or performance stipulations that can directly affect the regional carriers’

operations. For example, the agreements we reviewed state that regional partners 

(1) will only be compensated if they achieve certain baseline performance 

requirements (such as achieving a 95 percent completion rate7

In the 13 domestic code share agreements we obtained as part of our air carrier 

reviews, almost all (92 percent) contained financial incentives for on-time 

performance. Some also contained penalties for failing to meet metrics or 

incentives for high completion rates as shown below. 

for 3 months of any 

consecutive 6 month period), (2) may be penalized financially for failing to

achieve the performance requirements, and/or (3) can receive incentives for 

exceeding established goals. 

Figure 4. Percentage of Code Share Agreements With Incentives/Penalties

 Source: OIG analysis of 13 major to regional carrier agreements

While we recognize that performance metrics can be an important aspect of a 

successful business relationship, there may be potential safety implications with 

 7 Completion rate is the ratio of scheduled flights to flights that actually reach their destination.
10

meeting those metrics. This concern was highlighted during the Call to Action 

Safety Forums in the summer of 2009, in which participants stated that economic 

issues at air carriers can influence safety program decisions. However, since FAA 

does not review any domestic code share agreements, the Agency does not know 

whether the incentives or penalties included within these agreements could result 

in unintended safety vulnerabilities or whether this information could be beneficial 

in its air carrier oversight.

SOME AIR CARRIER OPERATING INFORMATION IS NOT 

READILY ACCESSIBLE TO PASSENGERS

While passengers have sufficient pricing and scheduling information when 

purchasing an airline ticket, they may not obtain a clear understanding of which 

airline is responsible for the safe operation of their flight. Although current 

regulations8

Compliance With Code Share Disclosure Regulations Varies Among 

Online Ticket Sellers 

require that online ticket sellers and traditional travel agents inform 

passengers which carrier is operating their flight before purchasing a ticket, there 

is significant variation in the way online ticket sellers comply with these 

regulations. Furthermore, traditional travel agents are not evaluated for 

compliance with the disclosure requirements. Additionally, consumers have access 

to performance and complaint data for air carriers when making purchasing 

decisions; however, these data are not reliable or complete for regional carrier 

code share operations. 

While OST has been vigilant in enforcing regulations for online ticket sellers 

(including the air carriers themselves), these entities still have considerable 

latitude in how they disclose code share information, which can lead to consumer 

confusion. Current law requires that online travel agencies9 provide code share 

disclosure to passengers in schedules and itineraries, but the manner in which this 

information is presented sometimes obscures the code share relationship.10

• Some online ticket agents display disclosures about the operating carrier 

separately from the flight number, with no symbol indicating that there is 

additional information about the flight (see figure 5). This increases the chance 

that consumers will overlook the disclosure, because there is no indication that 

As 

shown below, online ticket agent code share disclosures are different enough in 

presentation that consumers may find it difficult to discern. For example:

 8 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 C.F.R. Part 257 mandate disclosure of code share information. 9 Online Travel Agencies are Internet sites that sell tickets for air travel. 10 14 C.F.R. § 257.5 (c) mandates the requirement for written code share disclosure.
11

there is additional information for any of the flights and the disclosure is 

presented in small print at the end of the itinerary. 

Figure 5. Example of Online Code Share Disclosure

Source: Continental.com itinerary search conducted on May 2, 2011

• Some ticket sellers use the “doing business as” names for air carriers before the 

name of the actual operating carrier (see figure 6). This could confuse the 

consumer with the impression that the carrier is either owned or operated by 

the marketing carrier and implies that the flight is actually operated by a 

marketing carrier’s brand name. 

Figure 6. Example of “Doing Business As” Names in Online Code 

Share Disclosures

Source: United.com itinerary search conducted on April 5, 2011
12

Current variation among Web sites can make it difficult for consumers to locate 

and/or understand the disclosure of which carrier is operating their flight. 

According to some OST officials, prescribing uniformity among Web sites could 

reduce flexibility and stifle innovative approaches to presentation that are 

beneficial to consumers. Additionally, some OST officials state that uniformity is 

not necessary to achieve the Agency’s statutory mandate to prohibit deception. 

Nevertheless, OST has proposed a rule, targeted for publication in May 2013, to

codify Web site disclosure of code share operations, but the extent of the proposed 

changes is unclear until the rulemaking effort is finalized.

11

OST Does Not Proactively Assess Traditional Travel Agent 

Compliance

OST does not actively survey traditional travel agents for compliance with code 

share disclosure regulations, although they account for about $60 billion of total 

air travel sales. Current law requires that travel agents provide disclosure of code 

share travel both orally to passengers before booking transportation and in written 

itineraries.

12

Even so, our survey results show that closer oversight of travel agents may be 

warranted. In our sample,

However, according to Department officials, OST does not prioritize 

oversight of this sector of ticket sellers because there are far too many of them and 

because the percentage of passengers purchasing travel through traditional travel 

agents is relatively low. 

13

OST Data for Consumers on Airline Complaints Are Inconsistent and 

Incomplete 

we found that travel agents do not consistently provide 

verbal disclosure of code share flights. For example, 14 of 16 travel agents we 

randomly contacted failed to disclose or properly identify the operator of code 

share flights—even after being asked to identify the name of the actual operating 

carrier. In most of those cases, the travel agents actually provided incorrect

information regarding which carrier was operating the flight. This would seem to 

indicate that the public could benefit from enhanced OST oversight of this 

segment of the ticketing industry.

Consumers currently do not have access to complete information regarding airline 

customer service and complaint records when purchasing an airline ticket. OST 

provides consumers some of these data in its monthly Air Travel Consumer 

Report,14

 11 SNPRM: Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III; RN 2105-AE11.

but the data are inconsistently presented and do not include all carriers 

12 14 C.F.R. § 257.5(b) mandates the requirement of oral code share disclosure to prospective customers. 13 Similar to OST compliance verification, our survey was conducted via telephone with a specific itinerary containing

a known code share flight. 14 The Air Travel Consumer Report is a monthly product of DOT OST’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings. It is designed to assist consumers with information on the quality of services provided by the airlines.
13

due to the thresholds established by OST. OST collects and reports consumer 

complaints, except those that are safety or security related (which are handled by 

FAA and the Transportation Security Administration, respectively). However, the 

manner in which the data are presented limits the report’s utility, especially for 

consumers looking for information on regional carriers (e.g., on time performance 

or customer service complaints on flight crew performance, which are the 

responsibility of the operating carrier). For example, the report:

• Only includes complaints that are made directly to OST and not those made to 

the airlines;15

• Only lists those airlines that receive 5 or more complaints in a month or 10 or 

more complaints in a year. If the total number of complaints against an airline 

is below this threshold, the complaints are published in a category called 

“Other U.S. Airlines;”

• Categorizes complaints based on the consumer’s perception of who the 

operating carrier is that caused the complaint;16

• Often groups regional carrier data with mainline code share partner data. As an 

example, over half of the reports issued in 2011 included complaint statistics 

for “United Express,” which is not an air carrier—United Express operates as a 

United Airlines’ code share “brand.” Therefore, complaints against “United 

Express” should be counted against the responsible partner on which the 

complaint was based. For example, if a passenger’s baggage was late or he/she

was involuntarily bumped from a flight, most likely the fault lies with the 

mainline carrier’s gate or luggage systems or agents, and therefore should be 

attributed to the mainline carrier.

and 

According to a recently published notice of proposed rulemaking, OST is 

considering adding a requirement that smaller carriers report data for OST’s “on 

time performance” reporting, but has not yet identified any changes to how 

customer complaints might be published in the future.17 As a result, the impact of 

changes to consumer transparency in the Air Travel Consumer Report will not be 

fully known until OST’s rulemaking effort is finalized. At the time of our review, 

the Air Travel Consumer Report provided unreliable information regarding 

regional carrier complaint data. 

 15 Except for disability/accessibility related complaints. 16 For example, if a consumer files a complaint against a mainline carrier for service that was actually performed by 

one of its domestic code share partners, the complaint will be recorded against the mainline carrier because that is 

how the consumer reported it to OST. 17 SNPRM: Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections III; RIN 2105-AE11.
14

CONCLUSION

Airline code sharing continues to play an increasingly important role in creating a 

seamless travel experience for consumers, while providing benefits to both 

mainline and regional carriers. However, OST and FAA oversight of domestic 

code sharing has not kept pace with recent industry changes, which may indicate a 

need for heightened attention of code share partnerships and guidance to domestic 

code share partners to improve safety programs. In light of the growing 

complexity and number of code sharing arrangements, OST and FAA need to 

reconsider their processes for enhancing opportunities for code sharing carriers to 

have an equivalent level of safety with their mainline partners. Furthermore, 

although OST has taken some steps towards improving consumer transparency 

through its proposed rulemaking, further action is needed to improve the 

information that consumers use to make ticketing decisions. Without these 

improvements, it will become increasingly difficult for regulators to monitor the 

economic and safety impacts of code share relationships and for consumers to 

easily understand which carrier is operating their flight.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To enhance management attention and improve consumer awareness of domestic 

code sharing, we recommend that OST:

1. Determine how the Department could take a more active role in reviewing 

domestic code share agreements between mainline carriers and their regional 

partners (such as developing a more formal process for identifying which

domestic agreements to review), and develop and implement an action plan 

for doing so.

2. Assess whether consumer complaints should be attributed to a mainline 

and/or operating carrier instead of the mainline code share “brand” in the Air 

Travel Consumer Report.

3. Increase sampling of travel agents for code share disclosure to improve

compliance with current OST regulations.

To further advance commitments with the Call to Action, we recommend that 

FAA:

4. Publish best practices guidance for safety-sharing practices among Part 121 

air carriers and their code share partners.
15

5. Review code share agreement performance metrics, such as financial 

incentives for on-time performance, to ensure they do not have unanticipated 

or adverse impacts on safety.

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

RESPONSE 

We provided OST and FAA with our draft report on October 10, 2012, and 

received their formal joint response on February 1, 2013, which is included in its 

entirety as an appendix to this report. OST concurred with recommendations 2 and 

3 and provided responsive planned actions and reasonable implementation 

timeframes. OST partially concurred with recommendation 1, and while its 

response generally meets the intent of our recommendation, we are requesting 

additional clarifying information on its planned actions, as detailed below. FAA 

partially concurred with recommendations 4 and 5, and its proposed actions for 

recommendation 4 satisfy the intent of our recommendation. We are requesting 

that FAA reconsider its response for recommendation 5, as detailed below.

OST partially concurred with recommendation 1, questioning the benefits of 

performing additional reviews of domestic code share agreements beyond what is 

statutorily required. However, as noted in our report, code share agreements have 

become significantly more prevalent in recent years. In the last year alone, the 

number of domestic code share agreements increased by 16 percent; yet, under the 

current requirements, the Department would have only been required to review 

approximately 11 out of all 51 (22 percent) active domestic code share 

agreements, limiting its visibility into the growing field of code sharing. The 

increased use of these agreements and their potential impact on the aviation 

industry, particularly on smaller carriers that are financially reliant on them, is an 

area that bears watching. OST’s planned actions to monitor industry developments 

in the upcoming year is a positive step. However, we are requesting OST provide 

additional information on how it plans to accomplish this endeavor, such as how it 

will monitor the industry and who within the Department will be responsible for 

this effort. As a result, we consider this recommendation resolved but open 

pending additional information.

In response to recommendation 4, FAA partially concurred and stated that it 

intends to require each Part 121 air carrier to implement a safety management 

system (SMS), rather than publishing guidance on best practices for safety sharing 

among air carriers as we recommended. An SMS is intended to provide a 

comprehensive, process-oriented approach to managing safety. FAA further stated 

that the SMS Final Rule is undergoing executive review and that the Agency will 

provide an update on its progress toward issuing the rule by June 30, 2013. 

Because a component of SMS emphasizes the formal communication of safety 
16

issues, FAA asserted that a tailored SMS program within each airline would be a 

more effective method for meeting the intent of our recommendation. This action 

satisfies the intent of our recommendation, and we consider it resolved but open 

pending issuance of the final rule. 

In response to recommendation 5, FAA partially concurred, noting that it already 

monitors other leading indicators that may impact safety (including impacts from 

mergers, takeovers, or changes in ownership and OST economic authority 

requirements). We recognize that performance metrics, such as financial 

incentives, are an important aspect of successful business relationships. However, 

most regional air carriers are financially dependent on these code share 

arrangements, warranting an additional precautionary step from FAA to review 

any potential impacts of these metrics. Also, at a series of FAA-hosted Safety 

Forums in 2009, industry representatives reported that while safety is their top 

priority, economic factors can influence operational decisions that affect safety. 

FAA’s review of the performance metrics included in code share agreements 

would offer the added assurance that there are no unintended safety consequences. 

Therefore, we are requesting that FAA reconsider its response to this 

recommendation.

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

We consider recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4 resolved but open pending the 

completion of planned actions. In accordance with DOT Order 8000.1C, we 

request that OST provide additional clarifying information for recommendation 1, 

FAA reconsider its position for recommendation 5, and both offices provide their 

responses within 30 days of this report.

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of OST and FAA representatives 

during this audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me 

at (202) 366-0500 or Tina Nysted, Program Director, at (404) 562-3770.

#

cc: DOT Audit Liaison, M-1

FAA Audit Liaison, AAE-100
17

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We conducted this review between September 2010 and 

October 2012 using the following methodology.

We interviewed OST representatives to obtain information on the number of code 

share relationships in existence and the domestic code share approval process. We 

also interviewed FAA Headquarters representatives (Flights Standards and Office 

of Analysis and Information Staff) to obtain information on the Agency’s role in 

the safety oversight of domestic code share relationships. We also met with OST 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceeding 

to determine how it monitors compliance with and investigates violations of the 

DOT aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil rights laws, and how it 

reviews aviation economic licensing matters. 

We interviewed FAA Certificate Management Office (CMO) personnel with 

designated oversight of respective air carriers engaged in code sharing agreements. 

We also met with mainline and regional airline officials to determine how and at 

what level within each organization code sharing agreements are developed, 

implemented, sustained, and reviewed (including what factors or metrics are used 

to determine suitability or performance).

To gain a better understanding of domestic code sharing relationships, we visited 

five (out of 34 possible) air carriers and their respective CMOs for review. We 

selected these carriers for review based on the differences in the carriers’ current 

code share arrangements. For example, the code share relationships consisted of 

both independent carriers as well as those operating as wholly owned subsidiaries. 

We also visited FAA and OST offices that were directly or indirectly responsible 

or knowledgeable of code sharing regulations and oversight.

In addition, we met with both representatives of airline and travel related industry 

groups to identify their policies, guidance, or initiatives on code sharing 

relationships and safety oversight programs, as well as initiatives on passenger 

ticketing and code share disclosure.

We also performed Web site searches of domestic flights from various air carriers 

to known code share destination and randomly contacted 16 different travel agent 

offices via telephone with ticketing requests for these known code share itineraries 
18

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

to determine whether the travel agent was providing the required code share 

disclosure.
19

Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted

EXHIBIT B. ORGANIZATIONS VISITED OR CONTACTED

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters

Flight Standards National Field Office Washington, DC

Flight Standards, Air Transportation Division Washington, DC

Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention Washington, DC

Office of Aircraft Certification Services Washington, DC

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and

Sharing Division Washington, DC

Office of Analysis and Information Staff Washington, DC

International Programs and Policy Office Washington, DC

FAA Liaison to Department of Defense Washington, DC

FAA Certificate Management Offices (CMO)

Continental CMO Houston, TX

FAA Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO)

Indianapolis FSDO Indianapolis, IN

Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)

Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC

 (Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and

 Aviation Consumer Protection Division) Washington, DC

Office of Aviation Analysis 

 (Air Carrier Fitness Division and

 Competition and Policy Analysis Division) Washington, DC

Office of International Aviation Washington, DC

Regional Air Carriers

Republic Airlines Indianapolis, IN

Chautauqua Airlines Indianapolis, IN

Shuttle America Indianapolis, IN

ExpressJet Airlines Houston, TX

Mainline Air Carriers

Continental Airlines Houston, TX

British Airways London, England
20

Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted

Consumer and Industry Groups

Consumers Union Yonkers, NY

National Business Traveler’s Association Alexandria, VA

FlyersRights.org Napa, CA

American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) Alexandria, VA

Consumer Travel Alliance Springfield, VA

Regional Airline Association Washington, DC

International Air Transport Association Montreal, Canada

Conferences and Forums

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

Code Share Symposium Washington, DC

American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) 

Legal Symposium Washington, DC

Delta Connection Carrier (DCC) Training Forum Atlanta, GA 

Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Washington, DC, 

Chicago, IL

Atlanta, GA

Denver, CO

Other Agencies

United States Department of Justice Washington, DC
21

Exhibit C. Major Contributors to This Report

EXHIBIT C. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

Tina Nysted Program Director

Name Title

William Leary Project Manager

Galen Steele Senior Auditor

Jeannette McDonald Senior Analyst

Sara Gragg Senior Analyst

R. Andrew Farnsworth Analyst

Ruth Foyere Analyst

Andrea Nossaman Senior Writer/Editor

Audre Azuolas Writer/Editor

Seth Kaufman Senior Counsel

Petra Swartzlander Senior Statistician
APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 22

Appendix. Agency Comments

MEMORANDUM

TO: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti

Assistant Inspector General

 for Aviation

FROM: Robert S. Rivkin

General Counsel

SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report on Domestic Airline Code-Sharing

Airline Code Sharing agreements are marketing arrangements between carriers that are intended 

to provide more seamless and convenient services for airline passengers by facilitating the 

coordination of scheduling and ticketing. The Department is in full compliance with statutory 

requirements with regard to monitoring code-sharing agreements and has established a 

regulatory framework to ensure that passengers are aware of the arrangements related to a given 

airline ticket and the airline on which they will fly.

It is, therefore, quite surprising that OIG in opening its draft report describes various reviews 

and tracking that the Department does not currently perform, none of which are required by 

statute or regulation, and it implies a deficiency without justifying any need from either a safety 

or economic perspective. The fact is these actions are not necessary or justifiable. Expanding 

the listing, tracking, and reviewing of domestic code-sharing agreements would require 

additional resources without any identified or demonstrable benefit.

With regard to aviation safety, following the February 12, 2009, crash of Colgan Air Flight 

3407, Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) took swift action to address the 

need for improvements in pilot training, hiring and qualification programs, beginning with the 

Agency's Call to Action on Airline Safely and Pilot Training and culminating in the passage of 

the Airline Safety and FAA Extension Act (the Act). Effectively implementing the Act's 

requirements for all commercial airline travel, not just for service provided by a regional 

operator, has been key to improving safety by raising standards in pilot training and 

performance, as well as advancing voluntary programs that yield critical safety information.

February 1, 2013
23

Appendix. Agency Comments

The FAA does not make a distinction between "major" and "'regional" carriers, as all of those 

carriers meet the same standards, found in the regulations in Part 121 of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. The FAA has an extensive certification and oversight process for all U.S. 

airlines that hold an FAA certificate. Each independent code-sharing carrier holds an air carrier 

certificate and is required to meet the appropriate regulatory standards. The FAA oversees each 

of these air carriers under the same system of oversight. The FAA believes that all carriers 

operating in accordance with the regulations meet an appropriate level of safety regardless of 

whether or not they are in a code-sharing marketing alliance.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES

Recommendation 1: Determine how the Department could take a more active role in reviewing 

domestic code-share agreements between mainline carriers and their regional partners (such as 

developing a more formal process for identifying which domestic agreements to review) and 

develop and implement an action plan for doing so.

Response: Partially Concur. OST’s current process and procedures are in full compliance with 

statutory requirements. Its reviews focus on those code sharing agreements which offer some 

potential for affecting competition. We note that the OIG report identified no specific instances 

of code sharing agreements that should have received further scrutiny and bases this 

recommendation on an assumption that OST may be missing competitive and economic 

impacts. Additionally, OIG has not identified code-share operations themselves as a problem or 

specified what exactly OST should look for when reviewing domestic code-share agreements.

Moreover, OST has limited authority to restrict domestic code-share agreements. OIG suggests 

that OST is responsible for maintaining competitive market conditions, but that overstates our 

authority. Congress has set forth the limited review OST is to conduct of domestic code-share 

agreements. Under 49 U.S.C. § 41720, major U.S. carriers must notify OST of certain largescale domestic code-share agreements. The purpose is to give OST the opportunity to review 

those agreements for competitive effects, e.g., United/Continental (2008). OST can take action 

to block or limit a code-share agreement if the agreement violates 49 U.S.C. § 41712, by 

demonstrating an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition. However, it is 

generally not an unfair method of competition to engage in domestic code-share arrangements. 

This is particularly the case with respect to agreements involving smaller carriers that are not 

covered by 49 U.S.C. § 41720. OST is unlikely to find an unfair method of competition by 

reviewing domestic code-share relationships because, as noted in the report, those agreements 

tend to provide benefits to passengers, regional carriers, and mainline carriers. In terms of 

passenger costs and services, at a minimum, code-share relationships are overall neutral, and 

they often improve service and fares to underserved communities. Further evidence of the 

absence of a problem is the fact that in the past 5 years OST's Aviation Enforcement Office has 

received 55,181 consumer complaints but of those complaints, only 3 were about code-share 

disclosure (or 0.0005%). Accordingly, it is unclear what benefit would accrue from the 

additional review of domestic code-share agreements that OIG is recommending. However, 

OST will monitor industry developments through the end of this year to determine whether any 

issues arise that could potentially benefit from closer scrutiny and/or procedural modifications. 

By January 31, 2014, OST will notify the OIG of whether any such issues have arisen, and 

whether any further action is planned as a result.
24

Appendix. Agency Comments

Recommendation 2: Assess whether consumer complaints should be attributed to a mainline 

and/or operating carrier instead of the mainline code-share "brand" in the Air Travel Consumer 

Report.

Response: Concur. The OIG report suggests that changing the way consumer complaints to 

OST regarding code-share "brands" are attributed will increase the transparency of the data that 

are published in OSTs Air Travel Consumer Report (ATCR). As stated in the OIG report. 

OST's practice has been to attribute complaints to the carrier as perceived by the consumer, 

which includes attributing a complaint to a mainline code-share "brand" if that is how the 

consumer attributed it (e.g., United Express, Delta Connection). Carriers then have the 

opportunity to correct any misperception by the consumer that results in a misattribution of a 

complaint before the ATCR is published. The number of complaints actually attributed to a 

mainline code-share "brand" is very small (77 out of 11,546 total complaints in 2011). By 

comparison, 1,236 complaints were attributed to the corporate name of the code-sharing 

regional carrier. We have never viewed this practice as problematic because the number of 

complaints against code-share "brands"' is very small and does not detract from the usefulness 

of the information provided by reporting the nature and number of complaints against the 

carriers. Going forward, the Aviation Enforcement Office's Aviation Consumer Protection 

Division will code complaints against either the mainline carrier or the operating carrier, as 

appropriate, and not the code-share "brand." The ATCR will reflect the change starting with the 

January 2013 report.

Recommendation 3: Increase sampling of travel agents for code-share disclosure to improve 

compliance with current OST regulations.

Response: Concur. The OIG's report suggests that traditional travel agents are a significant 

venue for air travel sales and accordingly should be more closely monitored for compliance 

with code-share disclosure regulations. We are in the process of initiating a project to sample 

(make test calls to) the top ten "brick and mortar" travel agencies by revenue, as well as a 

number of carriers, to determine whether there are issues with disclosure of code-share 

operations. The Aviation Enforcement Office intends to complete the test calls by June 30. 

2013, and will take any enforcement action determined to be necessary. Enforcement action 

against large entities generally has a deterrent effect across large segments of the industry.

It is also notable that about 2,000 traditional travel agencies sell tickets via the internet. Overall, 

airlines report that both by revenue and number of tickets sold, over half of all ticket sales are 

through the internet, either through the airline's own website or a travel agent website. 

Additionally, online sales continue to increase at the expense of traditional travel agent sales 

each year. Our numerous enforcement actions against entities with online operations encourage 

compliance and increases online code-share disclosure.

Finally, it is important to clarify relevant facts regarding the OIG's statement that traditional 

travel agent operations account for about $60 billion of total air travel sales. Based on 

information provided by airlines and ticket agents, the Aviation Enforcement Office believes 

that the bulk of the revenue generated by non-online travel agent sales results from travel 

management company operations. The large dollar amount is misleading because a large 

percentage of those sales are actually corporate travel purchases, generally made by or on behalf 
25

Appendix. Agency Comments

of sophisticated business travelers. Further, those purchases are often conducted through private 

business-to-business transactions.

Recommendation 4: Publish best practices guidance for safety-sharing practices among Part 

121 air carriers and their code-share partners.

Response: Partially Concur. The FAA sees value in many of the safety best practices adopted 

by certain airlines, such as the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) and Flight Operations 

Quality Assurance (FOQA). In fact, since the Call to Action, participation in FAA's voluntary 

programs is at an all-time high. Today, over 80% participate in at least one voluntary program 

(Advanced Qualification Program [AQP], ASAP, FOQA, Line Operations Safety Audit 

[LOSA]). As of September 2010, as documented in the 2011 Public Law 111-216 report to 

Congress, 62 of 94 (66%) air carriers participated in ASAP and 33 of 94 (35%) participated in 

FOQA. As of October 16, 2012, 64 of 84 participate in ASAP (78%) and 40 of 84 (48%) 

participate in FOQA.

The FAA does not consider publishing best practices guidance for safety-sharing between codeshare partners to be the most effective way to further improve safety. Each air carrier must 

address the safety risks it identifies in its own operation, which may not be the same as those 

identified in another air carrier's operation. Instead, the FAA intends to require each Part 121 air 

carrier to implement a safety management system (SMS). SMS is a comprehensive, processoriented approach to managing safety throughout an organization that includes an organizationwide safety policy; formal methods for identifying hazards, controlling, and continually 

assessing risk; and promotion of a safety culture. SMS stresses not only compliance with 

technical standards but increased emphasis on the overall safety performance of the 

organization. SMS's proactive emphasis on hazard identification and mitigation, and on 

communication of safety issues, would provide certificate holders robust tools to improve 

safety. The SMS Final Rule is presently in executive review and the FAA will provide an 

update by June 30, 2013, on the status of the Final Rule

Recommendation 5: Review code-share agreement performance metrics, such as financial 

incentives for on-time performance, to ensure they do not have unanticipated or adverse impacts 

on safety.

Response: Partially Concur. The FAA recognizes that performance metrics are a necessary 

element in commercial air carrier operations and that they may factor into operational risks that 

must be considered in planning oversight. The FAA conducts risk-based surveillance based on 

diverse and extensive information sources to evaluate an air carrier's ability to balance resources 

and operational requirements. For example, in its oversight of Part 121 air carriers, the FAA 

already monitors leading indicators that may impact safety, such as:

• Substantial change in air carrier management;

• Substantial turnover in personnel or reduction in force;

• Labor dispute;

• Rapid expansion or growth;

• Merger, takeover, or change in ownership;
26

Appendix. Agency Comments

• Enforcement actions:

• Noncompliant attitude:

• Accidents/incidents/occurrences;

• Department of Defense reviews;

• Department of Transportation/Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

economic authority/insurance requirements;

• Change in fleet type;

• Substantial change in outsourcing;

• Financial distress;

• Substantial passenger or employee complaints; and

• Hotline complaints.

If the FAA identifies specific risks associated with these leading indicators, it takes action to 

identify these risks and works with the air carrier to mitigate them. The FAA considers its 

surveillance of business process risks to be sufficiently comprehensive to address the aspects 

that would be touched by the recommended action. In light of this, the FAA does not see the 

added utility of specifically reviewing contract agreements between air carriers. Accordingly, 

the FAA requests that this recommendation be closed.