Order 2013-10-11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

On the Twenty-Second day of October, 2013

Jet Airways (India) Ltd. Docket OST-2013-0004

Violations of 14 CFR Part 244 Served: October 22, 2013

 and 49 U.S.C. § 41708 

 

CONSENT ORDER

This consent order results from the failure of Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (Jet Airways) to 

provide accurate tarmac delay information to the Department of Transportation 

(Department) in violation of 14 CFR Part 244 and 49 U.S.C. § 41708. This order directs 

Jet Airways to cease and desist from future similar violations of Part 244 and section 

41708, and assesses the carrier $10,000 in civil penalties.

Applicable Law

Reporting Tarmac Delay Data

Section 244.3 of the Department’s regulations requires certain foreign air carriers to file 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Form 244 “Tarmac Delay Report” with the 

Office of Airline Information for each month in which at least one tarmac delay of three 

hours or more occurred. The data are filed with a certification of their accuracy.1 The 

data are then published and made available to the public in a useable format in the 

Department’s monthly Air Travel Consumer Report (ATCR), which, among other things, 

 1 See Part 244 – Reporting of Tarmac Delay Data (Revised), (August 10, 2011), available at 

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/accounting_and_reporting_directives/number_303a.html.
2

lists all regularly scheduled international flights with tarmac delays of four hours or 

more.

2

 The ATCR data in question are used for a number of purposes, including by the 

traveling public to choose among transportation options, by the Department as a basis to 

conduct enforcement investigations, and by carriers as a basis for making advertising 

claims regarding the quality of their service compared to other carriers. It is imperative, 

therefore, that ATCR data be accurate. Violations of section 244.3 also constitute 

violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41708. 

Facts

Jet Airways is a foreign air carrier as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(21)3 that operates 

scheduled service into Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), a large hub airport, 

using at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of 30 or more passenger 

seats. On October 29, 2011, as a result of a winter weather event, Jet Airways flight 228, 

traveling from Brussels Airport (BRU) in Belgium to Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR), diverted to Bradley International Airport (BDL).4 BDL is not a regular 

diversion airport for Jet Airways and, consequently, the carrier did not have a coordinated 

contingency plan with BDL when it decided to divert there on October 29, 2011.5 An 

investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement 

Office) revealed that after being diverted to BDL, 217 passengers were delayed on the 

tarmac for five hours and fourteen minutes on flight 228.

Additionally, in its original certified October 2011 BTS Form 244 filing, Jet Airways 

reported a tarmac delay of four hours and forty minutes. After the Enforcement Office 

initiated an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the lengthy tarmac delay, Jet 

Airways re-examined its data and concluded that it had made an erroneous report to the 

Department and that the actual length of the delay was five hours and fourteen minutes. 

Jet Airways then filed a corrected BTS Form 244; however, the corrected data was filed

only after the ATCR had been published and released to consumers. Jet Airways’ failure

 2 See Air Travel Consumer Report, available at http://airconsumer.dot.gov.

3 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(21) defines a foreign air carrier as “a person, not a citizen of the United 

States, undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide foreign air transportation.”

4 The October 29, 2011, weather event caused additional critical navigation equipment outages at 

JFK and Newark Airports (some equipment was already inoperable because of needed maintenance) and 

significant Air Traffic Control (ATC) problems, prompting 29 flights operated by numerous carriers to 

divert to BDL within a short period of time, ultimately overwhelming that airport’s resources. 

Additionally, heavy accumulating snowfall caused numerous power failures and difficulty maneuvering 

ground service equipment to diverted aircraft at that airport, causing massive ground service difficulties and 

delays. Finally, limitations with respect to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities at BDL also 

exacerbated the difficulties with respect to international flights. 

5 Jet Airways reported that its regular diversion airports for EWR are JFK International Airport 

(JFK), Boston Logan International Airport (BOS), Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), Washington 

Dulles International Airport (IAD), and Toronto Pearson International Airport (YTZ).
3

to submit accurate data in accordance with 14 CFR 244.3 wasted valuable Department 

resources, since it was only after the Enforcement Office initiated its investigation and Jet 

Airways re-examined its data that the inaccuracy was discovered. Additionally, the 

Department had to expend further resources to reissue the ATCR with Jet Airways’ 

corrected data.

Mitigation

In mitigation, Jet Airways states that it takes its reporting violations very seriously, and 

understands the importance of ensuring the accuracy of data reported to agencies. The 

Form 244 filing requirement, however, first went into effect in August 2011. Jet Airways 

states that it had no prior experience in determining how a tarmac delay should be 

calculated. According to Jet Airways, the thirty four minute error in the report that it 

initially submitted was an honest mistake based on a misunderstanding of the Part 244 

reporting criteria, rather than an attempt to mislead the Department or obscure the facts. 

Jet Airways states that it filed its initial report on a timely basis in accordance with the 

requirements of Part 244 and, upon discovering that the tarmac delay data were 

apparently calculated incorrectly, Jet Airways voluntarily and promptly submitted a 

corrected report, thereby demonstrating its positive compliance disposition. 

Decision

The Enforcement Office has considered carefully the information provided by Jet 

Airways and believes that most of the circumstances on October 29 that ultimately led to 

the tarmac delay experienced by flight 228 at BDL were far beyond of the control of any 

single carrier. As such, it has decided to exercise its discretion and not pursue 

enforcement action against Jet Airways for its failure to adhere to the assurances in its 

contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays that the carrier would not permit a flight to 

remain on the tarmac for more than four hours without providing passengers an 

opportunity to deplane. Additionally, because Jet Airways had not previously considered 

BDL to be one of its regular diversion airports and had not used that airport for diversions 

in the past, the Enforcement Office is not pursuing enforcement action against the carrier 

for having failed to coordinate its tarmac delay contingency plan with BDL. However, 

the Enforcement Office does believe that enforcement action is warranted with regard to 

Jet Airways’ misreporting of information to the Department. The Enforcement Office and 

Jet Airways have reached a settlement of this matter in order to avoid litigation. By this 

order, the Department finds that Jet Airways violated 49 U.S.C. § 41708 and Part 244 by 

failing to provide accurate on-time performance information to the Department. 

In order to avoid litigation, Jet Airways has agreed to settle this matter with the 

Enforcement Office and enter into this consent order directing Jet Airways to cease and 

desist from future similar violations of 14 CFR Part 244 and section 41708 and assessing 

$10,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable pursuant to 

49 U.S.C. § 46301. We believe that this assessment is appropriate and serves the public 

interest. 
4

This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR Part 1.

ACCORDINGLY,

1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions of 

this order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that Jet Airways (India) Ltd., violated 14 CFR Part 244 by filing a report

with the Department that contained inaccurate data; 

3. We find that by engaging in the conduct and violations described in ordering 

paragraph 2, above, Jet Airways (India) Ltd., has violated 49 U.S.C. § 41708; 

4. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., and all other entities owned or controlled by Jet Airways 

(India) Ltd., its successors and assignees are ordered to cease and desist from 

further violations of 14 CFR Part 244 and 49 U.S.C. § 41708;

5. We assess Jet Airways (India) Ltd., a compromise civil penalty of $10,000 in lieu of

civil penalties that might otherwise be assessed for the violations found in ordering 

paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Of this total penalty amount, $5,000 shall be due and 

payable within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order. The remaining portion 

of any unpaid civil penalty shall become immediately due and payable if, within 

one year of the date of this order, Jet Airways (India) Ltd., violates this order’s 

cease and desist or payment provisions, in which case Jet Airways (India) Ltd., may 

become subject to additional enforcement action for any violation of the order; and

6. We order Jet Airways (India) Ltd., to pay the penalty through Pay.gov to the 

account of the U.S. Treasury in accordance with the instructions contained in the 

Attachment to this order. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered shall subject Jet 

Airways (India) Ltd., to the assessment of interest, penalty, and collection charges 

under the Debt Collection Act and to further enforcement action for failing to 

comply with this order. 
5

This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service date 

unless a timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own 

motion. 

BY:

SAMEUL PODBERESKY

Assistant General Counsel for

 Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://regulations.gov