BEFORE THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------ In the matter of: :

: Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0140 Passenger Protections :

---- --------------------------------------------------

REQUEST TO CLARIFY BAGGAGE RULES A ND TO EXTEND EFFECTIVE DATES

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., the International Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association

, and the Air C arrier Association of America

, on behalf of their

mem bers, have a fundamental interest in meeting the new

, highly complex and labor intensive

passenger baggage rules that are currently scheduled to take effect on January 24, 2012. To that
end

, we request that the Department extend the effective date by one year to January 24, 2013 for
the “ b aggage allowances and fees” requirements in 14 C.F.R. 399.87 and the “ baggage notice ” requirements of 14 C.F.R. 399.85(c). Additional time is necessary for c arriers to implement these requirements accurately and to preserv e the benefits of existing and future automation. Criti cal sources of information needed to comply with these rules do not yet exist

. Until the technical
standards for one or more baggage rule databases are finalized carriers cannot develop the internal

IT systems and procedures that will interact with thes e databases . Moreover, s takeholders 1 are also adjust ing compliance plans and efforts as the Department continues to clarify specific details of the new baggage rules

. Simply put, our member carriers cannot develop complex n ew system s , test, populate and update them by the current deadline. Th is extension would give carriers essential time

to overcome fundamental changes in baggage rules that require substantial investment and re

engineering of carrie r reservations, check

- in and baggage information systems , in addition to retraining of airline employees. We also request additional clarification in several areas

.

Overview

The scope of this extension request is very limited , focusing only on certain n ew baggage requirements

. U.S. and foreign carriers have met the relatively short dead lines the Department set for the vast majority of the final rule published less than seven months ago. This industry accomplishment was an enormous undertaking and shows the commitment carriers have to implementing the Department’s new rules

. However, compliance with the two specific baggage
rules addressed herein require additional time

. The Department recognized the difficult y in meeting these baggage rules in the first extension request, when it noted “t he difficulties in applying the same baggage allowances and fees across an itinerary when they [airlines] cannot readily access
each other’s fee schedules.” 2 In addition, the Department has met with ATPCO on several
occasions to clarify aspects of the bag ga ge rule and notice requirements and will issue additional guidance in the Department’s F requently A sked Q uestion s (FAQs)

. The public is not well served

1 Stakeholders in this context include U.S. carriers, foreign carriers, carrier vendors, and other groups providing baggage
rule infor mation.

2 76 Fed. Reg. 45183.2

by proceeding with rule s that will only result in consumer harm and confusion, not be nefits

, especially i f c arriers are forced to proceed with makeshift , almost certainly manual measures before compliance is technologically feasible. To ensure maximum public benefits, c arriers should focus their resources on developing the technology solutions that are necessary to implement these new baggage requirements.

As set forth in the attached 1 2 declarations from U.S. carriers, foreign carriers and vendor that work on carrier baggage information systems, complying with the bagga ge rule and notice requirements by January 24, 2012 will be extremely difficult and not in the best interest of passengers . The Department’s new baggage rules modify the world

- wide management of baggage information that has developed over the past 50 year s. Existing systems were not built to accommodate downstream application of baggage rules or fees and technology does not exist to bridge this gap. IATA recently changed this system to require that the “most significant carrier” baggage rules apply to an international itinerary. The I ATA changes were adopted in 2008 , took effect in April 2011

, and the industry is still working to comply with them

. 3 Changing the fundamentals of this baggage system a second time in the same year is consuming c arrier and vendor resources further complicating compliance by January 2012.

Creating technology solutions to identify which fee to apply and to transmit baggage rule and fee
data among worl dwide airline s is a complex, multistep and multiparty process. The first step in this

process is creating a product (s) or database (s) of all U.S. and foreign carrier baggage rules and fees.
We understand that one possible industry solution for t his first step will not be completed until January 24, 2012. Next, carriers and vendors who manage carrier data systems must determine how
to access the information in the product(s) or database(s) created in step one. This access must
account for all th e different channels carriers use to communicate with passengers, including website, kiosks, and check

- in counters at hundreds of airports, many of which currently have little or no ability to communicate with other airline systems. Next, carriers must ext ensively test data sharing systems to ensure continued efficient passenger service. We note past passenger system problems have severely disrupted passenger service. 4 Finally, carriers will have to train employees on the baggage rule and fee procedures, a lengthy process.

If an extension is not granted, carriers would be forced to adopt error

- prone makeshift procedures
that would substantially delay passenger check

- in, create long lines at airports, substantially reduce the availability of automated sel f

- service check

- in, including the fast growing popular remote
check

- in systems , increase the likelihood carriers will apply the wrong carrier’s baggage fees that will lead to confusion and disenchantment and increase the risk of delayed or lost bags

. 5 These results were clearly not intended by the Department and would result in substantial harm, not benefit, to the public. A gents would have to conduct a manual override at the airport pull ing passenger name record d ata on an individual passenger basis to determine which carrier’s policies and fees apply. 6 In most cases, airport check

- in counters do not have internet access, which could

3 Sato Statement page 1.

4 For instance (1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer systems malfunctioned, preventing the processing of thousands of passengers at LAX. See http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/08/lax_computers.html ; (2) failures of Virgin Blue’s Naviatare reservations system in 2010 shut down the airline on two separate occasions, resulting in hundreds of flig ht cancellations and thousands of stranded passengers . See http://delimiter.com.au/2010/09/26/navitaire

- outage

- strands

- virgin

- blue

- passengers/

5 Guillemette Declaration at 15, page 4 ; Bryant S tatement page 2.

6 Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4.3

require carriers to use paper copies of other airline bag rules. 7 Agents would h ave to read and apply
another carrier’s bag prices and policies for each passenger. Inhibiting automated check

- in would drive passengers to lobby check

- in with carrier agents, generating congestion in airports to the detriment of passengers. 8

Therefore, it is in the public interest to delay the application of sections 399.87 and 399.85(c) for one year so carriers and vendors can develop solutions that will continue the automated check in
system and provide timely accurate information to passengers

.

Time line

On April 25, 2011, the Department issued a multi

- faceted passenger protection final rule, which included extending several rules to foreign carriers, additional contingency plan and customer service plan requirements, adopting a four hour tarmac dela y rule for international flights departing or arriving in the U.S., chang ing full fare advertising and denied boarding compensation rules, prohibit ing post

- purchase price increases and choice

- of

- forum provisions and instituted several new passenger bag gage rule and notice requirements. In June 2011

, several different parties petition ed the Department for a limited effective date extension for several parts of the final rule. On July 7, 8 and July 21, 22, 2011 the Department held two public forums to d iscuss the final rule. Both forums were well attended by stakeholder representatives and many questions were addressed and many
others raised.

On July 28, 2011, t he Department extended the effective date for full fare advertising requirements (section 39 9.84) , baggage rule and notice requirements (sections 399.85(b) and (c) and 399.87),
post

- purchase price increases (sections 399.88 and 399.89), flight status notifications (section 259.8) and reservation hold requirements (section 259.5(b)(4)) to January 24, 2011. On August 19, 2011, the Department responded to questions raised at the forums by publishing a frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) document, on the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, DOT website. 9 The Department subsequently amended the FAQ s to include guidance on baggage notice rules (399.85) on September 6, 2011. On October 19, 2011, the Department amended the FAQs to include guidance on baggage allowances and fees (399.87)

. We thank the Department for its engagement and willingness to ad dress serious concerns and limitations of industry and the industry’s questions, as we see this dialogue as an essential part of successful implementation in the interest of the

consumer

.

Baggage allowance and fees (399.87)

Under 399.87, t he Department requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply to a passenger throughout an itinerary that originates or ends in the U.S. In the case of a codeshare itinerary originating or ending in the U.S., the marketing carrier’s baggage allowances and fees must apply throughout the itinerary. For non

- codeshare flights to or from the U.S. the baggage rules that apply at the beginning of the itinerary must apply to the entire itinerary.

7 Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4.

8 Player Declaration at 8, page 3; Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4; Guillemette Declaration at 15, page 5; Stumbo Declaration page 2.

9 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Enforcement of the Second Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (EAPP #2 FAQs), found at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/EAPP_2_FAQ_10

- 19

- 2011.pdf4

On October 19, 2011 the Department released 5 pages of guidance on 399. 87 that included the following additional points:

 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 c arrier is on a separate ticket from the other flights.

 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.

 Section 399.87 does not prohibit carriers from using the “most significant carrier” (MSC) methodology for international flights as set forth in IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by
DOT Order 2009

- 9

- 20, to determine which carrier’s baggage rules apply to international
itine raries.

 Section 399.87 and 399.85 apply to baggage “handling” fees. Therefore, any handling fees that apply at the beginning of the itinerary apply to all remaining flights in the itinerary.

 Government imposed taxes on baggage fees are subject to the dis closure requirements in
section 399.85.

 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.

 Section 399.87 applies to excess, oversize, and special baggage fees, in addition to standard checked baggage fees

.

 A passenger can be charged for an additional bag or a bag that has become overweight because of additional items being pl aced 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 rule does not prevent a carrier from charging a baggage fee each time the baggage is re

checked for do mestic itineraries.

Carriers appreciate this specific guidance and are working to incorporate these guidelines into their compliance plans. This takes time, however, and certain clarifications naturally raise additional questions.

Baggage Notice Require ments (399.85(c))

Section 399.85(c) requires U.S. and foreign carriers, their agents, or ticket agents selling air transportation in the U.S., must provide notice of baggage fees at the summary page in an online purchase and in all e

- ticket confirmations for air transportation to, from, or within the U.S. The regulation also stipulates that “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.”

On September 6 and October 19, the Department issued additional guidance on this section, which included the following significant clarifications:

 C arrier s cannot list the carrier ’s standard baggage fees for carry

- on, first and second checked bag fe es on the e

- ticket confirmation. 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 second5

checked ba g to vary so passengers can determine for themselves the fees that would apply to
them.

 A range of fees is not specific enough to comply with this rule.

 Carriers must provide information on e

- ticket confirmations regarding baggage fees on
code

- share or int erline 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 pur suant to section 399.87.

T his guidance is very valuable to carriers, and requires both time to assimilate and this direction in turn has raised additional questions in the carrier community.

Baggage Information Management

The Department’s baggage rules and notice requirements have far reaching impacts. For instance, any system that checks in passengers on an itinerary that includes a U.S. destination or origin must be updated and automated to ensure it can accommodate the new baggage rule changes. 10

Th erefore, carrier airport stations that use Departure Control Systems (“DCS”) to check in passengers and provide carrier agents information on the applicable baggage rules must be modified to accept information from potentially hundreds of interli ne and codeshare partners

. 11 A DCS
handles large amount s of data originating from passengers that book directly with the airline. 12 This
data includes passenger information and baggage rules on the day of check

- in

. 13 The DCS must be able to process extreme ly large amounts of information very quickly in order to check in passengers and any baggage expeditiously to ensure a smooth passenger experience and to prevent overcrowding of airport facilities , especially those in limited non

- secure space

. DCS s are ty pically
stand

- alone systems that currently cannot access the internet and are unable to access information

on other carrier s’ baggage fees

. 14

C urrent check

- in systems do not store and cannot access information on any flight segments that took place earl ier in time. This limitation makes it impossible for check

- in systems to identify prior carrier(s) in an itinerary and the baggage polic y applied by the first marketing or operating carrier

. 15 Carriers generally do not receive the complete itinerary for passengers that book with other airlines or with ticket agents because reservation systems across the industry are not perfectly integrated and do not exchange complete information. 16 Individual carriers have no control over the information
that is receive d on a connecting passenger, therefore, any solution to this problem will take an industry

- wide effort. 17 The type s of information that current DCS cannot access but will need to in future include notification to an agent that a “most significant” carrier i s different than the operating

10 Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1 ; Stumbo Declaration pages 1

- 2.

11 Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Litschke Declaration at 5, page 2. Hallenbeck Declaration, page 1; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1 ; Bryant Statement page 1.

12 Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2.

13 Hynes Declaration at 7, page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 13, page 2.

14 Hyn es Declaration at 7, page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration at 3, page 1; R esnick Declaration at 4, page 2; Puddifoot
Statement page 1; Guillemette at 14.3(iii), page 4; Sato Statement page 1; Fortson Statement page 1 ; Collins S tatement

page 1; Bryant Statement page 1.

15 Hynes Declaration at 7, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 4 , 5 , page 2.

16 Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2; Guillemette at 14.3(ii) at page 4.

17 Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2 ; Player Declaration at 7, page 3.6

carrier, recognition and application of different fees and policies, recognition of passengers on codeshare/interline itineraries or who have been rebooked from other airlines as a result of irregular operations or a denied b oarding situation, and the correct baggage acceptance policy or fees to permit an agent to manually override the current check

- in system with the correct fee amount or acceptance policy. 18 The baggage notice requirements in section 399.85(c) raise identical concerns
because c urrent carrier e

- ticket automated processes and other systems that could be used to disclose baggage rules and fees to passengers also do not have access to other carrier baggage rules
and fee s. 19

Stakeholder Ini tiatives

The baggage rule will require most airlines in the world to have the capability to share passenger itinerary and baggage rule and notice information, s ince the final rule requires the same baggage rules apply throughout an itinerary for any passe nger whose ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point

. 20 The complex methodology to access, share, and interpret the shared baggage information can begin o nce uniform baggage information standards are set, which as of this filing they have not (see unr esolved questions below )

. 21 Carriers could meet this baggage rule information sharing requirement in different ways. ATPCO is developing one information sharing process by enhancing existing tariff databases to include updated baggage rule information on 293 airlines. We have been told that ATPCO will have a database including most of the required baggage allowance
and fee information by January 24, 2012. Other solutions may also meet the regulatory requirements. As explained below, thi s is one step in a lengthy compliance process.

Extending the Deadline s is Necessary and Will Benefit the Public

As discussed above, the development of a comprehensive, automated solution to the new baggage rule and disclosure requirements cannot proceed at full speed un til all unresolved questions are
answered. 22 The process of answering unresolved questions began on September 6, 2011, when the Department issued its first guidance on section 399.85. The process continued when the Department issued additional guidance on 399.85 and its first guidance on section 399.87 on October 19, 2011 . We are aware that the Department met with ATPCO several times to answer additional questions, the latest meeting taking place on November 7, 2011. As noted at the ATPCO meeting and bel ow, there are still several unresolved critical issues that need to be addressed before a method for sharing baggage information can be developed (such as the ATPCO product)

. Planning by carriers, vendors, and other stakeholders is significantly altered e ach time the Department issues additional guidance. 23

Developing one or more baggage rule and fee database s is the first step in a long process for all stakeholders to comply with the new rules. 24 Once one or more database s with the baggage
informat ion becomes available (or another solution is identified) , carriers and vendors will begin the

18 Player Declaration at 4(A) , page 2.

19 Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Fortson Statement at 1; Stumbo Declaration page 1; Hallenbeck Declaration page 4 ; Friedli Statement page 1.

20 Hynes Declaration at 5, page 1; Guillemette Declaration at 14.1, page 3.

21 Hynes Declara tion at 7, page 2.

22 Forston Statement page 2

. 23 Litschke Declaration at 7, page 3; Sato Statement page 1.

24 Fortson Statement page 2.7

process of planning and modifying carrier systems. 25 Stakeholders w ill have to spend a significant amount of time modifying carrier systems to access the web, in terface with at least one baggage rule
information database, download, recognize and process information generated by these databases

, and then transmit that information in useable form to the various check

- in systems

. 26 In addition to all of the IT work, the Industry will have to establish standards as to how the information will be
shared between carriers. 27 There is no ndustry standard today for carriers to notify one another which baggage rule to enforce. 28 Consequently, there will be lots of work to do a t and Industry level
to reach consensus on how to solve these issues. Carriers and vendors will also have to spend a significant amount of time testing this connectivity before exposing passengers to the new system. 29 In order to maintain current passenger check

- in processes, carriers will need a service that can access and process data requests with an extremely reliable and fast uptime. 30

The viability of a web

- based system

, if that is the ultimate solution or one of the solutions, is completely depende nt on interface between a carrier system and the 3 rd party providing the external data, the internet connection at an airport, and the size of data downloads; any one of these factors could slow or crash a system bringing automated passenger check

- in to a halt. 31 Slow or temporarily unavailable passenger check

- in systems will operate to the disadvantage of the traveling public, the group these rules are intended to benefit, and will result in delay ed check

- in, improperly checked baggage, missed flights

, and passengers traveling without their checked baggage

. In addition, carrier airport and reservatio ns customer service agents will ha ve to receive training on the new rules and carrier procedures , a n estimated six month process

. 32 However the training program
cannot be created until the Department provides additional guidance. 33

Carriers will also have to modify websites and kiosk software that provides check

- in capabilities and could be used to pay for checked baggage. 34 Curbside “skycap” check

- in systems h ave limited functionality and typically cannot see a passenger’s full itinerary if it includes interline travel. 35
Therefore, curbside check

- in could be limited until a solution is developed and any solution to the final rule will have to be multifaceted, a nd account for changes to multiple systems. 36

In the event our understanding that carriers will not be required to honor competitors’ elite flyer bag gage rule policies is incorrect (see below) , the complexity of accessing and applying world

- wide
carrier ba ggage rules and fees will be further exacerbated. 37 The Department clarified in FAQ 34 that any excess, oversized, or special baggage fees must apply throughout an itinerary, adding

25 Guillemette Declaration at 14.2(i), page 3; Forston Statement page 2.

26 Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Puddifoot Statement page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 14.2(i), page 3; Stumbo Declaration page 2 ; Collins Statement page 1.

27 Friedli Statement page 1.

28 Id.

29 Hynes Declaration at 7. page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Litschke De claration at 8, page 3; Stumbo Declaration page 2.

30 Hynes Declaration at 8, page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Litschke Declaration at 9, page 4.

31 Fortson Statement page 1.

32 Puddifoot Statement page 3; Guillemette Declaration at 14.4, pa ge 4; Stumbo Declaration page 3.

33 Player Declaration at 8, page 3; Hallenbeck Declaration page 3.

34 Resnick Declaration at 10, page 4; Guillemette Declaration at 21, page 5; Stumbo Declaration page 2.

35 Resnick Declaration at 10, page 4.

36 Litschke Declar ation at 6, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 10, page 4; Puddifoot Statement page 1.

37 Player Declaration at 5, page 2; Stumbo Declaration page 3.8

complexity to the rule. 38 In addition, some carriers factor bag size and we ight as part of their bag gage policy, some carriers do not

. 39

Global compliance with 399.87 for itineraries that originate or depart the U.S. will require airlines around the world to file and regularly update baggage fee information and make the same ma jo r check

- in system modifications and investment as U.S. carriers. 40 The complexity of a unilateral Department regulation is a burden for both U.S. and non

- U.S. carriers, especially when it appears section 399.87 conflicts with Resolution 302 (see unresolv ed questions below). The notice requirements of section 399.85(c) will also burden U.S. and non

- U.S. carriers, forcing website and

e

- ticket changes for th ose itineraries that originate or depart the U.S.

In addition, carriers do not have access to c omplete passenger itineraries that originate with a Global Distribution System (“GDS”)

. 41 Therefore, carriers and vendors will have to work with GDSs to modify systems and release additional data, which is dependent on GDS willingness to
work with carriers to provide this additional information.

Compliance with section 399.85(c) will expand the scope and complexity of developing programs and systems that share baggage rule and fee information among carriers. Any architecture that is
built to receive and d etermine the correct baggage rule and fee information for section 399.87 will
also be used to communicate with e

- ticket and website ticket purchasing engines to meet the baggage notice requirements of section 399.85(c). 42 Therefore, carriers and vendors ar ound the
world not only have to reconfigure DCS interfaces to accept and utilize baggage information for passenger check in functions but also have to modify website and ticketing functions to meet passenger baggage notification requirements. 43

Given the s ignificant amount of time each step in the compliance process will take after one or more baggage information database s are created, tested, and active, which is likely to be January 2012, carriers and vendors will not have enough time to complete the nece ssary steps to comply with the new baggage rules. 44

Unresolved Q uestions

We ask the Department to confirm or answer the following unresolved issues that will significantly alter baggage information sharing and carrier implementation plans for sections 399. 87 and 399.85(c).

1. For codeshare flights please confirm that the marketing carrier baggage rules can choose to apply any set of baggage rules, for instance IATA resolution 302 or the operating carrier baggage rules, as long as the same rules apply througho ut the itinerary.

38 EAPP #2 FAQs , page 32.

39 Player Declaration at 6, page 3.

40 Player Declaration at 5, page 2.

41 Hy nes Declaration at 9, page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 12, page 2.

42 Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Fortson Statement page 2.

43 Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Puddifoot Statement page 3.

44 Litschke Declaration at 8, page 3; Co llins Statement page 1; Player Declaration at 6, page 3; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1; Hynes Declaration at 10, page 2; Stumbo Declaration page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 14.2, page 3; Sato
Statement page 2 ; Bryant Statement page 1.9

2. For interline flights or itineraries in the absence of a codeshare agreement such as an online travel agency created itinerary, confirm the first carrier can choose to apply any set of baggage rules, such as the 2 nd operating carrier baggage rules, as long as the same rules apply throughout the itinerary.

3. Confirm that carriers do not have to honor a preceding carrier’s baggage exe mptions throughout an itinerary. Examples include frequent flyer status, credit card holder, passengers i n first or business class seating for one leg of an itinerary but economy class seating in subsequent legs of the same itinerary.

4. Confirm that 399.87 and 399.85 do not apply to an itinerary ticketed and sold on a route not involving the U.S. that is modif ied during irregular operations to include a stop in the U.S.

5. Confirm that 399.87 do es not apply to carry

- on baggage policies.

6. Confirm that “baggage allowance” in 399.87 means rules regarding a passenger’s first and second bag and not additional bags, to be consistent with the section 399.85(c) notice requirements.

7. Section 399.87 FAQ 27, Example 3 :

“ 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. ” 45

Confirm that Carrier B’s baggage allowances and fees could defer to Carrier A’s policies.

8. FAQ 29 states that sec tion 399.87 does not prohibit carriers from using the “most significant carrier” methodology for international flights as set forth in IATA Resolution 302 as conditioned by DOT Order 2009

- 9

- 20. 46 There are two conditions in DOT O rder 2009

- 9

- 20 , the se cond condition states “in the case of code

- share flights that include a point in the United States, the Most Significant Carrier (MSC) shall be the Marketing Carrier.” 47 The IATA definition of the MSC is substantively different and much more complex:

“MOS T SIGNIFICAN T CARRIER (MSC) 3) the MSC is. a) For travel between two or more IATA areas, the carrier performing carriage on the first sector
that crosses from one area to another.

45 EAPP #2 FAQs, page 32.

46 EAPP #2 FAQs, pages 30

- 31.

47 Department of Transportation Order 2009

- 9

- 20, Docket Number OST

- 2008

- 0367, Section 2(b) page 9.10

Exception: IATA area 123 only, the carrier providing carriage on the first s ector that crosses
between IATA area 1 and IATA area 2. b) For travel between IATA Tariff sub

- areas, the carrier performing carriage on the first sector
that crosses from one sub

- area to another. c) For travel within a IATA Tariff sub

- areas, the carrier pe rforming carriage on the first
international sector.” 48

Can the Department explain how section 399.87 as clarified in FAQ 29 does not prevent (and conflict with) the application of IATA Resolution 302 when the definitions of MSC in IATA
Resolution 302 and DOT Order 2009

- 9

- 20 are different? Is a carrier to apply Resolution 302 in all aspects except for the definition of MSC?

9. Can a carrier choose to apply a less restrictive baggage fee (more generous to the passenger) than the fee otherwise applicable under section 399.87?

10. Confirm that itineraries traveling “via” the U

. S

. will be exempt from (1) sections 399.85 and
399.87 and (2) the Department’s two reservations in Order 2009

- 9

- 20

, the same way baggage charges are exempt for itineraries wholly outsi de the U

. S

. For purposes of this request, “via” refers to itineraries that begin and end outside the U.S. but include a
connection or stopover in the U.S.

We note that answers to each of these questions may raise additional questions that will require stakeholders to modify current compliance plans and we respectfully request the Department give the uncertainty on several issues at this late date weighty consideration in its decision to extend the

effective dates.

* * *

The n ew Departme nt baggage rules require many substantial changes from multiple stakeholders

. As described herein, information technology development by the scores of carriers affected by the

rule is highly dependent on standardized t hird party sources of baggage information which is not yet

available . T he changes require U.S. and foreign carriers and vendors to invest enormous amount s
of time, effort, and money to re

- program and up grade their technology systems. Before such systems are put into use

, c arriers must carefully test these changes, as changes made to these systems can ripple through other areas of the business creating unintended harmful side effects for not just carriers, but consumers and travelers as well. Carriers must also extensively train employees before applying changes to the public. C arrier compliance plans cannot be fully completed until stakeholders receiv e additional clarification from the Department

, clarification that may itself lead to additional questions

.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Department extend the effective dates for section 399.87 and section 399.85(c) for one additional year , until January 24, 2013

.

48 IATA Resolution 302.11

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas Mullen Roger Cohen
Assistant General Counsel President Air Transport Association of America, Inc. Regional Airline Association 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20036
202

- 626

- 4000 (202) 367

- 1250 dmullen@airlines.org cohen@raa.org

Edward P. Faberman Douglas Lavin
Executive Direct or Regional Vice President, North America
Air Carrier Association of America International Air Transport Association 1776 K Street, NW Suite 300

– North, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC (202) 719

- 7420 (202) 62 8 9292 epfaberman@acaa1.com lavind@iata.org

November 1 8 , 2011

Attachment

# Attachment 1

# Attachment 2

# Attachment 3

# Attachment 4

# Attachment 5

# Attachment 6

# Attachment 7BEFORE THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

--------------------------------------------------- --- In the matter of: :

: Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT-OST-2 010-0140 Passenger Protections :

--------------------------------------------------- ---

Statement of Michelle Bryant, Lufthansa:

This statement is being submitted with respect the DOT’s Final Rule Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections.

In the absence of automated baggage processing rule s in both our departure control and reservation systems, it is not possible for carrier s, including Lufthansa, to meet the current January 24, 2012 deadline.

Presently, there is no central repository for carri er baggage policies and fees, which means that Lufthansa, like all other airlines, is left to try and find an interim solution at all our stations around the world. This may very well entail receivi ng daily or weekly baggage information from all airlines with which Lufthansa has codesharing/i nterline agreements. This is impractical, and even if such processes are set up, the chances of h aving accurate information for all carriers at all times is improbable.

There are no viable automated solutions to display baggage allowances and fees in our reservation system when the passenger’s reservation is made and ticket is issued or at time of check-in when the passenger is at the airport. Whi le baggage rules are filed with ATPCO our systems are only capable of displaying the Lufthans a baggage allowance and fees. An automated solution to process baggage rules to support both display and pricing of airline ATPCO baggage filings is currently under development by our IT sy stem provider. However, this solution will not be available until the end of 2012 or early 2013. T here are third party solutions to access baggage rules online, but such solutions cannot be used at check-in kiosks since these solutions depend on the internet. Additionally, our check-in agents wo rk on a legacy system which does not have
internet access.

Furthermore, in order for our website to be able to display the baggage rules and fees it will significant changes and coding, which can not be ac complished within the existing timeframe.

Lastly, Lufthansa in the process of migrating its d eparture control system to another platform. In order to migrate from one system to another, we hav e frozen all developments on the current departure control system. The automated baggage so lution would be incorporated on our new check-in system.Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the DO T grant the instant application for an extension

of the deadline to implement 399.87 which would not only benefit the industry, it would also prevent passengers from being subjected to incorrec t calculations of baggage allowances.

Michelle Bryant Manager Distribution Systems and IATA Industry Affairs

Deutsche Lufthansa AG Reservation Systems - FRA IS/R Lufthansa Aviation Center D-60546 Frankfurt/Main
tel. 49 69 696 51056 fax. 49 69 696 39715 e-mail: Michelle.Bryant@dlh.de

November 18, 2011

# Attachment 8Page 1 of 4

Name

L auren Puddifoot

Employee title

All iances Systems Business Partner

Employee responsibilities
I am responsible for ensuring all C odeshares and A lliances work as efficiently as possible through
system development. I have been seconded as Business Owner of this Advanced Baggage Rules
project as I have SME knowledge of our airline reservations system and knowledge of associated
systems and their update processes, including the website and graphic user interfaces (GUIs) used

for customer faci ng roles. I have previously worked on projects applying change across different

areas of our business.

Airline Reservations System

Our airline r eservations system is SHARES B.

Historical explanation of our system

SHARES B is a l egacy Transaction Proce ssing Facility ( TPF ) system developed in the 1970s by
Electronic Data Systems who were bought out in 2008 by HP and now operate as HP Enterprise

Services , based in Los Angeles

. SHARES B is not web

- based and does not use Extensible Markup

Language ( XML ) ; th erefore development of the system takes much longer than a web

- based system.
US Airways also uses this system and Continental operate on a similar platform, SHARES A.

SHARES B is used for the creation of passenger bookings, inventory control, check

- in an d can be used
to message to other global distribution systems (GDSs) through teletype messaging.

We have hundreds of applications that run off of SHARES B . A ny changes that are made to it have to
go through a steering group to assess their business impac t. Changes to these applications are made
in conjunction wit h, or more regularly after, changes to SHARES B.

What the new DOT rule requires in contrast to the capabilities of our systems

1. SHARES B does not currently contain our baggage rules or fees.

Virgin Atlantic currently advises customers of our baggage allowance verbally through our Contact
Centre, in information on our website and on our e

- ticket confirmation e

- mails and faxes. The new
US DOT rule requires Virgin Atlantic to advise passengers of the baggage allowances at the time of
booking through our Contact Centre, on our website

, on e

- tickets and at check

- in . This will all require
SHARES B and secondary applications to contain our baggage rules and additional fees.

2. Our greatest challeng e is to change SHARES B to retrieve these rulings from Airline Tariff
Publishing Company ( ATPCO) and apply them correctly as per the US DOT ruling. This will take aPage 2 of 4

significant amount of the HP programmer’s time, approximately 3000 hours. We are already

w orking with them to ensure we comply wit h the US legislation regarding S ecured F light ‘Overfly’
compliance, and we will have to secure extra resources for this project.

3. Once these changes have been made to SHARES B w e then need to filter these rulings through to
many of our applications that run off SHARES B

.

The main application s we need to change, subsequent to change s to SHARES B:

 Contact Centre GUI

- Vega

 E

- ticket fulfilment system

- ERICA

 Website

 Airports GUI

– Babel

4. We need to file our bag gage rules and additional fees according to US DOT rulings and ensure they
are applied correctly. We are particularly concerned with how these will be applied on multi

- airline
bookings involving codeshare partner s and interline partner airline s as there is a significant
difference between the US DOT ruling and IATA resolution 302 regarding marketing flights and
operating flights.

Our baggage rules and additional fees are f ile d with ATPCO according to IATA resolution 302 for

agents and other airlines to us e through their own computer reservation system ( CRS ) or GDS. W e do not currently use the information in ATPCO in SHARES B as we do not currently have a link
between the two systems

. Therefore other carriers can only access our baggage information through
our filing in ATPCO; they cannot retrieve baggage information from our own system.

Challenges Virgin Atlantic faces in order to meet the DOT rule

1. SHARES B is a legacy system that will take a long time to change

. 2. Many applications also require changing a nd this will take time and can only be changed
once SHARES has been update d

. 3. We have a system code

- freeze every January and early February as t his is our busiest selling
period

.

Virgin Atlantic Airways currently face s challenges to meet the ruling by the 24 th January 2012

because we are reliant on HP, our airline reservation system owner, to change SHARES B to display
ATPCO baggage rulings when quoting fares, issuing e

- tickets and checkin g passengers in at our airports. This change will require a new link from ATPCO to SHARES B to be created and tested . The
data that is fed through will then need to be translated into various areas of SHARES B and HP ha ve estimated that the updates required to meet the US DOT ruling will take approximately 3000 hours.

Thes e changes include: a baggage allowance to be displayed in a fare quote for contact centre
agents to use; baggage allowances and additional baggage rates to be displayed on electronic tickets

and in the automated check

- in record used at our airports. Most o f these updates are in the
planning or design phase and HP have initially estimated changes to be completed by February 2012,

at the earliest . Once th ese change s ha ve been delivered by HP we then have to change ourPage 3 of 4

associated systems and GUIs. These system s cannot be changed until we know how SHARES B will
display our baggage allowances and those of our interline or codeshare partners.

T he SHARES B system is too complicated for all of o ur staff to use, approximately 50 people

company

- wide use

, or are aware of

, the native entries required to use our reservations system

, these employees are mainly in non

- customer facing areas where they maintain and work on projects
to develop SHARES B, namely Commercial Systems and IT . All other users across the globe use a GUI.

In our Co ntact Centres a GUI called Vega is used to enable call centre agents to quickly and
efficiently book passengers. The development of this GUI is done in maintenance cycles, typically
updating Vega 5

- 6 times a year

. This maintenance is carried out by a third party vendor. The next
update is due to be released in late February to early M arch and development for this release must
be completed before January. If HP are not able to develop SHARES B by the end of December then

we will not be able to update V ega until the next release date around May 2012.

Virgin Atlantic staff or agents at our airports also use a GUI system , Babel GUI, that will need to be
updated subsequent to any SHARES B changes. Virgin Atlantic Airways believe s we may be able t o develop this software for late February and the rollout to most of our destinations will take
approximately 2 months. Our Airports Training department have advised me that if this is a small
change then all staff and handling agents globally will be noti fied of the update by their managers
which should only take a matter of days. We predict we will only have to make a small change to the

GUI , but the change is reliant on changes being completed in SHARES B

.

We do not currently show additional baggage pr ices on our e

- ticket confirmation , for our own
flights or for our codeshare or interline partners; this change is again dependent on changes being
made to SHARES B first. The development of our e

- ticket system , ERICA, is handled in

- house by our

IT vendor T CS, the work required to change the e

- ticket is significant and will take 2

- 3 months for
this already stretched team of two subject matter experts. E

- tickets are sent out after bookings are
made by our Contact Centre and on our website

.

Our website is upd ated in maintenance cycles, as Virgin Atlantic Airways do not sell interline sectors
on our website, the development required is not as detailed as that required for SHARES B, and its

content is not as dependent on SHARES B as many of our other systems. A l so as this is all XML and
JavaScript changes it is much easier to update than SHARES B. Therefore we believe we will be able
to make most required changes by the end of this year, with a number being delivered on the 24 th

January itself , in an extraordinar y website maintenance release containing only US DOT required
changes

. As detailed above, the changes to e

- ticket confirmations will still need to be made, e

- tickets

are also sent out when bookings are made on the website.

Timeline

HP have asked us to tak e part in an extraordinary meeting with other SHARES B carriers at the end of
November or early December to further discuss the system changes Virgin Atlantic Airways require
in order to meet the US DOT’s ruling. Development of SHARES B will not begin unti l that meeting is
closed and HP have a clear view of the development all SHARES B carriers require. With a predicted
3000 hours of development we do not have enough time to develop, test and rollout changes inPage 4 of 4

order to meet the 24 th January deadline in SHA RES B, let alone our secondary application s, this is
why we are appealing for an extension to the deadline of 24 th January 2012.

Virgin Atlantic Airways believes as more realistic target would be April 2012.

November

– Representatives from Virgin Atlan tic will attend an ATPCO conference to discuss how
the US DOT rule will be applied. Dependent upon the decisions of this meeting ATPCO may need to
develop their systems, this could take a month. This development will then need to be filtered down
through S HARES B and the GDSs.

I will hopefully meet with HP and other SHARES carriers in November to discuss the changes we all
require to SHARES. However, t his may be moved to early December due to Thanksgiving

celebrations.

December

- January

– HP will work on changing SHARES B. Changes may be made to the SHARES B
test environment in January which will help the developers of Babel GUI, Vega GUI and ERICA

. However, I suspect it will more likely be February.

January

– Once we are aware of the changes that will b e made to SHARES B we may be able to plan
what changes need to be made to our other applications and plan development times more
specifically.
Changes will be made to the website with an extra

- ordinary release that has been approved by IT
Change Managemen t as the only change to be made to a customer facing application during our

code

- freeze.

February

– Virgin Atlantic Airways will start user acceptance testing (UAT) of the changes to the
SHARES B System. Once this is completed we will then be able to star t comprehensive development
of Vega, Babel and ERICA.

March

– We will continue development, UAT and regression testing of our secondary applications.
UAT typically takes 1

- 2 weeks, regression testing takes one further week.

April

– Virgin Atlantic Airway s will roll

- out system changes worldwide and deliver training where
necessary to our global operation. Changes to Vega may be made at the start of May as this is the
approximate date of the next maintenance release, should we miss the December deadline.

P repared 4 th November 2011

# Attachment 9BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------ In the matter of: :

: Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0140 Passenger Protections :

------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Mitsue Sato, All Nippon Airways:

- Since when it was determined that IATA resolutions 300 and 301 were to be expired on March 31st, 2011 and Resolutions 302 would replace them as a common rule for determining baggage rules, the industry has made great efforts to put in place the automated baggage rule in pricing system and DCS system in accordance with Reso 302 and US DOT reservation in order to make them work properly and

more customer an d user friendly.

- However, despite of our great efforts, the industry is still in the middle of the path and is required to keep enhancing the systems to make better handling of baggage for our customers in the new rule

. Especially, what we found out afte r the implementation of IATA Reso 302 with US DOT reservation is that we would need something more for our check

- in agents to handle the same baggage allowance shown on the ticket and apply correct baggage charges based on the baggage allowance information

. Thus, ANA is now working on developing the following new enhancements in our DCS system. 1) To display the baggage allowance information from e

- ticket on the check

- in screen 2) To create a pricing mask of the itinerary from e

- ticket and enable our ch eck

- in agents

to re

- price the ticketed itinerary to find out which carrier is MSC and to show a catalogue of baggage charges for the MSC. 3) As for cases when ANA is MSC, because our baggage charge rules are simple, to

make a table of o ur baggage charges in the system for the check

- in agents to display a pricing mask and sum

- up the charges automatically. 4) And after getting the result of the baggage charge to be applied to the passenger, to issue an automated excess baggag e ticket from the priced information

- Because we currently don’t have the above automated processing in DCS system, we have to take a long time for passenger’ s check

- in. If we could have an internet environment in DCS system, things must have been easier, however our current DCS system in all stations has no capability to use the internet access like as general DCS system in this industry, we need to make changes in the program of our DCS which requires quite a long time usually.

- And while we are working on those remaining system enhancements , U S DOT 399.87 has been clarified, so we reviewed and evaluated the impacts on our current ABR processing in the pricing system

. Here is the summary of the result.

* Firstly the biggest change was that 399.87 has changed the basic assumption in automated baggage rule processing that US DOT reservation is applied over the

m et hodology of IATA Resolutions 302 and not independent. However we now have toput a new thought that the first carr ier could be a 302 opt

- out carrier and the MSC rule

shouldn’t be used in that case. *The system now needs to do an additional itinerary check to differ domestic and international itineraries. And as for the international case, the system need to find out if the first carrier opts out Reso 302 or not. *Please see the attached document for more details of the changes which are now required for 399.87 in our pricing system. The blue colored parts are the new changes.

- Looking at the b ig system impacts we’ve found out as shown in the attachment, ANA has to tell not only us but the industry would need more time for the system developments than 2 months and a half which is allowed for us from today till 24Jan2012 in order to meet the US D OT requirements along with the DCS developments for aligning with the automated baggage rule. Thus we would highly appreciate US DOT would kindly reconsider the extension of the mandate date of 399.87.

_______ /S/

___________ Signature

Mitsue Sato

Assitant Manager, IT Strategy&Planning Marketing & Sales All Nippon Airways

November 11, 2011

### Attachment

≪ Comparison of ABR processing between the current and the future of US DOT Rule 399.87 ≫

Current

Step 1 Check itinerary if US DOT rule shall be applied or not

Step 2 ★ When US DOT rule shall be applied

The first carrier ’ s baggage rule will be applied to the whole itinerary. If the first flight is a code

- share flight, the marketing
carrier ’ s rule will be applied. ★ When IATA 302 shall be applied The baggage rule of MSC shall apply per checked portion. *When MSC files an option of Deferred Marketing Carrier, the marketing carrier’s baggage rule will apply.

Step 3 If there’s no matched rule in MSC’s baggage rule, baggage rule

of the check

- in carrier will apply. If there’s no matched rule in MSC’s baggage rule, baggage rule of the check

- in carrier will be applied.

Step 4 If there ’ s no matched rule either in the check

- in carrier ’ s rule,

blank will be reflected. If there ’ s no matched rule either in the check

- in carrier ’ s rule, blank will be applied.Blue colored parts are new changes by 399.87.

After the implementation of US DOT rule 399.87

Step 1 Check itinerary if it is US domestic itinerary or international one

Step 2 ◆ When US domestic itinerary

⇒ The first check

- in carrier ’ s baggage rule will be applied to the whole itinerary. If the first flight is a code share flight, the marketing carrier ’ s baggage rule will apply. ◆ When international itinerary

⇒ to the next itinerary check if US DOT rule shall apply or not Step 3 ★ When US DOT rule shall apply

Check if the first check

- in (marketing) carrier chooses 302 Opt out option or not ★ When IATA 302 shall apply Baggage rule of MSC will be applied to each checked portio ns. *When MSC sets Deferred Marketing Carrier option, marketing carrier’s rule will be applied.

Step 4 ■When the carrier opts out IATA 302,

⇒ The first check

- in carrier ’ s rule will be applied to the whole itinerary.

■ When the carrier follows IATA 302

⇒ The MSC ’ s rule will be applied to the whole itinerary.
*If the first check

- in carrier or MSC ’ s flight is a code

- share flight, the marketing carrier ’ s rule will be applied. If there’s no matched rule in MSC’s baggage rule, baggage rule of the check

- in carr ier will be applied.

Step 5 If there ’ s no matched rule to the sector, blank will be applied.

# Attachment 10BEFORE THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------ In the matter of: :

: Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0140 Passenger Protections :

------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Daniel Friedli , Hewlett

- Packard:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the final rulemaking as we share in your des ire to protect airline passengers. HP has over 300,000 employees and they help serve the more than 1 billion people who rely on HP technology every day. With business in 170 countries around the world we are no stranger to travel logistics and we work hard to ensure that our employees and customers get to their destina tions safely. Please see our comments below in response to the final rule aimed to enhance airline passenger protections.

Section 399.85c states which information must be provided on the ETKT receipt. As the e

- ticket represents the contract with the clie nt, and not the receipt, we must ensure that the data put on the receipt is stored within the ETK T itself. This is very important to ensure that the same information is given to the customer every time. If we merely pull the data from the data source ( f are s system, ATPCO, etc) and print this on a receipt, any down

- line person or system will not be aware of the exact charges, conditions and other baggage related information that was presented to the passenger.

T he new DOT rule fails to dictate that the fi rst carrier use the methodology as defined in Resolution 302, thus that first carrier could do the determination based on internal rules.
However , these rules will be applicable for the whole journey

. If the rules are not stored in the ETKT itself, they will never be known to any of the down

- line carriers, making it impossible to know or enforce the rules, and reproduce a receipt with the same information.

This means, as a system provider, I cannot offer the functionality my carriers require. In my
humb le opinion, for this to work through all instances, and also in follow

- up transactions such as ETKT exchanges, all data must be stored in the ETKT. Whil e this may be possible in reasonable
time for the airline ’s own system and ETKT’s, transmitting this da ta between airlines, between GDS’s and airlines and between ground handlers and airlines will not be possible until we define an industry standard on how to format and exchange this data.

HPtogether with All Nippon Airways ( ANA ) ), had submitted a genda i tems to IATA’s Ticketing Committee to initiate some of these changes. Aside from the fact that there was opposition to these industry changes, even if these had been approved, the implementation of the changes systematically will take considerable time. Th e reason for this is that the changes to the data being transmitted are considerable. We (and all other involved entities) need to upgrade to anewer version of the EDIFACT and/or XML messages for Electronic Ticketing. These are huge

changes that will take a lot of time

I could imagine that, if the DOT gives us a one year extension, we could drive an interim solution to provide this data in the messages, allowing carriers and other involved parties to fulfill the requirements set forth by the DOT. That wo uld require a few things: a) Review and possible updates to the already submitted agenda items. HP would offer, for the sake of the industry, to suggest the necessary changes and submit these agenda items b) An expedited approval process through IATA/ATA to accept the agenda items c) An interim solution to add these to the interline, GDS and ground handling messages d) The effort of all carriers and system providers to code and test these message changes e) Follow

- up tasks such as then updating the ETKT da tabase, itinerary and receipt printing
routines.

Please take into account that this will be a multimillion dollar industry effort just to do this within the short timeframe given, even with an extension of one year. Preferable would be an
extension of 18 months

– this will not reduce the costs, but allow for a better implementation of the solution, avoiding ‘quick and dirty’ fixes which will have to be re

- coded at a later stage, or only fulfill part of the DOT requirements. Further, we need a freeze on req uirement changes of ABR. This freeze must be for airlines, industry bodies (IATA/ATA), ATPCO and government agencies. We already need to reprogram our systems, less than one year after implementation, to change to the new DOT rules as per 399.87 . Further c hanges may potentially slow us down further, or trigger re

- work of already developed modules.

HP will be more than happy to help with any supporting materials you may need. HP is committed to complying with industry and government standards and regulation s, and to support our hosted carriers in their effort to do so as well. We are also committed to finding the most cost effective but sustainable solutions not only for our airline customers, but also for the airline industry as a whole.

_______ /S/

______________ Signature

Daniel Friedli Office of Strategy & Technology | Business Solutions Product Manager

– Transportation

November 14, 2011

# Attachment 11Page 1

Cathay Pacific Airways

- Airports De partment (AHQ) Update: 4 Nov 2011 Statement from Mr. Russ Fortson, Cathay Pacific Airways

My name is Mr. J. Russ Fortson

– Manager Customer Services and Product Development

– Airports, Steering Committee Chairman of the Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections Cross Departmental Project of Cathay Pacific.

 A historical explanation of CX S ystems Currently, Unisys CUPID and CUPAC are Reservations and Departure Control S ystems use d respectively in C athay Pacific (CX)

. CX has a tentative plan to migrate to Amadeus from its Reservation System CUPID in February 2012 , where Departure Control System will follow in 2013.

Both current syst ems are non

- web

- based and do not have the capability to communicate with other airline systems to obtain required information on baggage and fare information etc

.

E

- Ticket s are issued through CUPID and by online via our website, www.cathaypacific.com

. For online booking s , CX has been using Amadeus as the Internet Booking Engine (IBE) which enabl es customers to booking tickets through the website.

In the back

- end process of online bookings, development work is required for the associated business logic for both CX and Amadeus on the web

- pages . C urrently, it
does not comprise any baggage rules and fees specifically stated in either the web

pages along the online booking flow or the e

- ticket confirmation / recei pt.

 N ew DOT rule s in contrast to the capabilities of your systems The DOT rule is to display the free baggage allowance and applicable fees for the first and second checked bag and carry

- on on the first page of the fare quotation an d

e

- ticket confirmation. Such requirement also applies to itineraries that include
codeshare and/or interline sectors in which case the carrier would need to disclose to the passenger (in the booking flow and e

- ticket confirmation) the baggage policies of

a single carrier (e.g. the Most Significant Carrier) whose policies will b e applied throughout the itinerary

.
There are 2 Key issues:

a. Regarding the mandatory requirement on baggage information to be displayed

in the web booking flow

, and the text for bagga ge allowances and fee of the Most Significant Carrier (MSC) shown in the e

- ticket confirmation receipt, a major gap has been determined

. CX has no capacity to provid e the MSC carrier and their respective baggage fees other than CX.

Today, industry informat ion is also not available in Amadeus resulting in difficulty

for CX to obtain the true MSC for displaying such relevant information in the

web

- pages and in e

- ticket itinerary receipt s

.
An industry solution from ATPCO will be able to provide carrier s with t he required information. H owever there is a dependency on ATPCO solution . ThePage 2

Cathay Pacific Airways

- Airports De partment (AHQ) Update: 4 Nov 2011

implementation date and the timeline for Amadeus to receive this information for display on CX web and e

- ticket receipts is currently not confirmed

.

b. With the Final Rule impleme ntation date of 24 th January 2012, and our Reservation System migration to Amadeus as planned on February 2012

, there will be a time gap of a few weeks that the current CUPID system s will still be in

use after the implementation

. The current Reservation m igration effort is huge

and implementing this solution on two different systems will cause CX duplication of effort, resources and cost . Bearing in mind, the solution implemented in CUPID will be for such a short interim period

.

 What challenges your comp any faces in meeting the new requirements

–

The firs t and greatest challenge we face is the uncertainty of when the industry solution (ATPCO/GDSs) is in place as it is still under development. Without the baggage data provided to drive extra information from baggage pricing, our in

- house ticketing system wo uld not be able to obtain the MSC information appropriately. It is
still not concrete whe n Amadeus would be able to obtain MSC information from ATPCO, and/ or what MSC information could Amadeus provide us before and after the effective date of the rule, i.e

. 24 th January 2012.

Even after the execution of the ATPCO, it is still necessary for internal system development on building the connectively between ATPCO and Amadeus to enable collection of accurate baggage information to process ticketing as accordanc e to the requirement, and to incorporate these information in the CX web

- pages and e

- ticket receipt s . The cost and lead time of such development has not yet been determined with the dependenc y

.

The second challenge is to allocate duplicate resources for two systems develop ment according to the implement ation date as of 24 th January 2012. As
CUPID e

- ticket receipt will no longer be used after Amadeus goes live planned on February 2012 , t hus what needs to be changed for the CUPID ET receipt will only be

u sed for a few weeks after the implementation of the Rule until the migration.

Lastly, with the migration of Reservation CUPID to Amadeus, to ensure stability, CX will have a development freeze period for 3 months after the cutover. The freeze period is subject to further change or extension

. The migration of reservations systems is a huge undertaking within the company and all resources are focused on smooth and successful implementation.

 A proposed timeline for compliance CX has been communicating w ith respective parties, Amadeus and ATPCO to advise

what solutions can work out to provide the true MSC and the timeline ; however the

schedule is still fluid.

Once a fter the ATPCO solution is available, there is a need to establish system connectivity an d CX internal system development for the web

- pages and e

- t icket confirmation display . Therefore, we would like to propose a timeline of six to eight
months after the ATPCO solution is available.Page 3

Cathay Pacific Airways

- Airports De partment (AHQ) Update: 4 Nov 2011 ___ /S/

______________________ Signature

Russ Fortson Manager Customer Services and Product Development

– Airports Cathay Pacific Airways

November 11, 2011

# Attachment 12BEFORE THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------ In the matter of: :

: Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0140 Passenger Protections :

------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Fiona Collins, Business Domain Arch itect for Selling and Servicing, British Airways.

 I am responsible for design and systems architecture for all selling systems in particular ba.com, as well as any servicing activity including excess baggage purchase

- both pre

- paid and at the airport

 We use classic DCS currently which is a bespoke TPF system that is managed for BA by Amadeus. It cannot currently interface with any system other than Ama deus reservations and does not support web

- services in any way.

 The new rules mean that our DCS system needs to be able to communicate with ATPCO to access baggage data

- mainly charges information but also allowances to validate that the

cor rect allowance has been applied.

 Our challenges in meeting the U.S. DOT rules are two fold

- our current DCS system is not currently capable of supporting any web

- services functionality and our agents don't have
access to web

- enabled front ends at the majority of our ai rport locations except in the back offices (which may not be anywhere near the actual customer service desks). In addition, upgrading to a new DCS makes more sense than modifying an older system. It takes time to get through the upgrade decision process.

___ /S/

_____________________ Signature

Fiona Collins British Airways