Order 2010-11-15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

On the 15th day of November, 2010

Compania Panameña de Aviación, S.A., Docket OST 2010-0005

 d/b/a Copa Airlines, Inc. (Copa)

Served November 15, 2010

Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 

14 CFR 399.84 

CONSENT ORDER

This consent order concerns Internet advertisements by Compania Panameña de 

Aviación, d/b/a Copa Airlines, Inc. (Copa) that violated the full fare advertisement 

requirements specified in 14 CFR Part 399 as well as 49 U.S.C. § 41712, which prohibits 

unfair and deceptive practices. It directs Copa to cease and desist from future violations 

of Part 399 and Section 41712, and assesses the carrier a compromise civil penalty of 

$50,000.

Applicable Law

As an air carrier, Copa is subject to the advertising requirements of Part 399 of the 

Department’s rules. Under section 399.84 of those rules, any advertising by an air carrier 

that states a price for air transportation is considered to be an unfair or deceptive practice 

or unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 unless the price stated 

is the entire price to be paid by the customer to the air carrier for such air transportation. 

Under long-standing enforcement case precedent, the Department permits taxes and fees, 

such as passenger facility charges and departure taxes, that are collected by carriers and 

other sellers of air transportation to be stated separately in advertisements, so long as the 

charges are levied by a government entity and are collected on a per passenger basis. 
–2–

Thus, for example, passenger facility charges (PFC) and international departure taxes, 

with proper disclosure, may be stated separately from the advertised base fare, but the 

federal transportation excise tax, which is assessed as a percentage of the ticket price, i.e., 

on an ad valorem basis, and carrier or agent-imposed fees and charges, such as fuel

surcharges or insurance surcharges, may not be stated separately from the advertised base 

fare. 1

Further, in Internet advertising displays, the full fare may be stated on the first screen that

displays fares or a base fare may be displayed so long as the existence and amount of 

permissible separately-stated additional charges is prominently disclosed on that page or 

through a clearly presented hyperlink that takes the consumer directly to a place on 

another page showing the nature and amounts of those charges. Failure to comply with 

these requirements violates section 399.84 and Department case precedent and constitutes 

an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

2

In addition, as detailed in 49 CFR Part 1510, there are specific disclosure requirements 

pertaining to the September 11th Security Fee of $2.50 per enplanement on passengers of 

domestic and foreign carriers in air transportation originating at airports in the United 

States. Pursuant to section 1510.7, air carriers and foreign air carriers are specifically 

required to identify and ensure that their agents identify this fee as the “September 11th

Security Fee” in all advertisements and solicitations for air transportation where it is not 

included in the advertised base fare. This office considers the failure of a carrier or ticket 

agent to identify the September 11th Security Fee as required by section 1510.7 to 

constitute a separate and distinct unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C.

§ 41712. 3

Facts and Conclusions

For a lengthy period during 2009 and 2010, Copa posted Internet fare advertisements on 

its website at http://www.Copaair.com that quoted prices for numerous airfares that did 

not include applicable fuel surcharges. By failing to include fuel surcharges in its base 

fares, Copa violated 14 CFR 399.84 and engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice and 

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

 1 See, e.g., Roni Herskovitz, Individually, and Ultimate Fares, Inc., OST Docket 2009-0002, Order 2009-

11-8 (Nov. 9, 2009). See also Department notices entitled Disclosure of Airfare Variations: Web vs. Other 

Sources; Surcharges that may be Listed Separately in Advertisements (Nov. 4, 2004); Disclosure of 

Additional Fees, Charges, and Restrictions on Airfare Advertisements, Including ‘Free’ Airfares (Sept. 4, 

2003); and Prohibition on Deceptive Practices in Marketing of Airfares to the Public Using the Internet

(Jan. 18, 2001). All notices are available at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/guidance.html.

2

 See, e.g., Air Jamaica, Ltd., Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 399.84, Order 2008-12-25 

(December 30, 2008).

3 See, e.g., A Better Fare, LLC, Violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 399.84, Order 2003-1-12 (Jan. 

16, 2003).
–3–

Further, on Copa’s Internet website, when consumers initiated searches for round-trip

airfares, the search process began with a four-step, four-page process, depending on the 

prospective customer’s flexibility regarding travel dates. On the initial screen, consumers 

were required to enter their desired routes and departure dates and, via a selection feature, 

their travel-date flexibility, i.e., either “Exact dates” of travel or “Flexible dates.”4

Consumers who desired round-trip travel on “Flexible dates” entered this information and 

on the second page were presented with the lowest available fare on each day Copa 

operated. At this point in the booking process, Copa presented customers with a set of 

fares corresponding to their search parameters that did not include additional government

taxes and fees, and did not provide consumers any notice on that page that additional 

taxes and fees were applicable to the airfares listed. By failing to provide any notice of 

the existence, nature and amount of the taxes and fees applicable to these fares at the first 

point the fares were disclosed to consumers, Copa violated 14 CFR 399.84 and engaged 

in an unfair and deceptive practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712. Moreover, the September 11th Security Fee was one of the additional 

taxes and fees that was not included in the advertised price and was not disclosed as 

required, which constitutes a separate and distinct violation of section 41712.

Mitigation

In mitigation, Copa states that it takes its obligations under the Department’s full fare 

advertising rule very seriously; its goal has always been to provide potential customers 

with full and transparent information about Copa’s pricing policies. When the 

Enforcement Office advised Copa of its concerns with pricing information displayed on 

Copa’s website, Copa states it immediately contacted the third-party booking vendor on 

which Copa had relied to develop the relevant displays. According to Copa, it directed 

that vendor to modify the displays promptly, introduced internal controls to better 

oversee Copa fare advertising, and cooperated fully with the Department in resolving this 

matter.

Decision

The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) has carefully 

considered the information provided by Copa, but continues to believe that enforcement 

action is warranted. The Enforcement Office and Copa have reached a settlement of this 

matter in order to avoid litigation. Copa, without admitting or denying any violation, 

consents to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from future violations of 49 

U.S.C. § 41712 and Part 399 of the Department’s regulations, and to the assessment of 

$50,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise assessable pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 46301. 

 4 If a customer indicates that he or she has no flexibility regarding dates from his/her desired travel date, the 

purchase process is shortened to three-steps/three pages. We note that the violations described herein do not

occur when a consumer follows the abbreviated process. 
–4–

This compromise assessment is appropriate considering the nature and extent of the 

violations described herein and serves the public interest. It represents an adequate 

deterrence to future noncompliance with the Department’s advertising requirements by 

Copa, as well as by other air carriers and foreign air carriers. 

This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR 1.57a and 14 CFR 385.15.

ACCORDINGLY,

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

this order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that Copa violated 14 CFR 399.84 by causing to be published air fare 

advertisements that failed to state the entire price to be paid by the consumer at 

the first point at which the fare was displayed;

 3. We find that by engaging in the conduct described in ordering paragraph 2, above,

and by not identifying in its Internet advertisements the September 11th Security 

Fee by name, as required by 49 CFR 1510.7, Copa also engaged in an unfair and 

deceptive practice and unfair method of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C.

§ 41712; 

 4. We order Copa and all other entities owned or controlled by or under common 

ownership with Copa and their successors and assignees, to cease and desist from 

further violations of 14 CFR 399.84 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712;

 5. We assess Copa a compromise civil penalty of $50,000 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, $25,000 shall be due and payable 

within thirty (30) days of the date of the issuance of this order. Any unpaid 

portion of the assessed civil penalty shall be due and payable immediately if Copa 

violates this order’s cease and desist or payment provisions during the 12 months 

following the service date of this order; and 

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

Communication System, commonly known as “Fed Wire,” to the account of the 

U.S. Treasury. The wire transfers shall be executed in accordance with the 

instructions contained in the Attachment to this order. Failure to pay the 

compromise penalty assessment as ordered shall subject Copa to an assessment of 

interest, penalty, and collection charges under the Debt Collection Act, and to 

possible enforcement action for failure 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:

ROSALIND A. KNAPP

Deputy General Counsel

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulations.gov