BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Third Party Complaint of 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0109 

REPLY TO ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

July 17,2012 

Donald L. Pevsner 

Attorney-at-Law 

2010 Valle Cay Drive 

Vilas, NC 28692 

TEL.: (828)297-7823 

FAX.: (828)297-7824 

EMAIL: DonPevsner@aol. com 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Petition for Rulemaking and 

Third Party Complaint of 

Donald L. Pevsner, Esq. 

Docket DOT -OST -2012-0109 

REPLY TO ANSWER OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

COMES NOW Donald L. Pevsner, Esq., and replies to Delta Air Lines, 

Inc. •s Answer to the Petition and Third Party Complaint, and thereby 

says: 

(1 )There is every basis, in law and in fact, for a rulemaking as originally 

filed on July 6, 2012. And that filing is totally meritorious. 

( 2 )A schedule change of 24 minutes• earlier than originally bargained-for 

in Petitioner•s ticket purchase is hardly 11 minor 11 : particularly when the 

departure at issue has been unilaterally made earlier by Delta as the air 

carrier. That being said, however, it is now totally clear that Delta•s 

own internal 11 policy 11 concerning refunds ,as well as flight changes without 

any penalties whatsoever being assessed against the purchaser for same, 

is not only obscure beyond belief (how many ordinary passengers have ever 

even heard of Rule 240(b), let alone read its boilerplate text in Delta•s 

Contract of Carriage, which under the circumstances should more appropriately 

be called Delta•s 11Contract of Adhesion 11 ?). but is prima facie discriminatory 

insofar as it is routinely interpreted differently by different Delta Reservations 

Agents and Supervisors to different passengers. A corporate situation at 

Delta (and all other similar carriers) in which the final decision on whether 

or not a passenger who is the victim of an unwelcome, unilateral schedule 

change after ticket purchase may receive a full refund, without penalty of any 
-2-

kind, is strictly the 11 gastronomic jurisprudence 11 of the particular Reservations 

Agent or Supervisor whom a passenger may draw is repugnant and intolerable. 

This is particularly true in the continuing presence of 49 USC §41712 in both 

the air transportation and foreign air transportation arenas: 

11 Unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition: 

(a) In General- ... if the Secretary considers it is in the public 

interest, the Secretary may in\estigate and decide whether an 

air carrier, foreign air carrier or ticket agent has been or is 

engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or an unfair method 

of competition in air transportation or the sale of air transportation. 

If the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, 

finds that an air carrier, foreign air carrier or ticket agent is 

engaged in an unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of 

competition, the Secretary shall order the air carrier, foreign air 

carrier, or ticket agent to stop the practice or method. 11 

( 3) How does Petitioner I Complainant know that 11 gastronomic ju risprudence 11 

is the order of the day at Delta Air Lines, Inc. in particular? Because, after 

filing the pleading in this Docket 11 days ago, he went back to a different 

Delta Air Lines Reservations Supervisor than the one who had perfunctorily 

refused him a penalty-free ticket change, and changed his reservation without 

penalty to a schedule that now better suits his planned itinerary. Res ipsa 

loquitur. 

( 4) Carriers such as Delta are totally free to change their schedules at 

will without their Contracts of Carriage being violated by virtue of such 

changes. What they should not be free to do is to make unilateral schedule 

changes at will without their passengers having a new, express contractual 

right to receive a full refund upon request, or a penalty-free ticket change, 

if any schedule change whatsoever is unacceptable to him/her. Implying 

that Rule 240(b) somehow extends to schedule changes rather than delays 

is nothing less than sophistry on the part of Delta, whose legalistic efforts 
-3-

made in preparing its Answer in this Docket would be far-better put to use 

in correcting and amplifying its Contract of Carriage to suit its passengers' 

convenience rather than its own. 

(5)At Page 3 of its Answer, in the first full paragraph@ Lines 4-9, 

Delta displays a further, hefty chunk of its intrinsic greed. Delta 

"offers (the) convenience" of a fully-refundable, penalty-free ticket. 

And, yes, "it costs more. 11 What Delta has not told the Department is 

how much more. Petitioner will happily redress that deliberate omission by 

Delta~ which also explains the contempt with which he continues to regard it: 

(a) Petitioner's original CL T-MSP-ANC-MSP-CLT ticket cost $705 round-trip. 

(b) The Delta website offered one of the worst deals imaginable to provide 

the "convenience" of avoiding a $150 domestic change penalty and non-refundability 

$744 extra each way,or $1,488 over and above the base ticket price of $705 

round-trip. This comes to an appalling 311% of the base ticket price. In brief, 

Delta's totally-useless and insulting "offer of convenience" is nothing less than 

positive proof of its arrogance when it comes to mulcting its passengers of 

change penalties of $150 per domestic ticket changes, and refusing to refund 

these tickets when unilateral Delta schedule changes are unacceptable to its 

passengers, for whatever reason. 

( 6 )Adding insult to injury, Delta's Associate General Counsel, one Alexander 

Van der Bell en, chooses to manipulate the facts of my single, prior contact 

with him in this matter for his own convenience. The Delta Reservations 

office is not supposed to be, and should not remotely resemble, a Middle 

Eastern rug bazaar. And I was not about to accept a $75 change penalty in 

lieu of a $150 one to suit Delta. Instead, I decided to email Mr. Van der Bellen 

and tell him that I would file a formal Petition for Rulemaking on point if 

Delta did not promptly "clean up its act." His emai led reply to me was the 
-4-

act of an arrogant fool, which is precisely what I called him in a brief, 

follow-up message: 

"This office does not grant waivers or favors. Go call Delta Customer Care." 

was compelled to raise the stakes on what Mr. Van der Sellen now calls "rude 

and abusive behavior" when I called him a damned idiot for interpreting my 

request as one for "a waiver or favor. 11 Instead, I did what I was going to 

do all along, in the absence of voluntary, curative policy changes by Delta: 

I filed the pleading in this Docket, which obviously demands corrective action 

by the Department in order to stop Delta and its fellows from continuing to 

mulct and victimize its customers, in both air transportation and foreign air 

transportation. (You may choose to call it the "Van der Sellen Retribution Act.") 

(7) Delta is rather smug in concurring with the obvious fact that "the Airline 

Deregulation Act of 1978 abolished the CAB and ended government regulation 

of air fares": but only in domestic air transportation,Mr. Vander Bellen! 

On reflection ,my suggestion in the original Petition for Rulemaking and 

Third Party Complaint that the Department attempt to "jawbone" the Air 

Transport Association membership in order to drastically-lower the current $150 

change penalty on domestic tickets sticks in my craw. Therefore, I hereby 

withdraw it. Instead, a powerful U.S. Federal agency such as US DOT can 

accomplish a good deal of reform in this matter by implementing the new 

langauage that I have proposed for mandatory insertion in all air carriers' 

Contracts of Carriage. Why? Because, if duly implemented under USDOT Order, 

every domestic schedule change will automatically give the passenger a right 

to receive a full refund,as well as (obviously) a penalty-free ticket change, 

in air transportation. It will not matter one whit what deregulation may 

have given the carriers as a free gift all those decades ago. Instead, US DOT 
' ' 

-s~ 

can now proceed to belatedly protect the domestic air passenger consumer 

within the present powers that 49 USC has bestowed upon it. In other 

words, if you are precluded by past legislative stupidity from going in via 

the front door, then damned well use the back door, giving the air carriers 

your best regards as you sail on by to victory. 

July 17, 2012 

Donald L. evsne 

Attorney-at-Law [pro 

2010 Valle Cay Drive 

Vilas, North Carolina 28692 

TEL.: (828)297-7823 

FAX.: (828)297-7824 

EMAIL: DonPevsner@aol.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of the foregoing 

been served on this 17 

initial Petition for Rul 

Mail.