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.comBEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Petition for Rulemaking and Third Party Complaintof 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 schedulechange of24 minutes• earlier than originally bargained-for in Petitioner•s ticket purchase is hardly 11minor11 : 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 11policy11 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 ContractofCarriage, which under the circumstances should more appropriately becalled Delta•s 11ContractofAdhesion11?). 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 ofan unwelcome, unilateral schedule change after ticket purchase may receive a full refund, without penalty ofany-2-
kind, is strictly the 11gastronomicjurisprudence11 ofthe particular Reservations Agent or Supervisor whom a passenger may draw is repugnant and intolerable. This is particularly true in the continuing presence of49 USC §41712 in both the air transportation and foreign air transportation arenas:

11 Unfairand deceptive practicesand unfair methods of competition: (a)In General-

...ifthe 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 practiceor an unfair method ofcompetition in air transportation or the sale ofair transportation. Ifthe 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

### IComplainant know that 11gastronomicjurisprudence11 is the order ofthe 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. Whatthey should not befree todo is tomake unilateral schedule changesatwill withouttheirpassengers having a new, expresscontractual rightto receivea full refund upon request, ora penalty-freeticketchange, ifany schedulechangewhatsoever isunacceptableto him/her. Implying that Rule 240(b) somehow extends to schedule changes rather than delays is nothing less thansophistry on the partofDelta, whose legalistic efforts-3-

made in preparing its Answer in this Docket would be far-better put to use in correcting and amplifying its Contractof Carriage to suit its passengers' convenience rather than its own. (5)At Page 3 ofits Answer, in the first full paragraph@ Lines 4-9, Delta displays a further, hefty chunkofits intrinsic greed. Delta "offers (the) convenience" ofa fully-refundable, penalty-free ticket. And, yes, "it costs more.11 What Delta has not told the Department is howmuch 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 CLT-MSP-ANC-MSP-CLT ticket cost $705 round-trip. (b)The Delta website offered one ofthe worst deals imaginable to provide the "convenience" ofavoiding a $150 domestic change penalty and non-refundability $744 extraeach way,or $1,488overandabovethe baseticketpriceof$705 round-trip. Thiscomes toan appalling 311% ofthebaseticketprice. In brief, Delta's totally-useless and insulting "offer ofconvenience" is nothing less than positive proofofits arrogance when it comes to mulcting its passengers of change penalties of$150 per domestic ticket changes, and refusing to refund thesetickets 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 Bellen, chooses to manipulate the facts ofmy 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 ofa $150 one to suit Delta. Instead, Idecided 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 emailed reply to me was the

### -4-

act ofan arrogant fool, which is precisely what Icalled 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 Icalled him a damned idiot for interpreting my request as one for "a waiver or favor. 11 Instead, Idid what Iwas going to do all along, in the absence ofvoluntary, 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 ofair fares": butonly 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 TransportAssociation 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 USDOT 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, ifduly 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, USDOT' '**-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 ofthe foregoing been served on this 17 initial Petition for Rul Mail.