BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

--------------------------------------------------------------- KYLA THORINGTON
, et al. :
: Complainants, :
v. : Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0092

: UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and : PRIMEFLIGHT AIRLINE SERVICES, INC. :
: Respondents. :

---------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Thomas New ton Bolling Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Richard A. Fiore Associate General Counsel

- Litigation & Intellectual Property UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 233 South Wacker Drive 11 th Floor

- HDQLD Chicago, IL 60606 (872) 825

- 8068 (872) 825

- 7077 thomas.bolling@united.com richard.fiore @united.com
Douglas P. Kelley Senior Counsel

- Regulatory, Antitrust & Competition UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 1600 Smith Street HQSLG

- 15 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 324

- 5156 doug.kelley@united.com

June 7 , 2013 Karine R. Faden Managing Counsel

- Regulatory, Antitrust & Competition UNITED AIRLINES, INC. 1225 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 1100 DCALD Washington, DC 20005 (202) 521

- 4363 karine.faden@united.com
Lorraine B. Halloway Gerald F. Murphy Steven J. Seiden CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202) 624

- 2500 lhalloway@crowell.com gmurphy@crowell.com sseiden @crowell.com

Counsel for United Airlines , Inc.BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

--------------------------------------------------------------- KYLA THORINGTON
, et al. :
: Complainants, :
v. : Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0092

: UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and : PRIMEFLIGHT AIRLINE SERVICES, INC. :
: Respondents. :

---------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

I. Introduction

Pursuant to Rule s 405 and 408 of the Department’s Rules of Practice, Respondent United
Airlines, Inc. (“United”)
, 1 submits this Answer to the Complaint of Contractor Employees
Assisting Passengers of United Airlines at Philadelphia International Airport filed by Service
Employees International Union ( “ SEIU ” ) on behalf of Complainants Kyla Thorington, Henry
Carter, John Stewart and Shante Smith on May 2, 2013 2 (the “Complaint”)

. The C omplaint
alleges that United and PrimeFlight violated the Air Carrier Access Act ( “ ACAA ” )
, 3 as

1 United also submits this answer on behalf of Respondent PrimeFlight Airline Services, Inc. (“PrimeFlight”), a contractor that performs functions concerning passengers with disabilities for United at Philadelphia International Air port (PHL)

. See 14 C.F.R. § 382.15; see also Order 2009

- 1

- 3 at 2.

2 United filed an uncontested motion for, and the Department granted, an extension of time for United to file its answer to the Complaint until May 31, 2013. See Uncontested Motions of Un ited for an Extension of Time to File an Answer dated May 15 and 30, 2013 and Notices Granting Motion of United Airlines dated May 17 and 31, 2013 in this docket.

3 Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. § 41705 (2006).Answer of United

Page 2 of 8

amended
, and certain implementing regulations under Part 382 of the Department’s Rules 4
relating to the training of contractor employees and the condition of equipment used by
PrimeFlight to assist passengers with disabilities. There is no basis for the Department to
institute a formal enforcement proceeding and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice

. United takes its regulatory obligations under Part 382 and the needs of its disabled
customers very seriously. United is committed to ensuring that its own employees and the
employees of its vendors receive all training mandated under Part 382 before they provide
assistance to disabled passengers and that a ll of the equipment used to do so is in good working

order. United serves approximately 28,824 passengers on 319 weekly flights to/from PHL and
contracts with PrimeFlight to provide skycap, wheelchair, and lobby services at the airport.
United maintains daily contact with PrimeFlight at PHL , regularly audits its operations and

records
, and inspects its equipment

. Since it began working with PrimeFlight in 2009, United’s
oversight activities have not revealed any significant compliance shortcomings. United has not
received any Part 382 complaints at PHL with res pect to the regulations cited in the Complaint

. Nor has it received any involving the Complainants. Moreover, United is producing evidence
that directly contradicts the unsubstantiated allegations raised in the Complaint. The
Complainants’ allegations ar e wholly without merit.

II. Responses to the Specific Allegations Set Forth in the Complaint 5

Pursuant to Rule 408(b) of the Department’s Rules of Practice, United’s responses to
each specific allegation contained in the Complaint are as follows.

A. Parties

4 14 C.F.R. § 382.1 et seq

. 5 The paragraph numbers in this Answer correspond to the paragraph numbers beginning on page 4 of the Complaint.Answer of United

Page 3 of 8

1. United admits the allegation s contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. United admits the allegation s contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint
, except that United denies that PrimeFlight provides security services for United at PHL

.

3. United admits the a llegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint,
except insofar as United understands that Complainant Carter has been employed by PrimeFlight
for just over two, rather than two and one half, years. 6

5. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint,
except insofar as United understand s that Complainant Smith has been employed by Prime Flight
for less than one and one half, rather than two
, years. 7

B. Count I

7. United repeats each of its responses to Paragraphs 1

- 6 of the Complaint.

8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint simply restates portions of 14 C.F.R. § 382.141
and does not require a response.

9. U nited admits that PrimeFlight initially hired Complainant Thorington as a
line queue representative and transferred her to a wheelchair attendant position. Answering
further, United states that Complainant Thorington was hired by PrimeFlight on December 18,

2012
, and placed in a line queue representative position until a wheelchair attendant position

became available on December 21, 2012 . As indicated by the attached training records bearing
her signature, Complainant Thorington was provided th e same training by PrimeFlight as the

6 See Exhibit A.
7 See Exhibit B.Answer of United

Page 4 of 8

other three wheelchair attendant C omplainants

. 8 PrimeFlight provided Complainant Thorington

with six hours of new hire orientation and six hours of on

- the

- job training over a two

- day
period

. 9

10. United admits the alle gations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. United denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
The content of the training Complainant Thorington was provided by PrimeFlight was the same

as the training PrimeFlight provided to the other wheelchair attendant Complainants and is
clearly indicated by training records bearing her signature. 10

C. Count II

12. United repeats each of its responses to Paragraphs 1

- 11 of the Complaint.

13. Paragraph 13 of the Complaint simply restates portions of 14 C.F.R. § 382.95
and does not require a response.

14. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint simply restates portions of 14 C.F.R. §

382.141 and does not require a response.

15. United repeats its response to Paragraph 9 of t he Complaint with respect to the
allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint

.

16. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 6 of the Complaint.

17. United repeats its response to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint with respect to
the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint

.

18. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 8 of the Complaint.

19. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.

8 See Exhibits A, B, C and D.
9 See Exhibit C.
10 I d

.Answer of United

Page 5 of 8

20. United is without sufficien t knowledge to admit or deny the allegations
contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint with respect to Complainant Carter’s unspecified
“February 2013” interaction with a passenger and a PrimeFlight supervisor

. United denies the
allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint regarding Complainant Carter not having
received any training on the use of a “sling” or lift. Answering further, United states that it does
not utilize such equipment at PHL and thus there is no requirement that wheelchair attendants

like Complainant Carter be trained on its use. United also notes that it did not receive any
complaints with respect to the proper use assistive equipment at PHL during February 2013, or

any complaints involving Complainant Carter.

21. United denie s the allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
United repeats its response to Paragraph 20 with respect to the allegation that Complainant
Carter was required to be trained on the use of a “sling” or lift to support United’s operations at

P HL

.
22. United denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. As
shown by t raining records bearing his signatures, PrimeFlight provided Complainant Stewart

with six hours of new hire orientation and six hours of on

- the

- job training over a two

- day
period. 11

23. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.

24. United denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
United repeats its response to Paragraph 20 with respect to the allegation that a wheelchair
attendant like Complainant Stewart was required to be trained on the use of a “sling” or lift to
support United’s operations at PHL

.

11 See Exhibit D.Answer of United

Page 6 of 8

25. United denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 5 of the Complaint. As
shown by t raining records bearing Complainant Smith’s signatures, PrimeFlight provided her

with six hours of new hire orientation and six hours of on

- the

- job training over a two

- day
period. 12

26. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. United denies the alleg ations contained in Paragraph 2 7 of the Complaint.
United repeats its response to Paragraph 2 0 with respect to the allegation that a wheelchair
attendant like Complainant Smith was required to be trained on the use of a “sling” or lift to
support United’s operations at PHL

.
D. Count III

28. United repeats each of its responses to Paragraphs 1

- 27 of the Complaint.

29. Paragraph 29 of the Complaint simply restates portions of 14 C.F.R. §
382.141 and does not require a response.

30. United denies the allegation s contained in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
United also notes that it did not receive any complaints with respect to requests for
communication accommodation at PHL during the past three years, or any complaints involving
Complainants Thorington, Carter, Stewart and Smith.

E. Count IV

31. United repeats each of its responses to Paragraphs 1

- 30 of the Complaint.

32. Paragraph 32 of the Complaint simply restates portions of 14 C.F.R. § 382.91
and does not require a response.

12 See Exhibit B.Answer of United

Page 7 of 8

33. Paragraph 33 of the Complaint omits a ref erence to the requirements on which
Complainants purport to rely ( i.e ., “The requirements of imply...”) and thus United is without
sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations contained therein.

34. United is without sufficient knowledge to admit or den y the allegation
contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. Answering further, United states that it did not
receive any complaints with respect to the condition of wheelchairs at PHL during the week of
April 8, 2013, or any complaints involving Compla inant Carter.

35. United is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation
contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint. Even so, United notes that it did not receive any
complaints with respect to the condition of wheelchairs at PHL
, or any complaints involving
Complainants Carter or Stewart during the past three years.

36. United is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation
contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint. In addition to the fact that United has not receiv e d
any complaints with respect to the condition of wheelchairs at PHL at any time over the past
three years
, United notes that the 18 wheelchairs PrimeFlight utilizes to provide service to
disabled passengers at PHL are regularly inspected by United, Prime Flight and their wheelchair
supplier, Aviation Mobility, LLC.

37. United is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation
contained in Paragraph 3 7 of the Complaint. United repeats its response to Paragraph 36 with

respect to the inspection of wheelchairs and complaints regarding their condition.

III. Affirmative Defenses
United asserts the following affirmative defenses to the Complaint in accordance with
Rule 408(b) of the Department’s Rules of Practice.

A. The Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.