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 Newton Bolling

Vice President and Deputy General Counsel

Richard A. Fiore

Associate General Counsel-Litigation & 

Intellectual Property

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

233 South Wacker Drive

11th 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 Rules 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, 20132(the “Complaint”). The Complaint 

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 Airport (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 United 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 Rules4

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 all 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 respect 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 are wholly without merit.

II. Responses to the Specific Allegations Set Forth in the Complaint5

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 allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.

2. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, 

except that United denies that PrimeFlight provides security services for United at PHL.

3. United admits the allegations 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 understands that Complainant Smith has been employed by PrimeFlight 

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. United 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 the 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 Complainants.

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 allegations 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 the Complaint with respect to the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. United admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 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 18 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 Id.
Answer of United

Page 5 of 8

20. United is without sufficient 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 denies 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 

PHL.

22. United denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint. As 

shown by training 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 25 of the Complaint. As 

shown by training 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 allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

United repeats its response to Paragraph 20 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 allegations 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 reference 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 deny 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 Complainant 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 received

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, PrimeFlight and their wheelchair 

supplier, Aviation Mobility, LLC.

37. United is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegation 

contained in Paragraph 37 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.