BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Benjamin Edelman, 

Third-party Complainant 

v. 

American Airlines, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2013-0024 

ANSWER OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

Comments with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Alec Bramlett, Esq. 

Senior Litigation Attorney 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

P.O. Box 619616 MD 5675 

D FW Airport, Texas 7 5161 

Dated: March 22, 2013 

Robert P. Silverberg, Esq. 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, LLP 

1101 30th Street, NW 

Suite 120 

Washington, DC 20007 

Tel: 202-944-3300 

E-Mail: rsilverberg@sgbdc.com 

Attorneys for 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 
Benjamin Edelman, 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Third-party Complainant 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket DOT-OST-2013-0024 

V. 

American Airlines, Inc. 

ANSWER OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

American Airlines, Inc. ("American") hereby answers the complaint filed by Benjamin 

Edelman ("Mr. Edelman" or "complainant") alleging that American misrepresented airline 

imposed fees as taxes, thereby violating 49 U.S.C. §41712. Except to the extent indicated, 

American denies the allegations. The Supplement hereto sets out, in compliance with Rule 

408(b ), the specific admissions and denials as required even though the structure of the 

complaint does not lend itself to such precise pleading. If there is any factual statement that is 

not specifically addressed in this answer including the supplement, it should be deemed as 

having been denied. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

American urges the Department to decline to institute a formal enforcement proceeding 

based on Mr. Edelman's complaint. For the most part, the complaint alleges conduct that 

occurred prior to April 21, 2012, when the Department's relevant enforcement policy took effect. 

Specifically, DOT provided carriers and ticket agents a reasonable opportunity (by April 21, 

2012) to revise their advertising and websites to conform to its February 21, 2012 Notice 

"Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements" (77 Feg.Reg. 11618, February 

27, 2012; hereinafter "DOT Notice" or "Notice"). Enforcement action based on ticket price 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 2 of 16 

quotations prior to April21, 2012 would be inconsistent with the Notice. Further, the complaint 

otherwise fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted by seeking refunds that are 

beyond DOT's authority to order, there being no private right of action under 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

See Statland v. American Airlines, Inc., 998 F.2d 539, 541 (ih Cir. 1993)([§ 411, later 

renumbered §41712] "does not create a private right to sue"); Polansky v. Trans World Airlines, 

Inc., 523 F.2d 332, 338-40 (3d Cir. 1975)("a private remedy may not be implied from [§41712's 

statutory predecessor]"). 

The complaint also fails to. demonstrate that American's conduct resulted in actual 

material consumer deception. The only issue is whether a telephone reservations agent or in 

written post-transaction correspondence, American accurately distinguished between taxes and 

airline imposed fees. Initiation of a formal enforcement proceeding would not be in the public 

interest since the conduct complained ofhas been addressed. 

A. Background to the Complaint 

Mr. Edelman sent a letter to American's General Counsel on December 31, 2011 seeking 

a refund of$8,261.60 for three separate air fare purchases he made on aa.com in 2011. He 

argued that he should receive a refund because the receipt that aa.com generated after he bought 

the ticket identified BA's fuel surcharge as a tax. For the reasons set forth in American's 

January 11, 2012 response to Mr. Edelman (Complaint, Attachment 4) American denied his 

request and demonstrated that the nonconsequential mislabeling of an interline carrier's charge 

on a post-purchase receipt was not deceptive. American's response also contained a detailed 

description of the AA.com booking path which clearly and correctly labeled all applicable taxes 

and carrier imposed charges. This detail was available and was in addition to the prominent 

display of the full amount of the ticket price prior to the time of purchase. Mr. Edelman, 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 3 of 16 

apparently not satisfied with American's refusal to issue a refund (even though he did not 

substantiate any deception at the time he made his purchase decision based on the quoted full 

ticket price) subsequently lodged informal complaints with DOT on January 14, 2012 and June 

17, 2012. 1 Complaint, p. 1. To the best of American's knowledge, DOT took no action in 

connection with these informal complaints, and should not do so in connection with the instant 

formal complaint. 

B. American is in Compliance with the Price Advertising Rule 

In all channels through which American makes air travel available for sale, American 

makes every effort to be accurate and complete when consumers are making their purchase 

decisions. The current price advertising rule has been in effect and enforced since January 25, 

2012. With one possible exception, the complainant does not allege that he was not quoted the 

full ticket price (including all taxes and fees) prior to making a purchase or when "testing" the 

American reservations system (almost always by calling the AAdvantage Executive Platinum 

desk). The primary objective of the price advertising rule is to require carriers to quote the entire 

ticket price in advertisements and solicitations. If DOT cannot find American actually deceived 

any consumer regarding the full amount to be paid for his or her air transportation, then the 

complaint should be dismissed and Mr. Edelman should be advised ofDOT's reason for its 

determination. Any inadvertent mischaracterization of a component of a ticket price that may 

have occurred after April 21, 2012 does not justify a formal investigation as American has 

already taken steps to address the possibility that a con'sumer would not be correctly advised of 

the nature of any carrier imposed fee. 

1 The records of American show that from time to time Mr. Edelman corresponded with 

American seeking refunds for various reasons and on several occasions American agreed to do 

so as an accommodation to Mr. Edelman. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 4 of16 

C. American Provides its Reservations Agents with Accurate and Complete 

Ticket Price Information Including Taxes and Carrier Imposed Fees 

American has provided to its reservations agents (including the AAdvantage Executive 

Platinum desk with which Mr. Edelman mainly communicated) all ofthe information necessary 

to fully and accurately address customer questions regarding the amount of applicable taxes and 

carrier imposed fees included in the full price of a ticket. While it is possible that telephone 

reservations agents responding to Mr. Edelman's questions may not have accurately stated the 

nature of all such charges when Mr. Edelman made his oral inquiries, American's computerized 

fare quote system was and is accurate and correctly distinguishes between a tax and a carrier 

imposed fee with respect to ticket prices on flights operated by American. 

The ticket price information quoted by American for travel on American and for travel on 

other carriers booked through American is supplied to American from its contractor, Sabre. 

Sabre, in turn, obtains air ticket price information, including all associated taxes and carrier 

imposed fees, from tariff publisher ATPCO. Ticket price details, including the amount of taxes 

and carrier imposed fees, are then populated in American's computerized price displays, with 

each tax and fee assigned an industry standard two-letter code, separately listed in a cell titled 

"Fare Details." If requested by a customer, the reservations agent uses this detailed information 

to address the customer's questions. While Mr. Edelman's complaint alleges that on occasion 

agents responding to his questions did not distinguish taxes from carrier imposed fees, American 

is confident that it has always provided its agents the tools necessary to correctly respond to 

customer inquiries on the elements that comprise the full ticket price . 

When taking a booking by telephone for travel on a codeshare or interline partner, the 

fare detail codes as provided by the partner airline and its tariff based information populates 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 5 of 16 

American's price displays. American has no ability or authority to assign different two-letter 

codes for taxes and fees other than those assigned by the partner airline. If a partner carrier 

supplies fare information and describes a fee in a particular manner, American would not and 

could not question the amount or description of the item. American does not and is under no 

duty to review the fare breakdown provided by its interline or code share partners and reasonably 

presumes the details of their fare calculations are accurate. 

II. GENERAL RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS 

The complaint makes several allegations regarding specific transactions or test calls and 

groups the allegations by type of ticketing transactions or carrier inquiry, which we address in 

turn below. 

A. Revenue Tickets Booked Through 

American's Telephone Reservations System 

The complaint alleges two instances when Mr. Edelman was advised that a portion ofthe 

total ticket price consisted of"taxes" but which he believes included carrier imposed charges. 

One instance was when Mr. Edelman called AA reservations on June 26, 2012 and the other 

instance involved a transaction he initiated on April 20, 2011 (prior to the effective date of the 

price advertising rule). Complaint, pages 1-2; Attachments 1 and 9. In both cases Mr. Edelman 

completed the transactions and there is no allegation that he was deceived at any point as to the 

total price of the transportation he purchased. 

As to the June 26, 2012 transaction, and as described above, the reservations agent with 

whom Mr. Edelman spoke had the accurate information but, according to Mr. Edelman's 

complaint, the agent did not correctly relay to the customer that a portion of the quoted taxes 

included carrier imposed fees. American has taken and will continue to take steps to see that its 

agents provide customers with precise information that distinguishes taxes from carrier imposed 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 6 of 16 

fees. In any event, the eTicket confirmation received by Mr. Edelman for this transportation 

stated the correct amount of taxes and carrier imposed fees. 

As to the April20, 2011 transaction Mr. Edelman was orally advised and it was 

subsequently shown in the eTicket Itinerary and Receipt Confirmation (Complaint, Attachment 

1) that taxes of $792.10 were included in the full ticket price. This allegation involves a ticket 

receipt form that was in prior use but was revised by American in the summer of 2011, as 

detailed in American's initial response to Mr. Edleman's refund request. Complaint, Attachment 

4. American's receipts now reflect the fare, the amount of taxes and carrier imposed fees, and 

the total ticket price. Instituting a formal proceeding to look into matters that have long since 

been addressed is not a productive use of the Department's limited resources. 

B. Circle Tickets 

Mr. Edelman refers to two tickets he purchased for another person from the AA Around 

the World Desk on February 10, 2012 and March 21, 2012 and claims that the taxes quoted upon 

his inquiry included fuel surcharges. Both of these transactions occurred prior to the April21, 

2012 enforcement date established by the DOT Notice. Again, Mr. Edelman completed both 

transactions and is not heard to complain that he lacked the full ticket price information on which 

to base his purchase decision and the eTicket confirmation would have stated the correct amount 

of taxes and carrier imposed fees. 

C. Award Bookings 

Mr. Edelman presents four examples where he made test calls inquiring about AA Award 

travel and states that American misquoted the amount of the applicable taxes associated with the 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 7 of 16 

requested award travel.2 Of the four test calls, two were placed after the effective date of the 

DOT Notice. Mr. Edelman states that "as best I can tell" the agents with whom he spoke all 

included fuel surcharges when quoting the amount of the applicable taxes. As previously 

described, American's price displays allow reservations agents to break out taxes and carrier 

imposed fees. Thus, the complaint has at most pointed to the need for American to emphasize to 

its reservations agents to properly convey the information on their computer displays when 

responding to specific customer inquiries by telephone.3 

Again,·Mr. Edelman was not deceived by incorrect answers since he did not, in fact, 

complete any of the transactions that were the subject ofhis test calls.4 As to the reference in the 

complaint to actual award travel bookings on March 17, 2011 and May 30, 2011 and the related 

eTicket Itinerary & Receipt Confirmations (Complaint, Attachment 2) both transactions were 

conducted and completed before the DOT Notice enforcement date and before American revised 

the format of its eTicket receipt. 

D. Reaccommodation After Flight Cancellation 

The complaint also questions whether consumers receive accurate information regarding 

the imposition of taxes in situations when American offers to reaccommodate passengers when 

their originally booked flights did not operate or a class of service is no longer offered. All of 

the allegations in this section of the complaint are stated as being based on what others told Mr. 

2 A consumer claim of deception or a violation of 49 U.S.C. §41712 is problematic when the 

consumer is not actually intending to make a purchase or otherwise obtain award travel benefits. 

3 As noted previously, American continues to take efforts to enhance the training of its telephone 

reservations agents to ensure the accuracy of ticket price quotations. 

4 The complaint characterizes any unintentional misstatement as to the amount of taxes and fees 

applicable to a particular transaction as a "false" statement and implies that American intended to 

deceive the customer. There is nothing in the complaint to prove or even suggest that American 

purposefully chose to ignore or hide the accurate ticket price information from its reservations 

agents in order to deceive customers. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 8 of 16 

Edelman either by e-mail or telephone about what these unnamed individuals were in tum 

advised by American during the process of being reaccommodated. The complaint does not 

contain and neither American nor the Department has the benefit of any such correspondence 

between Mr. Edelman and these unidentified individuals as to their recollections of what they 

were advised at the time the reaccommdations were being offered. Simply put, the quality of the 

facts alleged in this section is insufficient to establish a violation of any regulation. See Air 

America, Inc. Enforcement Proceeding, Order 86-3-11, December 18, 1985; 5 U.S.C. § 

556(d)("[a] sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the 

whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and suppmied by and in accordance with the 

reliable, probative, and substantial evidence."). This section of the complaint is based on double 

hearsay that simply cannot support a decision on the pa1i of the Department to proceed to a 

fom1al enforcement proceeding. 

E. Around the World Bookings on oneworld 

Mr. Edelman states that the "plan and book" function of the oneworld website incorrectly 

describes carrier imposed fees as taxes. As the Department may be aware, oneworld 

Management Company, on behalf of the oneworld member airlines, created a website that allows 

customers to plan and book "round-the-world" ("RTW") flights using the services of the 19 

oneworld members. This booking tool is the product of oneworld Management Company and 

not American Airlines. 

Mr. Edelman used the oneworld booking tool and presents the results of a test transaction 

as Attachments 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint. Although the complainant concedes that a 

breakdown of taxes and carrier surcharges is provided by oneworld (see Attachment 7), 

American nonetheless raised the issue with the oneworld Management Company and asked that 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 9 of 16 

the website be revised to clarify that the non-fare portion of the total quoted ticket price is made 

up of "taxes and carrier surcharges/fees" (this line item previously read "taxes"). 5 As a result, 

customer who now wish to see the breakdown of the taxes and carrier imposed fees related to a 

RTW ticket will observe that what was formally described as "multiple surcharges" or 

"surcharge" is now labeled "multiple carrier surcharges/fees" and the "Total" line was changed 

to ''total taxes and carrier surcharges" from simply "taxes". These revisions should eliminate 

any unintended confusion regarding the non-fare portions ofRTW fares quoted on the oneworld 

website. 

F. Unjustified Fuel Surcharges 

The complaint acknowledges that American's web based consumer information clearly 

states that fuel surcharges imposed by British Airways apply to award travel arranged through 

American. Complaint, page 6 quoting letter from American's General Counsel to Mr. Edelman 

(Complaint, Attachment 4). 6 But Mr. Edelman goes on to complain that the amount of the fuel 

surcharge "is not a reasonable estimate of the per-passenger fuel costs incurred by the carrier 

above some baseline." Id. The complainant offers no support for this element of his claim other 

than to state the allegation. In any event, the fees associated with award travel booked by 

American on another airline are within the discretion of that airline. In the case of award travel 

on British Airways, American merely collects the fuel surcharge imposed by British Airways for 

such travel. 

5 Attachment 7 is a screen shot of the oneworld website displaying all ticket price components 

under the heading "taxes and surcharges information". 

6 In this section of the complaint, the referenced transaction took place prior to the Notice's 

enforcement deadline. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 10 of 16 

The DOT Notice containing guidance on fuel surcharges does not require a carrier to 

offer a justification ofthe fuel surcharge in any advertisements or solicitations containing ticket 

prices that may include a carrier fuel surcharge. 7 The guidance does state that charges for 

particular services must reflect the actual costs of the service covered. While American can 

question DOT's statutory authority to regulate the amount of carrier imposed charges, suffice it 

to say that there is no reading of the Notice that would impose on American a duty to justify, 

economically or otherwise, the amount charged the passenger by British Airways for fuel in 

connection with award travel on British Airways. 

G. Responses to Customer Inquiries 

The complaint makes the wholly unsubstantiated claim that American misrepresents a 

carrier imposed fee as a tax to deter "consumers from uncovering and pursuing valid claims 

against AA." Complaint, page 7. The complaint contains no evidence of any intentional 

misstatements of facts and, indeed, American has taken steps to see that its telephone 

reservations have the tools and information necessary to correctly and accurately respond to 

customer inquiries. Further, it is unclear what claim a consumer would have even if an error is 

made in advising a customer as to the nature of an element to the ticket price as long as the 

consumer is, in fact, provided the full price of the ticket prior to the time the purchase decision is 

made. While errors may have occurred when reservations agents unintentionally misstated the 

precise nature of a component of a ticket price (even though they have the resources to provide 

accurate information) such a mistake does not justify a refund provided the customer was not 

7 The Notice states that fuel surcharges must be based on a reasonable estimate ofthe perpassenger fuel cost incurred by the charging carrier. While footnote 2 ofthe Notice suggests a 

written form such disclosure may take in a carrier advertisement or solicitation, the suggested 

language is not made mandatory. Further, there is no suggestion that such a lengthy explanation 

of the fuel surcharge would have to be communicated to customers making inquiry by telephone. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 11 of 16 

deceived as to the total purchase price of the ticket at the time of purchase. The complaint 

nowhere alleges that customers did not receive accurate information regarding the total ticket 

price. Therefore, it is more than an exaggeration to claim that American was seeking to deter 

claims by "misrepresenting" certain elements of an air fare. 

The complaint refers to Attachment 8 which appears to be an e-mail to American 

inquiring about the amount of the taxes shown on receipts in connection with the purchase of 

three tickets by Mr. Edelman. Attachment 9 contains American's reply. It is correct that British 

Airways fuel surcharges applicable to all three tickets were inadvertently described as a "fuel tax 

collection by British Airways" when such was not the case. The sums stated are the fuel 

surcharges imposed by American's code share partner. This was an unfortunate lapse on the part 

of American, but it occurred in American's correspondence to Mr. Edelman sent to him seven 

months or more after the date of purchase. Hence, there can be no claim that there was any 

deception ofthe purchaser regarding the sale of these three tickets. It should also be noted that 

the transaction took place in 2011, well before the DOT's ticket price rule became effective and, 

perforce, before DOT's guidance in the Notice became enforceable. In short, American did not 

violate the regulation or statute in connection with responding to these customer inquiries. 8 

H. Full Ticket Price Quotes for Award Travel 

In this section of the complaint, Mr. Edelman claims American did not provide him a full 

price quote at the time he made an initial inquiry about the cost of award travel. Complaint, 

8 This section of the complaint refers to an unrecorded telephone conversation between a 

colleague of Mr. Edelman and an American telephone reservations agent on a date that is not 

provided. Apart from being a report of a second hand conversation based on the colleague's 

recollection as then described to Mr. Edelman, the complaint provides no details of the award 

travel purchased by the colleague and lacks the specificity necessary to establish the basis for 

any further investigation or for any finding of a violation. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 12 of 16 

pages 8-9.9 Specifically he claims that he was not advised of the $25 telephone reservations 

charge, although he concedes that when he called back to actually obtain the award travel that he 

was correctly advised. American imposes a $25 charge when an award booking is taken over the 

American telephone reservations system. AAdvantage Executive Platinum members are not 

charged a fee for telephone bookings for either revenue or award tickets redeemed for member's 

travel. Mr. Edelman states on page 8 of the complaint that his first call to American was on 

behalf of "relatives" and not for himself. 

While there is no recording of the call to verify the details of this telephone exchange, if 

there was an indication to the reservations agent on the AAdvantage Executive Platinum desk 

that the miles were to be used for another person, then the agent should have advised Mr. 

Edelman of the applicable fee during the first telephone contact. Since virtually all calls to the 

AAdvantage Executive Platinum desk are by members for their own travel, such that no 

telephone reservations fees normally apply, the first agent may not have completely understood 

the nature of the transaction and, therefore, the agent may have inadvertently failed to mention 

the applicable telephone reservations fee. 10 In any event, according to Mr. Edelman, American 

correctly disclosed the booking fee during the second of the two telephone calls and, most 

importantly, this disclosure was made prior to the customer's purchase of award travel. 

I. Alleged Counsel Mischaracterizations 

In his complaint Mr. Edelman takes issue with the legal position taken by American in 

correspondence with Mr. Edelman regarding the scope and intent of the DOT Notice. 

9 Mr. Edelman acknowledges that he does not have recordings ofthis call and American cannot 

verify the accuracy of the details of the call made to the American by the complainant. 

10 In the absence of any recording ofthis telephone conversation American does not concede a 

violation of the regulations. 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 13 of 16 

Complaint, Attachments 4 and 13. Although included in the complaint, there is no specific 

allegation that the legal position taken by American in its correspondence to Mr. Edelman is in 

any way actionable. The core issue at the time of these prior exchanges between counsel for 

American and Mr. Edelman was the applicability of the DOT Notice to the facts of his prior 

written requests for refunds. American, like all other carriers, has the right to assert and rely 

upon its own reasonable interpretation of DOT guidance documents and other rules and 

regulations. Apparently, the thrust of this section of the complaint is simply to get on record that 

Mr. Edelman disputes American's reading of the Notice. 

The DOT Notice is clear. The Notice sets out the DOT view that descriptions of carrier 

imposed fees must be accurate and not mislead the consumer. The Notice was issued to address 

what the DOT perceived was an industry-wide issue that came to light after DOT's current ticket 

advertising rule first became effective on January 25, 2012. Specifically, DOT was concerned 

about the display of air fare components being described as "taxes" that also include carrier 

imposed charges. Recognizing that carriers require a reasonable period of time to revise their 

websites and other advertising media to reflect DOT policy on certain advertising and 

solicitation issues, the Department stated clearly as follows: 

"The [enforcement] office will provide those subject to the full fare advertising rule and. 

49 U.S.C. 41712 60 days subsequent to the date of this notice to ensure they are in 

compliance before instituting enforcement action related to the issues covered by this 

notice." 

Mr. Edelman argues that despite the clearly stated enforcement policy of the Notice not 

to apply the new guidance retroactively, the Department should nonetheless institute 

enforcement action for alleged violations that may have occurred prior to the DOT set 

enforcement deadline. His position is obviously inconsistent with the plain intent of the DOT 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 14 of 16 

Notice quoted above. Indeed, what purpose would be served by offering carriers a reasonable 

opportunity to adjust their websites if carriers were at the same time also subject to enforcement 

action for transactions that predate the enforcement deadline? The DOT could have announced it 

intended to immediately institute enforcement cases as described in the Notice should they be 

found in the marketplace, but declined to do so recognizing the obvious unfairness of not 

providing the time necessary for the carriers to make the necessary advertising and website 

adjustments and otherwise to train their staffs to comply with the DOT's newly-issued guidance. 

Mr. Edelman's reading of the Notice is very much wide of the mark and cannot support a DOT 

decision to proceed to a formal inquiry. 

J. Relief Sought 

As previously discussed, the complaint seeks relief that goes beyond the jurisdiction of 

the DOT to impose. But even as to the allegations of violations of 49 U.S.C. §41712 after April 

21, 2012, the complaint lacks sufficient weight to justify a formal proceeding. Although 

individual reservations agents and others may still have exhibited some confusion over the 

meaning of the ticket price components the details of which are contained in American's 

reservations systems, the evidence of such confusion produced by Mr. Edelman does not warrant 

a formal investigation. The matter should be closed by issuance of an Order dismissing the 

complaint in accordance with Rule 406(a)(1). As regards Mr. Edelman's claim that DOT should 

order American to issue refunds to ticket purchasers if a carrier imposed fee was characterized as 

a tax, such relief is beyond the DOT's jurisdiction to order because there is no private right of 

action under the federal transportation statute. Stat/and v. American Airlines, Inc., 998 F.2d 

539, 541 (7th Cir. 1993). 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Pagel5of16 

As to Mr. Edelman's request that DOT refer the matter to taxing authorities for 

investigation of alleged tax fraud, no such referrals are warranted or necessary. 

Finally, the complaint asks DOT to issue additional guidance as needed to clarify the 

intent of the Notice and the conduct it would find as violative of §41712. American would leave 

it to the Department to determine if any additional guidance is needed over and above that 

contained in the Notice. 

K. So-Called Aggravating Factors 

The complaint concludes by asserting that DOT should, in considering the merits of the 

complaint take into account what are described as "aggravating factors." None ofthese so-called 

factors can fairly be characterized as aggravating or worthy of weight in the determination of the 

Department whether to conduct a formal proceeding. For example, while American is certainly a 

large domestic and international air carrier (as asserted by Mr. Edelman), the size of the carrier is 

not a determinative factor. 

There is no evidence that the "nature and extent" of the alleged violations elevates the 

need for enforcement action. As explained, American has always provided the necessary tools to 

its reservations agents about fare components including taxes and canier imposed fees. While 

the complaint may allege that in some of the post-April21, 2012 communications with Mr. 

Edelman reservations agent may have mistakenly identified a carrier fee as a tax, American 

continues to enhance the training of its agents to accurately respond to customer inquiries with 

the data available to them that correctly distinguishes between government taxes and carrier 

imposed fees. 

Mr. Edelman's exaggerated claims of"intentional concealment" are contradicted by the 

accuracy of the information that is correctly included in American fare quote displays and on 
Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 16 of 16 

eTicket receipts. Mr. Edelman even goes so far as to take umbrage at the contents of letters to 

him from American's legal counsel when those communications were simply stating American's 

reasonable interpretation of DOT policy. 

American strives to treat all of its customers fairly. American's records show that Mr. 

Edelman has been the beneficiary of this policy as accommodations in the form of refunds and 

advantage miles have been made to Mr. Edelman on numerous occasions in the past. 

American's unwillingness to provide refunds when the facts do not warrant such a remedy 

cannot be characterized as an aggravating factor as claimed by Mr. Edelman. 

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons set forth above, American Airlines, Inc. respectfully 

requests the Department dismiss the complaint in accordance with Rule 406(a)(1). 

Respectfully submitted, 

SILVERBERG, GOLDMAN & BIKOFF, L.L.P. 

Attorneys for 

AM~AN AIRL~ES, ,C. 

By: k £.11! ...J.d..&; 

Robert P. Silverberg 

Dated: March 22,2013 
SUPPLEMENT TO THE ANSWER OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §§302.405(a) and 302.408(b), American Airlines, Inc. 

("American") hereby provides its specific admissions and denials and affirmative 

defenses to the third-party complaint filed with the Department by Benjamin Edelman 

("Mr. Edelman" or "complainant") on February 4, 2013. 

Admissions and Denials 

As noted in American's answer, to the extent that there is any factual statement or 

allegation that is not specifically admitted or denied herein, it should be deemed as 

having been denied as any failure to respond to a specific contention is the result of the 

difficulty in laying out an answer when the complaint is in the form as was filed with the 

Department. However, i~ an attempt to format the complaint in a manner that will allow 

American to provide specific admissions or denials to the allegations contained therein, 

American has attached hereto a copy of the complaint with each of the paragraphs 

numbered. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to the hand numbered 

paragraphs in the attached complaint. 

As a preliminary matter it should be noted that the complaint either generally 

describes telephone conversations between American reservations agents with Mr. 

Edelman or refers to recorded conversations between Mr. Edelman and American found 

on the complainant's website. However, the website recordings appear to have been 

edited and American now lacks the information necessary to verify as accurate those 

portions of the recorded conversations preserved by Mr. Edelman. Under these 

circumstances and with one exception American cannot accept, for purposes of admitting 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 2 of 11 

or denying the specific allegations, that the recordings fairly portray the entire telephone 

conversation between the complainant and American. 

1. Except to the extent otherwise indicated below, American denies that its 

staff and systems mischaracterize carrier-imposed surcharges as "tax" or has otherwise 

violated DOT rules regarding price advertising or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

2. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether 

complainant is restating his outstanding complaints to DOT regarding American. Except 

to the extent otherwise indicated below, American denies that it has committed any 

violations related to price advertising including violations of 14 C.F.R §399.84(a) or 49 

U.S.C. §41712. 

3. American admits that complainant requests that DOT impose sanctions on 

American for alleged violations of 49 U.S.C. §41712. However, except to the extent 

otherwise indicated below, American denies the implication in this paragraph that it has 

engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices and further denies that sanctions are 

warranted. 

4. American admits that this paragraph contains a partial transcription of an 

audio recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. American further admits that on June 26, 2012 

complainant booked a business class ticket by telephone with American for the following 

itinerary: CDG-BOS-JFK-SCL-JFK-BOS-LHR-CDG that included a flight segment on 

British Airways. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 3 of 11 

the allegations m this paragraph, but notes that the E-Ticket Confirmation sent to 

complainant stated an amount for all "Taxes and Carrier-Imposed Fees." 

5. American admits that when a person calls its telephone reservation 

numbers that a recorded message is played at the beginning of the telephone call stating 

that "this call may be recorded." American denies, however, that this statement 

authorizes anyone other than American to record the telephone calls. American admits 

that there are audio recordings on the following website: 

http://www.benedelman.org/airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html, but, with one 

exception, lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether the recordings are 

complete and accurate recordings of complainant's telephone calls to American. 

6. American admits that the American E-Ticket Confirmation included in the 

complaint as Attachment 1, which includes certain flight segments operated by British 

Airways, states "792.1 0" under the heading "TAX." American admits that the 

correspondence from American Customer Service included in the complaint as 

Attachment 9 indicates that this ticket included a "$502 fuel tax collection by British 

Airways." However, American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 

14 C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712 by doing so. American lacks sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

7. American denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

8. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 

C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit 

or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 20 13 

Page 4 of 11 

9. American admits that this paragraph contains a partial transcription of an 

audio recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. American denies the implication in this 

paragraph that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

10. American admits that Attachment 2 to the complaint includes an 

American E-Ticket Confirmation, dated May 30, 2011, for an AAdvantage awards 

booking for flights operated by British Airways for the following itinerary: BRU-LHRDXB. American admits that Attachment 2 to the complaint includes an American ETicket Confirmation, dated March 17, 2011, for two AAdvantage awards bookings for 

the following itinerary with the second flight segment operated by British Airways: JFKLHR-SIN. American further admits that theE-Ticket Confirmation, dated May 30, 2011, 

states "383.50" under the heading "TAX" and that the E-Ticket Confirmation, dated 

March 17,2011, states "311.50" twice under the heading "TAX." However, American 

denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. 

§41712 by doing so. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

11. American admits that Attachment 3 to the complaint includes an e-mail 

from complainant to American's Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Gary 

Kennedy, that referenced the AAdavantage awards bookings described in paragraph 1 0 

above and requested a refund. American admits that Attachment 4 to the complaint 

includes a letter from Mr. Gary Kennedy to complainant, dated January 11, 2012, in 

which Mr. Kennedy, among other things, described the reasons why under American's 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March22, 2013 

Page 5 of 11 

prior E-Ticket itinerary/receipt format customers were not deceived in making mileage 

redemption decisions or when purchasing tickets. American denies the implication in 

this paragraph that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

12. American admits that this paragraph contains a transcription of an audio 

recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. American denies the implication in this 

paragraph that it violated 14 C.F.R §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

13. American admits that this paragraph contains a transcription of an audio 

recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. American denies the implication in this 

paragraph that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

14. American admits that this paragraph contains a transcription of an audio 

recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. 

15. American admits that this paragraph contains a transcription of an audio 

recording found on the following website: http://www.benedelman.org/ 

airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html. 

16. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 

C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

17. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

this paragraph. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 6 ofll 

18. American admits that since June 2012 it has ceased operating on certain 

routes and has downgauged the aircraft it uses on certain other routes, which resulted in 

American reaccommodating some of its passengers on flights operated by British 

Airways. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 C.F .R. § 

399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

19. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

this paragraph. 

20. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 

C.P.R. § 399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit 

or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

21. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 

C.F.R.§ 399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit 

or deny the remainder of the allegations in this paragraph. 

22. American admits that around-the-world air travel is advertised on the 

following website: http://www.oneworld.com/. American denies the allegation that the 

booking tool systematically mischaracterizes carrier imposed fees as taxes. 

23. American admits the allegations in this paragraph. 

24. American admits that Attachment 5, Attachment 6 and Attachment 7 to 

the complaint appear to be screen shots of webpages from the booking process on the 

http://www.oneworld.com website, which webpages have recently been revised by the 

oneworld Management Company at American's request to eliminate any unintended 

confusion regarding the non-fare portions of any around-the-world fares quoted. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 7 of 11 

American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 

49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder 

of the allegations in this paragraph. 

25. American notes that at its request the oneworld Management Company 

recently revised certain of the webpages displayed during the booking process on the 

http://www.oneworld.com website to eliminate any unintended confusion regarding the 

non-fare portions of any around-the-world fares quoted on the oneworld website. 

American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 

49 U.S.C. §41712. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder 

of the allegations in this paragraph. 

26. American notes that at its request the oneworld Management Company 

recently revised certain of the webpages displayed during the booking process on the 

http://www.oneworld.com website to eliminate any unintended confusion regarding the 

non-fare portions of any around-the-world fares quoted on the oneworld website. 

American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 

49 U.S.C. §41712. 

27. American admits that it has referred in certain website locations to "fuel 

surcharges" imposed by British Airways for AAdvantage award travel on flights operated 

by British Airways. American denies the implication in this paragraph that it violated 14 

C.P.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712 because the fuel surcharge imposed by British 

Airways allegedly was not a reasonable estimate of the per-passenger fuel costs incurred 

by the carrier above some baseline. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 8 of 11 

28. American admits that the DOT Notice titled "Additional Guidance on 

Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements," dated February 21, 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 11618, 

February 27, 2012) (the "DOT Notice"), contains the statements quoted in this paragraph. 

However, American denies the implication in this paragraph that the DOT Notice 

requires American to provide a statement on its website or elsewhere regarding a costbased justification for fuel surcharges, especially those imposed by another carrier. 

29. American admits that it sometimes refers to the British Airways fuel 

surcharge as "carrier-imposed fees." American denies the implication that it violated 14 

C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712 because the fuel surcharge imposed by British 

Airways allegedly was not a reasonable estimate of the per-passenger fuel costs incurred 

by British Airways above a baseline. American further denies the implication that it 

violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712 because American did not provide a 

statement on its website or elsewhere regarding a cost-based justification for the fuel 

surcharges imposed by British Airways. 

30. American denies the allegations in this paragraph. 

31. American admits that Attachment 8 to the complaint is a copy of a 

correspondence from complainant to American in which he requested information 

regarding the amount of taxes imposed on three tickets. American admits that 

Attachment 9 to the complaint contains a response to complainant from American 

Customer Relations in which the British Airways fuel surcharge was inadvertently 

described as a "fuel tax collection by British Airways." American denies the implication 

that it intentionally mischaracterized the British Airways fuel surcharge to deter 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March22, 2013 

Page 9 of 11 

customers from investigating alleged violations by American or that it otherwise violated 

14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

32. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

this paragraph. 

33. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

this paragraph. 

34. American admits that the DOT Notice and 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) contain 

the statements quoted in this paragraph and that the DOT Notice otherwise speaks for 

itself. 

35. American lacks sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in 

this paragraph. 

36. American admits that Attachment 10 is correspondence to American in 

which it was suggested that the telephone ticketing fee was invalid because the fee 

allegedly was not disclosed in the first price quote and requested that the ticketing fee be 

refunded. American admits that Attachment 11 to the complaint contains two responses 

from AAdavantage Customer Service declining the refund request. American denies the 

implication that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712 by its actions. 

37. American cannot admit or deny complainant's allegations regarding the 

alleged telephone call. See response to paragraph 35. Accordingly, American denies the 

implication that it violated 14 C.F.R §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. American admits 

it did not refund the ticketing fee, but states that it did provide a travel voucher in the 

amount of $50. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22,2013 

Page 10 of 11 

38. American admits that this dispute regarding the telephone ticketing fee 

arises from a redemption of miles for award travel by complainant from an AAdvantage 

account that was not in his name. 

39. American admits that the complaint includes the attachments indicated in 

this paragraph. American denies the implication that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 

49 U.S.C. §41712. 

40. American admits that Mr. Carl Nelson cited the DOT Notice in his June 

26, 2012 correspondence to complainant and that American takes the position that the 

DOT Notice did not become effective until April 21, 2012. American denies that it has 

mischaracterized applicable DOT policy and also denies the implication that it violated 

14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

41. American denies the allegations of this paragraph. 

42. American admits that complainant asks the Department to exercise its 

authority under 49 U.S.C. §41712 and to open an investigation of American. However, 

to the extent not otherwise admitted herein, American denies that it violated 14 C.F .R. § 

399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

43. American admits that complainant asks the Department to order American 

to make refunds to ticket purchasers of all monies allegedly represented to ticket 

purchasers as "taxes" or government-imposed fees but not actually remitted to 

governments. However, American denies that the Department has the authority to order 

American to make refunds. American also denies to the extent not otherwise admitted 

herein the implication that it violated 14 C.F.R. §399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. §41712. 
Supplement to Answer of American Airlines, Inc. 

March 22, 2013 

Page 11 of 11 

44. American admits that complainant asks the Department to impose civil 

penalties on American. American denies that civil penalties are warranted. 

45. American admits that complainant asks the Department to refer this matter 

to appropriate U.S. and foreign tax collection agencies for investigation of alleged 

possible tax fraud or other violations of tax law. American denies that it has engaged in 

tax fraud or otherwise violated U.S. or foreign tax laws. 

46. American admits that complainant asks the Department to issue any 

guidance or revised regulations needed to clarify to other airlines and ticket agents that 

these practices are allegedly unfair and deceptive in violation of 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

4 7. American admits that complainant urges the Department to consider the 

so-called "Aggravating Factors" listed in page 10 of the complaint. However, American 

denies the implication that the so-called "Aggravating Factors" should be given any 

weight by the Department. 

Affirmative Defenses 

1. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

2. Complainant lacks a private right of action under 49 U.S.C. §41712. 

3. The complaint is moot. 

4. Complainant lacks standing to allege violations without evidence or first hand 

knowledge of the allegation of violations. 
Department of Transportation 

Communications with respect to this 

document should be directed to: 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Benjamin Edelman, Esq. 

169 Walnut St. 

Brookline, MA 02445 

617-359-3360 

ben@benedelman.org 

American Airlines 

Multiple Price-Advertising Violations of 

49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 14 CFR 399.84{a) 

} 

) 

} 

} 

) 

) 

} 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- ) 

February 4, 2013 

Docket ______ _ 

!1-American Airlines staff and systems continue to mischaracterize carrier-imposed surcharges as "tax" and 

otherwise continue to violate DOT rules as to price advertising. Recall my complaint of January 14, 2012 

in which I demonstrated AA making these mischaracterizations as early as March 2011 {and likely 

earlier). Recall also my complaint of June 17, 2012, in which I demonstrated AA mischaracterizing fuel 

surcharge as tax in telephone bookings of ordinary paid tickets, in telephone bookings of circle tickets, in 

telephone bookings of award tickets, in reaccomodatlon after cancellation, and in AA.COM fare quotes. 

!.In this further complaint, I restate my outstanding complaints as to AA and provide evidence that these 

and other violations are ongoing. .... 

11 hereby request that DOT docket this complaint as a request for DOT to exercise its authority under 49 

USC 41712 to investigate and impose sanctions on American Airlines for the unfair and deceptive 

practices described herein. 

Ongoing Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Ordinary Paid Bookings 4 On June 26, 2012, I booked a ticket by telephone with an American Airlines telephone representative. 

(Itinerary: CDG-BOS-JFK-SCL-JFK-BOS-LHR-CDG in business class.) After confirming the desired flights, 

discussion proceeded as follows: 

Edelman: Could you review the fare and tax? 

Agent: Certainly. OK, I'm showing that the fare in US dollars is 4828, and 708.20 taxes. 

I have a digital recording of this call.1 Contrary to the agent's statement, I believe the majority of the 

$708.20 consists of carrier-imposed fees, not "taxes." (I reach that conclusion by cross-checking the 

itinerary with a near-identical itinerary quoted via the ITA Matrix site, which itemizes applicable taxes 

and carrier-imposed surcharges.) Note that this ticket includes only a single 216 mile segment on British 

S' 1 Throughout, q~otes are verbatim transcriptions from digital call recordings, except where otherwise indicated. 

AA's automatic answering system authorized me to record the calls: "this call may be recorded." All call recordings 

are posted to my public web site at http://www.benedelman.org/airfare-advertising/americanairlines.html . 

1 
Airways- countering any suggestion that AA's mischaracterizing of carrier-imposed surcharges is limited 

to travel wholly or substantially on BA. 

b Nor is this the first instance in which AA representatives have overstated the amount of "tax" on a paid 

booking. In April 2011, I contacted an AA telephone representative to book paid business class travel 

BOS-LHR-CPH-LHR-DEL-MUM-BAH-LHR-CPH-LHR-BOS-ORD-SEA. The agent orally quoted "tax" of 

$792.10. Thee-ticket confirmation and receipt was in accord, listing "tax" of that amount. See 

Attachment 1. In fact, as best I can tell the majority ofthis amount is carrier-imposed surcharge, not any 

actual tax. (Attachment 9 indicates that there were $502 of fuel surcharge at issue, albeit there 

mischaracterized by an AA representative as "fuel tax collection" as discussed in the subsequent section 

"AA Affirmatively Misrepresenting Its Practices In Response to Customer Inquiries.") 

1 No DOT rule has ever allowed an airline to mischaracterize carrier-imposed surcharge as "tax," neither 

before purchase (e.g. in telephone fare quotes) or after the fact (in e-ticket confirmation and receipt). 

AA's statements in this regard were at all times false and unlawful. 

Ongoing Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Circle Tickets 

<J On February 10, 2012, I purchased a first class Circle Pacific ticket from the AA Around The World Desk 

for my colleague - ~ The agent quoted the fare and "tax." Mindful of the prospect of 

carrier-imposed surcharges mischaracterized as tax, I specifically asked the agent "Are those genuine 

taxes, or fees?" The agent replied: ''Taxes." (These quotes are my recollections. I was unable to record 

this call, but I was thinking about taxes versus carrier-imposed surcharges and I therefore noted the 

agent's statements with extra care.) Via a subsequent written inquiry to AA Customer Relations, I 

learned that the amount characterized as "tax" actually included $364 of "fuel surcharge." 

q To obtain further documentation of AA Around The World Desk staff mischaracterizing carrier-imposed 

surcharges as tax, on March 21, 2012 I requested a new ticket following the same itinerary Mr. ~ 

booked. On March 22 I called back (as instructed) to receive a fare quote. (Circle fares require next-day 

fare quotes.) The March 22 agent told me: "The base fare is 15204 even, the taxes are 669.03." Based 

on my correspondence with AA Customer Relations as to the pricing of Mr. ~ s ticket, I am 

confident that the quoted $669.03 of "taxes" included a fuel surcharge of more than $350. I have a 

recording of this call. I made a digital call recording of this agent's misrepresentation. 

Ongoing Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Award Bookings 

J ()My January 14, 2012 complaint to DOT flagged the problem of AA mischaracterizing as "tax" certain 

carrier-imposed surcharges AA collects for award travel on BA. My recollection is that AA telephone 

representatives consistently mischaracterized these fees as "tax" (including in my personal bookings of 

March 17, 2011 ("tax" of $311.50 per passenger on a ticket for JFK-LHR-SIN with the second segment on 

BA) and May 30, 2011 ("tax" of $383.50 on BRU-LHR-DXB). The contemporaneous AA receipts in each 

instance list these amounts as "tax" (not "tax and carrier-imposed surcharge" or the like). See 

Attachment 2. I recall AA representatives in each instance using the simple word "tax" in the course of 

quoting each of these fares. 

AA Price Advertising Violations 2 
\\ I brought these historic award bookings to the attention of AA General Counsel Gary Kennedy and 

requested a refund for the amounts wrongfully charged to me. See Attachment 3. In his letter of 

January 11, 2012, Mr. Kennedy claimed that AA never made such misrepresentations prior to 

consumers' purchase; he argued that any misrepresentations occurred only after purchase (e.g. in 

passenger receipts) and therefore could not influence customers' decisions to book. See Attachment 4. 

Mr. Kennedy's claim was inconsistent with my personal experience. To rebut his claim, I made a series 

of recorded test calls including calls of January 14, 2012, March 21, 2012, and July 13, 2012. In each call, 

AA telephone representatives falsely quoted "tax" that was actually a carrier-imposed surcharge. 

Below, I quote verbatim from these calls (with emphasis added to mark agents' false statements): 

\t.January 14, 2012: 

AA recording: Welcome to the Advantage Executive Platinum Desk! This call may be recorded. 

Agent: American Airlines, Executive Desk. 

Edelman: Yes, wanted to make a reservation for new award travel. 

Agent:.Airight, where would you like to go? 

Edelman: From Boston to London, Heathrow. 

Agent: On what date? 

Edelman: March 13th 

Agent: March 13th, okay. 

Edelman: I'd like to do it on First class, so it'll be on BA please. 

Agent: All right .... It's for how many? Two? 

Edelman: Just for me. 

Agent: And what's your return date? 

Edelman: March 13th for the outbound. 

Agent: Right. 

Edelman: And March 20th for the return. 

Agent: All right, round trip in first class. It's going to be a total of 125 thousand miles and it's 

giving me taxes of $938.80. 

~March 21,2012: 

AA recording: Welcome to the Advantage Executive Platinum Desk! This call may be recorded. 

Agent: American Airlines. 

Edelman: Yes, for a new award traveL 

Agent: Yes, I can help you Mr.Edelman. 

Edelman: From Boston to London. 

Edelman: Date of travel, May 22nd. 

Agent: 22nd May, how many passengers? 

Edelman: Just one, myself. 

AA Price Advertising Violations 3 
Agent: What cabin? 

Edelman: First class please. 

Agent: Okay, from Boston to London, I have the economy and business, unless you are looking 

at the BA flights. They have First class on them. 

Edelman: BA would be great, thank you! 

Agent: Is this for oneway or roundtrip? 

Edelman: One way. 

Agent: Okay, so we are looking at 62,500 miles one way, taxes $347.70. And is this going to be 

for yourself? 

Edelman: Yes for me. 

Agent: All right. 

11July 13, 2012: 

/ 

AA recording: This call may be recorded. 

Agent: American Airlines, Executive Platinum Desk ... 

Edelman: Yes, for new award travel, from Boston to London. 

Agent: Travel on what day? 

Edelman: On August 9th, in First please. 

Agent: So you've (inaudible) First? Hold on. How many passengers traveling? 

Edelman: Just one. 

Agent:.And return? 

Edelman: Just the one way would be great. 

Agent: You're looking at $347.70 in taxes, which credit card did you want to use? 

\J To confirm that these misrepresentations are ongoing, I performed a further test call on January 19, 

2013: 

AA recording: Welcome to the Advantage Executive Platinum Desk! This call may be recorded. 

Agent: American Airlines, Executive Platinum 

Edelman: Yes, for a new award travel for myself. 

Agent: Umm-hmm. 

Edelman: From Boston to London, in First class please. 

Agent: Okay, for which day please? 

Edelman: September 151, 

Agent: September 1st, First class award ticket. One moment. 

Edelman: I think BA has the non-stop there, so that would be great. 

Agent: Okay, no problem sir. 

Agent: When are you planning to come back from London to Boston? 

AA Price Advertising Violations 4 
Edelman: September 5th please. 

Agent: And also, with the BA flight also? 

Edelman: Yes, please. 

Agent: And I do have a mile saver. It is sixty two and a half [thousand] each way, so total miles 

would be 125,000, and you do have, you know, paying some tax on this, it is $1156.20. 

IG As best I can tell, in each test call, agents falsely quoted "tax" that was actually a carrier-imposed 

surcharge. For example, in the January 19, 2013 test call, AA seeks to collect a fuel surcharge of $414 in 

each direction (for BOS-LHR travel in business class or first class}. Thus, $828 of the $1156.20 is not 

genuine "tax" but carrier-imposed surcharge- fully 71.6% of the specified "tax." The prior test calls 

were similar in agents' falsely quoting "tax" that was actually a carrier-imposed surcharge.2 

Ongoing Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Reaccommodation 

After Cancellation 

\1 My June 17, 2012 complaint reported numerous consumers reporting AA telephone representatives 

mischaracterizing carrier-imposed surcharges as "tax" in the course of providing reaccommodation after 

flight cancellation. I subsequently interviewed some of these consumers by email and telephone. They 

systematically report AA staff using the word "tax" to describe the additional amounts payable. 

\ <'6 Since my June complaint, there have been additional cancellations and downgrades in the AA network, 

giving rise to further cancellations and recommendation on BA. For example, during fall 2012, AA 

cancelled all of its flights to Belgium. Multiple consumers report that AA telephone representatives 

have sought to collect additional"tax" when reaccomodating affected passengers on BA. For example, 

in a public message posted in September 2012, one consumer reported that AA representatives 

"want[ed] to charge me the BA taxes even though they [AA] cancelled the flights." This consumer's 

message specifically indicates that AA representatives used the exact word "tax" in describing the 

additional amount payable. 

\qSimilarly, during fall 2012, AA permanently downgraded an ORD-LHR flight from 777 to 763, removing 

the First Class cabin of service. For a First Class passenger seeking reaccomodation on a BA flight ORDLHR in the same class of service that AA originally ticketed and confirmed, AA representatives (both an 

initial agent and a supervisor) told the passenger that additional"tax" was payable for travel on BA. I 

interviewed this passenger and specifically confirmed that AA representatives used the exact word "tax" 

in describing the additional amount payable. 

C).9 Recall also the multiple similar reports, from multiple independent consumers, that I conveyed in my 

complaint of July 17, 2012, including passengers affected by cancellation of service ORD-DEL, JFK-BUD, 

and MAD-JNB, in each instance reaccomodated on British Airways but in each instance required by AA 

to pay a substantial"tax" for that alternative routing. I interviewed various affected consumers and 

found experiences similar to that described above. 

2 Recordings of all of these calls are posted to my public 'o/eb site at http://www.benedelman.org/airfareadvertising/americanairlines.html . 

AA Price Advertising Violations . 5 
'2-\ 1 do not know whether AA would be within its rights to require that a customer pays a carrier-imposed 

surcharge when a customer is rebooked on British Airways as a result of a flight cancellation or removal 

of the class of service for which the customer holds a ticket and confirmed reservation. But I am 

confident that AA may not mischaracterize BA-imposed surcharges as "tax" in the course of a 

reaccomodation. 

<l.'Zongoing Misrepresentation by Around-The-World Booking of Carrier-Imposed Surcharges as "Tax" -

for Tickets Issued by AA 

AA advertises around-the-world air travel via the tool at http://rtw.oneworld.com/. This tool 

systematically mischaracterizes carrier-imposed surcharges as "tax." These amounts can be substantial 

-regularly more than $1000 on a single ticket, and I believe in some instances more than $2000. 

~If a passenger chooses an itinerary with the first segment on AA, AA charges the customer's credit card 

and issues the entire ticket. According to a statement within the booking tool, AA also serves as the 

ticketing airline if the first segment is on JL, JO, RJ, or 57. (See http://www.oneworld.com/flights/planbook-online/?faq0nly=1 at heading "FAQ"- "Who is my ticketing airline?") 

'~I have quoted a variety of around-the-world tickets using this tool. For example, on January 21, 2013, I 

quoted a coach ticket JFK-LHR-DXB-LHR-ARN-LHR-SIN-HKG-NRT-HKG-YVR with the first segment on AA. 

Taxes were quoted at $1222.16 USD. See Attachment 5. I clicked the "Proceed" button and received 

the lengthy itinerary and fare quote shown in Attachment 6, reiterating the $1,222.16 quote of ''Taxes." 

There, the word "Taxes" appeared as a hyperlink. I clicked this link, receiving the itemization in 

Attachment 7. The top three lines of that itemization report "Tax description unavailable (YRVB)" of 

$200, "Airline Fuel Surcharge" of $559, and "Multiple Surcharges" of $213, 

1,b As best I can tell there are no actual government taxes totaling the $1222.16 "tax" charged on this 

itinerary. Rather, I believe the majority of the $1,222.16 "tax" -specifically, the $200, $559, and $213 

characterized as "tax description unavailable" and "surcharge"- are actually carrier-imposed 

surcharges. Thus, 79.5% of the $1,222.16 "tax" is not actually tax but rather carrier-imposed surcharge. 

1{, Crucially, the initial disclosures (as shown in Attachments 5 and 6) mischaracterize the amounts at issue 

as "taxes", not "taxes and surcharges" or the like. Moreover, every user using this booking tool must 

see the screens in Attachments 5 and 6; in contrast, the information in Attachment 7 is shown only if 

users specifically click the "Taxes" hyperlink to view details. Thus, even though Attachment 7 describes 

the surcharges within a page entitled "taxes and surcharges information", most users are unlikely to see 

this screen. Moreover, the "and surcharges" label appears only in HTML title, not in page textinsufficiently prominent to cure the false statements made previously. Indeed, at the same time that 

the "taxes and surcharges" label appears at the top of the page (indicating that some of the listed 

charges are "surcharges" rather than taxes), the wording "TaxBreakdownPopUp" appears immediately 

below (in the popup's URL bar), again falsely indicating that everything in the listing is a "tax." Even 

more galling, the top line item "tax description unavailable" indicates that the $200 there at issue is a 

"tax" when in fact it is a carrier-imposed surcharge- compounding and furthering the 

misrepresentation. Finally, even on the most favorable view, the statements in Attachment 7 still fall 

short of applicable DOT rules: Note the absence of the crucial words "carrier-imposed" as well as the 

AA Price Advertising Violations 6 
failure to include statements substantiating the surcharge amounts ("On average our passengers paid ... " 

or similar). These omissions are in sharp contrast to the requirements of Additional Guidance on 

Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements 

(http://airconsumer.dot.gov/r"ules/Notice.Taxes.fees.sam.dl.13.website.pdf ). 

Fuel Surcharges of Impermissible Amounts and Not Supported with Required Calculations 

z1 Historically, to the extent that AA has accurately characterized carrier-imposed surcharges associated 

with travel on British Airways, AA has called these amounts "fuel surcharges." See e.g. the web page 

quoted within Gary Kennedy's January 11, 2012 letter to me (Attachment 4): "How much is the British 

Airways fuel surcharge?", "Is the British Airways fuel surcharge refundable if I cancel my plans?", "The 

U.S. government has determined that collection of a fuel surcharge makes award tickets subject to 

certain taxes" (emphasis added). But the surcharge at issue was not a reasonable estimate of the perpassenger fuel costs incurred by the carrier above some baseline. See the evidence in my companion 

complaint, "complaint as to price advertising violations by British Airways." 

fl,~The DOT has instructed that airlines must substantiate fuel surcharges with statements supporting the 

surcharge amounts. Specifically, the DOT instructs: "For example, descriptions such as the following 

would be acceptable: 'Fare includes a fuel surcharge. On average our passengers paid $xx.xx more for 

fuel during 2011 in their ticket price than they did in 2000;' or 'Fares include a charge for fuel. On 

average in 2011 our passengers paid $xx.xx for fuel as a part of their ticket price.'" See Additional 

Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements (available at 

http://airconsumer.dot.gov/rules/Notice.Taxes.fees.sam.dl.13.website.pdf ). 

~C( At present, it seems AA sometimes characterizes the surcharge at issue as "carrier-imposed fees" 

without a comment as to the reason for such fees (i.e. no reference to "fuel"). However, at any time 

when AA used the label "fuel surcharge" to describe these fees, I believe even that term was 

impermissible in that the fees at issue were not reasonable estif!Jates of per-passenger fuel costs above 

a baseline. I believe that term was further impermissible in that AA has never provided the required 

calculation as to the basis of the calculation. Furthermore, as I present in the section "Ongoing 

Misrepresentation by Around-The-World Booking of Carrier-Imposed Surcharges as "Tax" -for Tickets 

Issued by AA", in some instances (including around-the-world bookings), AA continues to use the label 

"airline fuel surcharge" to characterize a portion of the carrier-imposed surcharges at issue. 

AA Affirmatively Misrepresents Its Practices In Response to Customer Inquiries 

~0 I am particularly alarmed to see AA staff affirmatively misrepresenting the carrier's practices vis-a-vis 

carrier-imposed surcharges in response to customer inquiries. These misrepresentations have the 

inevitable and intended effect of deterring consumers from uncovering and pursuing valid claims against 

AA. 

n,\ I began my investigation of AA surcharge collection by contacting AA Customer Relations. In an 

electronic inquiry through AA.COM, I noted unexpectedly large tax on several recent tickets. (See 

Attachment 8.) An AA customer service representative replied with an itemization of "fuel tax collection 

by British Airways" on the specified itineraries. See Attachment 9. Of course there was never any "fuel 

tax" in that amount; instead, the AA representative gave this false designation to a carrier-imposed 

AA Price Advertising Violations 7 
surcharge. The natural effect of this misrepresentation, and I believe the intended effect, was to deter a 

customer from further investigating a violation by AA. 

~Z.My colleague ~ cJI recently redeemed AA miles for award travel in part on British Airways. 

Aware of the issue flagged in this complaint based on his personal discussions with me, Mr. <II 

objected when the AA telephone agent characterized a large charge as "tax." Specifically, Mr. cJI 

recalls making roughly the following statement to the agent: "You should clarify to customers that only a 

portion of those charges are a tax, while most of them are discretionary charges that BA/ AA elects to 

collect from its members. I imagine you have weekly meetings during which you speak with your 

supervisors about customer feedback, you might warn them that this may be putting AA at risk of a 

lawsuit." Mr. cJI is confident that he was polite and nonconfrontational in this remark. Mr. cJI 

reports that the agent replied roughly "I can't talk to you with this attitude" and disconnected his call 

without assisting him further. ' 

3~Even routine discussions with AA telephone representatives include misrepresentations of carrier 

surcharge as "tax" in response to customer inquiries. For example, in section "Ongoing 

Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Circle Tickets" above, I noted a 

large "tax" quote on a circle ticket; I asked the agent "Are those genuine taxes, or fees?" and the agent 

replied: "Taxes." Of the consumers I interviewed who had suffered cancellations and reaccomodation 

on BA, at least one had spoken with a supervisor, and affected consumers tell me that AA 

representatives and supervisors universally used the word "tax" in characterizing the fees at issue. 

AA Telephone Representatives Fail to Disclose All Applicable Fees in the First Fare Quote 

~'( AA telephone representatives are failing to comply with the DOT's requirement that "the first price 

quote presented must be the full price, including all taxes, fees and all carrier surcharges" (emphasis 

added). See "Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements" 

(http:Uairconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/Notice.Taxes.fees.sam.dl.13.website.pdf), restating and clarifying 

14 CFR 399.84 which was amended, effective January 26, 2012, to allow only those airfare quotes where 

"the price stated is the entire price to be paid" (emphasis added} and disallowing any quotes where 

additional compulsory charges are omitted. 

)~On or about May lS, 2012, I called AA telephone reservations (Executive Platinum desk} to make an 

award reservation for award travel for relatives. At the conclusion of that call, an agent advised me of 

the required miles and applicable taxes ($5 per person). The agent mentioned no ticketing fee or other 

required fees. When I later called back to ticket the reservation, the agent noted a compulsory 

telephone ticketing fee of $25 per passenger. Unfortunately I do not have recordings of these calls. 

'!>~ In subsequent correspondence with AA, I flagged the DOT rules noted above, noted that the telephone 

ticketing fee was invalid because it was not disclosed in the first price quote, and asked that the 

ticketing fee be refunded. See Attachment 10. In a written reply, AA declined to refund the fee and 

attempted to recast the dispute as whether or not I was "made aware of the ticketing charge prior to 

the issuance of the ticket." See Attachment 11. It is true that the second AA representative mentioned 

the fee, so the fee was made known prior to my purchase of the ticket (as AA argues}, but that is 

AA Price Advertising Violations 8 
irrelevant under DOT rules: Under the authority cited in the preceding paragraph, AA must disclose 

applicable required fees in the first fare quote. 

>1 AA has never denied that the first telephone agent said nothing of any telephone booking fee. Under 

the new regulation, any fees not included in the first fare quote are impermissible and unlawful- a 

point which 1 capably conveyed to AA, including with a full document title, relevant verbatim quote, 

publicly-available URL, and concise summary. Nonetheless, to date AA has refused to refund this fee. 

JfS' (Irrelevant for present purposes, but apparent in Attachments 10 and 11: This dispute arises out of a 

redemption of miles from my wife's AA frequent flier account. But I made the booking myself, with her 

authorization. I report the relevant facts of the booking, including AA's statements and omissions, 

based on my personal first-hand knowledge.) 

AA Counsel Mischaracterize Applicable DOT Requirements 

jCC I initially alerted AA to these violations in a December 31, 20111etter to Gary Kennedy (Attachment 3). 

My further correspondence with AA consists of Mr. Kennedy's reply of January 11, 2012 (Attachment 4), 

my reply of March 25, 2012 (Attachment 12), a reply from AA Associate General Counsel Carl Nelson of 

June 26, 2012 (Attachment 13), and my final reply of June 29, 2012 (Attachment 14). 

tfJ' Mr. Nelson's letter is particularly notable in that it affirmatively mischaracterizes applicable DOT policy. 

In response to my showing of AA staff mischaracterizing carrier-imposed surcharges as {(tax," prior to 

purchase, Mr. Nelson cites DOT February 21, 2012 guidance and argues that this guidance became 

effective after my March 25 letter- attempting to use the DOT guidance (and its delayed effective date) 

as a barrier to liability to a consumer for AA's prior unlawful actions. 

~{ AA's reliance on the DOT's February 21 guidance is misplaced. Nothing in that guidance permitted AA to 

mischaracterize carrier-imposed surcharges as "tax" at any time -- neithl:!r before nor after the effective 

date of the February 21 guidance. Indeed, the DOT's February 21 notice explicitly confirms the 

impropriety of the practices that prompted me to write: "Such displays were deceptive and in violation 

of section 41712" (emphasis added)- indicating that the false statements were unlawful when made, 

not that the statements would become unlawful only as of some future date. Mr. Nelson also 

mischaracterizes the 60-day period referenced in the DOT's notice. The notice clearly indicates that the 

delay applies only to commencement of DOT enforcement action: {(The office will provide ... 60 days 

[delay] ... before instituting enforcement action." In particular, the 60-day period in no way cures 

liability for prior unlawful conduct. A consumer with a valid claim, as to unlawful practices occurring 

before or after April 21, simply is not hindered from bringing that claim by reason of the DOT's decision 

not to institute enforcement action until that date. AA should not have argued anything the contrary. 

Resolution 

• 

• I ask that the Department of Transportation: 

U.~1) Exercise its authority under 49 USC 41712 to open an investigation of American Airlines for having 

engaged in, and continuing to engage in, the unfair or deceptive practices described above; 

AA Price Advertising Violations 9 
t(~(2) Order American Airlines to refund to ticket purchasers all monies represented to ticket purchasers as 

"taxes" or government-imposed fees, but not actually remitted to governments; 

~~ (3) Impose appropriate civil penalties on American Airlines; 

,.. 

~,)(4) Refer this matter to appropriate US and foreign tax collection agencies for investigation of possible 

tax fraud or other violations of tax law in non-payment to governments of monies collected as "taxes" or 

government-imposed fees; and 

~&{5) Issue any guidance or revised regulations needed to clarify to other airlines and ticket agents, and to 

preclude any future claim of ambiguity, that these practices are unfair and deceptive in violation of 49 

usc 41712. 

Aggravating Factors 

~1 In setting a penalty against American Airlines for this conduct, I urge the Department to consider the 

following aggravating factors, each of which calls for a larger penalty: 

a) The sophistication and size of American Airlines. 

b) The nature and extent of the violations, specifically that AA has mischaracterized fuel surcharge as 

"tax" for at least 22 months (starting in March 2011, per Attachment 1 to my December 31, 2011 

complaint to Gary Kennedy, or perhaps earlier; continuing through the present). 

c) The fact that AA continued to mischaracterize fuel surcharge as "tax" even 11 months after the DOT's 

February 21, 2012 notice specifically reminded carriers that they must never do so. 

d) The scope of AA's misrepresentations spanning the full gamut of AA's customer-facing operations 

including telephone bookings of ordinary paid tickets, telephone bookings of circle tickets, telephone 

bookings of award tickets, reaccomodation after cancellation, AA.COM fare quotes, and online aroundthe-world fare quotes. 

e) Intentional concealment, in that multiple AA representatives mischaracterized fuel surcharge as "tax" 

in multi pie inquiries by individual consumers. 

f) The fact that AA counsel falsely claimed that the misrepresentations at issue occurred only after a 

consumer made a purchase (Kennedy letter of January 11, 2012). 

g) The fact that AA counsel mischaracterized the DOT's February 21, 2012 notice as in some way 

permitting carriers to mischaracterize fuel surcharge as "tax" until 60 days after that notice {Nelson 

letter of June 26, 2012). 

AA Price Advertising Violations 10 
h) AA's repeated refusal to refund amounts mischaracterized to me, despite my specific written request 

supported by compelling documentation and proof. 

AA Price Advertising Violations 

Submitted February 12013, 

/sf 

Benjamin Edelman 

11 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have on this 22nd day of March 2013, served a copy of the 

foregoing Answer of American Airlines, Inc. by e-mail upon the following persons: 

Benjamin Edelman, Esq. 

169 Walnut Street 

Brookline, MA 02445 

ben@benedelman.org 

Samuel Podberesky, Esq. 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

sam. odberes dot. ov