Order 2013-11-17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

On the Twenty-Second day of November, 2013

Alaska Airlines, Inc. Docket OST-2013-0004

Violations of 14 CFR Part 259 and 

 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301 Served November 22, 2013

CONSENT ORDER

This consent order concerns violations by Alaska Airlines, Inc., (Alaska) of 14 CFR Part

259 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301. Specifically, the carrier failed to adhere to the 

assurance in its contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays that the carrier would provide 

adequate food and water no later than two hours after an aircraft leaves the gate if the 

aircraft remains on the tarmac. This order directs Alaska to cease and desist from future 

similar violations of 14 CFR Part 259 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301, and assesses 

the carrier $30,000 in civil penalties.

Applicable Law

Pursuant to section 259.4 of the Department’s rules, covered carriers, which include any 

U.S. certificated carrier conducting scheduled passenger service or public charter service 

with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of 30 or more seats, are 

required to adopt, implement, and adhere to contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays 

at each large hub, medium hub, small hub, and non-hub airport. Pursuant to section 

259.4(b)(3), covered carriers are required to provide adequate food and water no later 

than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of departure) or touches down 

(in the case of arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command 

determines that safety or security considerations preclude such service. Further, section 

259.4(b)(7) of the rule requires each covered carrier to have sufficient resources to 

implement its contingency plan. 
2

A covered carrier’s failure to comply with the assurances required by section 259.4 and 

as contained in the carrier’s contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays constitutes an 

unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.1

Facts and Conclusions

Alaska is an air carrier as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2)2 that operates scheduled 

service at Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), a large hub airport, and that uses at 

least one aircraft having a design capacity of more than 30 passenger seats. Alaska has 

adopted a contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays covering its scheduled passenger 

operations at PHL. This plan includes assurances that food and water will be stored on 

board all of its aircraft and will be provided to passengers within two hours of the 

beginning of a tarmac delay. An investigation by the Office of Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) revealed that on May 22, 2013, Alaska flight 33, 

scheduled to fly from PHL to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), experienced a 

lengthy tarmac delay at PHL.

3 

The delay occurred during and after a severe thunderstorm in the Philadelphia area. 

Alaska flight 33 pushed back from the gate at 5:49 p.m., local time, and was thirtieth in 

the take-off line. During periods in which the aircraft was stopped on the taxiway, which 

lasted as long as twenty minutes, the captain permitted passengers and flight attendants to 

move about the cabin. Once the tarmac delay had lasted approximately 90 minutes, flight 

attendants served snacks and beverages to passengers seated in the first class cabin. 

However, by the time the tarmac delay had lasted 120 minutes, flight attendants had 

failed to serve snacks and water to all passengers seated in the coach cabin and advised 

passengers seated in the coach cabin that food and water were available “upon request” in 

the galley.

 1 In addition, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42301, requires that carriers adhere to 

their tarmac delay contingency plans. 49 U.S.C. § 42301(e)(3).

2 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(2) defines an air carrier as “a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means,

directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.”

3 Alaska flight 33 experienced a lengthy tarmac delay but was ultimately cleared for take-off after 2 hours 

and 57 minutes, and took-off seven minutes later. Prior to take-off, the pilots of flight 33 made three 

requests to air traffic control to return to a gate, which had been secured by Alaska’s station personnel. 

However, air traffic control advised the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate in order to deplane 

passengers would significantly disrupt airport operations. Accordingly, we are not pursuing enforcement 

action under 14 CFR 259.4(b)(1) because the Enforcement Office determined that the air traffic control 

exception to the three-hour limit applied in this case.
3

In summary, despite having adequate snacks and water on board, Alaska failed to provide 

adequate food and water to all of the 160 passengers on flight 33 before the tarmac delay 

exceeded two hours. Alaska’s failure to adhere to the terms of its contingency plan in 

this regard violated 14 CFR 259.4(b)(3) and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301(e)(3). 

Mitigation

In mitigation, Alaska states that as soon as it learned that food and water were not 

distributed in accordance with the Department's rules, it acted quickly to apologize to the 

160 affected passengers and offer compensation in the form of a $100 discount. Alaska 

states that it also strengthened its policies and procedures to ensure that all of its 

operational divisions were made aware of the need to distribute food and water to every 

passenger during extended tarmac delays. While Alaska concedes that it did not 

complete a full food and beverage service, Alaska states that its crew walked the aisles 

with water, distributed food to passengers who requested it, and made clear to every 

passenger that food and water were available in the galleys or upon request. Alaska 

states that its flight attendants were unable to serve each passenger with a snack because 

the aircraft was “creeping” forward awaiting clearance to depart.

Alaska states that it takes compliance with the Department's consumer regulations 

seriously, including the extended tarmac delay regulations and guidelines. This is 

Alaska’s first tarmac delay of over three hours. Alaska states that it is committed to 

ensuring the comfort and well-being of its passengers and providing the best possible 

customer service during mechanical, weather or air traffic control delays.

Decision

We view seriously Alaska’s violation of 14 CFR Part 259 and 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 41712 and 42301. Accordingly, after carefully considering all the facts in this case, 

including those set forth above, the Enforcement Office believes that enforcement action 

is warranted. By this order, the Department finds that Alaska failed to adhere to the 

assurance in its contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays that the carrier provide 

adequate food and water to passengers no later than two hours after an aircraft leaves the 

gate (in the case of departure).

In order to avoid litigation, Alaska has agreed to settle this matter with the Enforcement 

Office and enter into this consent order directing Alaska to cease and desist from future 

similar violations of 14 CFR Part 259 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301, and assessing 

$30,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise due and payable. The 

compromise assessment is appropriate considering the nature and extent of the violations 

described herein and serves the public interest. It establishes a strong deterrent to future 

similar unlawful practices by Alaska and other carriers.

This order is issued under the authority contained in 49 CFR Part 1.
4

ACCORDINGLY,

1. Based on the above discussion, we approve this settlement and the provisions of 

this order as being in the public interest;

2. We find that Alaska Airlines, Inc., violated 49 U.S.C. § 42301(e)(3) and 14 CFR 

259.4(b)(3) by failing to adhere to the assurance in its contingency plan for lengthy 

tarmac delays that the carrier would provide adequate food and water no later than 

two hours after an aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of departure);

3. We find that by engaging in the conduct described in ordering paragraph 2 above, 

Alaska Airlines, Inc., engaged in unfair and deceptive practices and unfair methods 

of competition in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712;

4. We order Alaska Airlines, Inc., and all other entities owned or controlled by, or 

under common ownership and control with Alaska Airlines, Inc., its successors, 

affiliates, and assigns, to cease and desist from further violations of 14 CFR Part 

259 and 49 U.S.C. §§ 41712 and 42301; 

5. We assess Alaska Airlines, Inc., $30,000 in civil penalties in compromise of civil 

penalties that might otherwise be assessed for the violations found in ordering 

paragraphs 2 and 3 above. Of that amount, $2,200 shall be due and payable within 

30 days of the date of issuance of this order and $12,800 shall be credited to Alaska 

Airlines, Inc., for travel vouchers that were provided to passengers of flight 33. The 

remaining amount, $15,000, will become due and payable if, within one year of the 

date of issuance of this order, Alaska Airlines, Inc., violates the order’s cease and 

desist provisions or fails to comply with the order’s payment provisions, in which 

case Alaska Airlines, Inc., may be subject to additional enforcement action for 

violation of this order; and

6. We order Alaska Airlines, Inc., to remit the payment assessed in paragraph 5, 

above, within 30 days of the issuance of this order. Payment shall be made through 

Pay.gov to the account of the U.S. Treasury in accordance with the instructions 

contained in the Attachment to this order. Failure to pay the penalty as ordered 

shall subject Alaska Airlines, Inc., to the assessment of interest, penalty, and 

collection charges under the Debt Collection Act and to further enforcement action 

for failing to comply with this order. 
5

This order will become a final order of the Department 10 days after its service date 

unless a timely petition for review is filed or the Department takes review on its own 

motion.

BY:

SAMUEL PODBERESKY 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

An electronic version of this document is available at

www.regulatons.gov