1

BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------------------------

In the matter of: :

:

Final Rule :

Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0140

Passenger Protections :

------------------------------------------------------

REQUEST TO EXTEND DOT ORDER 2012-1-2

Airlines for America, the International Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association, and the 

Air Carrier Association of America on behalf of their members, have made and continue to make 

substantial investments and efforts to comply with the passenger baggage regulations adopted in the 

Department’s Passenger Protection II final rule.1 However, despite carrier best efforts, it will not be 

possible to develop a fully automated solution that is essential to smooth and efficient customer service 

that complies with all aspects of the Department’s baggage rules by July 24. We therefore request the 

Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to extend until 

January 24, 2013 its enforcement discretion in monitoring compliance with these provisions consistent 

with DOT Order 2012-1-2. 

While much progress has been made to ensure the vast majority of passengers, over 90%, will receive 

notice and have the DOT baggage rules applied to itineraries within the scope of the regulations, there 

are extremely challenging technical roadblocks to developing and implementing an automated solution for 

a minority of itineraries, specifically interline and certain codeshare itineraries. The Department 

recognized the compliance challenge for a small percentage of itineraries in its January 6, 2012 Order

and we ask the Department to consider the limited scope of this request in its decision-making process. 

It is in the public’s best interest that the industry has enough time to complete and test an automated 

system and train employees on this system. Mandating a compliance period that will force carriers to 

institute hybrid manual and interim automation systems will confuse passengers and drain vital resources 

needed to complete a long-term automated solution. The requirement to refund any incorrect bag fees 

and a lack of complaints to carriers and to the Department concerning these baggage rules since the 

January Order suggests that consumers are satisfied with carrier efforts.

Completed Industry Compliance Efforts

Carriers have completed substantial DOT baggage rule compliance efforts while at the same time 

seeking to comply with IATA resolution 302. The U.S. carriers’ biggest accomplishment is full compliance 

with all the new DOT baggage rules for passengers booking and flying on a single carrier, including 

segments flown by a regional partner. Other accomplishments include restructuring internal baggage fee 

databases to better communicate with ATPCO and ease communication with various carrier systems. 

Carriers created use cases and requirements for check-in and online applications, designed mockups for 

all systems, conducted usability testing for airport applications and rewrote airport applications code for all 

fee collection and fee waivers. 

 

1

See 14 C.F.R. 399.87 “baggage allowances and fees” and 14 C.F.R. 399.85(c) “baggage notice.” 
2

In addition, significant technology changes were made to provide customers specific and customized 

baggage allowance and fee information in receipts and website confirmation pages for pure online 

itineraries. Many carriers have expanded and others are expanding efforts further by modifying mobile 

applications to provide the relevant baggage information applicable for each passenger based on their 

itinerary, frequent flyer status, etc. Some carriers are also adding baggage-fee calculators allowing the 

customer to get information before purchase. Finally, the IATA Joint Passenger Ticketing Committee 

(JPTC) adopted an industry standard for storing baggage information on the ticket at the time of issuance

that will take effect on August 1, 2012. The adoption of this standard will lead to automated notice to 

other carriers in an itinerary as to what baggage rules should apply for the entire itinerary and compliance 

with 399.85(c).

Building solutions to comply with both DOT and IATA standards is complex, time consuming, and 

expensive. Each carrier faces unique circumstances and challenges in creating and modifying internal 

systems to meet complex DOT requirements. A change of this magnitude can be compared to moving the 

industry from paper tickets to electronic ticketing. Carriers began the compliance process in 2011 by 

working internally and using third party vendors to scope and diagram the new DOT baggage 

requirements. As additional guidance emerged, carrier and vendor compliance plans had to be modified. 

Based on information we received from polling members, we submit the following summary of completed 

compliance efforts.

Throughout 2011 and 2012, IATA, A4A, and ATPCO held numerous industry meetings to discuss and 

coordinate an automated solution to the new DOT baggage rules. DOT staff has participated in several 

of these meetings. Because the DOT rules require a level of baggage policy information sharing never 

contemplated, the work at these meetings is vital to devising industry solutions to meet the DOT standard 

of “applying one set of baggage rules per itinerary” and providing notice of those bag rules at various 

points of the ticketing process. The hard work at these meetings assisted ATPCO in enhancing its 

database of baggage fee information as carriers file extensive baggage policy information with ATPCO. 

While many aspects of the ATPCO database are complete, more work still needs to be done, which 

includes determining the scope of and filing various baggage policies such as carrying pets as checked 

baggage. Although ATPCO may complete work on various aspects of the database around the July 24, 

2012 non-enforcement policy deadline, this will not provide enough time for carriers to test and provide 

feedback to ATPCO, which is typically a two month process.

As explained in our November 2011 request to extend the effective dates for sections 399.87 and 

399.85(c), building a baggage policy database is only the first step in the compliance process. Carriers 

must redesign internal systems to utilize ATPCO information, build logic to apply the new DOT rules, and 

spread the applicable information to many different departments within each airline, including ticketing 

and Departure Control Systems (DCS). So far, carriers have been successful in ensuring that their own 

baggage rules apply throughout an itinerary sold by a carrier, including segments flown by regional 

partners, and that passengers have notice of the baggage rules. Airport DCS however were not designed 

or architected to communicate externally with other airline systems for sharing of baggage entitlement or 

enforcement. Therefore, retrieving and applying another carrier’s baggage policies in an efficient 

automated manner is a challenge, especially when any of the hundreds of airline policies across the 

globe could apply. Fortunately, current carrier solutions ensure over 90% of all U.S. passengers have 

accurate and consistent baggage information. The Department acknowledged most passengers would 

not be impacted by a non-enforcement policy in the Order issued on January 6, 2012.

While working on a long term solution with vendors to comply with the DOT baggage rules, carriers have 

provided advisories, training, and reference materials to airport agents on interim procedures to comply 

with the DOT January 6 Order. This information included baggage policies of other carriers and materials 
3

on how and when passengers should manually receive refunds if incorrect baggage fees are applied, in 

accordance with the two conditions in DOT’s January 6 Order. Changes have also been made to kiosk 

check-in, web check-in, and mobile check-in software to provide passengers with greater transparency on 

baggage rules. Carriers also provide information and training for call center compliance with DOT 

baggage rules. In addition, itinerary receipts now disclose that partner airline baggage fees may apply 

and provide customers with links to partner baggage policy and fee information. In some cases, carriers 

have asked a third party to temporarily address short term compliance with the DOT baggage rules, 

especially for itineraries that include interline flights. Some carriers will send itineraries that include legs 

operated by other airlines to a third party for processing that will then be returned to the carrier. These 

temporary workarounds are highly inefficient given the thousands of itineraries that each carrier 

processes each day.

Compliance efforts have been intense and costly; based on information provided by A4A members, 

completed compliance efforts thus far range to date from 4,000 to 10,000 hours per carrier and range 

from several hundred thousand dollars to several million dollars per carrier in development costs alone. 

These costs were not considered at all in the regulatory review to this rule.

Work in Progress

While carriers continue to work with vendors on compliance, there are still many ongoing efforts that will 

not be completed by July 24, 2012. Most carriers or vendors are still building software that will provide 

baggage rule notices to passengers at the time of a fare quote and on e-ticket confirmations in addition to 

applying other carrier baggage rules at the airport for some codeshare and all interline itineraries. For 

most carriers this requires a redesign of ticketing and airport applications. 

Carrier compliance solutions will utilize the baggage allowances and charges from the ATPCO data 

application from the time of initial booking all the way through the bag check and charge collection 

process. ATPCO will become the single source of data for charges and allowances once all DOT 

mandated information is included in the database. There is still some ATPCO work needed to complete 

coding for various baggage categories including pets as checked baggage. Carrier and vendor personnel 

are working to provide dynamic disclosure details utilizing ATPCO data at the time of fare quote and on eticket confirmations, which includes integration with all channels: online, reservations, ticketing, and other 

customer facing channels. 

A full carrier solution to comply with the DOT baggage rules is dependent on a vendor created data feed 

system or application. These systems will allow carriers to input information and find out the “rules 

determining carrier” (RDC) and related baggage charges. Part of the vendor solution will need to include 

the ability to store the baggage disclosure data in the reservation for bookings made online so all carriers 

in an itinerary will know which bag rules to apply. Individual vendor data storing format for online tickets 

will be key to ensure that baggage data will be stored and appear on the e-ticket confirmation. This 

service is fundamental to any carrier solution. IATA has just adopted an industry standard for storing 

baggage information on the ticket at the time of issuance. Most vendors will release an initial version of a 

standalone automated service in October 2012 that will only provide first and second baggage charges. 

Most vendor solutions will then need to be expanded to include excess, oversize, overweight, sporting 

equipment, and carry-on policies, which will take another 60 days to develop. Without visibility into these 

other baggage categories, carriers will not be able to fully comply with DOT’s requirement to apply one 

set of baggage policies throughout an itinerary. Most carriers are also working to create a manual 

process to identify and process other carrier baggage policy and fee collection at the airport. Manual 

solutions are not ideal even on a temporary basis. First, relying on a manual process for applying and 
4

charging other carrier baggage fees may lead to errors and an inconsistent application of fees. Second, 

having airport agents validate which carrier’s rules apply and the corresponding baggage fees may lead 

to an increase in airport transaction times and result in passenger delays. Additionally, in the event that 

customers do not have their e-ticket disclosure providing the applicable baggage fees, airport agents will 

need to contact specialty groups who would be able to lookup the appropriate fees. These manual 

solutions will be error prone and cause delays and do not benefit passengers or carriers. For these 

reasons, a manual process is not sustainable in the long term and is undesirable from a passenger, 

security and carrier point of view, even as an interim step, an automated solution is required.

Once vendors deliver initial services, carriers will need to redesign baggage modules to interact and 

deliver relevant information to various applications such as ticketing, check-in, kiosk, and mobile 

applications. In order to ensure consistent application of baggage fees across all of the different 

customer touch points, carriers will be creating a centralized baggage pricing service which each of the 

applications will utilize to receive baggage pricing. In addition, each carrier will have to modify existing 

applications to connect to the baggage service, and connect the carrier baggage service to the vendor’s 

solution.

Website

For tickets purchased online, vendors are working to store the RDC and related baggage charges for all 

instances of ticket issuance in carrier host systems. This will require determining and displaying the most 

significant carrier (MSC) and codeshare baggage allowance where applicable to provide a solution for the 

less than 10% of remaining itineraries for which bag charges may or may not be in compliance with DOT 

baggage rules. 

Call Centers

For tickets purchased through call centers, carriers will need to build the ability to accept data from 

vendors into reservations systems. This will include the ability to store the MSC indicator and baggage 

entitlement data in the Passenger Name Record (PNR) as structured data. It will also include 

reprogramming of call center and customer service robotic applications to handle the additional 

information now displayed in various screens, e.g. PNR, fare quote, eticket, etc. Changes will also need 

to be made to e-ticketing applications, actual ticketing data, messaging for handling of MSC, and itinerary 

receipts issued by call centers. Itinerary receipts from call centers are currently static documents which 

need to be modified in order to become dynamic and reflect the information based on the customer’s 

purchase.

Departure Control System (DCS)

Itineraries involving codeshare and interline segments where the check-in carrier is not the MSC continue 

to pose substantial challenges. Significant development is required to implement a solution for internal 

and proprietary DCS. Ongoing work includes: 

 Changes to reservations systems to include new baggage data that will be shared with DCS 

 Changes to core DCS records to support new baggage data

 Developing new business rules to govern query and response inquiries to internal fare 

management systems and other carrier systems that may handle check-in at some locations

 A new XML format message for query and response from third party system inquiries for interline 

itineraries

 New DCS error response handling processes that will account for new DCS functions
5

 Developing new business process flows that carrier agents will use to understand DCS changes

 Changes to firewalls and communications links to ensure the security and integrity of DCS 

systems because DCS will communicate with other systems via internet for the first time

 Changes to DCS user interface/agent applications to account for new DCS functionality

 Rewrite bag check and charge applications, which include changes to the bag check process and 

the collections application 

 Vendor application changes to pull information from ATPCO applications at the airport

Another challenge some carriers face concerns relying on another carrier at certain stations for ground 

handling/check-in. Some carriers use different system providers for check-in and receive only a 

passenger name list (PNL) that conforms to IATA standards. At this point IATA has no planned initiatives 

to change PNL data to incorporate baggage information, which would require another manual process for 

certain stations.

Self Service Devices

For self-service check-in devices, carriers will need to develop an automated solution such as an identifier 

embedded in ticketed reservations to indicate when the operating carrier is not the MSC. This indicator 

will be read by self-service devices as well as by vendor check-in systems and access the ATPCO 

baggage calculator to determine the appropriate baggage allowances and charges for the MSC. This will 

allow passengers to continue to use automated bag check applications rather than waiting in line to see 

an agent. Until this automated solution is built or if the passenger chooses to see an agent, the system 

will alert agents that they must manually look up another carriers baggage rules, which is a tedious and 

slow process. 

Potential Additional Delays

Additional challenges may delay individual carrier compliance schedules. For instance, correct disclosure 

of alliance partner elite travelers, disclosures on reissued/exchanged tickets returned by pricing, and 

application to Common Use Self Service (CUSS) providers are all difficult and time consuming challenges 

that will likely not come into full compliance until 2013. CUSS kiosks are managed by 10 different 

companies (AirIT, ARINC, Finavia, IER, IBM, NCR, SITA, Ultra, Unique and Unisys) and require at least 

an additional month after carrier software changes are completed. 

Carriers will need to test airport applications, reservations, self-service, mobile apps, mobile check-in and 

vendor applications once vendor solutions are delivered. Carriers are also working to provide tools to 

assist with compliance such as a baggage calculator for internal customer services and external customer 

use to calculate potential allowances and charges. Finally, carriers are developing and deploying 

customer service team training to enable clear communications on the new procedures to better serve 

passengers. 

Reasons for Delay

There are a range of factors that have prevented the industry, carriers and vendors from meeting the July 

24, 2012 deadline for 100 percent of itineraries. The need to change and reintegrate several entire carrier 

systems without interrupting ongoing operations has proven to be difficult and time consuming. For 

instance, one large U.S. carrier reports it is in the process of changing 11 different carrier applications in 

several different departments. This carrier currently has 14 development teams made up of carrier and 

vendor personnel working on the change processes. In addition, significantly changing parts of 

reservation systems that were written 20 years ago has also posed unique challenges. 
6

The IATA JPTC adoption of an industry standard for storing baggage information on the ticket at the time 

of issuance is the first step in a very long process that each carrier and vendor must begin to plan internal 

changes to include the applicable baggage policies in a ticket. This standard will facilitate providing

automated notice to other carriers in an itinerary what baggage rules should apply for the entire itinerary

and compliance with 399.85(c). Implementing this new standard will be challenging and time consuming.

In addition, to achieve full compliance most carriers are coordinating with multiple vendors and business 

partners for software and business process changes and ensuring all entities have the same 

understanding of, and code consistent with, DOT baggage rule clarifications. Further, DOT baggage rule

clarifications resulted in ATPCO service process change delays, which were derived from the March 

ATPCO Operational Service meeting and provided to the industry in May 2012. This timeline slip has 

resulted in the lack of a test environment for ATPCO products; carriers can currently test only in the 

production environment, which is high risk as it introduces changes directly into current systems. From a 

sequencing perspective, the ultimate dependency is on ATPCO to deliver the data application with the 

ability to apply all of the existing rules and exceptions carriers currently have in place for passengers 

across the system. Modifications continue to be made at this time and additional enhancements have 

been submitted for the next ATPCO working group, as the ATPCO data application does not support all 

of the current rules carriers have in place for passengers today. 

After obtaining several ATPCO updates, carrier vendors continued to refine planned carrier products that 

are scheduled to be delivered in the third quarter 2012. In addition, there are a limited number of vendors 

with finite resources and expertise to assist industry with compliance efforts. Some vendors are not able 

to provide automated compliance solutions until well into 2013, which caused some carriers to evaluate 

and select another vendor to meet the DOT requirements in a shorter timeframe. This change requires 

integrating developments with two vendors, which extended timelines. In addition, ATPCO and vendor 

coding takes several iterations to ensure correct responses. The number of coding changes to reach a 

smooth exchange of information cannot be known prior to implementation. Multiple code revisions have 

also delayed compliance deadlines. In addition, some vendors require testing carrier systems for 

backwards compatibility, referred to as regression testing when upgrading software. This additional 

testing step delays implementation.

Carriers must conduct extensive data share testing with codeshare and interline partners because of the 

high level of information exchange required by DOT rules. Different carrier systems are further along 

with certain aspects of compliance, such as disclosure on e-tickets, whereas others are further along on 

communicating baggage rules at check-in. Different states of readiness delays information exchange and 

testing, which causes delays in overall compliance milestones.

In addition, if the non-enforcement period ends in July 2012, carrier resources which are needed to work 

on compliance matters will be diverted to figuring out concerns with live systems that are not fully 

automated or fully complete. Carrier resources would be better spent building more complete automated 

carrier systems than stopping work to figure out why there are errors in an incomplete error prone manual 

system.
7

Additional Technical Challenges:

There are also significant challenges when categories of baggage meet more than one special baggage 

category. For example, when a passenger checks more than two bags, e.g. “excess baggage,” that are 

also overweight and/or oversized the application of these different variables is extremely complex and 

carrier systems have difficulty interpreting and utilizing ATPCO data. In addition, carriers have different 

baggage rules that are not always easily applied or communicated by operating carriers. For example, 

carrier rules differ on the most generous baggage allowance applied on an itinerary, whereas some apply 

the most generous baggage allowances by the direction of travel. It is important to carefully build rules 

and messages that fully account for these situations.

Most check-in systems only have a 48 hour window on the world, i.e. flights are created 24 hours in 

advance and are managed “day of”, then are purged from the system. They do not check reservations or 

the ticket for previously flown segments, nor do they check for information on flight segments that are 

beyond the limit of what may be checked in during a given transaction. When a carrier elects to file their 

baggage charges per direction rather than per checked portion and a passenger is at a mid-stream point 

of the direction, most check-in systems have no way to know whether or not charges have been collected 

at the point of origin. A passenger can present a receipt, but automation would default to either present 

the charges for collection, which agents would have to override (meaning some passengers could not use 

self-service kiosks) or assume that the charges have been collected previously which will result in a 

potential loss of baggage revenue. Until industry standards are in place for fee collections such as IATA’s 

electronic miscellaneous document (EMD), launched and used by all interline partners, and the EMD data 

is transmitted to all down-line carriers in the itinerary, application of DOT’s baggage rules will continue to 

lack automated solutions.

Finally, there is currently no industry solution for applying the same set of pet as checked baggage fees

throughout an itinerary. Pets have never been interlined with other carriers and each carrier has their 

own very specific pet rules. The coding for pet policies and fees will be very complicated and take 

considerable time and is a very sensitive topic for customers. 

Timeline

The consensus among A4A members is that it will take until January 2013 to be fully compliant with all 

DOT’s baggage rules. We note that some vendors are predicting it will take until 3rd quarter 2013 to 

provide full automation to comply with all aspects of the baggage rules. Compliance by January 2013 will 

require carriers and vendors to introduce a combination of manual and automated procedures, which are 

more time consuming and likely to slow passenger check-in processes. This timeframe includes 

condensed and simultaneous project management. For instance, training materials are being developed 

and deployed while vendors work on automated solutions.

Lack of Complaints:

The fact that 90 percent of itineraries comply with DOT baggage rules and the small number of 

complaints carriers are receiving indicates that the vast majority of passengers are receiving notice of bag 

fees and are being charged the correct fees. Since January, one A4A member reports having only 3 

complaints questioning if the correct baggage fee was charged, another reports processing 20 requests 

of which 16 merited a partial refund. Therefore, extending the non-enforcement policy period through 

January 2013 will not materially impact the vast majority of passengers and will allow carriers to provide 

better customer service in the future.
8

Costs

Based on information provided by A4A members, it will take between 20,000 and 30,000 total hours per 

carrier to comply with the DOT baggage rules. While the cost of this constraint on industry resources 

varies widely, A4A members indicate a range from $1.5 million to over $4 million total costs per carrier. 

We note that the DOT did not include any cost or any benefit analysis associated with these provisions in 

the Passenger Protection II Final Rule Final Regulatory Analysis and the fact that the bag rules discussed 

here were not proposed in the NPRM, precluding a full consideration of the costs and benefits of this rule 

in the notice and comment period. Against that backdrop we ask the DOT to consider these 

unanticipated and unanalyzed additional burdens in its decision-making process.

Conclusion 

Carriers and their vendors are working as quickly as possible to provide all passengers traveling to, from, 

or within the U.S. with a fully automated ticketing/reservation baggage check-in process that complies 

with the DOT baggage rules, while also complying with IATA Resolution 302. The industry has 

substantially met this effort with considerable investment and resources and is working diligently to 

provide an automated solution for a small percentage of codeshare and interline passengers. 

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Department extend its enforcement discretion in monitoring 

compliance with these provisions consistent with DOT Order 2012-1-2, until January 24, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Douglas Mullen Roger Cohen

Assistant General Counsel President

Airlines for America Regional Airline Association

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 2025 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20036

202-626-4000 (202) 367-1250

dmullen@airlines.org cohen@raa.org

Edward P. Faberman Douglas Lavin

Executive Director Regional Vice President, North America

Air Carrier Association of America International Air Transport Association

1776 K Street, NW Suite 300 – North, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 

(202) 719-7420 (202) 628 9292

epfaberman@acaa1.com lavind@iata.org

June 22, 2012