BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mike Borsetti et al., 

Third-party Complainant 

Docket DOT -OST -2014-0166 

v. 

British Airways Pic 

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC SURREPL Y 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

Richard Mendles 

General Counsel, Americas 

James B. Blaney 

Senior Counsel, Americas 

British Airways Pic 

2 Park A venue, Suite 1100 

New York, NY 10016 

richard.mendles@ba.com 

jim.blaney@ba.com 

December 15,2014 

Don H. Hainbach 

Jason E. Maddux 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: 202-776-3970 

dhainbach@ggh-air law. com 

jmaddux@ggh-airlaw.com 
Mike Borsetti et al., 

BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Third-party Complainant 

Docket DOT -OST -2014-0166 

v. 

British Airways Pic 

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC SURREPL Y 

British Airways Pic (''British Airways") respectfully reiterates its position that there is no 

need for the Department to commence an investigation or formal enforcement proceeding in 

response to Mr. Borsetti's Complaint. As demonstrated in the British Airways October 21 

Answer, and as further demonstrated below, Mr. Borsetti's Complaint results from his booking 

transportation from Los Angeles to London on an American Airlines ("American") flight that 

was canceled, and his subsequent and ultimately successful efforts to obtain substitute 

transportation on a codeshare flight, operated by British Airways, scheduled to depart Los 

Angeles later that same day. Although British Airways regrets the inconvenience experienced by 

Mr. Borsetti and his family as a result of its inability to accommodate the party in Business 

Class, neither his treatment at Los Angeles, nor British Airways' response to his subsequent 

communications, merits an investigation or formal enforcement proceeding. 

Mr. Borsetti's November 21 reply asserts that he is ''open to any ... 'reasonable' approach 

that BA or the Department might propose ... " with respect to the appropriate compensation he 

should receive resulting from his downgrade (Reply ~12). As itemized in the Answer British 
Airways filed on October 21, Mr. Borsetti has thus far received $1,560 in credit card refunds, 

and three $408 checks for a total of $2,784. Mr. Borsetti has acknowledged his receipt of those 

amounts. 1 Accordingly, there is no basis for his assertion (Reply ,3), that "BA's refund still falls 

short by an astounding $1,002 (39%) when calculated using the methodology BA introduced in 

its Answer (footnote 7, p.6)."2 To the contrary, the uncontroverted record establishes that Mr. 

Borsetti has received $222.02 more than the amount resulting from that methodology. 

By contrast, after analyzing the deeply discounted Business Class fares paid by Mr. 

Borsetti and one of his family members, American, the carrier from whom Mr. Borsetti 

purchased his initial transportation, advised British Airways that Mr. Borsetti and that family 

member would not have been entitled to any compensation under the Department's rules had he 

been downgraded by American. More specifically, American advised British Airways that: "In 

order to calculate a refund AA would use the following methodology FARE PAID less FARE 

FLOWN and use a full Y. Using the Y fare results in amounts greater than what the passenger 

paid, there's no refund due on this segment according to our calculations."3 

There can be no question that Mr. Borsetti has already received "reasonable" 

compensation for his downgrade. Moreover, as stated in its October 21 Answer, "British 

Airways remains willing to provide, as a gesture of goodwill, a payment of either 300 GBP, $500 

Mr. Borsetti's Reply (~3) acknowledges the credit card refund amounts, and his September 22 Complaint 

(~30) acknowledged receipt of the three $408 checks. 

As noted in the October 21 Answer, the methodology reflects a European Commission proposal that has 

not yet been adopted. 

American re-ticketed Mr. Borsetti on flight AA6179, a codeshare flight operated by British Airways. 

Pursuant to the standard DOT codeshare condition that "the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown 

on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in its 

contract of carriage with the passenger," American's conditions of carriage apply to Mr. Borsetti's claim. 

2 
USD, or a $650 USD credit voucher to be applied against a future British Airways flight 

purchase for each member of his party." (Answer p.5.) 

Contrary to Mr. Borsetti's assertions (Reply ,-r1), British Airways never "mock[ed] the 

record as lengthy." British Airways simply cited its numerous responses to Mr. Borsetti's 

communications to rebut his incorrect assertion that it failed to comply with the complaint 

response requirements established by §259.7(c). 

With respect to Mr. Borsetti's assertions (Reply ,-rs) that American's flight information 

records indicate a 4:07pm cancellation time, and that British Airways confirmed his reservations 

"well before American Airlines canceled its flight AA136," it should be sufficient to note that 

Mr. Borsetti's Complaint (footnote 2) affirmatively stated that "AA staff at approximately 

2:50pm on 14 February advised us to travel LAX-LHR on a British Airways-operated flight (this 

was consistent with AA tariff rule 80 as to schedule irregularities)." Mr. Borsetti's Complaint 

demonstrates that AA staff were aware that the flight would be canceled well before 4:07 and 

immediately began efforts to accommodate passengers. But for the cancellation of AA 136, Mr. 

Borsetti would have had no reason to be rebooked on AA6179/BA268; Mr. Borsetti's 

characterization of the cancellation of AA 136 as "not relevant" has no basis in fact. 

British Airways disputes Mr. Borsetti' s assertion (Reply ,-r7) regarding the lack of 

credibility of British Airways' statement that "all passengers holding confirmed reservations 

were carried;" indeed, none of the paragraphs cited in the Reply support that assertion. 

Moreover, the Department has not advised British Airways that it received any denied boarding 

complaint from any passenger other than Mr. Borsetti regarding BA268 on February 14, and 

British Airways is not aware of any such complaints. 

3 
British Airways also disputes Mr. Borsetti' s unsupported and inaccurate assertion 

(Reply ,-r9) that British Airways' ability to accommodate all passengers was inconsistent with the 

chaotic situation at the airport. British Airways respectfully submits that its ability to 

accommodate passengers ref1ects the professional response of British Airways' LAX staff to the 

difficult operational conditions resulting from the uncontroverted factual circumstances noted in 

footnote 1 of the October 21 Answer. 

To the extent Mr. Borsetti's Reply includes any factual statement or allegation that is not 

specifically admitted or denied herein, it should be deemed to have been denied. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, British Airways Plc respectfully 

requests that the Department dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 14 CFR § 302.406(a)(2). 

~~y~a 

dA~e-~ Ao~~ ~a~nbach Jason E. Maddux 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Attorneys for British Airways Pic 

4 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of December, 2014, a copy of the foregoing 

Surreply of British Airways Plc was served via electronic mail on the parties named below: 

Mike Borsetti 

Blane Workie 

Clereece Kroha 

mike@borsetti.com 

blane. workie(mdot. gov 

clereece.kroha(lv,dot.gov 

Vanessa Krasniewicz