Page 1 of 7 

### May 13, 2013 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS
FORMAL COMPLAINT ) ) AGAINST ) ) May 13, 2013 **BRITISH AIRWAYS** ) ) FOR VIOLATIONS OF ) ) 49 U.S.C. 41712 and 14 CFR 259.5 (B)(4) and ) other U.S. DOT regulations )

THIS FORMAL COMPLAINT (ORIGINALLY JI2013040101) WAS INITIALLY FILED WITH THE U.S. DOT ON APRIL 26, 2013, IN THE FORM APPARENTLY USED FOR MOR E SIMPLE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND WAS APPARENTLY LOOKED UPON BY THE U.S. DOT AS MEREL Y SEEKING REDRESS FOR THE BAD EXPERIENCE OF ONE POSSIBLE BRITISH AIRWAYS PASSENGE R. INDEED, IT IS MUCH MORE THAN THAT. AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THAT ONE POSSIBLE BA PASSENGE R IS BELIEVED TO BE WIDESPREAD AMONG MANY POSSIBLE BA PASSENGERS FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN. THIS FORMAL COMPLAINT ALLEGES WIDESPREAD VIOLATIONS BY BA OF U.S. DOT REG ULATION 14 CFR 259.5(B)(4) GOVERNING
THE RIGHTS OF POSSIBLE PASSENGERS TO CANCEL RESERVA TIONS WITHOUT PENALTY WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS AND FOR BA’S ALLEGED COMMON AND FAL SE MISTATEMENTS TO POSSIBLE AIRLINE PASSENGERS THAT BA IS A “FOREIGN” CARRIER AND THERE FORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RULES (AND PROTECTIONS) OF THE U.S. DOT. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREB Y REQUESTS THE U.S. DOT TO EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY UNDER 49 U.S.C. 41712 TO INVESTIGATE BA F OR THE ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL AND WIDESPREAD AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND MISSTATEMEN TS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS AND REQUIRE CORRECTIONS IF SUCH PRACTICE S AND MISSTATEMENTS ARE DISCOVERED. (OF COURSE, THE ISSUE OF HOW “WIDESPREAD” BA’S BEHA VIOR IS CAN ONLY BE ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THROUGH THE TYPE OF INVESTIGATION ONLY T HE U.S. DOT [AND NOT ANY ONE POSSIBLE PASSENGER, SUCH AS MR. CUSHMAN] CAN CONDUCT.)Page 2 of 7 

### May 13, 2013

This Formal Complaint to the U.S. DOT describes ONE specific and recent case in which British Airways personnel disregarded both U.S. DOT rules and BA’s own written and published RULES regarding passengers’ rights to cancel reservations without p enalty within 24 hours of the making of reservations. Based on recent telephone communicati ons with BA reservations personnel, as described in detail below, it is believed that thes e alleged violations of the law when dealing with possible passengers are a widespread pattern of pr actice by BA with many possible passengers –in other words BA appears to (more or less) publish co rrectly on its website the written “customer service plan” regarding the 24-hour right of cancel lation as required by the U.S. DOT’s 14 CFR259.5(b)(4), but a number of its telephone perso nnel, including BA supervisory personnel, in practice often violate BA’S own published rules and U.S. DOT rules and often falsely state to possible passengers that since BA is a “foreign” carrier, it is not subject to U.S. DOT rules.
The saga of one possible BA passenger is set forth in the following paragraphs: On March 30, 2013, F. Bennett Cushman II made an online reservation with British Airways to fly from San Francisco to Paris and back to Boston in Business Class for a flight 5 months in the future, under BA Conf. No.Y2EPVY. He was charged at that time, and paid in full, for bot h the ticket reservation and related seat reservati ons. Within 24 hours of the making of this reservation, he made a correction to a mistake in the itinerary by telephone with a BA agent; and then he subsequently attempted to make a second such correction to his reservation by telephone with a BA agent (also well within the 24 hour period) but was told that t o make that correction there would be a non-refundabl e $500 change fee. At that point , in order to avoi d incurring a supposedly nonrefundable charge of $500 , he cancelled the entire reservation and related seats, but was then told by BA that the cancellatio n of the reservation would nevertheless incur the same nonrefundable $500 charge which would be charg ed to the credit card he had previously given to BA for the purpose of making the reservation in the first place. In other words, Mr. Cushman was charged a $500 “nonrefundable” fee within the initi al 24-hour period for a reservation he attempted toPage 3 of 7 

### May 13, 2013

correct and then cancelled. 14CFR259.5(b)(4 ), a rule of the U.S. DOT, states very clearly that a “customer service plan” for each covered airline, which BA cl early is, must allow “reservations to be held at th e quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without p enalty, for at least twenty-four hours after the reservation is made if the reservation is made one week or more prior to the flight’s departure....” BA’ s own written rule , taken from its own website, states that “if you n otice a mistake after you have paid [emphasis added] for your ticket(s), we will allow you to cancel [emphasis added ] your booking and claim a full refund without penalty [emphasis added] up to 24 hours from when you make the original booking.”( Certain BA telephone personnel appear to ignore BA’S own written rule and the rule of the U.S. DOT and to march to the rules of their own ill egal drummer.) And then, Mr. Cushman was charged to his credit card on file with BA (for the sole purpose of making the original reservat ion ), and within the initial 24-hour period, an additional an d apparently inexplicable ticket charge of $3,512.3 4 for the original itinerary which he had cancelled-- for a grand total of unauthorized and illegal BA charg es against his credit card of $4,012.34.
Repeated efforts with various BA personnel, includi ng with BA Customer Relations and the BA CEO, Keith X. Williams, over a number of weeks after the attempted reservation, to secure rectification of the errant charges were met with replies to Mr. Cushman from BA that as to the $500 charge, it was a valid and non-refundable charge and that anyway Mr. Cushm an had “agreed” to it (absolutely false—and, of course, BA eventually refunded this errant charge) and it would remain, and as to the inexplicable $3,512.34 charge, it could not be located by BA and therefore could not be corrected by BA and would remain as a charge to Mr. Cushman’s credit card (an d, of course, BA eventually also refunded this bogu s charge .) [ [When Mr. Cushman contacted BA in writ ing on April 11,2013 about these errant and bogus charges, he described the amount owing as $ **4,470.34** , which then included $ **458** of seat assignment charges on this and one other booking; he then rece ived , in a more or less timely fashion , credit fo r the $ **458** but not for the $4,012.34.]] Finally, and very belatedly, and only after hours and hours ofPage 4 of 7 

### May 13, 2013

communications with various BA personnel and much mental anguish for Mr. Cushman , he was notified by BA on April 17, 2013 -- almost 3 weeks after he made the reservation -- that he would rece ive a complete credit for the errant BA charges of $4,0 12.34

. Each of these 2 errant BA charges to Mr. Cushma n , one for $500 and one for $3,512.34, and totali ng $4,012.34 , appear to constitute clear violations of the U.S. DOT rules and of BA’s own written and published policies as set forth above. One wonders whether a possible BA passenger, such as Mr. Cushman, is not entitled to some recompense for the hours and hours of time and for the mental anguish endured in seeking reimbursement from BA, over a period of almost 3 weeks, for the clearly errant amounts that should not have been charged by BA in the first place. At this point, Mr. Cushma n no longer seeks cash recompense from BA for hi s mistreatment by BA (over and above the “refund” he received for the bogus BA charges ). Rather, he seeks appropriate U.S. DOT sanctions against BA and asks that BA be made to take action so that Mr. Cushman’s unhappy and dishonest experience will not be repeated with other possible BA passengers and so that other wrongfully treate d possible passengers will be adequately reimbursed.
One suspects, and the DOT should clearly confirm th is through a thorough investigation of BA, that these types of alleged illegal and deceptive BA p ractices are widespread with other possible BA customers. Based on several random telephone calls to BA reservations at its 800-247-9297 telephone number during late April 2013, a number of BA emplo yees routinely and misleadingly told Mr. Cushman that he was not protected by the U.S. DOT rules, in cluding the 24 hour right to cancel without penalty rule, because BA is a “foreign” carrier and not sub ject to the U.S. DOT rules. That is clearly false a nd incorrect under the clear meaning of 14 CFR 259.2. (BA was informed of these dishonest and apparently illegal and deceptive practices, but it is not kn own whether it thereafter attempted to correct thes e practices with its employees. Maybe the U.S. DOT wi ll find out.)Page 5 of 7 

### May 13, 2013

Prior to filing this Formal Complaint with the U.S. DOT, numerous attempts through the BA General Counsel-- Americas to get BA to commit to retrain i t’s employees so that that they understand and communicate to customers that BA is subject to U.S. DOT rules, including a correct version of the 24 hour rule, were completely unsuccessful. During tho se same discussions Mr. Cushman also sought reasonable compensation, over and above mere reimbu rsement of the amounts he was dishonestly charged by BA, for the hours and hours of time and for the mental anguish he endured in se eking to resolve the errant charges, but he was not able to reach a satisfactory agreement with BA regarding such compensation.
It is hereby requested that the U.S. DOT exercise i t’s authority under 49U.S.C.41712 to investigate an d impose sanctions against British Airways, including fines , damages and the repayment to possible passengers of any amounts paid in violation of U.S. DOT rules, and to require British Airways to corre ct in a timely fashion any illegal or unfair or decept ive practices as described in this Formal Complaint and to abide by all U.S. DOT rules.Page 6 of 7 

### May 13, 2013 VERIFICATION

Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 100 1, I certify that I have not in any manner knowingl y and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to dis close any material fact or made any false, fictitio us, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any document s which contain such statements in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of this Complaint. I understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ F. Bennett Cushman II

707-292-5830
Cushman@thefarmsonoma.com

#######Page 7 of 7 

### May 13, 2013 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, George D. Tuttle, hereby certify that on this 13 th day of May, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Complain t was served via electronic mail on the parties named below:
Samuel Podberesky-- sam.podberesky@dot.gov **and**
Richard Mendles , General Counsel, Americas, Britis h Airways-- richard.mendles@ba.com

. /s/ George D.Tuttle, attorney for Mr. Cushman

707-829-2662
tuttle@thefarmsonoma.com
cc—Nick Lowry, esq.