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 MORE SIMPLE CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AND 

WAS APPARENTLY LOOKED UPON BY THE U.S. DOT AS MERELY SEEKING REDRESS FOR THE BAD 

EXPERIENCE OF ONE POSSIBLE BRITISH AIRWAYS PASSENGER. INDEED, IT IS MUCH MORE THAN THAT. 

AND THE EXPERIENCE OF THAT ONE POSSIBLE BA PASSENGER 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 REGULATION 14 CFR 259.5(B)(4) GOVERNING 

THE RIGHTS OF POSSIBLE PASSENGERS TO CANCEL RESERVATIONS WITHOUT PENALTY WITHIN THE 

FIRST 24 HOURS AND FOR BA’S ALLEGED COMMON AND FALSE MISTATEMENTS TO POSSIBLE AIRLINE 

PASSENGERS THAT BA IS A “FOREIGN” CARRIER AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO THE RULES (AND 

PROTECTIONS) OF THE U.S. DOT. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS THE U.S. DOT TO EXERCISE ITS 

AUTHORITY UNDER 49 U.S.C. 41712 TO INVESTIGATE BA FOR THE ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL AND 

WIDESPREAD AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND MISSTATEMENTS DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND TO IMPOSE 

SANCTIONS AND REQUIRE CORRECTIONS IF SUCH PRACTICES AND MISSTATEMENTS ARE DISCOVERED. 

(OF COURSE, THE ISSUE OF HOW “WIDESPREAD” BA’S BEHAVIOR IS CAN ONLY BE ULTIMATELY 

DETERMINED THROUGH THE TYPE OF INVESTIGATION ONLY THE 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 penalty within 24 hours of the making of 

reservations. Based on recent telephone communications with BA reservations personnel, as 

described in detail below, it is believed that these alleged violations of the law when dealing with 

possible passengers are a widespread pattern of practice by BA with many possible passengers –in 

other words BA appears to (more or less) publish correctly on its website the written “customer 

service plan” regarding the 24-hour right of cancellation as required by the U.S. DOT’s 14 

CFR259.5(b)(4), but a number of its telephone personnel, 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 both the ticket reservation and related seat reservations. 

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 to 

make that correction there would be a non-refundable $500 change fee. At that point , in order to avoid 

incurring a supposedly nonrefundable charge of $500, he cancelled the entire reservation and related 

seats, but was then told by BA that the cancellation of the reservation would nevertheless incur the 

same nonrefundable $500 charge which would be charged 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 initial 24-hour period for a reservation he attempted to
Page 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 clearly is, must allow “reservations to be held at the 

quoted fare without payment, or cancelled without penalty, 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 notice 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 illegal drummer.) And then, Mr. Cushman was charged 

to his credit card on file with BA (for the sole purpose of making the original reservation ), and 

within the initial 24-hour period, an additional and apparently inexplicable ticket charge of $3,512.34 for 

the original itinerary which he had cancelled-- for a grand total of unauthorized and illegal BA charges 

against his credit card of $4,012.34. 

Repeated efforts with various BA personnel, including 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. Cushman 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 (and, of course, BA eventually also refunded this bogus 

charge .) [ [When Mr. Cushman contacted BA in writing 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 received , in a more or less timely fashion , credit for the 

$458 but not for the $4,012.34.]] Finally, and very belatedly, and only after hours and hours of 
Page 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 receive 

a complete credit for the errant BA charges of $4,012.34. 

 Each of these 2 errant BA charges to Mr. Cushman , one for $500 and one for $3,512.34, and totaling 

$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. Cushman 

no longer seeks cash recompense from BA for his 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 treated 

possible passengers will be adequately reimbursed. 

One suspects, and the DOT should clearly confirm this through a thorough investigation of BA, that 

these types of alleged illegal and deceptive BA practices 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 employees routinely and misleadingly told Mr. Cushman 

that he was not protected by the U.S. DOT rules, including the 24 hour right to cancel without penalty

rule, because BA is a “foreign” carrier and not subject to the U.S. DOT rules. That is clearly false and 

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 known whether it thereafter attempted to correct these 

practices with its employees. Maybe the U.S. DOT will 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 it’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 those same discussions Mr. Cushman also sought 

reasonable compensation, over and above mere reimbursement of the amounts he was dishonestly 

charged by BA, for the hours and hours of time and for the mental anguish he endured in seeking 

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 it’s authority under 49U.S.C.41712 to investigate and

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 correct

in a timely fashion any illegal or unfair or deceptive 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 1001, I certify that I have not in any manner knowingly 

and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents 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 13th day of May, 2013, a copy of the foregoing Complaint 

was served via electronic mail on the parties named below: 

Samuel Podberesky-- sam.podberesky@dot.gov and 

Richard Mendles , General Counsel, Americas, British Airways-- richard.mendles@ba.com. 

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

707-829-2662 

tuttle@thefarmsonoma.com 

cc—Nick Lowry, esq.