Opinion ID: 394180
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unfair Administration

Text: 14 DHL also contends that the courier baggage tariff is unjustly discriminatory because it cannot be fairly administered. The CAB, although recognizing some minor ambiguity in the definition of courier, rejected this argument because DHL did not demonstrate that the definitional problems will prove problematic in practice. Order 80-2-148 at 3. 15 DHL's position is that the carriers will be unable to distinguish who is a courier and who is not. DHL's argument is premised upon an admission by Pan Am's counsel that it might not know who is a courier. The counsel, however, stated that typically Pan Am does know who is a courier because the courier does business on a regular basis or, if not, a courier could be easily recognized because of the tendering of a large number of distinctive bags. 13 Moreover, at oral argument DHL's counsel stated that he did not suggest that Pan Am cannot tell a DHL courier in most cases. 16 DHL has failed to demonstrate that identification of a courier will prove difficult in most cases. Rate distinctions have previously been approved which require the airline to identify a particular characteristic about its passenger. 17 In Flores v. Pan American World Airways, 259 F.Supp. 402 (D.Puerto Rico 1966), the carrier refused to permit a passenger to board without proof that her infant was under two years of age and thereby entitled to travel with her on a single adult fare ticket. Although other similarly situated passengers may have been permitted to board without proof of age, the court found no unjust discrimination. We fail to see how the airlines will have much more difficulty deciding who is a courier than who is under two years old. Thus, we hold that the CAB did not abuse its discretion in failing to investigate this allegation in the complaint.