DOT, Aviation Enforcement Office are dedicated to protecting consumers

First let me say that I support Chris Elliott's advocacy on behalf of airline passengers. Our society needs people who are willing to step up to the plate on behalf of others.

But let me also say that in his recent Washington Post column Mr. Elliott seems to have taken a swing at a really bad pitch.

Look, this Department’s staff, and the Aviation Enforcement Office in particular, are dedicated to protecting consumers. Dedicated. And I see them working hard every day to accomplish that difficult task.

Mr. Elliott is wrong to suggest otherwise.

Here are some points to consider:

• The Department has a comprehensive disclosure rule covering the sale of flights involving codeshares. Codeshares are flights ticketed by one airline but operated by another, and  passengers can't even inquire about--much less buy--a ticket without first having been told if their flight involves a codeshare and who that codeshare airline partner actually is.
• During the past year alone, the Department has issued enforcement orders in 31 cases. We have assessed over $2 million in civil penalties.
• Twenty-one of those cases directly involved violations of what commonly are referred to as our consumer protection rules. These include the codeshare disclosure rule that Mr. Elliott suggests we've been ignoring.
• But they go even further, into deceptive ads, bumping, refunds, and public charter flights. 
• We have also conducted on-site compliance visits at the headquarters of 5 airlines, resulting in 3 enforcement orders involving various consumer protection requirements. More such visits are planned to ensure compliance. They were planned long before Mr. Elliot's column.

I'm sorry that Mr. Elliott doesn't think extended tarmac delays require DOT attention. I'm sure that will come as an unwelcome surprise to the 47 passengers of Flight 2816 who spent a night on the tarmac in Rochester, Minnesota, without working toilets.

If people want to argue about what's the most important area of consumer protection, go ahead. But at DOT we're here to help consumers in every aspect of their dealings with airlines.

Comments

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=533395438]

I appreciate your kind comments about my work.

Just as a reference point, here's the original column that you discussed in your post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102103351.html

I’m not sure if it’s fair to say I think the Aviation Enforcement Office is failing to protect consumers. Actually, I have written about many of the agency's key enforcement actions on my consumer travel blog, http://www.elliott.org

You might say I’ve been something of a fan.

I quoted a source in the column who is critical of your agency. Some of the statements he made are mistakenly attributed to me in your post. I do believe my source made some interesting points based on years of observing your agency, which is why they were included in the story.

It is also misleading to say I think extended tarmac delays don't require DOT attention. Quite the opposite is true.

Rather, the column criticized our fixation on tarmac delays at the expense of other important passenger issues.

I’m relieved to learn that you’re focused on every aspect of the air travel experience. I agree that it’s important to have a discussion about the most important areas of consumer protection, and am looking forward to the debate.

[Edward Hasbrouck]

In response to the statements of mine which were quoted in Christopher Elliott's article, you claim that "passengers can't even inquire about --much less buy -- a ticket without first having been told if their flight involves a codeshare and who that codeshare airline partner actually is."

In fact, initial displays in response to price comparison inquiries on the leading airline ticket sales Web sites rarely disclose codeshares.

More importantly, as I pointed out in your most recent rulemaking on disclosure of codeshares, "while itineraries usually indicate the operating airline, tickets and boarding passes -- the things travellers are required to have in hand while searching for a flight or gate, even if they don't have a printed itinerary -- do not. Indeed, IATA and airline rules provide no field on a ticket or boarding pass for the designation of the operating airline, and forbid the entry of other information in those fields. A travel agent who wants to indicate on a ticket which airline actually operates a code-share flight is forbidden from doing so by airline ticket issuance rules and procedures."

Most importantly of all in this regard, the DOT has failed to question the clearly and demonstrably false claims by airlines that codesharing is "necessary" for interline sales, ticketing, or operations, when in fact airlines have had interline agreements, procedures, and industry standards in place for decades that permitted all of the features claimed as benefits of codesharing.

Airlines use these false claims about operational needs to justify codesharing, when in fact codesharing is purely a labeling (i.e. advertising and marketing) practice, engaged in purely for marketing and advertising purposes: airlines believe (correctly, I presume, or they wouldn't do it) that they will sell more tickets at higher prices if they label a flight with the name of an airline different from the actual operator. That's fraud, plain and simple, and there is no reason for the DOT to permit it.

Your response ignores the other issues I raised in the interview Christopher quoted from, such as preemption of states' ability to enforce their own consumer protection rules against airlines (which would be a non-issue if the DOT were doing an adequate job of enforcing reasonable norms of truth-in-advertising, and which has been denounced with near-unanimity by state Attorneys General), and the DOT's ongoing policy of non-enforcement of price advertising rules (recall that your most recent rulemaking on this issue proposed to relax those rules even further; when the overwhelming majority of public comments called for stronger enforcement, you backed off only to the extent of keeping the rules nominally in place, but retained the official policy of nonenforcement as long as some of the fees and charges not included in the advertised "price" were disclosed in fine print).

I'm glad to hear that the DOT is "here to help consumers", and looking forward to seeing that demonstrated. As for "what's the most important area of consumer protection", I've posted some of my suggestions in my blog (including links to some of those previously submitted in formal comments to the DOT and supporting links for the my comments quoted in Christopher Elliott's article), and would welcome to an opportunity to be part of further discussions with DOT on this and related questions.

[Travel Resources]

As the CEO of a large travel company I am fortunate to have found this site and get current on what's going on with the Department of Transportation. We are not sure why the airlines industry is rock bottom last when it comes to travel, tourism & hospitality industries for profitability. In fact we only offer flights as a courtesy and cross-sale though are never paid any commissions because the airlines industry apparently can't afford to pay commissions any longer. Yet they wonder why they are in such bad economic shape - go figure! If they made it worth while to travel agents, everyone would be more inclined to help them fill seats.

It sounds to me like the DOT is doing its job and protecting consumers. We are relieved to hear how thorough they are with these airlines, even issuing them citations. We plan on writing an article to this effect in our travel resource section, as few flyers are probably even aware of the DOT and the role they play in consumer protection. Keep up the great work Department of Transportation!

[Roman - Get A Trip]

While my own on-line travel resource is back in a development re-design 1 year from the time I first visited 'this' blog post/website, I thought I'd take the time to see if any of "my attitudes or perceptions" of air safety have changed.

Like was I only complimenting the aviations so they would not delete my posts? I am happy to report one year later that now that I am a little more tech savvy, a little more experienced, that I am even more impressed with DOT, Aviation Enforcement Office and their obvious success in protecting consumers.

Each new year after 9/11 in my eyes is a success. The aviation officers could be going two routes; One, they get more complacent with tight security, believing no one would ever attempt to attack us again -- or two, the officers of aviation could continue to find new ways to keep us all safe in the air.

Seeing no complacency [this includes reading DOT & aviation related news regularly], this second route of heightened security is positively obvious to my colleagues are I. Bravo to the DOT!