Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, 68983-69004 [E9-30615]

Agencies

• Office of the Secretary
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68983-69004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30615]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 68983]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 234, 253, 259, and 399

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022]
RIN No. 2105-AD72


Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation 
(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is issuing a final rule to 
enhance airline passenger protections in the following ways: By 
requiring air carriers to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac 
delays and to publish those plans on their Web sites; by requiring air 
carriers to respond to consumer problems; by deeming continued delays 
on a flight that is chronically late to be unfair and deceptive in 
violation of 49 U.S.C. 41712; by requiring air carriers to publish 
information on flight delays on their Web sites; and by requiring air 
carriers to adopt customer service plans, to publish those plans on 
their Web sites, and audit their own compliance with their plans. The 
Department took this action on its own initiative in response to the 
many instances when passengers have been subject to delays on the 
airport tarmac for lengthy periods and also in response to the high 
incidence of flight delays and other consumer problems.

DATES: This rule is effective April 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daeleen Chesley or Blane A. Workie, 
Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and 
Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax), 
Daeleen.Chesley@dot.gov or Blane.Workie@dot.gov (e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 15, 2007, the Department of Transportation (DOT or 
Department) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 
Docket DOT-OST-2007-22 entitled ``Enhancing Airline Passenger 
Protections.'' This ANPRM was published in the Federal Register five 
days later. See ``Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Secretary, 14 CFR Parts 234, 253, 259, and 399 [Docket No. DOT-OST-
2007-0022], RIN No. 2105-AD72, 72 FR 65233 et seq. (November 20, 2007). 
We announced in the ANPRM that we were considering adopting or amending 
rules to address several concerns, including, among others, the 
problems consumers face when aircraft sit for hours on the airport 
tarmac. We observed that, beginning in December of 2006 and continuing 
through the early spring of 2007, weather problems had kept more than a 
few aircraft sitting for long hours on the tarmac, causing the 
passengers undue discomfort and inconvenience. We observed further that 
passengers were also being harmed by the high incidence of less extreme 
flight delays. We acknowledged that the industry and interested 
observers have attributed both the lengthy tarmac waits and many of the 
other flight delays to a number of factors besides weather, such as 
capacity and operational constraints, for example. We also noted that 
some of these issues are being addressed by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) in other contexts.
    Citing our authority and responsibility under 49 U.S.C. 41712, in 
concert with 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9) and 41702, to protect 
consumers from unfair or deceptive practices and to ensure safe and 
adequate service in air transportation, we called for comment on seven 
tentative proposals intended to ameliorate difficulties that passengers 
experience without creating undue burdens for the carriers. The 
measures on which we sought comment in the ANPRM covered the following 
subjects: Contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; carriers' 
responses to consumer problems; chronically delayed flights; delay data 
on Web sites; complaint data on Web sites; reporting of on-time 
performance of international flights; and customer service plans.
    We received approximately 200 comments in response to the ANPRM. Of 
these, 13 came from members of the industry--i.e., air carriers, air 
carrier associations, and other industry trade associations--and the 
rest came from consumers, consumer associations, and two U.S. Senators. 
In general, consumers and consumer associations maintained that the 
Department's proposals did not go far enough, while carriers and 
carrier associations attributed the current problems mostly to factors 
beyond their control such as weather and the air traffic control system 
and tended to characterize the proposals as unnecessary and unduly 
burdensome. The travel agency associations generally expressed support 
for consumer protections.
    On December 8, 2008, after reviewing and considering the comments 
on the ANPRM, we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). See 73 
FR 74586 (December 8, 2008). The NPRM covered the following subjects: 
Contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; carriers' responses to 
consumer problems; chronically delayed flights; reporting certain 
flight delay information; and customer service plans. It did not cover 
complaint data on Web sites or reporting of on-time performance for 
international flights, both of which were raised in the ANPRM. We 
decided not to propose to require carriers to publish complaint data on 
their Web sites because we believe the data would be of little or no 
value to consumers since consumers already have access to a tabulation 
of airline complaints filed by passengers with the Department in the 
Air Travel Consumer Report. These complaints are a reliable indicator 
of the types of complaints about air travel filed by passengers with 
airlines. We also decided not to propose to require carriers to report 
on-time performance of international flights for a number of reasons, 
including concerns that a reporting requirement could make carriers 
less inclined to hold flights for inbound connections resulting in 
hardships for passengers in city-pairs with infrequent service.
    The Department received 21 comments in response to the NPRM. Of 
these, 10 comments were from members

[[Page 68984]]

of the industry and the rest came from consumers and consumer 
associations. On the consumer side, eight individuals filed comments as 
did three consumer advocacy organizations: Flyersrights.org (formerly 
the ``Coalition for an Airline Passengers Bill of Rights'' or CAPBOR), 
the Aviation Consumer Action Project (ACAP) and the Federation of State 
Public Interest Research Groups (U.S. PIRG). Of the industry 
commenters, two carriers (US Airways and ExpressJet Airways), and two 
airport authorities (Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and The 
City of Atlanta Department of Aviation) filed comments. Three industry 
associations filed comments: The National Business Travel Association 
(NBTA), the Air Transport Association of America (ATA), and the 
Regional Airline Association (RAA). Two travel agency associations, the 
American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) and the Interactive Travel 
Services Association (ITSA), also filed comments, as did the Airports 
Council International, North America (ACI-NA).
    In general, the consumers and consumer associations maintain that 
the Department's proposals do not go far enough and contend that 
additional regulatory measures are needed to better protect consumers. 
One of the consumer organizations also expressed disappointment that 
the Department eliminated two of the proposals, while industry 
commenters generally supported that decision. Overall, carriers and 
carrier associations continue to characterize some of the proposals as 
unnecessary and unduly burdensome. ATA also expressed a number of 
concerns with the Department's preliminary regulatory evaluation and 
suggests changes are best made by addressing weather-related and air 
traffic control related issues. The airport authorities support 
carriers having a contingency plan and coordination of the plans at 
medium and large hub airports, while the travel agency associations 
expressed support for consumer protections, with one noting a concern 
with ``unfunded mandates'' on travel agents to address problems for 
which they are not the cause. The commenters' positions that are 
germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM are set forth below. 
The Department plans to seek comment on ways to further enhance 
protections afforded airline passengers in a forthcoming notice of 
proposed rulemaking by addressing the following areas: (1) Review and 
approval of contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays; (2) reporting 
of tarmac delay data; (3) standards for customer service plans; (4) 
notification to passengers of flight status changes; (5) inflation 
adjustment for denied boarding compensation; (6) alternative 
transportation for passengers on canceled flights; (7) opt-out 
provisions where certain services are pre-selected for consumers at 
additional costs (e.g., travel insurance, seat selection); (8) contract 
of carriage venue designation provisions; (9) baggage fees disclosure; 
(10) full fare advertising; and (11) responses to complaints about 
charter service.

Comments and Responses

Tarmac Delay Contingency Plans

1. Covered Entities

    The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a certificated or commuter air 
carrier \1\ that operates domestic scheduled passenger service or 
public charter service using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger 
seats \2\ would be required to develop and implement a contingency plan 
for lengthy tarmac delays. As proposed, it would apply to all of a 
covered U.S. carrier's flights, both domestic and international, 
including those involving aircraft with fewer than 30 seats if a 
carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. We asked 
for comments on whether the Department should limit this section's 
applicability to carriers that operate large aircraft--i.e., aircraft 
originally designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 
60 seats--and we asked proponents and opponents of this alternative to 
provide arguments and evidence in support of their positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A certificated air carrier is a U.S. direct air carrier that 
holds a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to operate 
passenger and/or cargo and mail service. Air taxi operators and 
commuter air carriers operating under 14 CFR Part 298 are exempted 
from the certification requirements of 49 U.S.C. 41102. Some 
carriers that would otherwise be eligible for the air taxi or 
commuter exemption have opted to be certificated. An air taxi 
operator is an air carrier that transports passengers or property 
under the authority of Part 298 and is not a commuter air carrier as 
defined in that rule. A commuter air carrier is an air taxi operator 
that carries passengers on at least five round trips per week on at 
least one route between two or more points according to a published 
flight schedule, using small aircraft--i.e., aircraft originally 
designed with the capacity for up to 60 passenger seats. See 14 CFR 
298.2.
    \2\ We inadvertently stated ``aircraft with a design capacity of 
more than 30 seats'' in several sections of the NPRM. However, our 
intention had been to state ``aircraft with a design capacity of 30 
or more seats.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: We did not receive any comments from individual consumers 
or consumer groups regarding which carriers should be required to 
develop and implement contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays. We 
did receive comments on this point from carriers, carrier associations, 
and airports.
    RAA takes the position that, if the rule is adopted, it should 
apply only to those carriers that hold out services to the public, 
ticket passengers, offer reservation services and control decisions 
regarding delays and food and beverage service. RAA states that over 90 
percent of passengers flying on regional aircraft travel on flights 
that are ticketed and handled by mainline carriers who schedule the 
flights, and that most regional carriers have no direct interaction 
with consumers in this regard. RAA also notes that these passengers' 
contracts of carriage are with the major carrier, not the regional 
airline, and that a regional carrier follows the contingency plan of 
its mainline airline partner. RAA explains that regional airlines that 
operate under agreements with more than one network partner must in 
some cases comply with different contingency plans at the same airport. 
According to RAA, at times multiple network carrier contingency plans 
could be in effect and even in conflict on the same flight in instances 
where a regional airline operates a single flight for several different 
network carriers. As such, RAA contends that requiring a regional 
carrier to have its own plan would increase the conflicts and 
inconsistencies that could arise as it is not clear if the regional 
carrier's own contingency plan would supersede the contracts of the 
carriers who marketed and sold the ticket to the consumer. RAA further 
asserts that as proposed the rule unfairly targets regional carriers, 
which do not make scheduling and/or delay decisions and are most often 
the first carriers to be subjected to FAA ground stops.
    ExpressJet Airlines agrees with the comments submitted by RAA. It 
emphasizes that regional carriers operate under code-share agreements 
with mainline carriers and that those contracts dictate scheduling, 
delay, and cancellation decisions. It asserts that, as a result of a 
regional carrier having limited control over these decisions, the rule 
would impose unfair burdens on regional carriers. ExpressJet comments 
that, should the Department require carriers to have a contingency 
plan, all Part 121 and 135 carriers should have to abide by the 
regulations, not just carriers which operate aircraft having 30 or 60 
seats or more, since, it is the carrier's opinion, the rule as proposed 
discriminates against the larger of the small regional carriers.
    ACI-NA opposes limiting the application of the rule to air carriers 
that

[[Page 68985]]

operate aircraft with more than 60 seats and notes that the rule should 
extend to regional airlines as they serve the vast majority of 
airports. ASTA also opposes limiting the application of the rule to 
carriers that operate large aircraft and asserts that the proposal 
should be extended to all carriers, pointing out that the regional 
airlines carried 160 million passengers in 2007.
    US Airways suggests that airports, as well as other service 
providers, should be held equally accountable as a fair way to share 
the burden among regulated entities, and that international operations 
should not be part of the proposed requirements. ATA, which strongly 
opposes any requirement for hard time limits for returning to a gate 
and/or deplaning passengers remotely, specifically requests that 
international flights be excluded from any hard time limits, (1) due to 
the difficulty associated with accommodating passengers if flights are 
cancelled, (2) because those flights are better equipped to keep 
passengers comfortable for longer periods of time, and (3) because the 
time, costs, and planning associated with those flights is much higher.
    DOT Response: After fully considering the comments received, the 
Department maintains that it is reasonable to apply the requirement to 
any certificated or commuter U.S. air carrier that operates passenger 
service using any aircraft with a design capacity of 30 or more 
passenger seats. In determining to do so, we note that, according to 
RAA's own statistics, regional airlines now carry one out of every five 
domestic air travelers in the United States. Moreover, most regional 
flights are operated by regional carriers affiliated with a major 
carrier via a code-share agreement, a fee-for-service arrangement, and/
or an equity stake in the regional carrier. DOT statistics also 
demonstrate a substantial number of passengers are carried on flights 
operated by aircraft with 30 through 60 seats. According to data from 
the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a total of 
668,476,000 domestic passengers were transported in 2008, 96,310,000 of 
which were on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 seats. The 
large number of passengers carried on such aircraft accompanied by the 
increase in the ``branding'' of those operations with the codes of 
major carriers has blurred the distinction between small-aircraft and 
large-aircraft service in the minds of many passengers. As such, it 
seems appropriate to extend the rule to these operations in order to 
better protect the majority of consumers.
    In reaching this decision, we have concluded that we cannot agree 
with RAA's reasoning that regional carriers should be treated 
differently than their mainline code-share partners and not be 
responsible to the passengers they transport on the vast majority of 
their operations because of their relationships to those partners. We 
recognize that the larger carrier's personnel may provide pre-flight 
services and make most of the decisions from an operational standpoint 
on code-shared flights with a regional carrier. As we pointed out in 
the NPRM, however, even if the determination to cancel a flight or keep 
it on the tarmac is made by the mainline carrier or results from action 
by the FAA, it is the carrier operating the flight that has direct 
contact with the passengers on the aircraft during a tarmac delay and 
that remains directly responsible for serving them. Accordingly, we 
have decided to apply the rule to both carriers in a code-share 
arrangement. We expect that the mainline carriers and their regional 
code-share partners will collaborate on their contingency plans to come 
up with standards that suit both parties. When multiple network carrier 
contingency plans are effective on a single flight operated by a 
regional carrier, it would likely not be practical for the regional 
carrier to apply different standards to individuals on the same flight 
who bought their tickets from different mainline partners. Instead, we 
expect the regional carrier to choose to use the contingency plan that 
is most beneficial to all the passengers on that flight.
    With regard to the international flights of U.S. carriers, while we 
understand the concerns about applying hard time limits on deplaning 
passengers on international flights because of the different 
environment in which those flights operate, we believe that it is still 
important to ensure that passengers on international flights are also 
afforded protection from unreasonably lengthy tarmac delays. Therefore, 
we have decided to apply the requirement to develop and implement a 
contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays to both the domestic and 
international flights of each U.S. carrier operating any aircraft with 
30 or more passenger seats. This requirement applies to U.S. carriers 
even if they operate only international scheduled or charter service.
    However, we have arrived at more flexible requirements with regard 
to the content of the contingency plans for a U.S. carrier's 
international flight (i.e., flexibility to determine the time limit to 
deplane passengers on tarmac) as compared to its domestic flights, 
recognizing that international flights operate less frequently than 
most domestic flights, potentially resulting in much greater harm to 
consumers if carriers cancel these international flights. Although 
carriers are free to establish their own tarmac delay time limits for 
international flights, and even to have different limits for different 
specified situations, these limits must be included in each carrier's 
contingency plan--they are not to be ad hoc decisions made during the 
course of a flight delay.
    An international flight for purposes of this requirement is a 
nonstop flight segment that takes off in the United States and lands in 
another country, or vice-versa, exclusive of non-traffic technical 
stops. For example, if a U.S. carrier operates a direct flight Chicago-
New York-Frankfurt, with some Chicago-originating passengers destined 
for New York and others destined for Frankfurt, and the aircraft 
experiences a tarmac delay in Chicago, then we would consider the 
tarmac delay to be on a domestic flight. This is because Chicago-New 
York is a domestic flight segment even though the final destination of 
the flight is Frankfurt, Germany. If, on the other hand, the aircraft 
only stops for refueling or a crew change in New York and the airline 
carries no Chicago-New York traffic, then we would consider the tarmac 
delay in Chicago to be a tarmac delay on an international flight.
    We have decided against applying this requirement to carriers that 
operate using only aircraft with fewer than 30 seats because these 
entities carry a very small percentage of passenger traffic and we are 
not aware of incidents of lengthy tarmac delays involving carriers that 
only operate aircraft of this size (i.e., carriers that exclusively 
operate aircraft with a design capacity of 29 passenger seats or less). 
We note that the requirement to develop and implement contingency plans 
applies to carriers who have any aircraft with 30 or more seats, 
meaning that it would apply to all aircraft of those carriers, 
including those with fewer than 30 seats.

2. Content of Contingency Plan

    The NPRM: Under the NPRM, each plan would have been required to 
include at least the following: The maximum tarmac delay that the 
carrier would permit; the amount of time on the tarmac that would 
trigger the plan's terms; an assurance of adequate food, water, 
lavatory facilities, and medical attention, if needed, while the 
aircraft remains on the tarmac; an assurance of sufficient resources to 
implement the plan; and an assurance that the plan has

[[Page 68986]]

been coordinated with all of the airport authorities at medium and 
large hub U.S. airports served by the carrier. We specifically asked 
for comment on whether the Department should set a uniform standard for 
the time interval that would trigger the terms of carriers' contingency 
plans and a time interval after which carriers would be required to 
allow passengers to deplane. If establishing a time interval was 
recommended, we asked commenters to propose specific amounts of time 
and explain why they believe those time intervals to be appropriate.
    Comments: Consumer associations and individuals generally support a 
stronger proposal than that proposed by the Department. For example, 
Flyersrights.org continues to maintain that the Department should 
establish minimum standards for contingency plans through regulation 
and should also review and approve the plans rather than allow each 
carrier the leeway to set what it fears might be overly lax standards. 
Specifically, the organization requests that the Department set a 
``three hours plus'' time limit for an aircraft to return to the gate 
and deplane passengers, if the pilot determines this can be 
accomplished safely. It also requests that in any rule proposed or 
adopted, we refer to ``potable water'' and ``operable lavatories'' 
rather than simply ``water'' and ``lavatory facilities'' respectively.
    Other consumer associations concur with Flyersrights.org. ACAP 
asserts that this proposal is ``an unlawful delegation of DOT authority 
and responsibility to regulate airlines in the public interest by 
delegating this function to the airlines themselves'' and that the 
proposal will lead to a multiplicity of unenforceable ``standards'' and 
``plans'' that will offer fewer passenger protections. ACAP also 
suggests three hours as the maximum interval before passengers are 
allowed to deplane and, without being specific, suggests payments 
should be made to passengers who are confined for longer periods of 
time.
    Individual commenters make similar points. For example, they tend 
to think the Department should set minimum standards, particularly 
regarding the amount of time that triggers the provisions of the 
contingency plans and the maximum amount of time an aircraft can remain 
on the tarmac before the carrier must return the aircraft to a gate and 
allow passengers to deplane. Some comments also suggested specific 
times to trigger the terms of a carrier's contingency plan and/or for 
passengers to be allowed to deplane. For example, one commenter 
suggested 1.5 hours and three hours, respectively.
    The industry commenters expressed a different point of view. NBTA 
stated that it does not support DOT requiring carriers to develop 
contingency plans and specifically the content of those plans. It does 
support the recommendations issued by the Tarmac Delay Task Force, but 
does not believe plans should be required by regulation; rather, NBTA 
contends that airlines, under marketplace constraints, are more likely 
to resolve tarmac delay issues in a manner most beneficial to the 
largest number of passengers.
    ATA agrees in principle that carriers should have contingency plans 
covering lengthy tarmac delays on domestic flights, provided that each 
air carrier is permitted to decide on the details of its own plan based 
on its own unique facilities, equipment, operating procedures, and 
network. ATA reports that carriers already have both general 
contingency plans and airport-specific contingency plans that reflect 
the diverse facilities, equipment and network of each carrier. ATA 
notes that the Tarmac Delay Task Force recommends coordination among 
air carriers, airports, and the appropriate government agencies, and 
supports coordinating contingency plans with airports, but notes that a 
carrier cannot force an airport to cooperate in that coordination. As 
such, ATA thinks this part of the proposed rule should not be adopted, 
but if it is, suggests that some changes are necessary to ensure, for 
example, that a carrier is not held responsible for the airport's 
failure to provide services within its control or for an airport's 
failure to coordinate with a carrier in executing a plan.
    ATA continues to oppose any requirement for a set interval of time 
after which an aircraft must be returned to the gate, particularly on 
international flights, claiming that such a requirement would do 
passengers more harm than good and equate to artificial scheduling 
restrictions. Among the potential negative consequences ATA lists are 
potential conflicts with government agency directives governing safety 
or security that could require that passengers be kept on aircraft, and 
increased flight cancellations in any one place that could affect 
passengers further down the line. In addition, ATA suggests that, if 
the proposal is adopted, the Department should include an exception 
that exempts carriers from the rule if returning to the gate would 
conflict with orders of the FAA or other agencies (e.g., Customs & 
Border Protection), and notes, among other things, that in weather 
delay situations taxiway configurations are such that returning to the 
gate may not even be possible.
    In general, RAA maintains that the rule requiring contingency plans 
should not be adopted because, it contends, the rule will not solve the 
current delay problem and the Department should instead focus on 
initiatives that increase the efficiency of the Air Traffic Control 
(ATC) system. Regarding the content of contingency plans, similar to 
ATA, RAA maintains that the Department should permit airlines to adopt 
their own plans that allow flexibility and reflect their own 
circumstances, capabilities, and passenger service standards. RAA also 
asserts that the proposed requirement of providing ``adequate'' food 
and water is unreasonable and impracticable for regional airlines 
because most regional airlines have no catering facilities and do not 
have storage room on smaller aircraft for contingency supplies. RAA 
further states that regional airlines serve small community airports 
that do not have vendors or facilities from which the airlines could 
readily obtain supplies of food and water.
    Similar to comments of the airline associations, US Airways 
believes that a rule will not reduce tarmac delays, as those delays 
occur due to circumstances outside a carrier's control (i.e., weather, 
ATC system, etc.), and states that it already has a plan in place that 
addresses how to handle a tarmac delay of longer than one hour. US 
Airways states that a carrier should not be mandated to return to the 
gate at a fixed time, rather this decision should be left to carrier 
expertise, and that forcing an aircraft to return to the gate at a 
fixed time may lead to more flight cancellations. Additionally, the 
carrier notes that it has improved its own performance based on 
pressure from market forces. ExpressJet Airlines, who also asserts that 
most delays are beyond the direct control of carriers, thinks that a 
DOT rule could have unintended consequences for the consumer, which 
could lead to increased flight cancellations.
    Of the airports and airport authorities that commented on this 
proposal, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport approves of the 
elements of the rule that require air carriers to (1) develop and 
implement contingency plans for lengthy tarmac delays, (2) include in 
their plan the maximum delay that will trigger the plan's terms in 
order to provide adequate warning to service providers that may be 
called upon for support during the event, and (3) ensure that the plan 
has been coordinated with airport authorities at large and medium hub 
airports that the carrier serves. It also states that ``coordination of 
each air

[[Page 68987]]

carrier's contingency plans with the airports they serve is an 
important part of this process to enable shared situational awareness 
and timely response to lengthy delay events in an effective manner.''
    The City of Atlanta, Department of Aviation, supports the guidance 
as provided by the DOT Tarmac Delay Task Force, and the Department's 
proposal for carriers to coordinate contingency plans for lengthy 
tarmac delays with medium and large hub airports. It states that 2 
hours is an appropriate time to trigger the terms of a carrier's 
contingency plan and agrees that passengers should be provided basic 
services as proposed by the Department. Finally, it states that 
carriers' plans should provide for communication, coordination, and 
collaboration among airport operator, airlines, Federal agencies, and 
other service providers.
    ACI-NA supports the proposal, in general. ACI-NA opines that DOT 
should not impose a maximum time limit for deplaning passengers during 
lengthy tarmac delays and that airport-specific plans should not be 
required, in order to give airlines flexibility, but it does support 
requiring carriers to post information regarding their plans at their 
ticketing and gate areas. ACI states that DOT should review the plans 
prior to their implementation and that airlines should coordinate their 
plans with all airports at which they provide scheduled or charter 
service, not just medium and large hub airports. ACI also suggests a 
template be developed that can be used to assist airlines and airports 
in addressing the appropriate elements for coordination.
    As for the travel agency associations, ASTA strongly supports the 
notion of carriers adopting and complying with contingency plans and 
believes that the DOT should review the plans to ensure they contain 
specific promises that are enforceable. ASTA also supports the 
imposition of a single mandatory deplanement time limit, the three 
hours provided in the legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and 
Snowe and Representative Mike Thompson. However, in its initial 
comments, ASTA took a different position and opposed the Federal 
government mandating a specific time after which passengers must be 
deplaned. Rather, it suggested allowing each carrier to adopt its own 
time limits for each requirement, and requiring carriers to publish 
their policies in print ads and on their Web sites. ITSA did not 
comment on this proposal.
    DOT Response: We have decided to adopt a final rule along the lines 
set forth in the NPRM, with one important exception: We are 
strengthening the protections for consumers from those initially 
proposed by setting time limits (1) for carriers to provide food and 
water to passengers; and (2) to deplane passengers when lengthy tarmac 
delays occur on domestic flights. In adopting this approach, we have 
carefully considered all the comments in this proceeding and believe 
that our action strikes the proper balance between permitting carriers 
the freedom to make marketplace-based decisions while ensuring 
consumers can count on receiving the protections they deserve in the 
unlikely event of an extended tarmac delay.
    The final rule requires that each plan include, at a minimum, the 
following: (1) An assurance that, for domestic flights, the air carrier 
will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three 
hours unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related 
or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers (e.g.,kiiii 
weather, air traffic control, a directive from an appropriate 
government agency, etc.), or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-
command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to 
disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (2) 
for international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S. airport, 
an assurance that the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain 
on the tarmac for more than a set number of hours, as determined by the 
carrier in its plan, before allowing passengers to deplane, unless the 
pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-
related reason precluding the aircraft from doing so, or Air Traffic 
Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or 
permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly 
disrupt airport operations; (3) for all flights, an assurance that the 
air carrier will provide adequate food and potable water no later than 
two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a 
departure) or touches down (in the case of an arrival) if the aircraft 
remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines that 
safety or security requirements preclude such service; (4) for all 
flights, an assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as well as 
adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the 
tarmac; (5) an assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; 
and (6) an assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport 
authorities at all medium and large hub airports that the carrier 
serves, including medium and large hub diversion airports. Failure to 
do any of the above would be considered an unfair and deceptive 
practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. Sec.  41712 and subject to 
enforcement action, which could result in an order to cease and desist 
as well as the imposition of civil penalties.
    There is little, if any dispute that passengers stuck on an 
aircraft during a lengthy tarmac delay deserve to be provided some type 
of food, potable water, working lavatories, and, if necessary, medical 
care. We believe a two-hour time limit is a reasonable maximum time 
after which carriers should ensure that passengers experiencing a 
tarmac delay are provided food and potable water. Carriers, of course, 
are free to establish an earlier time at which they will provide these 
services. As pointed out by ATA and confirmed in reports to Congress by 
the Department's Inspector General, most large carriers already have 
contingency plans providing for such services. As for RAA's assertion 
that most regional airlines lack the resources to provide adequate food 
and water during lengthy tarmac delays, it seems to be based on a 
misconception that extensive supplies are needed. The Department would 
consider snack foods such as pretzels or granola bars that carriers 
typically provide on flights to suffice as ``adequate'' food. We have 
clarified in this rule, as suggested by at least one commenter, that 
the water required under our rule must be ``potable,'' i.e., drinking 
water.
    We are also persuaded that the Department should require a set time 
limit, in the case of domestic flights, for the point in time after 
which carriers would be required to allow passengers to deplane, with 
exceptions for issues related to safety, or security or other 
government requirements that may arise. Passengers on flights delayed 
on the tarmac have a right to know that there is a reasonable limit and 
that the limit will be enforced by the Department. We conclude that a 
three-hour time limit is the maximum time after which passengers must 
be permitted to deplane from domestic flights given the cramped, close 
conditions on aircraft and the typical scheduled time for these 
flights. We have not selected a maximum delay time of less than three 
hours because taxi times of an hour or more are not unusual at certain 
large airports, such as the New York airports. By holding the airlines 
to a bright line rule of three-hours after which passengers must be 
deplaned, the Department has

[[Page 68988]]

established a tarmac delay limit that is both reasonable and easier to 
enforce.
    While we agree with consumers and consumer groups that passengers 
should have protection from remaining on an aircraft on the tarmac for 
an extended period of time, we agree with ATA and other commenters that 
operational and safety-related concerns, such as ATC-related concerns 
or an inability to return to the gate without delaying other aircraft, 
should be taken into consideration. Thus, we have also included an 
exception for safety, security, or instances where Air Traffic Control 
advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting 
passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport 
operations. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance between 
allowing air carriers flexibility to address their operational concerns 
while also providing passengers with a reasonable time after which they 
can expect to return to the gate and deplane, as well as make alternate 
travel arrangements, if necessary. Those arrangements could include re-
boarding the same aircraft if the carrier decides to continue the same 
flight to its original destination, in which case a new three-hour 
period would begin when the aircraft left the gate. The Department 
views the three hour time limit as the outside limit at which time an 
aircraft should have returned to the gate or another appropriate 
disembarkation area in order to deplane passengers. If the carrier has 
reason to know that a gate or other appropriate means by which to 
deplane passengers will not be available at the three hour mark, we 
expect the carrier to make reasonable attempts to deplane passengers 
earlier.
    With regard to deplaning passengers on international flights, we 
are persuaded by comments that mandating a specific time frame for 
deplaning passengers on these flights may be harmful to consumers 
because of the different environment in which those flights operate. 
Because international flights are of much longer duration on average, 
it is possible that delays may not have as negative an impact on 
consumers and their expectations. Also, because international flights 
tend to operate less frequently than most domestic flights, flight 
cancellations may result in much greater harm to consumers who are less 
likely to be accommodated on an alternate flight in a reasonable period 
of time. As such, while this rule requires U.S. carriers to establish 
time limits for deplaning passengers who experience lengthy tarmac 
delays on international operations, we are permitting carriers the 
flexibility to determine this time limit. This limit will also allow 
exceptions for consideration of safety, security and instances where 
Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the 
gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would 
significantly disrupt airport operations. We note that the Department 
is considering revisiting the issue of whether carriers should set 
specific time limits to deplane passengers on international flights in 
a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Some consumer groups and individuals requested that the Department 
include in the rule a requirement that the contingency plans be filed 
with and be reviewed and approved by the Department. Such a requirement 
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, we are not convinced 
that this requirement is necessary or the best use of Department 
aviation consumer protection resources at this time. Carriers are 
required to adhere to all Department rules, and it would be a departure 
from Department practice to require carriers to file with it proof that 
they have done so. The Department and its predecessor in such matters, 
the Civil Aeronautics Board, have issued numerous other consumer 
protection rules that detail specific requirements carriers must follow 
without having carriers file with the government proof that they have 
or are prepared to comply with the rule. We see some merit in approving 
carrier contingency plans if the Department were to dictate more 
detailed requirements regarding their contents and we plan to explore 
this approach in a future rulemaking. In the meantime, we will review 
the larger carriers' plans and, randomly, other carriers' plans within 
a year of the rule's effective date to ensure the plans contain the 
provisions as required by this rule.
    With regard to coordination of plans, because tarmac delays are 
particularly problematic in situations where flights must be diverted 
from their intended destination airports, this rule requires carriers 
to coordinate their plans not only with medium and large hub airports 
to which they regularly operate, but also with airports that serve as 
diversion airports for such operations. The Department is not convinced 
by comments that it should remove the requirement for airlines to 
coordinate with airports because a carrier cannot force an airport to 
cooperate in that coordination. It is essential that airlines involve 
airports in developing their plans to enable them to effectively meet 
the needs of passengers. As recommended by the Tarmac Delay Task Force, 
we also urge carriers to include in their coordination efforts 
appropriate government authorities such as Customs and Border 
Protection and the Transportation Security Administration, when 
appropriate.

3. Incorporation of Contingency Plan Into Contract of Carriage

    The NPRM: The NPRM proposed that each covered carrier would be 
required to incorporate its plan in its contract of carriage and make 
its contract of carriage available on its Web site. We also invited 
interested persons to comment on the implications of a private right of 
action based on a carrier's failure to follow the terms of its 
contingency plan and to address the potential for multiple lawsuits by 
classes as well as individual plaintiffs and the potential for 
inconsistent judicial decisions among various jurisdictions. 
Additionally, we asked commenters to address whether and to what extent 
requiring the incorporation of contingency plans in carriers' contracts 
of carriage might weaken existing plans by making carriers more 
reluctant to be specific and possibly expose themselves to liability.
    Comments: Flyersrights.org supports requiring carriers to 
incorporate their contingency plans into their contracts of carriage in 
order to provide passengers an avenue for redress for breach of 
contract. ASTA also strongly supports the notion of carriers 
incorporating the contingency plans into their contract of carriages in 
order to enable consumers to more effectively enforce their rights. 
With regard to the potential for inconsistent judicial decisions if 
airlines must include their plans in their contracts of carriage, ASTA 
points out that this means merely that airlines will face the same 
litigation risks that all businesses face, and notes that the Task 
Force recommendations can be used as a defense.
    According to RAA, regional carriers should not be required to 
incorporate a contingency plan into their contract of carriage because 
most regional passengers are subject to the ticketing carrier's 
contract of carriage. ExpressJet also states that, because a passenger 
is flying under the contract of carriage of the mainline carrier, a 
passenger's recourse should be against the mainline carrier, and not 
the regional carrier.
    ATA explains that it shares the Department's goal of enhancing 
service for airline passengers but disagrees that rules are required to 
achieve this goal and strongly opposes incorporation of a contingency 
plan into a contract of carriage. ATA challenges the Department's legal 
authority to do this

[[Page 68989]]

in the aftermath of deregulation. ATA argues that the Department may 
not substitute a different enforcement process other than the one 
Congress intended (i.e., there should not be a private right of action 
for violations of section 41712) and states that such an imposition 
would subject carriers to the vagaries of law in the fifty States.
    DOT Response: The Department disagrees with the arguments of ATA 
and other carrier commenters that we lack the authority to require 
incorporation of contingency plans in contracts of carriage and that 
such incorporation would subject carriers to the risk of inconsistent 
standards among various jurisdictions. However, the Department has 
decided that it will not require such incorporation at this time. 
Instead, the Department strongly encourages carriers to incorporate the 
terms of their contingency plans in their contracts of carriage, as 
most major carriers have done voluntarily with respect to their 
customer service plans. At the same time, the Department will undertake 
a series of related measures to ensure the dissemination of information 
regarding each airline's contingency plans. As proposed in the NPRM, 
the Department requires that each air carrier with a Web site post its 
entire contract of carriage on its Web site in easily accessible form, 
including all updates to its contract of carriage. The Department also 
requires each air carrier with a Web site that chooses not to include 
their plan in its contract of carriage post the plan itself on its Web 
site in easily accessible form. Finally, the Department will shortly 
commence a new rulemaking proceeding addressing possible further 
enhancements to airline passenger protection in which it may consider, 
among other things, whether the voluntary incorporation of contingency 
plan terms urged here has resulted in sufficient protection for air 
travelers.
    The airlines' incorporation of their contingency plans into their 
contracts of carriage is an important means of providing notice to 
consumers of their rights, since that information will then be 
contained in a readily available source. Carriers' contracts of 
carriage are generally posted online and must, by Department rule, be 
available at airports. Better informed consumers will further improve 
the Department's enforcement program as consumers are more likely to 
know of and report incidents where airlines do not adhere to their 
plans. Better consumer information will also create added incentive for 
carriers to adhere to their plans. We believe the incorporation of 
airline contingency plans in contracts of carriage to be in the public 
interest.
    For these reasons, we strongly encourage carriers to include their 
contingency plans in their contracts of carriage and are requiring that 
carriers with a Web site post either their contracts of carriage 
containing the plans or the plans themselves (if they chose not to 
include the plans in their contracts of carriage) on their Web sites in 
easily accessible form. Additionally, to provide carriers with added 
incentive to incorporate their plans into their contracts of carriage, 
we will publicize a list of carriers that do and do not so incorporate 
their plans via regular press releases, the Department's Web site, and 
other means available to us. We will also be closely monitoring 
carriers' responses to our efforts in this regard and will not hesitate 
to revisit our decision here in the airline consumer protection 
rulemaking that we plan to commence in the near future. Finally, if 
necessary, we will consider using our authority to condition carrier 
certificates, as required in the public interest, to ensure that our 
consumer protection goals are met. See 49 U.S.C. 41109.
    As noted above, while the Department has decided not to require at 
this time incorporation of contingency plans in airline contracts of 
carriage, we disagree with ATA's contentions that we lack the authority 
to require such incorporation and that the exercise of such authority 
would risk creating inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Our 
broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 41712 to prohibit unfair and deceptive 
practices, and under 49 U.S.C. 41702 to ensure safe and adequate 
transportation, clearly encompasses the regulation of contingency 
plans. We have consistently exercised that authority for decades and 
will continue to do so. Moreover, while we have chosen not to require 
the incorporation of contingency plans in airline contracts of carriage 
at this time, there is nothing new, or unfair to carriers, about 
airlines being subject, through civil proceedings in State courts, to 
action for failing to comply with their contracts of carriage for air 
transportation. To the contrary, carriers have historically been 
subject to such actions and, indeed, the Department has for years 
published advice to consumers about pursuing claims against airlines, 
if necessary, in appropriate State small claims courts precisely 
because the Department has no authority to adjudicate individual claims 
and make monetary awards.

4. Retention of Records

    The NPRM: The NPRM proposed that covered carriers retain for two 
years the following information for any tarmac delay that either 
triggers their contingency plans or lasts at least four hours: The 
length of the delay; the cause of the delay; and the actions taken to 
minimize hardships for passengers. Our proposal did not contemplate 
that the Department would review or approve the plans, but we stated 
that the Department would consider failure to comply with any of the 
above requirements--including implementing the plan as written--to be 
an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 
and therefore subject to enforcement action.
    Comments: ATA questions the need for the proposed record-retention 
requirement covering lengthy tarmac delays, asserting that the 
Department's BTS already has reporting requirements covering similar 
issues, with the exception of how carriers respond to delay situations. 
With regard to this category of information, ATA suggests that a record 
retention requirement of six months would be sufficient and argues that 
retention of record for long periods of time will impose additional and 
unnecessary costs.
    DOT Response: The Department does not believe that it is advisable 
to remove the record-retention requirement for a number of reasons. 
First, certificated U.S. carriers that account for at least one percent 
of domestic scheduled passenger revenue currently provide delay data to 
BTS but the requirement to retain information for lengthy tarmac delays 
under this final rule would apply to additional carriers--any 
certificated or commuter air carrier that operates scheduled passenger 
service or public charter service using any aircraft with 30 or more 
passenger seats. Second, most of the delay information that this rule 
requires carriers to retain is more specific than the delay data the 
largest airlines currently submit to BTS. This rule requires carriers 
to retain for two years the following information on any tarmac delay 
that either triggers their contingency plans or lasts at least three 
hours (as opposed to four hours in the NPRM): The length of the delay, 
the specific cause of the delay, and the steps taken to minimize 
hardships for passengers (including providing food and water, 
maintaining lavatories, and providing medical assistance); whether the 
flight ultimately took off (in the case of a departure delay or 
diversion) or returned to the gate; and an explanation for any tarmac 
delay that exceeded three hours, including why the aircraft did

[[Page 68990]]

not return to the gate by the three-hour mark. Aside from the length of 
the delay and whether the flight ultimately took off or returned to the 
gate, the remaining information that this rule requires carriers to 
retain is not available through data that the largest airlines submit 
to BTS. As for the cause of a delay, although the largest airlines do 
submit information to BTS about the nature of ground delays, this 
information is very general (i.e., air carrier, extreme weather, 
National Aviation System, security, and late arriving aircraft). This 
rule requires carriers to retain information on the specific cause(s) 
of the tarmac delay. We note that the Tarmac Delay Task Force dealt 
with this issue in its report to the Secretary, and listed a number of 
lengthy on-board ground delay causal factors.\3\ We recommend that 
carriers use that list for examples of the types of delay causes that 
the Department is looking for carriers to include in their retained 
records. Third, to the extent that carriers already collect and submit 
to BTS certain elements of the information that this rule requires, 
then there is no real burden to them of complying with the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The model contingency plan is available at https://www.regulations.gov [Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108-0124.2].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to Consumer Problems

1. Designated Advocates for Passengers' Interests

    The NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require certificated and commuter 
air carriers that operate domestic scheduled passenger service using 
any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to designate, at its 
system operations center and at each airport dispatch center, an 
employee to monitor the effects on passengers of flight delays, flight 
cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays and to have input into 
decisions such as which flights are cancelled and which are subject to 
the longest delays.
    Comments: ATA supports the idea of designating an airline employee 
at a carrier's operation center to monitor the effects of flight delays 
and cancellations, provided that the designee is a current employee who 
carries out other responsibilities as well. It does not support 
requiring such an employee at each airport dispatch center, claiming 
that this would duplicate existing procedures and would strain 
carriers' resources without easing the problems that consumers face. In 
general, RAA thinks this provision is unnecessary as airlines have no 
incentive to leave a plane full of passengers on the tarmac. RAA 
further notes that regional airlines are unable to designate personnel 
with responsibility for influencing delay decisions since delay 
decision-making is not a function of regional airline employees. NBTA 
characterizes this proposal as micromanagement of airline customer 
service and unnecessary to meet the needs of its business travelers. 
NBTA maintains that an air carrier's response to cancellations and 
delays is a key factor by which purchasers make their buying decisions, 
and opposes a mandate that airlines create new customer service 
positions at each airport. FlyersRights.org defers to the Department 
and the airlines to determine the best use of airline manpower to 
mitigate the effects of flight delays, cancellations and lengthy tarmac 
delays.
    DOT Response: The Department has decided to require carriers to 
designate an employee to monitor performance of their flights; however, 
we are persuaded that we should not require carriers to designate an 
employee at their systems operations center as well as at each airport 
dispatch center, as long as whatever employee(s) are designated can 
monitor flight delays and cancellations throughout the carriers' 
systems and have input into decisions regarding how to best meet the 
needs of passengers affected by any irregular operations. By adopting 
this performance standard, the Department leaves it up to each carrier 
to determine the most efficient and effective method to monitor the 
effects of flight delays and cancellations (e.g., designate 
individual(s) at its systems operations center, designate individual(s) 
at each airport dispatch center, designate individual(s) at another 
location). This rule does not require carriers to hire new employees to 
comply with this provision as these responsibilities may be borne by 
current employees in addition to their other responsibilities.
    We disagree with RAA's assertion that regional carriers have no 
control over decisions on delays, diversions and cancellations and thus 
should not be required to designate an employee to monitor such 
occurrences. We recognize that, as a rule, regional carriers' mainline 
partners make most of the decisions from an operational standpoint on 
code-shared flights with a regional carrier; however, this does not 
lead to the conclusion that regional carriers are or should be totally 
removed from the process. Even if the determination to cancel or delay 
a flight or keep it on the tarmac is made by the mainline carrier, the 
regional carrier as the carrier operating the flight is the entity that 
knows first-hand the situation within and surrounding the aircraft, 
that is responsible for passing information about that situation to the 
mainline partner, and that has direct contact with the passengers and 
remains the sole means for directly serving them. As such, this final 
rule requires all airlines operating scheduled passenger service using 
any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats to designate an employee 
to monitor the effects of flight delays, flight cancellations, and 
lengthy tarmac delays on passengers and to provide input into decisions 
on which flights to cancel and which will be delayed the longest. It 
applies to all of a covered U.S. carrier's scheduled flights, both 
domestic and international, including those involving aircraft with 
fewer than 30 seats if a carrier operates any aircraft with 30 or more 
passenger seats. The requirement to designate advocates for passenger 
interests applies to U.S. carriers even if they operate only 
international scheduled service.

2. Informing Consumers How To Complain

    The NPRM: Under the proposed rule, a certificated or commuter air 
carrier that operates domestic scheduled passenger service using any 
aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats would be required to inform 
consumers how to file a complaint with the carrier (name of person, 
address, telephone number, and e-mail or Web-mail address) on its Web 
site, on all e-ticket confirmations, and, upon request, at each ticket 
counter and gate.
    Comments: Flyersrights.org supports the proposal requiring airlines 
to provide information to passengers on how to file a complaint. ACI-NA 
states that consumers should be provided information regarding how to 
file a complaint, which should include the appropriate contact 
information, including a contact name, address, telephone number and e-
mail or Web address.
    ATA supports the proposal for carriers to provide passengers 
complaint contact information but contends that the Department should 
not dictate the particular communication method to be used (e.g., e-
mail, carrier's Web site, traditional mail, telephone). Instead, ATA 
states that the Department should allow carriers the flexibility to 
choose the contact method for customer complaints, as each of these 
various methods carries with them associated costs. In particular, ATA 
emphasizes the expense of telephone ``talk time'' and explains that 
this would impose a high cost on airlines without countervailing 
benefits, given other complaint methods available to consumers. ATA 
points out that all of its members already provide

[[Page 68991]]

complaint contact information on their Web sites. ATA also reiterates 
its strong opposition to the proposal that would require carriers to 
include complaint contact information on e-tickets. It states that this 
proposal is unnecessary and costly as it believes there is no 
indication that finding complaint contact information is a problem and 
views e-ticket space as being limited and having significant commercial 
value to the carrier and third parties. ATA estimates that the ``value 
to the U.S. industry as a whole of the e-ticket space, which it asserts 
the Department proposes to `confiscate' is $5 million annually,'' an 
amount it claims far exceeds the DOT's estimate of the proposal's 
value. ATA also suggests that the Department not require airlines to 
name a specific employee contact person for complaint purposes since 
airline personnel change frequently, and recommends that carriers be 
required to provide a position/office so complaints are directed to the 
right department.
    RAA notes that most regional airlines already have systems in place 
to handle passenger complaints and to coordinate those systems with 
their mainline partners. If the Department adopts a proposal for 
carriers to provide passengers complaint contact information, RAA 
asserts that any requirement to post complaint information on airline 
Web sites or e-ticketing confirmations should apply to the ticketing 
carrier and not to regional airlines. According to RAA, many regional 
airlines do not have their own Web sites upon which to post complaint 
information and states that only the ticketing airline should have a 
``legal'' responsibility to consumers claiming breach of contract. RAA 
also asserts that in some cases there is no regional airline employee 
at the gate, ticket counter, or elsewhere in the airport.
    DOT Response: The Department rejects carriers' suggestions that it 
leave completely to the discretion of each carrier the methods that 
carriers must make available to consumers to contact an airline. While 
generally the Department prefers specifying ends rather than means, it 
is important to identify a sufficient number of contact methods for 
customer complaints and require carriers to accept such complaints to 
ensure that all passengers who wish to express their dissatisfaction 
are able to do so easily. For example, if an airline were to only 
accept complaints by e-mail then those without access to the Internet 
would face significant difficulty in filing a complaint. On the other 
hand, if an airline were to only accept complaints by traditional mail 
then a number of individuals may decide against sending a complaint 
because of the ``hassle'' they see in writing a letter, addressing an 
envelope, and mailing the letter. However, we are persuaded that not 
all of the contact methods for customer complaints listed in the 
propo