BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. ) In the Matter Of: ) ) Docket No. OST Transparency of Airline Fees and Other ) Consumer Protection Issues ) ) COMMENTS OF INSEL AIR INTERNATIONAL B.V. Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: Giolina Daal Legal Counsel INSEL AIR INTERNATIONAL B.V. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW INSELAIR ARUBA N.V. PITTMAN LLP Dokweg 19, Maduro Plaza 2300 N Street, N.W. Willemstad, Curacao, Netherland Antilles Washington, D.C daalg@fly-inselair.com Tel: (202) romanow@pillsburylaw.com peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com September 29, 2014 Counsel for INSEL AIR INTERNATIONAL B.V.

2 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. ) In the Matter Of: ) ) Docket No. OST Transparency of Airline Fees and Other ) Consumer Protection Issues ) ) COMMENTS OF INSEL AIR INTERNATIONAL B.V. Insel Air International B.V. and InselAir Aruba N.V. (together, Insel ) appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the NPRM ) regarding transparency of airline ancillary fees and other consumer protection issues. As a growing Caribbean carrier that has made expansion of service to the U.S. a top priority, Insel urges the Department to use the rulemaking process to build on the foundation of current consumer protection regulations (See 14 C.F.R. Parts 244, 250, 253 et al.) while preserving flexibility and efficiency for industry stakeholders. I. The Department Should Exclude Ticket Agents that Arrange Rather than Sell Air Transportation from its Ancillary Fee Disclosure Requirements. Insel supports the second option provided by the Department regarding the ancillary fee disclosure requirements. Insel agrees that passengers must be informed of the total cost associated with their travel. However, Insel believes that the cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the exclusion of ticket agents that arrange rather than sell the transportation is the optimal solution. Because the Global Distribution Systems 1

3 ( GDSs ) do not have direct customer interaction and are not subject to the notification requirements, the obligation to provide them with additional ancillary fee information would impose a substantial burden on carriers and result in minimal benefit. This requirement would increase the cost of compliance to airlines, which unfortunately would likely then be passed on to passengers. By limiting the requirement to provide providing ancillary fee information to only those ticket agents who directly sell the carrier s tickets to consumers, the Department can accomplish its goal of consumer awareness and reliance while minimizing the cost to the carriers in implementing the new process. II. The Department Should Clarify the Post-Purchase Price Adjustments that Are Permissible. Insel supports the proposed rule regarding the prohibition on post-purchase price adjustments, however it requests that the Department clarify the applicability to passengers who have a reservation, but have not yet paid. Considering that the customer has not yet relied on the cost of the ancillary service in purchasing the ticket, it seems appropriate that the fees would not be capped at the time of reservation, but only capped at the time of purchase. Similarly, it is unclear as whether the Department intends for the price of an ancillary service sold after the ticket (e.g., an upgraded seat) to be capped at the price that prevailed at time of the purchase of that service. Insel believes that an interpretation of this proposed rule which would cap prices at the time of ticket purchase of even for those ancillary services not purchased at that time would cause a great deal of complexity in implementation and increased compliance costs. A better policy is the one set forth in the Department s policy guidance regarding the enforcement of the Second Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, which states the Enforcement Office will not pursue enforcement action against carriers that increase fees for ancillary 2

4 services and products that were not purchased with the air transportation, other than baggage charges that traditionally have been included in the price of the ticket. (See III. Elements of the Department s Proposed Customer Service Commitments for Large Ticket Agents Can be Clarified and Strengthened by Imposing Affirmative Duties on Ticket Agents. Insel is pleased by the NPRM s recognition of the fact that ticket agents share with carriers the responsibility for communicating with consumers, reflected in the proposal that ticket agents adopt a customer service standard to notify consumers of changes in travel itineraries in a timely manner (See NPRM, at 56). In fact, in many cases where a consumer books travel on Insel through a ticket agent, Insel does not receive the consumer s contact information (only the contact information for the ticket agent) and has no way of communicating important status and other updates to the consumer. The NPRM recognizes this problem, stating that customers who use agents that do not provide contact information to carriers may not receive direct or timely notice of changes to their itinerary (See NPRM, at 56). The Department s regulations in this area should be more precise than simply establishing a general obligation to notify consumers of changes in their itinerary by whatever means a ticket agent prefers. Indeed, Insel suspects that if the notification requirement were left as drafted, ticket agents would largely prefer to comply by passing passenger contact information on to the carriers, and leaving the carriers with the burden of contacting the passenger. This would place an unjustified burden on carriers, and also lead to inefficiencies. For example, if a ticket agent did not initially provide a carrier with passenger contact information, valuable time and effort would be wasted on the 3

5 exchange of information between the ticket agent and the carrier in the event of a change in itinerary. It would be far smoother for a carrier to inform the parties for which it already has contact information, and then allow the notification obligation to devolve to ticket agents. The Department should clarify this by providing in the final rule that for tickets booked by ticket agents, the agent has the primary obligation to notify the consumers, not the carrier. Insel respectfully requests that the Department consider the comments set forth herein in its evaluation of the NPRM. Respectfully submitted,. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C Tel: (202) romanow@pillsburylaw.com peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com September 29, 2014 Counsel for INSEL AIR INTERNATIONAL B.V. 4