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: : : Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT-OST Passenger Protections : REQUEST TO CLARIFY BAGGAGE RULES AND TO EXTEND EFFECTIVE DATES The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., the International Air Transport Association, the Regional Airline Association, and the Air Carrier Association of America, on behalf of their members, have a fundamental interest in meeting the new, highly complex and labor intensive passenger baggage rules that are currently scheduled to take effect on January 24, To that end, we request that the Department extend the effective date by one year to January 24, 2013 for the baggage allowances and fees requirements in 14 C.F.R and the baggage notice requirements of 14 C.F.R (c). Additional time is necessary for carriers to implement these requirements accurately and to preserve the benefits of existing and future automation. Critical sources of information needed to comply with these rules do not yet exist. Until the technical standards for one or more baggage rule databases are finalized carriers cannot develop the internal IT systems and procedures that will interact with these databases. Moreover, stakeholders 1 are also adjusting compliance plans and efforts as the Department continues to clarify specific details of the new baggage rules. Simply put, our member carriers cannot develop complex new systems, test, populate and update them by the current deadline. This extension would give carriers essential time to overcome fundamental changes in baggage rules that require substantial investment and reengineering of carrier reservations, check-in and baggage information systems, in addition to retraining of airline employees. We also request additional clarification in several areas. Overview The scope of this extension request is very limited, focusing only on certain new baggage requirements. U.S. and foreign carriers have met the relatively short deadlines the Department set for the vast majority of the final rule published less than seven months ago. This industry accomplishment was an enormous undertaking and shows the commitment carriers have to implementing the Department s new rules. However, compliance with the two specific baggage rules addressed herein require additional time. The Department recognized the difficulty in meeting these baggage rules in the first extension request, when it noted the difficulties in applying the same baggage allowances and fees across an itinerary when they [airlines] cannot readily access each other s fee schedules. 2 In addition, the Department has met with ATPCO on several occasions to clarify aspects of the baggage rule and notice requirements and will issue additional guidance in the Department s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The public is not well served 1 Stakeholders in this context include U.S. carriers, foreign carriers, carrier vendors, and other groups providing baggage rule information Fed. Reg

2 by proceeding with rules that will only result in consumer harm and confusion, not benefits, especially if carriers are forced to proceed with makeshift, almost certainly manual measures before compliance is technologically feasible. To ensure maximum public benefits, carriers should focus their resources on developing the technology solutions that are necessary to implement these new baggage requirements. As set forth in the attached 12 declarations from U.S. carriers, foreign carriers and vendor that work on carrier baggage information systems, complying with the baggage rule and notice requirements by January 24, 2012 will be extremely difficult and not in the best interest of passengers. The Department s new baggage rules modify the world-wide management of baggage information that has developed over the past 50 years. Existing systems were not built to accommodate downstream application of baggage rules or fees and technology does not exist to bridge this gap. IATA recently changed this system to require that the most significant carrier baggage rules apply to an international itinerary. The IATA changes were adopted in 2008, took effect in April 2011, and the industry is still working to comply with them. 3 Changing the fundamentals of this baggage system a second time in the same year is consuming carrier and vendor resources further complicating compliance by January Creating technology solutions to identify which fee to apply and to transmit baggage rule and fee data among worldwide airlines is a complex, multistep and multiparty process. The first step in this process is creating a product(s) or database(s) of all U.S. and foreign carrier baggage rules and fees. We understand that one possible industry solution for this first step will not be completed until January 24, Next, carriers and vendors who manage carrier data systems must determine how to access the information in the product(s) or database(s) created in step one. This access must account for all the different channels carriers use to communicate with passengers, including website, kiosks, and check-in counters at hundreds of airports, many of which currently have little or no ability to communicate with other airline systems. Next, carriers must extensively test data sharing systems to ensure continued efficient passenger service. We note past passenger system problems have severely disrupted passenger service. 4 Finally, carriers will have to train employees on the baggage rule and fee procedures, a lengthy process. If an extension is not granted, carriers would be forced to adopt error-prone makeshift procedures that would substantially delay passenger check-in, create long lines at airports, substantially reduce the availability of automated self-service check-in, including the fast growing popular remote check-in systems, increase the likelihood carriers will apply the wrong carrier s baggage fees that will lead to confusion and disenchantment and increase the risk of delayed or lost bags. 5 results were clearly not intended by the Department and would result in substantial harm, not benefit, to the public. Agents would have to conduct a manual override at the airport pulling These passenger name record data on an individual passenger basis to determine which carrier s policies and fees apply. 6 In most cases, airport check-in counters do not have internet access, which could 3 Sato Statement page 1. 4 For instance (1) U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer systems malfunctioned, preventing the processing of thousands of passengers at LAX. See (2) failures of Virgin Blue s Naviatare reservations system in 2010 shut down the airline on two separate occasions, resulting in hundreds of flight cancellations and thousands of stranded passengers. See 5 Guillemette Declaration at 15, page 4; Bryant Statement page 2. 6 Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4. 2

3 require carriers to use paper copies of other airline bag rules. 7 Agents would have to read and apply another carrier s bag prices and policies for each passenger. Inhibiting automated check-in would drive passengers to lobby check-in with carrier agents, generating congestion in airports to the detriment of passengers. 8 Therefore, it is in the public interest to delay the application of sections and (c) for one year so carriers and vendors can develop solutions that will continue the automated check in system and provide timely accurate information to passengers. Timeline On April 25, 2011, the Department issued a multi-faceted passenger protection final rule, which included extending several rules to foreign carriers, additional contingency plan and customer service plan requirements, adopting a four hour tarmac delay rule for international flights departing or arriving in the U.S., changing full fare advertising and denied boarding compensation rules, prohibiting post-purchase price increases and choice-of-forum provisions and instituted several new passenger baggage rule and notice requirements. In June 2011, several different parties petitioned the Department for a limited effective date extension for several parts of the final rule. On July 7, 8 and July 21, 22, 2011 the Department held two public forums to discuss the final rule. Both forums were well attended by stakeholder representatives and many questions were addressed and many others raised. On July 28, 2011, the Department extended the effective date for full fare advertising requirements (section ), baggage rule and notice requirements (sections (b) and (c) and ), post-purchase price increases (sections and ), flight status notifications (section 259.8) and reservation hold requirements (section 259.5(b)(4)) to January 24, On August 19, 2011, the Department responded to questions raised at the forums by publishing a frequently asked questions ( FAQs ) document, on the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, DOT website. 9 The Department subsequently amended the FAQs to include guidance on baggage notice rules (399.85) on September 6, On October 19, 2011, the Department amended the FAQs to include guidance on baggage allowances and fees (399.87). We thank the Department for its engagement and willingness to address serious concerns and limitations of industry and the industry s questions, as we see this dialogue as an essential part of successful implementation in the interest of the consumer. Baggage allowance and fees (399.87) Under , the Department requires that the same baggage allowances and fees apply to a passenger throughout an itinerary that originates or ends in the U.S. In the case of a codeshare itinerary originating or ending in the U.S., the marketing carrier s baggage allowances and fees must apply throughout the itinerary. For non-codeshare flights to or from the U.S. the baggage rules that apply at the beginning of the itinerary must apply to the entire itinerary. 7 Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4. 8 Player Declaration at 8, page 3; Resnick Declaration at 9, page 4; Guillemette Declaration at 15, page 5; Stumbo Declaration page 2. 9 Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Enforcement of the Second Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections (EAPP #2 FAQs), found at 3

4 On October 19, 2011 the Department released 5 pages of guidance on that included the following additional points: In the case of a passenger itinerary composed of more than one ticket, the rule does not require a downline carrier to apply the baggage allowances or fees of the first carrier if the flight of the first carrier is on a separate ticket from the other flights. The baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of a passenger s itinerary apply to the entire itinerary, regardless of whether there are any stopovers in the itinerary. Section does not prohibit carriers from using the most significant carrier (MSC) methodology for international flights as set forth in IATA Resolution 302, as conditioned by DOT Order , to determine which carrier s baggage rules apply to international itineraries. Section and apply to baggage handling fees. Therefore, any handling fees that apply at the beginning of the itinerary apply to all remaining flights in the itinerary. Government imposed taxes on baggage fees are subject to the disclosure requirements in section Charging the bag fee in different currencies depending on a passenger s departure city is permitted but the fee applied at the beginning of the passenger s itinerary (or its close equivalent in another currency) must apply throughout. Section applies to excess, oversize, and special baggage fees, in addition to standard checked baggage fees. A passenger can be charged for an additional bag or a bag that has become overweight because of additional items being placed in the bag. The baggage rules selected by the first carrier (the marketing carrier in the case of a code-share on the first flight) would apply. The rule does not prevent a carrier from charging a baggage fee each time the baggage is rechecked for domestic itineraries. Carriers appreciate this specific guidance and are working to incorporate these guidelines into their compliance plans. This takes time, however, and certain clarifications naturally raise additional questions. Baggage Notice Requirements (399.85(c)) Section (c) requires U.S. and foreign carriers, their agents, or ticket agents selling air transportation in the U.S., must provide notice of baggage fees at the summary page in an online purchase and in all e-ticket confirmations for air transportation to, from, or within the U.S. The regulation also stipulates that fee information provided for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag must be expressed as specific charges taking into account any factors (e.g. frequent flyer status, early purchase, and so forth) that affect those charges. On September 6 and October 19, the Department issued additional guidance on this section, which included the following significant clarifications: Carriers cannot list the carrier s standard baggage fees for carry-on, first and second checked bag fees on the e-ticket confirmation. A carrier must provide specific information to consumers about all the factors that cause the fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second 4

5 checked bag to vary so passengers can determine for themselves the fees that would apply to them. A range of fees is not specific enough to comply with this rule. Carriers must provide information on e-ticket confirmations regarding baggage fees on code-share or interline itineraries. Under section , the baggage allowances and fees that apply at the beginning of an itinerary must apply throughout. Therefore, any disclosure under section (c) must take into account the fees that apply to that itinerary pursuant to section This guidance is very valuable to carriers, and requires both time to assimilate and this direction in turn has raised additional questions in the carrier community. Baggage Information Management The Department s baggage rules and notice requirements have far reaching impacts. For instance, any system that checks in passengers on an itinerary that includes a U.S. destination or origin must be updated and automated to ensure it can accommodate the new baggage rule changes. 10 Therefore, carrier airport stations that use Departure Control Systems ( DCS ) to check in passengers and provide carrier agents information on the applicable baggage rules must be modified to accept information from potentially hundreds of interline and codeshare partners. 11 A DCS handles large amounts of data originating from passengers that book directly with the airline. 12 This data includes passenger information and baggage rules on the day of check-in. 13 The DCS must be able to process extremely large amounts of information very quickly in order to check in passengers and any baggage expeditiously to ensure a smooth passenger experience and to prevent overcrowding of airport facilities, especially those in limited non-secure space. DCSs are typically stand-alone systems that currently cannot access the internet and are unable to access information on other carriers baggage fees. 14 Current check-in systems do not store and cannot access information on any flight segments that took place earlier in time. This limitation makes it impossible for check-in systems to identify prior carrier(s) in an itinerary and the baggage policy applied by the first marketing or operating carrier. 15 Carriers generally do not receive the complete itinerary for passengers that book with other airlines or with ticket agents because reservation systems across the industry are not perfectly integrated and do not exchange complete information. 16 Individual carriers have no control over the information that is received on a connecting passenger, therefore, any solution to this problem will take an industry-wide effort. 17 The types of information that current DCS cannot access but will need to in future include notification to an agent that a most significant carrier is different than the operating 10 Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1; Stumbo Declaration pages Player Declaration at 4, page 2; Litschke Declaration at 5, page 2. Hallenbeck Declaration, page 1; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1; Bryant Statement page Resnick Declaration at 4, page Hynes Declaration at 7, page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 13, page Hynes Declaration at 7, page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration at 3, page 1; Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2; Puddifoot Statement page 1; Guillemette at 14.3(iii), page 4; Sato Statement page 1; Fortson Statement page 1; Collins Statement page 1; Bryant Statement page Hynes Declaration at 7, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 4, 5, page Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2; Guillemette at 14.3(ii) at page Resnick Declaration at 4, page 2; Player Declaration at 7, page 3. 5

6 carrier, recognition and application of different fees and policies, recognition of passengers on codeshare/interline itineraries or who have been rebooked from other airlines as a result of irregular operations or a denied boarding situation, and the correct baggage acceptance policy or fees to permit an agent to manually override the current check-in system with the correct fee amount or acceptance policy. 18 The baggage notice requirements in section (c) raise identical concerns because current carrier e-ticket automated processes and other systems that could be used to disclose baggage rules and fees to passengers also do not have access to other carrier baggage rules and fees. 19 Stakeholder Initiatives The baggage rule will require most airlines in the world to have the capability to share passenger itinerary and baggage rule and notice information, since the final rule requires the same baggage rules apply throughout an itinerary for any passenger whose ticketed origin or destination is a U.S. point. 20 The complex methodology to access, share, and interpret the shared baggage information can begin once uniform baggage information standards are set, which as of this filing they have not (see unresolved questions below). 21 Carriers could meet this baggage rule information sharing requirement in different ways. ATPCO is developing one information sharing process by enhancing existing tariff databases to include updated baggage rule information on 293 airlines. We have been told that ATPCO will have a database including most of the required baggage allowance and fee information by January 24, Other solutions may also meet the regulatory requirements. As explained below, this is one step in a lengthy compliance process. Extending the Deadlines is Necessary and Will Benefit the Public As discussed above, the development of a comprehensive, automated solution to the new baggage rule and disclosure requirements cannot proceed at full speed until all unresolved questions are answered. 22 The process of answering unresolved questions began on September 6, 2011, when the Department issued its first guidance on section The process continued when the Department issued additional guidance on and its first guidance on section on October 19, We are aware that the Department met with ATPCO several times to answer additional questions, the latest meeting taking place on November 7, As noted at the ATPCO meeting and below, there are still several unresolved critical issues that need to be addressed before a method for sharing baggage information can be developed (such as the ATPCO product). Planning by carriers, vendors, and other stakeholders is significantly altered each time the Department issues additional guidance. 23 Developing one or more baggage rule and fee databases is the first step in a long process for all stakeholders to comply with the new rules. 24 Once one or more databases with the baggage information becomes available (or another solution is identified), carriers and vendors will begin the 18 Player Declaration at 4(A), page Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Fortson Statement at 1; Stumbo Declaration page 1; Hallenbeck Declaration page 4; Friedli Statement page Hynes Declaration at 5, page 1; Guillemette Declaration at 14.1, page Hynes Declaration at 7, page Forston Statement page Litschke Declaration at 7, page 3; Sato Statement page Fortson Statement page 2. 6

7 process of planning and modifying carrier systems. 25 Stakeholders will have to spend a significant amount of time modifying carrier systems to access the web, interface with at least one baggage rule information database, download, recognize and process information generated by these databases, and then transmit that information in useable form to the various check-in systems. 26 In addition to all of the IT work, the Industry will have to establish standards as to how the information will be shared between carriers. 27 There is no ndustry standard today for carriers to notify one another which baggage rule to enforce. 28 Consequently, there will be lots of work to do at and Industry level to reach consensus on how to solve these issues. Carriers and vendors will also have to spend a significant amount of time testing this connectivity before exposing passengers to the new system. 29 In order to maintain current passenger check-in processes, carriers will need a service that can access and process data requests with an extremely reliable and fast uptime. 30 The viability of a web-based system, if that is the ultimate solution or one of the solutions, is completely dependent on interface between a carrier system and the 3 rd party providing the external data, the internet connection at an airport, and the size of data downloads; any one of these factors could slow or crash a system bringing automated passenger check-in to a halt. 31 Slow or temporarily unavailable passenger check-in systems will operate to the disadvantage of the traveling public, the group these rules are intended to benefit, and will result in delayed check-in, improperly checked baggage, missed flights, and passengers traveling without their checked baggage. In addition, carrier airport and reservations customer service agents will have to receive training on the new rules and carrier procedures, an estimated six month process. 32 However the training program cannot be created until the Department provides additional guidance. 33 Carriers will also have to modify websites and kiosk software that provides check-in capabilities and could be used to pay for checked baggage. 34 Curbside skycap check-in systems have limited functionality and typically cannot see a passenger s full itinerary if it includes interline travel. 35 Therefore, curbside check-in could be limited until a solution is developed and any solution to the final rule will have to be multifaceted, and account for changes to multiple systems. 36 In the event our understanding that carriers will not be required to honor competitors elite flyer baggage rule policies is incorrect (see below), the complexity of accessing and applying world-wide carrier baggage rules and fees will be further exacerbated. 37 The Department clarified in FAQ 34 that any excess, oversized, or special baggage fees must apply throughout an itinerary, adding 25 Guillemette Declaration at 14.2(i), page 3; Forston Statement page Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Puddifoot Statement page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 14.2(i), page 3; Stumbo Declaration page 2; Collins Statement page Friedli Statement page Id. 29 Hynes Declaration at 7. page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Litschke Declaration at 8, page 3; Stumbo Declaration page Hynes Declaration at 8, page 2; Hallenbeck Declaration page 2; Litschke Declaration at 9, page Fortson Statement page Puddifoot Statement page 3; Guillemette Declaration at 14.4, page 4; Stumbo Declaration page Player Declaration at 8, page 3; Hallenbeck Declaration page Resnick Declaration at 10, page 4; Guillemette Declaration at 21, page 5; Stumbo Declaration page Resnick Declaration at 10, page Litschke Declaration at 6, page 2; Resnick Declaration at 10, page 4; Puddifoot Statement page Player Declaration at 5, page 2; Stumbo Declaration page 3. 7

8 complexity to the rule. 38 In addition, some carriers factor bag size and weight as part of their baggage policy, some carriers do not. 39 Global compliance with for itineraries that originate or depart the U.S. will require airlines around the world to file and regularly update baggage fee information and make the same major check-in system modifications and investment as U.S. carriers. 40 The complexity of a unilateral Department regulation is a burden for both U.S. and non-u.s. carriers, especially when it appears section conflicts with Resolution 302 (see unresolved questions below). The notice requirements of section (c) will also burden U.S. and non-u.s. carriers, forcing website and e-ticket changes for those itineraries that originate or depart the U.S. In addition, carriers do not have access to complete passenger itineraries that originate with a Global Distribution System ( GDS ). 41 Therefore, carriers and vendors will have to work with GDSs to modify systems and release additional data, which is dependent on GDS willingness to work with carriers to provide this additional information. Compliance with section (c) will expand the scope and complexity of developing programs and systems that share baggage rule and fee information among carriers. Any architecture that is built to receive and determine the correct baggage rule and fee information for section will also be used to communicate with e-ticket and website ticket purchasing engines to meet the baggage notice requirements of section (c). 42 Therefore, carriers and vendors around the world not only have to reconfigure DCS interfaces to accept and utilize baggage information for passenger check in functions but also have to modify website and ticketing functions to meet passenger baggage notification requirements. 43 Given the significant amount of time each step in the compliance process will take after one or more baggage information databases are created, tested, and active, which is likely to be January 2012, carriers and vendors will not have enough time to complete the necessary steps to comply with the new baggage rules. 44 Unresolved Questions We ask the Department to confirm or answer the following unresolved issues that will significantly alter baggage information sharing and carrier implementation plans for sections and (c). 1. For codeshare flights please confirm that the marketing carrier baggage rules can choose to apply any set of baggage rules, for instance IATA resolution 302 or the operating carrier baggage rules, as long as the same rules apply throughout the itinerary. 38 EAPP #2 FAQs, page Player Declaration at 6, page Player Declaration at 5, page Hynes Declaration at 9, page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 12, page Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Fortson Statement page Hynes Declaration at 15, page 3; Puddifoot Statement page Litschke Declaration at 8, page 3; Collins Statement page 1; Player Declaration at 6, page 3; Resnick Declaration at 3, page 1; Hynes Declaration at 10, page 2; Stumbo Declaration page 2; Guillemette Declaration at 14.2, page 3; Sato Statement page 2; Bryant Statement page 1. 8

9 2. For interline flights or itineraries in the absence of a codeshare agreement such as an online travel agency created itinerary, confirm the first carrier can choose to apply any set of baggage rules, such as the 2 nd operating carrier baggage rules, as long as the same rules apply throughout the itinerary. 3. Confirm that carriers do not have to honor a preceding carrier s baggage exemptions throughout an itinerary. Examples include frequent flyer status, credit card holder, passengers in first or business class seating for one leg of an itinerary but economy class seating in subsequent legs of the same itinerary. 4. Confirm that and do not apply to an itinerary ticketed and sold on a route not involving the U.S. that is modified during irregular operations to include a stop in the U.S. 5. Confirm that does not apply to carry-on baggage policies. 6. Confirm that baggage allowance in means rules regarding a passenger s first and second bag and not additional bags, to be consistent with the section (c) notice requirements. 7. Section FAQ 27, Example 3: Example 3 (domestic code-share): As in example 2, Carrier A operates the Miami-Washington and New York-Miami segments, and Carrier B operates the Washington-New York segment. However, Carrier B s code and flight number are shown on the ticket for the Miami-Washington and Washington-New York segments, and Carrier A s code and flight number are shown for the New York-Miami segment. Because the first flight is a code-share and Carrier B is the marketing carrier for that flight, Carrier B s baggage allowances and fees apply throughout the itinerary. 45 Confirm that Carrier B s baggage allowances and fees could defer to Carrier A s policies. 8. FAQ 29 states that section does not prohibit carriers from using the most significant carrier methodology for international flights as set forth in IATA Resolution 302 as conditioned by DOT Order There are two conditions in DOT Order , the second condition states in the case of code-share flights that include a point in the United States, the Most Significant Carrier (MSC) shall be the Marketing Carrier. 47 The IATA definition of the MSC is substantively different and much more complex: MOST SIGNIFICANT CARRIER (MSC) 3) the MSC is. a) For travel between two or more IATA areas, the carrier performing carriage on the first sector that crosses from one area to another. 45 EAPP #2 FAQs, page EAPP #2 FAQs, pages Department of Transportation Order , Docket Number OST , Section 2(b) page 9. 9

10 Exception: IATA area 123 only, the carrier providing carriage on the first sector that crosses between IATA area 1 and IATA area 2. b) For travel between IATA Tariff sub-areas, the carrier performing carriage on the first sector that crosses from one sub-area to another. c) For travel within a IATA Tariff sub-areas, the carrier performing carriage on the first international sector. 48 Can the Department explain how section as clarified in FAQ 29 does not prevent (and conflict with) the application of IATA Resolution 302 when the definitions of MSC in IATA Resolution 302 and DOT Order are different? Is a carrier to apply Resolution 302 in all aspects except for the definition of MSC? 9. Can a carrier choose to apply a less restrictive baggage fee (more generous to the passenger) than the fee otherwise applicable under section ? 10. Confirm that itineraries traveling via the U.S. will be exempt from (1) sections and and (2) the Department s two reservations in Order , the same way baggage charges are exempt for itineraries wholly outside the U.S. For purposes of this request, via refers to itineraries that begin and end outside the U.S. but include a connection or stopover in the U.S. We note that answers to each of these questions may raise additional questions that will require stakeholders to modify current compliance plans and we respectfully request the Department give the uncertainty on several issues at this late date weighty consideration in its decision to extend the effective dates. * * * The new Department baggage rules require many substantial changes from multiple stakeholders. As described herein, information technology development by the scores of carriers affected by the rule is highly dependent on standardized third party sources of baggage information which is not yet available. The changes require U.S. and foreign carriers and vendors to invest enormous amounts of time, effort, and money to re-program and upgrade their technology systems. Before such systems are put into use, carriers must carefully test these changes, as changes made to these systems can ripple through other areas of the business creating unintended harmful side effects for not just carriers, but consumers and travelers as well. Carriers must also extensively train employees before applying changes to the public. Carrier compliance plans cannot be fully completed until stakeholders receive additional clarification from the Department, clarification that may itself lead to additional questions. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Department extend the effective dates for section and section (c) for one additional year, until January 24, IATA Resolution

11 Respectfully submitted, Douglas Mullen Roger Cohen Assistant General Counsel President Air Transport Association of America, Inc. Regional Airline Association 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 2025 M Street, NW Washington, DC Washington, DC (202) dmullen@airlines.org cohen@raa.org Edward P. Faberman Douglas Lavin Executive Director Regional Vice President, North America Air Carrier Association of America International Air Transport Association 1776 K Street, NW Suite 300 North, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC Washington, DC (202) (202) epfaberman@acaa1.com lavind@iata.org November 18, 2011 Attachment 11

12 Attachment 1

13

14

15

16

17 Attachment 2

18

19

20

21

22

23 Attachment 3

24

25

26

27 Attachment 4

28

29

30

31

32 Attachment 5

33

34

35

36

37

38 Attachment 6

39

40

41

42

43

44 Attachment 7

45 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C In the matter of: : : Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT-OST Passenger Protections : Statement of Michelle Bryant, Lufthansa: This statement is being submitted with respect the DOT s Final Rule Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections. In the absence of automated baggage processing rules in both our departure control and reservation systems, it is not possible for carriers, including Lufthansa, to meet the current January 24, 2012 deadline. Presently, there is no central repository for carrier baggage policies and fees, which means that Lufthansa, like all other airlines, is left to try and find an interim solution at all our stations around the world. This may very well entail receiving daily or weekly baggage information from all airlines with which Lufthansa has codesharing/interline agreements. This is impractical, and even if such processes are set up, the chances of having accurate information for all carriers at all times is improbable. There are no viable automated solutions to display baggage allowances and fees in our reservation system when the passenger s reservation is made and ticket is issued or at time of check-in when the passenger is at the airport. While baggage rules are filed with ATPCO our systems are only capable of displaying the Lufthansa baggage allowance and fees. An automated solution to process baggage rules to support both display and pricing of airline ATPCO baggage filings is currently under development by our IT system provider. However, this solution will not be available until the end of 2012 or early There are third party solutions to access baggage rules online, but such solutions cannot be used at check-in kiosks since these solutions depend on the internet. Additionally, our check-in agents work on a legacy system which does not have internet access. Furthermore, in order for our website to be able to display the baggage rules and fees it will significant changes and coding, which can not be accomplished within the existing timeframe. Lastly, Lufthansa in the process of migrating its departure control system to another platform. In order to migrate from one system to another, we have frozen all developments on the current departure control system. The automated baggage solution would be incorporated on our new check-in system.

46 Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the DOT grant the instant application for an extension of the deadline to implement which would not only benefit the industry, it would also prevent passengers from being subjected to incorrect calculations of baggage allowances. Michelle Bryant Manager Distribution Systems and IATA Industry Affairs Deutsche Lufthansa AG Reservation Systems - FRA IS/R Lufthansa Aviation Center D Frankfurt/Main tel fax Michelle.Bryant@dlh.de November 18, 2011

47 Attachment 8

48 Page 1 of 4 Name Lauren Puddifoot Employee title Alliances Systems Business Partner Employee responsibilities I am responsible for ensuring all Codeshares and Alliances work as efficiently as possible through system development. I have been seconded as Business Owner of this Advanced Baggage Rules project as I have SME knowledge of our airline reservations system and knowledge of associated systems and their update processes, including the website and graphic user interfaces (GUIs) used for customer facing roles. I have previously worked on projects applying change across different areas of our business. Airline Reservations System Our airline reservations system is SHARES B. Historical explanation of our system SHARES B is a legacy Transaction Processing Facility (TPF) system developed in the 1970s by Electronic Data Systems who were bought out in 2008 by HP and now operate as HP Enterprise Services, based in Los Angeles. SHARES B is not web-based and does not use Extensible Markup Language (XML); therefore development of the system takes much longer than a web-based system. US Airways also uses this system and Continental operate on a similar platform, SHARES A. SHARES B is used for the creation of passenger bookings, inventory control, check-in and can be used to message to other global distribution systems (GDSs) through teletype messaging. We have hundreds of applications that run off of SHARES B. Any changes that are made to it have to go through a steering group to assess their business impact. Changes to these applications are made in conjunction with, or more regularly after, changes to SHARES B. What the new DOT rule requires in contrast to the capabilities of our systems 1. SHARES B does not currently contain our baggage rules or fees. Virgin Atlantic currently advises customers of our baggage allowance verbally through our Contact Centre, in information on our website and on our e-ticket confirmation s and faxes. The new US DOT rule requires Virgin Atlantic to advise passengers of the baggage allowances at the time of booking through our Contact Centre, on our website, on e-tickets and at check-in. This will all require SHARES B and secondary applications to contain our baggage rules and additional fees. 2. Our greatest challenge is to change SHARES B to retrieve these rulings from Airline Tariff Publishing Company (ATPCO) and apply them correctly as per the US DOT ruling. This will take a

49 Page 2 of 4 significant amount of the HP programmer s time, approximately 3000 hours. We are already working with them to ensure we comply with the US legislation regarding Secured Flight Overfly compliance, and we will have to secure extra resources for this project. 3. Once these changes have been made to SHARES B we then need to filter these rulings through to many of our applications that run off SHARES B. The main applications we need to change, subsequent to changes to SHARES B: Contact Centre GUI - Vega E-ticket fulfilment system - ERICA Website Airports GUI Babel 4. We need to file our baggage rules and additional fees according to US DOT rulings and ensure they are applied correctly. We are particularly concerned with how these will be applied on multi-airline bookings involving codeshare partners and interline partner airlines as there is a significant difference between the US DOT ruling and IATA resolution 302 regarding marketing flights and operating flights. Our baggage rules and additional fees are filed with ATPCO according to IATA resolution 302 for agents and other airlines to use through their own computer reservation system (CRS) or GDS. We do not currently use the information in ATPCO in SHARES B as we do not currently have a link between the two systems. Therefore other carriers can only access our baggage information through our filing in ATPCO; they cannot retrieve baggage information from our own system. Challenges Virgin Atlantic faces in order to meet the DOT rule 1. SHARES B is a legacy system that will take a long time to change. 2. Many applications also require changing and this will take time and can only be changed once SHARES has been updated. 3. We have a system code-freeze every January and early February as this is our busiest selling period. Virgin Atlantic Airways currently faces challenges to meet the ruling by the 24 th January 2012 because we are reliant on HP, our airline reservation system owner, to change SHARES B to display ATPCO baggage rulings when quoting fares, issuing e-tickets and checking passengers in at our airports. This change will require a new link from ATPCO to SHARES B to be created and tested. The data that is fed through will then need to be translated into various areas of SHARES B and HP have estimated that the updates required to meet the US DOT ruling will take approximately 3000 hours. These changes include: a baggage allowance to be displayed in a fare quote for contact centre agents to use; baggage allowances and additional baggage rates to be displayed on electronic tickets and in the automated check-in record used at our airports. Most of these updates are in the planning or design phase and HP have initially estimated changes to be completed by February 2012, at the earliest. Once these changes have been delivered by HP we then have to change our

50 Page 3 of 4 associated systems and GUIs. These systems cannot be changed until we know how SHARES B will display our baggage allowances and those of our interline or codeshare partners. The SHARES B system is too complicated for all of our staff to use, approximately 50 people company-wide use, or are aware of, the native entries required to use our reservations system, these employees are mainly in non-customer facing areas where they maintain and work on projects to develop SHARES B, namely Commercial Systems and IT. All other users across the globe use a GUI. In our Contact Centres a GUI called Vega is used to enable call centre agents to quickly and efficiently book passengers. The development of this GUI is done in maintenance cycles, typically updating Vega 5-6 times a year. This maintenance is carried out by a third party vendor. The next update is due to be released in late February to early March and development for this release must be completed before January. If HP are not able to develop SHARES B by the end of December then we will not be able to update Vega until the next release date around May Virgin Atlantic staff or agents at our airports also use a GUI system, Babel GUI, that will need to be updated subsequent to any SHARES B changes. Virgin Atlantic Airways believes we may be able to develop this software for late February and the rollout to most of our destinations will take approximately 2 months. Our Airports Training department have advised me that if this is a small change then all staff and handling agents globally will be notified of the update by their managers which should only take a matter of days. We predict we will only have to make a small change to the GUI, but the change is reliant on changes being completed in SHARES B. We do not currently show additional baggage prices on our e-ticket confirmation, for our own flights or for our codeshare or interline partners; this change is again dependent on changes being made to SHARES B first. The development of our e-ticket system, ERICA, is handled in-house by our IT vendor TCS, the work required to change the e-ticket is significant and will take 2-3 months for this already stretched team of two subject matter experts. E-tickets are sent out after bookings are made by our Contact Centre and on our website. Our website is updated in maintenance cycles, as Virgin Atlantic Airways do not sell interline sectors on our website, the development required is not as detailed as that required for SHARES B, and its content is not as dependent on SHARES B as many of our other systems. Also as this is all XML and JavaScript changes it is much easier to update than SHARES B. Therefore we believe we will be able to make most required changes by the end of this year, with a number being delivered on the 24 th January itself, in an extraordinary website maintenance release containing only US DOT required changes. As detailed above, the changes to e-ticket confirmations will still need to be made, e-tickets are also sent out when bookings are made on the website. Timeline HP have asked us to take part in an extraordinary meeting with other SHARES B carriers at the end of November or early December to further discuss the system changes Virgin Atlantic Airways require in order to meet the US DOT s ruling. Development of SHARES B will not begin until that meeting is closed and HP have a clear view of the development all SHARES B carriers require. With a predicted 3000 hours of development we do not have enough time to develop, test and rollout changes in

51 Page 4 of 4 order to meet the 24 th January deadline in SHARES B, let alone our secondary applications, this is why we are appealing for an extension to the deadline of 24 th January Virgin Atlantic Airways believes as more realistic target would be April November Representatives from Virgin Atlantic will attend an ATPCO conference to discuss how the US DOT rule will be applied. Dependent upon the decisions of this meeting ATPCO may need to develop their systems, this could take a month. This development will then need to be filtered down through SHARES B and the GDSs. I will hopefully meet with HP and other SHARES carriers in November to discuss the changes we all require to SHARES. However, this may be moved to early December due to Thanksgiving celebrations. December - January HP will work on changing SHARES B. Changes may be made to the SHARES B test environment in January which will help the developers of Babel GUI, Vega GUI and ERICA. However, I suspect it will more likely be February. January Once we are aware of the changes that will be made to SHARES B we may be able to plan what changes need to be made to our other applications and plan development times more specifically. Changes will be made to the website with an extra-ordinary release that has been approved by IT Change Management as the only change to be made to a customer facing application during our code-freeze. February Virgin Atlantic Airways will start user acceptance testing (UAT) of the changes to the SHARES B System. Once this is completed we will then be able to start comprehensive development of Vega, Babel and ERICA. March We will continue development, UAT and regression testing of our secondary applications. UAT typically takes 1-2 weeks, regression testing takes one further week. April Virgin Atlantic Airways will roll-out system changes worldwide and deliver training where necessary to our global operation. Changes to Vega may be made at the start of May as this is the approximate date of the next maintenance release, should we miss the December deadline. Prepared 4 th November 2011

52 Attachment 9

53 BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C In the matter of: : : Final Rule : Enhancing Airline : Docket No. DOT-OST Passenger Protections : Statement of Mitsue Sato, All Nippon Airways: - Since when it was determined that IATA resolutions 300 and 301 were to be expired on March 31st, 2011 and Resolutions 302 would replace them as a common rule for determining baggage rules, the industry has made great efforts to put in place the automated baggage rule in pricing system and DCS system in accordance with Reso 302 and US DOT reservation in order to make them work properly and more customer and user friendly. - However, despite of our great efforts, the industry is still in the middle of the path and is required to keep enhancing the systems to make better handling of baggage for our customers in the new rule. Especially, what we found out after the implementation of IATA Reso 302 with US DOT reservation is that we would need something more for our check-in agents to handle the same baggage allowance shown on the ticket and apply correct baggage charges based on the baggage allowance information. Thus, ANA is now working on developing the following new enhancements in our DCS system. 1) To display the baggage allowance information from e-ticket on the check-in screen 2) To create a pricing mask of the itinerary from e-ticket and enable our check-in agents to re-price the ticketed itinerary to find out which carrier is MSC and to show a catalogue of baggage charges for the MSC. 3) As for cases when ANA is MSC, because our baggage charge rules are simple, to make a table of our baggage charges in the system for the check-in agents to display a pricing mask and sum-up the charges automatically. 4) And after getting the result of the baggage charge to be applied to the passenger, to issue an automated excess baggage ticket from the priced information - Because we currently don t have the above automated processing in DCS system, we have to take a long time for passenger s check-in. If we could have an internet environment in DCS system, things must have been easier, however our current DCS system in all stations has no capability to use the internet access like as general DCS system in this industry, we need to make changes in the program of our DCS which requires quite a long time usually. - And while we are working on those remaining system enhancements, US DOT has been clarified, so we reviewed and evaluated the impacts on our current ABR processing in the pricing system. Here is the summary of the result. *Firstly the biggest change was that has changed the basic assumption in automated baggage rule processing that US DOT reservation is applied over the methodology of IATA Resolutions 302 and not independent. However we now have to