Category: litigation

Aviation enthusiast Mike Borsetti last month alerted the US Department of Transportation to Qatar Airways adding bogus fees contrary to prior representations: Their online check-in allowed him to select a seat free of charge, but at the airport, both check-in staff and a manager said he’d have to pay to keep that seat.  In response, Qatar tried to trivialize Borsetti’s problem — as if this overcharge doesn’t matter or isn’t important enough for DOT to investigate.  In a public comment filed today, I explained why Borsetti is absolutely right:

First, having already complained to both line staff and a manager at the airport, Borsetti had put Qatar amply on notice of the dispute.  Qatar says he should have complained again, after travel, so they could refund him then.  But two unsuccessful discussions with airline staff is more than enough to justify Borsetti’s decision to bring this matter to a regulator.

Second, by all indications the problem stretches well beyond Borsetti alone, and is bigger than Qatar admits.  Online comments already revealed four other customers with substantially the same problem — online check-in seating dishonored unless customers pay more at the airport.  Of customers affected, only a tiny fraction would both realize they were overcharged and then happen to see the one blog discussing Borsetti’s complaint.  So the problem must be substantial.  And that’s as you’d expect: If there’s a defect in Qatar’s software or process, such as airport systems mistakenly saying a fee is due even though online check-in already authorized a seat without charge, that problem would occur for a broad swath of passengers since software ordinarily operates predictably and consistently.

On some level Borsetti’s complaint is unusually simple.  He was overcharged, he wants a refund, and he wants Qatar Airways to stop charging passengers for seats it had said would be free.  Will DOT act to make sure all the other affected passengers — who didn’t realize they were overcharged, or didn’t take the time to complain — are also fully refunded?  And will DOT act to make sure that Qatar Airways finally fixed its systems so this problem doesn’t recur?

Congratulations to Mirel Baumgarten, who in 2020 used my formal DOT complaint template to report Turkish Airlines delivering bags 31 hours late and arbitrarily withholding compensation in violation of US law and international treaty.  DOT today cited Mirel in a Consent Order with Turkish, which had to admit its wrongful acts and pay a total of $1.3m (both for delaying refunds after COVID-19 schedule changes and cancellations, and for arbitrarily limiting mishandled bag reimbursements).

DOT summarizes the violation: Turkish Airlines “arbitrarily limited reimbursement for delayed or lost baggage to a maximum amount of $50 USD payment per day for a maximum of six days regardless of the content consumers submitted in their claims.” But, DOT explains, under the Montreal Convention, an airline may not limit its liability for expenses related to delayed baggage to any amount lower than 1,288 SDRs (currently about $1,670).  See Consent Order page 5.

If you enjoy this sort of thing, Mirel’s complaint shows the kind of nonsense airlines all too often inflict on passengers.  Mirel reported bags delivered 31 hours late (complaint page 12) and provides proof with timestamps, yet Turkish oddly categorized the baggage delay as less than 24 hours (not that that would eliminate or even reduce reimbursement under governing treaty and law).  Mirel was traveling for a wedding, had to buy expensive replacement clothes to attend, and had receipts documenting the expenditure.   (See complaint page 11.) Turkish refused to consider Mirel’s evidence, saying the only relevant factor was “the framework of the rules” which purportedly say the Turkish rep “cannot re-evaluate your case” (page 10).  When Mirel cited the specific treaty that required reimbursement of all reasonable expenses subject to the treaty’s cap, disallowing the limitation Turkish proposed, the Turkish rep remarked that no further discussion was possible, “we do not have phone service”, and the specified amount was “our final offer.”  Most consumers would give up.  Kudos to Mirel for sticking with it, telling the DOT, and thereby causing DOT to include this matter in its broader investigation of Turkish.

The DOT’s $1.3m settlement with Turkish is substantial, but that entire amount goes to the US Treasury.  Not a penny flows to the passengers who received arbitrarily reduced reimbursements from Turkish.  Both DOT and Turkish know the names and contact information of affected passengers.  I’d like to see Turkish affirmatively provide every affected passenger with the full amount shown in receipts previously submitted, plus interest.

Other affected Turkish customers should be emboldened by this consent order to demand their full documented loss, no matter any prior protestation by Turkish that its policies called for paying less. I don’t know if Turkish customer service representatives are trained to honor and pay those claims. If not, Turkish customers could contact the attorneys who represented Turkish in this matter, David Endersbee and Barbara Marrin of KMA Zuckert, who should be in a position to press Turkish staff to pay claims consistent with the consent order.

Complaint. Answer.

Status: Pending.

Summary: In prominent marketing offers, including onboard napkins and large airport displays, AA promises “first checked bag free” if customers get certain AA-partner credit cards.  But AA denies that benefit on itineraries that are completely or partially international — a restriction nowhere mentioned in initial marketing offers.

Complaint.  Answer.

Status: Pending

Summary: AA delayed an intercontinental flight by 27 hours, but in email notification didn’t say what flight was delayed or by how long.  AA’s staff offered contradictory statements of passenger rights and rebooking options, including multiple supposed rules untethered to the Tariff.

Complaint. Answer.

Status: Pending.

Summary: Federal regulation favors private resolution of disputes between passengers and airlines. But Southwest’s “class waiver” disallows passengers from gathering together with a single set of lawyers and experts for efficient, cost-effective group resolution of their complaints.

Complaint. Answer. Reply. Surreply.

Status: Pending.

Summary: Governing regulation requires an airline to provide the exact price for a passenger’s first and second checked bag within the text of an eticket confirmation email, but Alaska did not do so. Furthermore, the regulation requires bag allowance and price information in a booking summary page, but again Alaska did not. Meanwhile Alaska’s Manage Trip page provided an incorrect statement of baggage benefits and fees.

Complaint. Answer. Reply. Surreply.

Status: Pending.

Summary: The American Airlines Business Extra site misrepresented carrier surcharges as “tax” in violation of governing regulation and prior DOT consent decrees. Furthermore, the site listed “approx” charges rather than the exact amount to be paid. And contrary to governing regulation, the site entirely omitted carrier surcharges from initial fare quotes.

Complaint. Answer.

Status: Pending.

Summary: The American Airlines Vacations site misrepresented carrier surcharges as “tax” in violation of governing regulation and prior DOT consent decrees.

Complaint. Answer.  Reply.

Status: Pending

Summary: Governing regulation requires an airline to refund a passenger’s TSA fee if the passenger does not travel, but Delta refused to do so.

Complaint. Answer. Reply. Surreply.

Status: Pending

Summary: Governing regulation requires an airline to refund a passenger’s TSA fee if the passenger does not travel, but JetBlue refuses to do so.