[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19473-19477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10147]
========================================================================
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. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 19473]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Ch. II
[Docket No. OST-96-993]
RIN 2105-AC36
Ticketless Travel: Passenger Notices
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Statement of compliance policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is issuing a statement of compliance policy
that states that the ticket notices required by various DOT rules must
be given (or be made readily available) to ``ticketless'' airline
passengers no later than the time that they check in at the airport for
the first flight in their itinerary.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This statement of compliance policy takes effect May
22, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Kelly, Aviation Consumer
Protection Division, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street SW., Room 4107, Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202)
366-5952. An electronic version of this statement of compliance policy
will be available at http://www.dot.gov/dotinfo/general/rules/
aviation.html shortly after publication in the Federal Register.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Various DOT regulations require U.S. and foreign air carriers to
provide consumer notices on or with passenger tickets. These notices
provide information about protections afforded by federal regulations,
limitations on carrier liability, and contract terms that passengers
may not otherwise be aware of. These ticket notice requirements are
listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject Source (14 CFR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversales................................ Sec. 250.11
Domestic baggage liability............... Sec. 254.5
International baggage liability.......... Sec. 221.176
Domestic contract of carriage terms...... Sec. 253.5
Terms of electronic tariff Sec. 221.177(b)
(international).
Refund penalties (domestic).............. Sec. 253.7
Fare increases (international)........... Sec. 221.174
Death/injury liability limits Sec. 221.175
(international).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past few years, a number of airlines have introduced
``ticketless travel,'' also known as ``electronic ticketing.'' Under
this concept a passenger calls the airline, makes a reservation and
purchases the transportation during the call, typically by credit card.
Electronic tickets can also be purchased from travel agencies in many
cases. No ``ticket,'' as that document has traditionally been
configured, is issued. Instead, the passenger is orally given a
confirmation number and/or is sent a written itinerary. Upon checking
in at the airport the passenger simply provides his or her name,
furnishes identification, and is given a boarding pass or other
document that is used to gain access to the aircraft.
The Department of Transportation supports the development of
ticketless travel. The process has the potential to reduce carrier and
agent costs, and thereby costs to consumers, and to make air
transportation easier to purchase. At the same time, the Department has
been concerned that necessary information in the ticket notices
described above be provided to passengers in a ticketless environment.
Consequently, on January 19, 1996, we published in the Federal Register
a Request for Comments on the issue of passenger notices for ticketless
transactions (61 FR 1309).
Comments
We received 28 comments in response to the Federal Register notice.
Three were from industry associations: the Air Transport Association of
America (ATA), the International Air Transport Association (IATA), and
the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA). Eleven comments were from
air carriers: United Air Lines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines,
Trans World Airlines, Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Alaska
Airlines, ValuJet Airlines, Western Pacific Airlines, Vanguard
Airlines, and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. We also received comments from
four travel agencies (Costa Azul Tours and Travel, Carlson Wagonlit
Travel, Meston Travel Center, and Vista Travel Service), four other
organizations (Best Fares magazine, Airclaims, Ltd., QuickTix, and
Stone & Webster Management Consultants), five individuals (Mr. Philip
Sheridan, Mr. Laurence Hecker, Mr. Andrew Pickens, Mr. Peter Lyck, and
Mr. Benjamin Dornic), and from Mr. Jeremy Silverman and Mr. Gregory
Gerdes on behalf of their law school class.
In general the industry commenters did not object to providing the
notices that are currently required to be provided on or with tickets.
However, they urged the Department not to prescribe the manner in which
those notices are to be provided, e.g. the method or the time that they
are furnished to electronically ticketed passengers. The travel agent
commenters said that notice should be the responsibility of the
airlines, and that travel agencies should not be expected to bear the
cost. Most of the individual commenters said that electronically
ticketed passengers should receive written confirmation of their
reservation and fare in case there is a subsequent computer error.
ATA said that it anticipates that the consumer protection notices
that the Department's regulations require today will continue to be
provided. ATA, IATA, ASTA, most of the air carrier commenters, and
Airclaims, Ltd. said that consumer notices of the type provided with
tickets should continue to be provided, but they oppose regulation of
the method or time by which carriers must communicate those notices to
ticketless passengers. This will allow distribution systems to be more
flexible and therefore more responsive to the needs of passengers,
according to ATA. It will also generate significant efficiencies, which
ATA said is important in the industry's continuing efforts to provide
economical air transportation. Many of these commenters said that
regulating how and when the notices are to be delivered would impose
costs without commensurate benefits, and could impede emerging
technology.
IATA said that it strongly supports electronic ticketing, and that
it was still
[[Page 19474]]
developing standards for international and interline electronic
ticketing. Although they opposed detailed rules, IATA and ASTA
suggested that DOT should provide general guidelines for acceptable
times and methods for providing consumer notices.
Southwest said that 40% of its passengers are now ticketed
electronically. The carrier said that it mails or faxes the consumer
notices in question to its electronically ticketed passengers, but that
it may want to modify this procedure in the future in response to
consumer demand, new technology, or competition. Several of the
carriers said that there are many ways to get adequate notices to
passengers besides mailing them: for example, an annual mailing to
frequent flyers, a receipt provided at the airport or travel agency,
orally at the time of the reservation, on signs or handouts at the
airport, a fax-back service that will fax notices to passengers who
call a special number, or a notice screen for bookings that consumers
make via the internet or other online services.
ValuJet, a fully ticketless carrier, states that it currently
provides effective, oral notice concerning the customer's itinerary at
the time of the sale, as well as written notice when its customers
board. It contends that having to provide written notices at the time
of purchase would increase the cost of ticketless travel without
commensurate benefit.
Like ValuJet, Western Pacific and Vanguard are totally ticketless
carriers. They both said that they have procedures for providing what
they consider to be complete and timely notice to passengers. Like
ValuJet, these two airlines provide oral notice at the time of purchase
about important fare conditions, but do not provide any of the DOT
notices at the time of purchase, orally or in writing, except to note
that fares are non-refundable. All three carriers provide certain
written notices upon check-in, although these do not necessarily
include all of the DOT-mandated ticket notices or all of the required
text from these notices. These three carriers also state that they will
mail or fax written notices on request at any time.
ASTA said that notice of the reservation and fare will be provided
to clients ``when practical.'' ASTA suggests that general guidelines be
issued for delivery of other consumer notices, but that details on when
to provide the notices be left to the carrier or travel agency. If the
Department identifies deficiencies, it can then impose a more detailed
standard. For the moment, ASTA suggests that all of the consumer
notices be posted at airports, where passengers are more likely to see
them than in the fine print on tickets, which ASTA contends most
passengers don't read.
Several carriers and one travel agency chain advocated the concept
of a voicemail or ``audio-text'' system in which passengers could be
provided the choice of listening to recorded consumer notices at the
end of a reservation call, or at any other time. ValuJet estimated that
such a system could deliver a standard oral briefing by telephone for
as little as 25 cents per call.
Western Pacific described a menu-driven (``press 1 for baggage
information, 2 for oversales information * * *'') voice system that it
is studying to deliver all DOT standard notices, as well as other
information. The carrier says this system would provide the notices in
a timelier fashion than notices that arrive in the mail several days
after a telephone purchase; Western Pacific said this would be
particularly useful in the case of bookings made within a few days of
departure. (Western Pacific said that 20% of its bookings are made
within three days of departure; Vanguard said its figure is 10% to
15%.)
TWA said that carriers should not be required to provide notices to
an electronically ticketed passenger who does not request a written
confirmation, or who is offered the consumer notices but declines. TWA
and Continental described ATM-like machines that issue boarding passes
at airports, and can require passengers to choose whether or not to
receive the terms and conditions of travel and other notices. They said
that carriers should have the flexibility to deliver notices by means
such as this.
Generally, the individual travel agency commenters stated that
notice should be the responsibility of the airlines and that it could
be provided during check-in. Mr. Tom Parsons of Best Fares magazine,
however, said that ``inspecting a contract at the airport gate is like
reading the warranty on your new car after you buy it.'' Mr. Parsons
said that the notices could be provided through the computer
reservations systems; Airclaims, Ltd. suggested handouts at the point
of sale. Neither of these proposals, however, indicate how the notices
would be provided to persons who book by phone.
Meston Travel said that it gives its ticketless clients a written
confirmation of the reservation and fare and copies of consumer notices
at the time of purchase. Vista Travel said that the cost savings of
electronic ticketing have accrued to the airlines but not to travel
agencies; Vista believes that the costs of any new notice requirements
should be part of the cost of the transportation, and should not have
to be borne separately by travel agencies. Vista did say that
passengers should be provided documentation of their reservation and
fare before they arrive at the airport, or they will be at the mercy of
the carrier in the event of a computer error. Carlson Wagonlit pointed
out that many carriers rely on advertising to defray the cost of ticket
jackets, and that this could help support the cost of any notices that
must be delivered to electronically ticketed passengers at the time of
purchase.
In the Request for Comments, the Department sought comment on air
transportation purchases that take place via ``smart cards'' or online
computer services. ATA said that these types of electronic tickets
present no special issues. ATA asserts, as it does with regard to other
forms of electronic ticketing, that the carrier should be free to
determine the means of providing consumer notices. This could include
providing notices when a passenger signs an initial smart card form, or
electronic transmission of notices when transportation is purchased
online. ASTA echoed this idea, and said the notices could be provided
one time to regular clients similar to a ``signature on file''
agreement for credit card purchases.
IATA supported the concept of allowing carriers to provide notices
to users of smart cards at the time they enter into the agreement for
the card, although IATA said that alternatively the notices could be
generated each time the card is used. Delta said that it uses smart
cards on its east coast Shuttle. The carrier said that it provides DOT-
required notices at the time a smart card is issued, and also makes
them available at each smart card machine. IATA, several carriers and
Airclaims, Ltd. suggested that members of frequent-flyer programs could
be given the notices when they join the program, or annually. TWA
asserted that 33% to 50% of all passengers (depending on the carrier)
are members of a frequent-flyer program. United said that one-time or
annual notices to frequent flyers combined with other programs to
ensure reasonable notice to other customers would save costs without
having an adverse impact on the traveling public.
The Department requested comment on whether a passenger should be
able to have an independent record of his or her reservation status.
ATA said that electronic ticketing does not create any additional
likelihood that a passenger's record will be unlocatable. Continental
and Western Pacific said that the
[[Page 19475]]
confirmation number that is given to every electronically ticketed
passenger is the passenger's evidence of his or her reservation. TWA
said that the Department's concern over no-record passengers is
understandable in a historical context, but that over the past decade
there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and that no-
record passengers are no longer a significant problem. The totally
ticketless carriers that commented (ValuJet, Western Pacific and
Vanguard) all said that they do not engage in deliberate overbooking
and as a result have few oversales. IATA said that current scenarios
contemplate some sort of confirmation being sent to passengers who book
sufficiently in advance and that this is likely to contain confirmation
of the reservation. However, IATA said, this should not be required by
regulation.
The Department requested comment on how carriers deal with fare
disputes with passengers, particularly those who purchase tickets by
phone. Both ATA and IATA simply asserted that this has not been a
problem. The passenger's fare ``will be included on passenger
receipts,'' ATA said. Western Pacific said that it experiences about
the same rate of fare disputes as paper-ticket carriers. It believes
most of these disputes arise from the customer's failure to listen
carefully to the fare restrictions information or the reservation
recap. Vanguard said that it has encountered virtually no fare
disputes.
However, a comment filed on behalf of a law school class by Jeremy
Silverman and Gregory Gerdes said that several of the members of the
class had had disputes over fares and reservations with ticketless
carriers. They stated that carriers should provide written confirmation
of the reservation and the fare to electronically ticketed passengers,
and that this notice should be provided on a timely basis. They also
noted the potential for problems in applying an unused electronic
ticket to another flight (with payment of the appropriate penalty)
after the departure date of the original flight; if the computer does
not reflect the fact that the passenger did not use the transportation,
the passenger does not have an unused flight coupon to prove this fact.
Mr. Laurence Heckler also expressed concern over reservation,
payment, and fare disputes and urged that carriers provide timely
written confirmation of these matters. Stone & Webster Management
Consultants stated that electronically ticketed passengers should
receive a confirmation of the fare and reservation and the DOT consumer
notices shortly after purchase. Costa Azul Travel said that it receives
many complaints about ticketless travel, although it didn't describe
them.
On the other hand, Mr. Andrew Pickens asserted that the notices on
paper tickets are unread and unnecessary. Mr. Philip Sheridan said that
he has been using ticketless travel for six months on United and
Southwest with no problems, and that the combination of the boarding
pass and his monthly credit card statement are all the documentation he
needs.
The Department sought comment on the costs of various notice
alternatives. Most of the comments on this point focused on the costs
of providing written notice at (or shortly after) the time of purchase.
According to ATA, the average current postage cost of mailing notices
to electronically ticketed passengers is 40 cents per passenger, but
this does not include other handling costs. Fifty million electronic
ticket transactions per year would yield a mailing cost of $20 million,
ATA said, while 150 million such transactions would cost $60 million.
ASTA asserted that having to provide notices can be a significant
cost factor (although it provided no figures). It highlighted the
burden on agencies by citing the thin profit margins in the travel
agency business resulting from changes in the commission structure and
airline initiatives to sell directly to passengers.
IATA provided no cost estimates, but said that distribution costs
would be affected by the number and length of the notices. IATA said
that the benefits of a DOT standard for consumer notices for
electronically ticketed passengers would be legal certainty,
consistency and uniformity, particularly in the international
environment. Potential negatives would be extra costs, and any
inconsistency between the required methods of distribution and the
electronic ticketing process.
ValuJet said that the cost of providing written notices at the time
of purchase, particularly passenger-specific itinerary information,
would be ``staggering'' in ValuJet's case. ValuJet and Western Pacific
both said that major airlines have significant back-office ticketing
systems that can be redirected at little incremental cost to print and
distribute written itineraries and notices to ticketless passengers.
ValuJet said that it would have to build such an infrastructure. It
estimates that postage to mail its notices would be $88,000 per month,
and additional distribution costs could be from $1 million to $2.33
million per month, which would be 17% to 42% of the carrier's 1995 net
income. Western Pacific estimated that mailing or faxing itineraries
and DOT notices within three days of purchase would cost approximately
$50,000 per month at present traffic levels. Vanguard estimated that
providing hard-copy notices at the time of sale would add $1 to the
cost of each of its transactions, or $2 million per year.
Discussion
We have decided as a matter of compliance policy not to pursue
remedial or punitive action if air carriers give, or make readily
available, to electronically ticketed passengers the written notices
required by the existing DOT ticket-notice rules no later than the time
that the passengers appear at the airport for the first flight in their
itinerary. We believe that this approach strikes the most reasonable
balance at this time between ensuring that important information
reaches consumers before they travel without inhibiting the development
of electronic ticketing and imposing additional costs that might stifle
industry innovations and result in higher prices for consumers. It also
puts all carriers on the same footing with respect to ticketless
notices; as a result of past DOT requests, many airlines currently mail
or fax consumer notices to ticketless customers at the time of
purchase, but some carriers do not.
Most of the industry commenters in this proceeding objected to the
prospect of specifically being required to provide notices at the time
of the purchase. The policy that we are implementing will not do so,
and thus will avoid imposing the costs of having to mail or otherwise
deliver written notices to ticketless passengers before the date of the
flight. We are particularly concerned about avoiding unnecessary costs
for totally-ticketless carriers, many of which are low-fare, new-
entrant airlines. As noted by ValuJet, the burden of a requirement to
provide written notices in advance of the flight would fall
disproportionately on totally-ticketless carriers since they do not
have the paper-ticket/mailing infrastructure of most larger airlines.
As a result, we could envision higher prices for consumers without
commensurate consumer benefits. The approach that we are taking will
also address the concerns expressed by travel agents; no travel agency
will be required to provide the current notices required with tickets
to ticketless passengers.
Ticketless travel is a dynamic and evolving element in the
marketing of air transportation. The Department will continue to
monitor developments in this field, and should consumer
[[Page 19476]]
problems related to inadequate passenger notice arise, we may propose
additional requirements in the future. We strongly encourage airlines
and travel agencies to work to avoid such problems, not only by making
the DOT ticket notices available to ticketless passengers at the
airport as required here but also by distributing them in other ways,
including those suggested in the comments in this proceeding. For
example, these notices could be included with newsletters or booklets
of terms and conditions mailed to members of a carrier's frequent-flyer
program or holders of the airline's affinity credit card or smart card,
posted in online booking services and on the carrier's World Wide Web
site, included in the carrier's printed timetables, or handed to
passengers who purchase electronic tickets in person (e.g., at an
airline's airport or city ticket office or at a travel agency).
Airlines may also wish to consider making the notices available in
recorded form on their reservations telephone lines (e.g., ``press 3 to
hear important consumer information'') or establishing a fax-back
service, where a consumer could call a certain phone number and have
the notices faxed to him or her. We also encourage travel agencies to
provide the notices during face-to-face transactions, or when the
agency would be mailing other documents in any event. These various
distribution methods would allow a passenger to be provided the notices
as far in advance as possible before the date of the flight, and in
many cases before purchasing the transportation. However, none of them
entails the cost of an individual mailing to each purchaser.
ASTA stated in its comments that the current notices in use by the
airlines on regular ticketed transactions do not conveniently fit on a
single sheet of paper while leaving room for other important
information that consumers routinely want to have in writing. We would
point out that much of the contractual language in notices on some
carriers' conventional tickets is not required by DOT, but is placed
there by the carrier for its own purposes. As we noted in our Request
for Comments, all of the DOT notices would fit on back of an 8\1/2\ x
11 sheet of paper, and if the international notices are not provided to
domestic passengers the domestic notices would fit on one side of such
a sheet. A sample of a domestic notice may be found at http://
www.dot.gov/general/rules/aviation.html.
ASTA and other commenters also suggested that airport signs may be
a superior method for providing notice to ticketless passengers. While
we are reluctant to rely solely on airport signs as a means of
passenger notice, we have decided to hold in abeyance a proposal that
we published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1996 (61 FR 27818) to
eliminate the required sign concerning oversales. We will publish a
separate document in the Federal Register to accomplish this. The
oversales sign will continue to be required until we have more
experience with any potential oversale problems involving ticketless
passengers.
As a result of the policy described here, the notices that are
currently required by DOT rules to accompany tickets will have to be
given or made readily available to ticketless passengers in writing no
later than when they appear at the airport for the first flight on
their itinerary. We can envision several ways of accomplishing this:
(1) Carriers could have a box or stack of the notice sheets on the
countertop at each staffed position at the ticket counter and at each
gate (since some passengers check in only at the ticket counter and
others only at the gate), with the box or stack prominently labeled
``Consumer Notices.''
(2) Carriers could keep a supply of the notices at a central
location within sight of all passengers near the ticket counter and
also near the carrier's gates.
(3) The carrier's agents could simply hand one of the notice sheets
to each passenger as they check in at the ticket counter and at the
gate, or hand it to every passenger at the ticket counter and at the
gates have a supply of the notices in sight in one of the ways
described above. The notice sheet would only have to be handed to a
passenger checking in for the first flight on his or her itinerary, but
carriers might choose to simply give it to all passengers in order to
cut down on procedure and labor time.
(4) Carriers could post a sign visible from each position at the
ticket counter and at each gate briefly describing the nature of the
notice (e.g., ``important consumer information'') and stating that a
copy is available from any counter or gate agent upon request. (It
would not be sufficient for a carrier to simply provide a copy of the
notice sheet to passengers who request it, without posting a sign,
since most passengers would not know that the notice exists.) If the
notice sheet is to be provided only upon request, manuals and training
would probably have to be updated to ensure that carrier agents are
aware of the distinction between this notice and other written material
that passengers are entitled to see upon request, e.g. the detailed
notice about boarding priorities and denied boarding compensation (14
CFR 250.9), the complete contract of carriage (14 CFR 253.4(b)), and a
copy of the DOT rule on the rights of airline passengers with
disabilities (14 CFR 382.45(d)).
If a carrier chooses to provide the notices in question to
ticketless passengers in advance of the flight date (as many airlines
do now), the policy described here will not require the notices to be
furnished to those passengers a second time when they check in at the
airport.
As indicated earlier, the Department sought comment on whether a
passenger should be able to have an independent record of his or her
reservation status in case a computer reservation record is lost. Based
on the information currently available to us, we agree with ATA that
electronic ticketing does not necessarily create any additional
likelihood that a passenger's record will be unlocatable. However,
there nonetheless appears to be the same likelihood of ``no record''
passengers as exists for passengers with paper tickets, and yet
ticketless passengers will not necessarily have written evidence of
their reservation. Continental and Western Pacific commented that a
ticketless passenger's confirmation number is the evidence of his or
her reservation; however, if a carrier cannot locate a passenger's
reservation record in the computer, a confirmation number does not
necessarily prove that the passenger had a reservation on that
particular flight. It is questionable whether carriers would board a
passenger based on a confirmation number alone. On the other hand, we
note TWA's assertion that the Department's concern over no-record
passengers is understandable in a historical context but that over the
past decade there have been numerous improvements to CRS technology and
that no-record passengers are no longer a significant problem. Our
complaint data appear to support this: in 1996 we received only four
consumer complaints against U.S. carriers about denied boardings caused
by ``no record'' reservation problems. None of those complaints was
about a totally-ticketless carrier.
The Request for Comments also noted that a conventional paper
ticket contains a record of the passenger's fare, whereas a ticketless
passenger might not have proof of the fare that had been agreed to in
the event a higher charge is posted to his or her credit card. Once
again, however, consumer complaints filed with DOT show no clear
indication of a problem in this area. In 1996 we received 52 complaints
against U.S. carriers concerning alleged overcharges, but only one of
them involved a totally-
[[Page 19477]]
ticketless carrier. The statistics do not indicate how many of the
remaining complaints may have involved ticketless transactions, but of
the 36 overcharge complaints against Major U.S. carriers (i.e.,
airlines with revenues over $1 billion per year), only three were
against Southwest Airlines or United Airlines, two Major carriers with
the earliest electronic ticketing programs.
We have no rules that require reservation or fare information to
appear on conventional tickets, and we will not require this
information to be furnished in writing to ticketless passengers at this
time. As far as we are aware, all airlines that offer electronic
ticketing provide a paper itinerary showing the fare and reservation
status either automatically or upon request. With most carriers,
passengers also have the option of a conventional paper ticket if they
prefer. A large percentage of ticketless transactions are paid for by
credit card, and those passengers have the dispute-resolution
procedures of the Fair Credit Billing Act available to them in the
event of a problem. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor complaints
in these areas and will not hesitate to take further action in the
future if it is warranted.
Likewise, the Department will continue to monitor the evolution of
ticketless travel and any consumer problems that may arise from the
practice. The compliance policy stated herein will be reconsidered if
circumstances so justify. However, before making any substantive change
in the policy, we will provide public notice of our planned actions.
We note that under present rules, certificated carriers must
maintain consumer complaint records for a period of three years, flight
coupons from tickets for a period of one year, and other records
related to errors, oversales, irregularities, and delays in handling of
passengers for a period of one year. (14 CFR 249.20.) While we see no
need at this time to impose additional recordkeeping requirements on
carriers using electronic ticketing systems, we encourage all carriers
to maintain records sufficient and in such a fashion as to help the
Department make informed decisions in the future in this important and
evolving area of air transportation.
The compliance policy set forth above is an attempt to provide
carriers the maximum flexibility to develop their ticketless travel
systems while at the same time providing a measure of protection to
consumers from unfair or deceptive practices prohibited by 49 U.S.C.
41712. At the same time, however, carriers may find it advantageous to
continue to provide the written DOT ticket notices to ticketless
passengers in advance or to consider implementing the innovative
notification systems discussed in the comments submitted in this docket
(some of which are summarized above). In this regard, carriers may
ultimately decide that it is in their overall best financial interest
to do so considering that the preemption protections of 49 U.S.C. 41713
and 14 CFR 253.1 may not apply unless notice of contract of carriage
terms is provided to ticketless passengers at the time of sale either
orally or by contemporaneously mailed (or faxed, emailed, etc.) written
notice.
The policy described here does not affect the existing notice
requirements for conventional paper tickets. Those tickets must
continue to be accompanied by the written notices described in DOT
regulations.
Accordingly, it shall be the compliance policy of the Department
that ticket notices required by Department regulations shall be given
or made readily available to electronically ticketed passengers in
writing in a manner such as described above no later than the time that
they check in for the first flight in their itinerary.
Issued this 8th day of April, 1997 at Washington, D.C.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-10147 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
