USAirways fined by DOT for "deceptive" bumping practices

PHL

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,658
57
Picked this up on flyertalk.com. Frankly, the fine should have been higher ($140,000). But it's so like Tempe to neither admit or deny wrongdoing and just pay the hush money to make it go away. I can think of a lot of places $140K could help out around the system....


Order 2008-12-13
OST-2008-0031 - Consent Orders

Issued and Served December 23, 2008

This Consent Order concerns violations by US Airways, Inc. of the Department’s oversales rule, 14 CFR Part 250, and the statutory prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices, 49 U.S.C. § 41712. The violations stem from the carrier’s failure 1) to solicit volunteers before involuntarily denying boarding to passengers on oversold flights, 2) to furnish the required written notice to passengers who were denied boarding (“bumpedâ€￾) involuntarily, and 3) to provide in a timely manner bumped passengers with the appropriate amount and type of denied boarding compensation. The order assesses US Airways a civil penalty of $140,000.

A recent review of US Airways’ passenger complaint records from July 2007 to July 2008 conducted by the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings and of passenger complaints involving US Airways during the same period sent directly to the Enforcement Office revealed numerous instances in which the carrier bumped passengers, but did not follow one or more of the provisions of 14 CFR Part 250.

In mitigation, US Airways states that it did ultimately compensate all of the passengers identified by the Department. In addition, US Airways states that it has revamped its applicable training program to ensure that all airport staff are current on all Part 250 rules. US Airways is also reexamining its policies and procedures relating to overbooking to ensure a smoother process at the airport when it becomes necessary to seek volunteers or deny boarding.

In order to avoid litigation and without admitting or denying the violations described above, US Airways, Inc., agrees to the issuance of this order to cease and desist from future violations of 14 CFR Part 250 and 49 U.S.C. § 41712. US Airways, Inc., further agrees to the assessment of $140,000 in compromise of potential civil penalties otherwise assessable against it. The Enforcement Office believes that this compromise assessment is appropriate in view of the nature and extent of the violations in question, serves the public interest, and provides a strong incentive to all airlines to comply with the Department’s denied boarding regulation.
 
Part of the new process is any time someone is placed on the HKN list (holding confirmed needing seats) they are to get a copy of the Take Flight booklet which outlines volunteer and invol compensation. They are supposed to be reprogramming the kiosks to advise customers on the list to ask an agent for the booklet as well.
 
Listen... every airline on this board has been fined by the DOT for violating this rule. Which is why there's now 'contracts' on the ticket jackets.

To say that this proves anything other than some misinformed GA/GS's dropped the ball is stretching at best.

There is/was/never will be a directive from the SandCastle to violate any DOT regulation.

I always wondered what happened to those conspiracy folks when they shut down the X-Files chat boards...
 
Listen... every airline on this board has been fined by the DOT for violating this rule. Which is why there's now 'contracts' on the ticket jackets.

Last I knew the Contract of Carriage had been eliminated from the boarding jackets as a cost cutting move.

To say that this proves anything other than some misinformed GA/GS's dropped the ball is stretching at best.

There is/was/never will be a directive from the SandCastle to violate any DOT regulation.

The misinformed GA's and GS's are a byproduct of how US conducts business. Keeping wages ridiculously low and allowing life to be miserable for the GA's causes turnover, which limits the amount of institutional knowledge that they have for dealing with situations.

Oversold flight, to the point of needing to involuntarily deny boarding to paid customers, is one of the most stressful part of the GA's job. While the plane closes the door and proceeds on its merry way, the GA's are dealing with folks who are quite upset watching the plane leave, who are often irrational and screaming and either dealing with the issues at the gate or sending them to the customer assistance counter since the GA's either have a plane of the ground needing the gate or need to be at another gate for another flight.
 
The misinformed GA's and GS's are a byproduct of how US conducts business. Keeping wages ridiculously low and allowing life to be miserable for the GA's causes turnover, which limits the amount of institutional knowledge that they have for dealing with situations.
Bingo!!! and on target for all employee groups at US, IMO.

I am hoping it is a result of the policy-makers not getting correct information about what happens at the passenger/employee interface but it could be simply malicious negligence on the part of the executives.
 
Sadly yet another DOCUMENTED example of why The Sandcastle has no crediblity with Frequent Flyers.

It is also now been documented by the Federal Government that The Sandcastle can not be trusted.

Yet another example of their attitude and approach towards Frequent Flyers, Employees and Customers in general.

Piney, et al: Don't faint, but I'm coming to the defense of Tempe on this one. This isn't an issue about which The Sandcastle is terminally unique, or something they're necessarily doing wrong, even though there's always room for improvement.

With respect to handling oversales, the lack of written disclosure, proper solicitation of volunteers and timely or accurate compensation payment issues were long-standing problems in the East as well.
 
Deceptive? Is that even the right word? Was working an oversold Denver the other day, had to deny about 7 people. Do you think they where given a choice of a cash payment or a TFC? Nope! Supervisor said only give them 2 TFC's! WTF???? I know its a pain in the ass to calculate the cash payment but Hello??? It's what is
printed in the Take Flight Booklet! They have a choice and it really ticks me off when I am intructed not to follow policy and procedure.
 
Deceptive? Is that even the right word? Was working an oversold Denver the other day, had to deny about 7 people. Do you think they where given a choice of a cash payment or a TFC? Nope! Supervisor said only give them 2 TFC's! WTF???? I know its a pain in the ass to calculate the cash payment but Hello??? It's what is
printed in the Take Flight Booklet! They have a choice and it really ticks me off when I am intructed not to follow policy and procedure.

I hope you report that to your manager, especially in light of the subject of this thread, if not to correct the non-compliant supervisor, at least to cover your keester if and when one of these mishandled customers figures it out and goes to CR or the DOT. Without that, sadly, if anyone is counseled for not following procedure, I suspect it will be you, not the supervisor.

A good friend, and non-airline person, called me a day or so ago from CLT to ask me what to do. He was in the midst of being involuntarily DB'ed. He, too, wasn't offered any explanation or choice of compensation. Just a TFC and "unacceptably nasty" (his words, not mine) instructions to wait five hours for the next flight. I told him that the employees hadn't followed federal regulations or US procedures and that, as a result, he should:

1. Ask for a supervisor locally to rectify the problem. If unsuccessful,
2. File a written complaint through www.dot.gov, directly to Doug Parker and Customer Relations - all simultaneously,
3. In either case, insist that his TFC be converted to cash since he wasn't given that more attractive option originally. Based on his fare, he would easily quality for the max invol cash payment which is much better than a TFC.

Why is it, 16 months after leaving US, I STILL felt the need to apologize to him, to try to help him, to defend the rude actions of a fellow employee, and to morph back into my old Consumer Affairs persona to try to save an angry customer from leaving the company in disgust?

Hmm. Maybe that question should be posed under the "US Haters" thread?
 
I didn't say anything to a manger, honestly it wouldn't have done any good and because I would have ratted on the supervisor, I would have been given evil looks. So, I kept my mouth shut. It will come back to haunt them.
 
I didn't say anything to a manger, honestly it wouldn't have done any good and because I would have ratted on the supervisor, I would have been given evil looks. So, I kept my mouth shut. It will come back to haunt them.

No offense or personal attack is intended by this, JetguyCLT, because this isn't a new problem.

This is a good example of why things stay screwed up at this company. In a healthy work environment, it would be perfect acceptable - if not expected - to point out the inconsistency with the procedure for the sake of regulatory compliance, customer service and the employees' sanity. Instead, there's concern with butt-covering, as in my suggestion, and apprehension over being a stool pigeon or with getting potential retaliation from the boss.
 

Latest posts