bedelman

Under DOT regulation 14 CFR 399.85(c), "all e-ticket confirmations ... must include information regarding the passenger's free baggage allowance and/or the applicable fee for a carry-on bag and the first and second checked bag". But AA's reissued eticket confirmation emails systematically lack this information -- in my experience, they literally never include it.

Of course a reissue can change baggage allowance. A reissue can change the destination of a ticket which typically changes baggage allowance. (Example: change a coach transatlantic ticket with one free checked bag into a domestic coach ticket with no free checked bags.) Not to mention reissues which change class of service (upgrades for $ or AAdvantage redemption), change carrier, etc. And these reissues are exactly the situations when consumers and even airline staff are most likely to be confused about baggage allowances and hence would most benefit from information in the eticket confirmation as required by regulation.

Last week I filed a complaint noting American's deficiency in this regard. The docket page can accept public comments. Perhaps others have relevant experiences to share, e.g. instances in which they wanted but didn't receive this information, or instances in which this information could resolved a dispute or prevented an unexpected fee.

My complaint also notes instances of specific harm, including a friend upgrading with systemwides from my account, who 1) didn't receive baggage information in his reissued eticket confirmation, then 2) called AA and received incorrect information about his baggage allowance. Annoying!

JonNYC

This is getting a little bit nuts, no?

American discloses first and second bag fees with their confirmation emails, it’s on their website, but when you get a re-issue confirmation it’s missing. And they are supposed to include it there, too.

Is that close?

jordyn

Certainly seems reasonable to include it if the information changes as a result of the reissue. In the (typical) case of a reissue resulting in no change to baggage fees/allowances, it seems like it would be redundant/unnecessary.

bedelman

That's correct. "Supposed to" == the regulation, duly enacted through the process provided by law, unambiguously requires it.

Nuts? The regulation is unambiguous. it has been in effect for years, and American certainly knew about it. American should comply strictly. What possible reason for American to do anything less?

Certainly American invokes legal defenses vigorously when that's to their benefit. Just try to sue American for a violation of a state consumer protection law, which substantially every other business must comply with, and you'll see American's well-practiced invocation of legal defenses as to inapplicability of those laws and passengers' remedies largely limited to asking DOT to act. So I follow American's request! When I see a DOT regulation to passengers' benefit, and when American falls short, I ask DOT to act. Maybe they will.

Jon, what do you think of my friend's experience? Bought a coach ticket, upgraded with a systemwide, called in, and was told no increased baggage allowance. As a result, he didn't use the full benefit to which he was entitled under the tariff. First, do you agree that this problem would not have occurred had American provided the information the regulation requires? Second, do you agree that this is a reasonable concern that might effect occasional travelers even if doesn't happen to affect you? (You, I imagine, have others ways of finding this information -- but that's little help to folks who struggle to interpret web pages, which is of course exactly the reason why DOT required that personalized information be included directly within eticket confirmation emails.

JonNYC

I don't see it as an even remotely important issue, personally.

The main example where someone could possibly claim harm is someone reissuing tickets from a ticket where checked bag was free on the original ticket, is no longer free on the new one. The "best" example you have there:
would be hilariously rare.

All the other examples-- and the vast majority of real-life cases-- go from less generous to more (upgraded passenger or re-issue to higher class of service, etc.,) so I don't see the outrage/issue, personally.

bedelman

I think there are more circumstances causing harm. Consider a person travels on a reissued ticket with a higher allowance, but doesn't have written proof of that higher allowance and is charged a fee according to lower allowance from the original ticket. For example, passenger travels an AA-BA interline itinerary JFK-LHR-AMS-LHR-JFK, upgrades the transatlantic segments with a systemwide, and is charged a bag fee at AMS to check baggage that is permitted under the allowance of the LHR-JFK segment which in fact governs. Or AA check-in agents mistakenly apply a lower baggage allowance -- far from speculative since in fact that's what my friend was told (I believe incorrectly) when he called in to inquire. With good evidence of the actual allowance, right in the personalized eticket confirmation email, these disputes would be much less likely.

Consider also a person who brings less baggage than his actual baggage allowance permits due to concern about perhaps-limited allowance. With good evidence of the actual allowance, right in the email, passenger would have felt confident.

I suspect there are other situations at issue. My complaint asked that AA provide DOT with relevant consumer complaints. If AA did that, DOT could review the complaints to see if other passengers had found this problem (and if so in what circumstances and with what harms), and if AA was on notice about the problem and failed to correct it or request a waiver from DOT.


Ultimately the rule is what it is. AA could have sought an exemption or a waiver if had wanted to do so. Indeed carriers repeatedly sought various extensions to this requirement, ultimately denied by DOT which held that carriers had had enough time and should go ahead and comply.

I'm sure you're right, Jon, that AA will argue that this is a small matter and that most passengers aren't harmed that much. But the regulatory scheme is what it is, and passengers are entitled to this information on each and every eticket confirmation email. Personally I'd be happy to see a simpler system where baggage allowances don't require multiple pages of rules and exceptions, as well as complicated computer programs to apply the rules. Indeed, if AA wanted to move to a simpler system, the email disclosure could be as standard as the template-based footer at the bottom of every email. But having created this complexity, AA shouldn't be surprised or upset when there are some costs, including regulatory costs and perhaps also customer refunds, in operating it properly.

ThreeJulietTango

Agreed that it's a minor issue, but the fact remains that AA could be in violation of federal law.

This also happens at the airport. I bought a ticket at the airport in April and the printout I was given included 3 pages of baggage allowance information. I had a ticket reissued for a friend at the airport two weeks ago and the confirmation was just the itinerary and receipt with no information about the baggage allowance.

Redundant, but required by law.

RogerD408

Isn't it reasonable to believe the new ticket supersedes the previous in all respects and therefore needs to restate all T&Cs applicable?

Dr. HFH

First, I applaud bedelman for stating up front that it was his own complaint. Context always adds to a fuller understanding of any situation. For me, the issue is simple. Either AA has complied with DOT regulations in this regard or it hasn't. It doesn't matter whether anyone was actually injured or theoretically could be injured (economically or otherwise). The regulations are what they are. Airlines demand/require compliance with the regulations as they apply to us pax; and, similarly, we are entitled to demand/expect/require compliance with the regulations as they apply to the airlines.

Often1

DOT has stayed away from minute nitpicking and it will likely stay away from this stuff too.

All this does is feed the FAA Enforcement perception that most complaints are petty and that hurts the effort on stuff that matter.

jordyn

Since I often argue that sometimes airlines should be reasonable and think through how they implement rules, I'd say the same applies to the government.

Rules don't exist for their own sake--they're trying to achieve some purpose and exist in a broader context where there are sometimes competing priorities. When implementing them, it's useful to think through the consequences and the benefits, especially if some human discretion is allowed.

bedelman

I don't know about that. Some people would argue that plenty of DOT actions are nitpicking. Consider the DOT's enforcement action against Delta for telephone reservation agents failing to disclose that flights are operated by codeshare partners (certain Delta regional affiliates). Some might say that that's a small matter, little difference between Delta and Delta Connection or Delta Express or what have you, not significant to consumers, and in any event just a few test calls. In fact Delta made all of those arguments and more. (Read the full docket and decide for yourself. I have not yet reached a firm view one way or the other.)

The rules are what they are. If the rules are ambiguous (and in the Delta matter, Delta in fact disputes that the rules are what DOT says they are; Delta said the disclosure only had to come before purchase, and since no purchase was made here, no disclosure was needed), they should be made unambiguous. But if unambiguous rules were broken, to passengers' detriment, I'm prepared to put the matter before DOT.

Not sure I understand. FAA is one agency of DOT. This complaint is before the Aviation Consumer Protection Division, which is part of the Office of the Secretary, a separate part of the DOT and not part of the FAA. DOT page explaining its internal structure. I guess one part of the DOT could have an opinion about another part, but that doesn't change rights and entitlements under law.

But there certainly is a sense in which it's strange to be bringing these disputes before a federal regulator. The more natural way to resolve disputes about allegedly-unfair/deceptive practices is before a judge, for alleged violations of a state consumer protection act. Unusually, airlines are exempt from state consumer protection acts. See Wolens v. American Airlines. Can't sue an airline for an "unfair" or "deceptive" practice under your state's law, no matter what they do, period. Supreme Court says so, whether I like it or not. So administrative proceedings are the available remedy. Consumers can make of them what they will.

dickinson

Let me take a wild guess and speculate that you do not, in fact, like it.

AndyAA

Especially for international itineraries dealing with multiple airlines, and possibly multiple cabins, I'd rather have an e-ticket that clearly shows the baggage allowance.

The alternative of potentially having to debate an agent from a foreign airline as to why you're allowed 3 bags at 70kg on a flight that happens to only have a Y cabin while connecting the next day in J to a different airline isn't my cup of tea. The previous ticket, which might not even have the same flights, really wouldn't cut it.

This might not be an issue. Maybe the baggage information stored with the reservation is 100% accurate, and any agent readily is able to read that information. Though, it would be nice to have something that clearly states the baggage allowance.

Alex_I

- Your main assumption here is that having baggage allowance printed on the ticket will resolve the issue when checking with another airline. It will not and it will be BA (in your example) charging you for the bag but not AA. It is actually the airline that operates the first segment that keeps the baggage fee and you should file a complain against BA with the European entities but not DOT.
About 2 years back I was flying from KOA to the mainland on 100% AA-marketed flights but I forgot that the first KOA-HNL segment was operated by HA. My whole ticket was issued on 001- stock with all AA flight numbers (KOA-HNL was a codeshare operated by HA) and it also had the fine print that the baggage allowance was governed by AA rules stating how many bags I can take for free as AA EXP.
The HA agent in KOA refused to honor that print and a phone call to EXP desk did not help - the EXP agent confirmed that the bags should be free but she also told me that she cannot tell HA how to run their station in KOA. At the end, I have paid the inter-island baggage fee to HA and boarded the flight.