Independence Air iClub - Out of Biz airline standby policy

There has been a lot of talk about using DH tix as standby if they go out of biz, does anyone know the details of how this works?

Congress recently extended the law that requires other airlines to accept pax holding tix on out of biz airlines on a standby basis - IIRC, the pax must pay a $50 fee for the privilege.

Given that most airlines would probably board such pax after the nonrevs, I wouldn't want to rely on it to get where I'm going very quickly. Greyhound may actually be faster unless you're going coast to coast.

to lock a seat should i book a fullyrefundable fair on another airline. Go that airlines ticket desk and cancel the fully refundable ticket and use the new 'open seat' for my non-res reservation.

Congress recently extended the law that requires other airlines to accept pax holding tix on out of biz airlines on a standby basis - IIRC, the pax must pay a $50 fee for the privilege.

Given that most airlines would probably board such pax after the nonrevs, I wouldn't want to rely on it to get where I'm going very quickly. Greyhound may actually be faster unless you're going coast to coast.

Why would an airline board such pax after nonrevs? If you paid $50 to standby, that's much more than the airline would make off of a nonrev. Don't kid yourself... airlines are in business to make money, not haul NRSA's around.

Is there some element (mainly with UAL) of you booked with the enemy we wana stick it to you


Why would an airline board such pax after nonrevs? If you paid $50 to standby, that's much more than the airline would make off of a nonrev. Don't kid yourself... airlines are in business to make money, not haul NRSA's around.

How do you prove you had a reservation with DH when you go to the UAL desk, can you show a reservation print out? I mean anyone can make a fake one in about 1 minute. Also, if I file a complaint with master card and get a fair refund aren't i getting a flight for $50? From what I am hearing my translation of this is that I should book a lot of flights with indy for 2006. Then when they shut down I call up the card company and get my money back. After that, I fly standby for $50. To me this sounds like the deal of a lifetime. Other than $29 indy fairs which are less than the fee, but as far as flights to Vegas or San Juan its a real deal.

Is there some element (mainly with UAL) of you booked with the enemy we wana stick it to you

Do you actually want a response to that?

How do you prove you had a reservation with DH when you go to the UAL desk, can you show a reservation print out? I mean anyone can make a fake one in about 1 minute. Also, if I file a complaint with master card and get a fair refund aren't i getting a flight for $50? From what I am hearing my translation of this is that I should book a lot of flights with indy for 2006. Then when they shut down I call up the card company and get my money back. After that, I fly standby for $50. To me this sounds like the deal of a lifetime. Other than $29 indy fairs which are less than the fee, but as far as flights to Vegas or San Juan its a real deal.

It's called a paper ticket, get them while they last... and probably pay a fee for it too. If you hold a paper ticket and dispute the charge, you might get away with it. But what happens if Indy hangs on longer than you expect?

BTW, standby sucks, and it is far from the deal of a lifetime. $200 rt (revenue ticket) on a transcon, now that's a deal of a lifetime.

indy doesn't do paper tix it is all e tix


It's called a paper ticket, get them while they last... and probably pay a fee for it too. If you hold a paper ticket and dispute the charge, you might get away with it. But what happens if Indy hangs on longer than you expect?

BTW, standby sucks, and it is far from the deal of a lifetime. $200 rt (revenue ticket) on a transcon, now that's a deal of a lifetime.

indy doesn't do paper tix it is all e tix

Then I don't suggest you load up on Indy tickets just to try to "game" the system. When push comes to shove, you're at the mercy of the carrier on which you're trying obtain seats. UA and US are probably going to be the only carriers that are going to do any sizable amount of volume in handling old FlyI customers. They'll also likely limit the window in which they'll "accept" an old FlyI ticket. That is, UA might say that for passengers holding a confimred ticket on FlyI, we will "honor" any ticket that was issued for any travel within the next 60-90 days. Heck, I think 90 days is even a stretch. The idea with this type of program is to look like the good guy, "saving" a guy's trip when he would have otherwise had to buy a walkup fare because FlyI screwed him out of his trip at the last minute. Anything outside of 30 and for sure 60 days gives somebody plenty of time to do a refund on their credit card AND purchase an advanced purchase discounted fare.

You won't find anybody who "knows" how this is going to work until FlyI goes out of business. The best you will get here is educated guesses and educated speculation. And since there has never been an e-ticket only carrier that has liquidated, there is no precedent on how to accomodate somebody who does not hold a paper ticket. Also, UA/US/whoever would rather have your revenue now because you're too scared/uncertain about FlyI's business plans. If they flat out told you how this was going to work ahead of time, it would be giving people license to do what you were thinking of -- essentially flying standby for $50. They'd rather take $200 from you if they can talk you into it.

Well what does the law say about other airlines honoring it, because that's really the important part of this issue?

Then I don't suggest you load up on Indy tickets just to try to "game" the system. When push comes to shove, you're at the mercy of the carrier on which you're trying obtain seats. UA and US are probably going to be the only carriers that are going to do any sizable amount of volume in handling old FlyI customers. They'll also likely limit the window in which they'll "accept" an old FlyI ticket. That is, UA might say that for passengers holding a confimred ticket on FlyI, we will "honor" any ticket that was issued for any travel within the next 60-90 days. Heck, I think 90 days is even a stretch. The idea with this type of program is to look like the good guy, "saving" a guy's trip when he would have otherwise had to buy a walkup fare because FlyI screwed him out of his trip at the last minute. Anything outside of 30 and for sure 60 days gives somebody plenty of time to do a refund on their credit card AND purchase an advanced purchase discounted fare.

You won't find anybody who "knows" how this is going to work until FlyI goes out of business. The best you will get here is educated guesses and educated speculation. And since there has never been an e-ticket only carrier that has liquidated, there is no precedent on how to accomodate somebody who does not hold a paper ticket. Also, UA/US/whoever would rather have your revenue now because you're too scared/uncertain about FlyI's business plans. If they flat out told you how this was going to work ahead of time, it would be giving people license to do what you were thinking of -- essentially flying standby for $50. They'd rather take $200 from you if they can talk you into it.

Very good analysis by DHAST.

Alright, but as far as UAL and any other airline for that matter is concerned. If federal law requires they accept tickets they have to follow the laws terms. So the question is what sort of proff do you need to provide ual with that you had an indy flight. And what prevents you from requesting a refund from your credit card company AND flying standby.

Very good analysis by DHAST.

Alright, but as far as UAL and any other airline for that matter is concerned. If federal law requires they accept tickets they have to follow the laws terms. So the question is what sort of proff do you need to provide ual with that you had an indy flight. And what prevents you from requesting a refund from your credit card company AND flying standby.

Here's the most authoritative text on the issue - straight from the DOT website:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, DC


HONORING TICKETS OF INSOLVENT AIRLINES PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 145 OF THE AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT


NOTICE
This Notice provides further guidance for airlines and the traveling public regarding the obligation of airlines under section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107-71, 115 Stat. 645 (November 19, 2001) (“Act”), to transport passengers of airlines that have ceased operations due to insolvency or bankruptcy. In section 8404 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458 (Dec. 17, 2004)), Congress recently renewed the obligation of air carriers under section 145 to provide transportation to passengers of airlines that have ceased operations due to insolvency or bankruptcy. Prior to Congress’s most recent action, the Department had issued three notices providing guidance to carriers and the public regarding section 145. The purpose of this notice is to respond to the many inquiries from airlines and the public regarding section 145 received since issuance of those notices, and to provide notice that we have reconsidered our earlier estimates of the direct costs to carriers of providing alternate transportation required by section 145 and have accordingly decided that the maximum amount that a carrier may charge a passenger accommodated under the law should be greater than originally believed.

Section 145 requires, in essence, that airlines operating on the same route as an insolvent carrier that has ceased operations transport the ticketed passengers of the insolvent carrier “to the extent practicable.” Our earlier notices set forth, among other things, our view that, at a minimum, section 145 requires that passengers who hold valid confirmed tickets, whether paper or electronic, on an insolvent or bankrupt carrier that has ceased operations on a route be transported on a space-available basis by other carriers that operate on the route for which the passenger is ticketed. We also stated our belief that Congress did not intend to prohibit carriers from recovering from accommodated passengers the amounts associated with the actual cost of providing such transportation. We indicated at that time that we did not foresee those costs exceeding $25.00 each way, or $50.00 on a roundtrip basis. However, we also made clear that we recognized that such charges might be determined to be higher, since the cost to a carrier of complying with section 145 could be affected by a variety of factors, including the number of affected passengers, the fuel costs to carriers in effect at the time of a cessation, and the markets and itineraries involved.

Since the renewal of section 145 in December 2004, we have received many inquiries from the airline and travel agent industries, the media, and the public about various aspects of the law. These questions involve, among other issues, the amount carriers may charge displaced passengers seeking to be accommodated, as well as questions regarding section 145’s applicability to international flights, code shared flights, passengers holding frequent flier tickets, and passengers whose transportation involves charter flights. As a result of these and other questions, including those raised on our own initiative, we have reviewed section 145 and are issuing this further notice, which updates and expands upon advice previously provided airlines and the public about the provision. This guidance is being provided in an attached question-and-answer format, which should assist readers in understanding the many issues involved.

Questions regarding this notice may be addressed in writing to Dayton Lehman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, or Jonathan Dols, Supervisory Trial Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, or they may be contacted by telephone at (202) 366-9342 or by email at dayton.lehman@dot.gov or jonathan.dols@dot.gov, respectively.

By:

Karan Bhatia
Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs

Dated: June 1, 2005

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov
Attachment to June 1, 2005, Section 145 Notice

Department of Transportation Guidance Regarding
Section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act

In section 8404 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458 (Dec. 17, 2004)), Congress renewed the obligation of air carriers under section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71, 115 Stat.645 (Nov. 19, 2001) (“Act”)) to provide transportation to passengers of airlines that have ceased operations due to insolvency or bankruptcy. As amended, section 145 states in pertinent part:

(a) … Each air carrier that provides scheduled air transportation on a route shall provide, to the extent practicable, air transportation to passengers ticketed for air transportation on that route by any other air carrier that suspends, interrupts, or discontinues air passenger service on the route by reason of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other air carrier.

(b) … An air carrier is not required to provide air transportation under subsection (a) to a passenger unless that passenger makes alternative arrangements with the air carrier for such transportation within 60 days after the date on which that passenger’s air transportation was suspended, interrupted, or discontinued (without regard to the originally scheduled travel date on the ticket).

(c) … This section does not apply to air transportation the suspension, interruption, or discontinuance of which occurs after November 19, 2005.


Questions and Answers

Question 1: What is the basic requirement of section 145?

Answer 1: At a minimum, section 145 requires that passengers holding valid confirmed tickets, whether paper or electronic, on an insolvent or bankrupt carrier that has ceased operations on a route by reason of that insolvency or bankruptcy be transported on a space-available basis by other carriers who operate on the route for which the passenger is ticketed.


Question 2: If a U.S. air carrier that has not yet filed for bankruptcy discontinues operating on a route for reasons of “insolvency,” must other air carriers operating on that route provide transportation to passengers ticketed by the insolvent air carrier?

Answer 2: Yes.


Question 3: What constitutes “insolvency” for purposes of section 145?

Answer 3: Insolvency is generally the inability to pay one’s debts as they become due. This would probably occur with or after a bankruptcy filing, but such a filing need not necessarily occur to trigger section 145 obligations.


Question 4: Does the law apply to passengers of foreign air carriers that cease operations on international routes to or from the United States due to bankruptcy or insolvency?

Answer 4: No. The law only applies to passengers ticketed on U.S. air carriers that cease operations.


Question 5: Do foreign air carriers have any obligation under the law to accommodate passengers ticketed by U.S. carriers that have ceased operations on an international route due to bankruptcy or insolvency?

Answer 5: No. The obligation applies only to U.S. air carriers.


Question 6: Does the law provide relief for passengers who have purchased transportation on a charter flight?

Answer 6: No. We do not believe it was the intent of Congress to include charter transportation within the coverage of section 145. Although the language of section 145 does not, on its face, exclude charter passengers from its protections, the obligation to transport passengers extends only to scheduled carriers, not charter carriers, either direct or indirect. We do not believe Congress would have intended to provide protection for charter passengers without also providing a commensurate obligation on charter carriers, both direct and indirect, to accommodate the passengers of other carriers that might cease operations on a route.

In addition, there are many different types of charters that do not readily lend themselves to the type of protection we believe Congress intended under section 145, including single entity charters that might involve a company transporting its employees or a sports team, as well as on-demand air taxi charters. Moreover, some charters, such as public charters, which may be sold by charter operators that do not operate their own aircraft, and single entity charters are already subject to required financial protections in the form of surety bonds or letters of credit and/or escrow accounts for passenger funds.

We note that our Aviation Enforcement Office has in one instance advised carriers and the public of its opinion that section 145 applied to the cessation of service of a charter airline that sold transportation directly to the public. That situation involved Southeast Airlines, which ceased service on November 30, 2004. We do not expect our decision here to affect any of Southeast’s passengers, whose transportation was interrupted more than 60 days ago, a period of time beyond section 145’s coverage. (See section 145(b).)


Question 7: Once in bankruptcy, must an air carrier cease all operations before section 145 obligations are triggered or are section 145 obligations triggered by the cessation of operations only on a particular route or certain routes by an insolvent or bankrupt air carrier?

Answer 7: The plain language of the statute covers cessation on a route-by-route basis. However, we would expect that a carrier that ceases operations on only one or several routes would itself take steps to ensure that its ticketed passengers are transported over other routings or receive a full refund, at the passenger’s choice. Moreover, if the carrier continues to hold out for sale service between the points involved, i.e., in the market, the carrier would not be deemed to have ceased operations on “that route.” See Answer to Question 10 below.


Question 8: Because section 145 obligations are triggered by the cessation of service on one or more routes, rather than requiring a system-wide cessation of operations, are section 145 obligations triggered when a bankrupt air carrier simply reduces the number of flights it offers on a given route but does not cease all service on that route?

Answer 8: No.


Question 9: How does one determine whether a suspension, interruption, or discontinuation of service on a route is the result of bankruptcy or insolvency or of some other event not triggering section 145 obligations, such as a seasonal suspension of service or a contract dispute?

Answer 9: This will depend on the facts of each case.


Question 10: Section 145 refers to carriers that provide scheduled air transportation on the “route” for which a passenger is ticketed. What constitutes a “route”?

Answer 10: Section 145 states simply that an air carrier that provides transportation on “a route” where service is discontinued by another air carrier due to bankruptcy or insolvency shall provide transportation on “that route” to passengers ticketed by the bankrupt air carrier. Since section 145 clearly is intended to help ensure that consumers’ expectations are preserved and that they reach their destinations if reasonably practicable, the Department believes that Congress did not intend to limit the section 145 obligations to those carriers operating between the two points on a non-stop basis. Indeed, the service for which the passenger seeks alternate transportation may itself not have been non-stop service. On the other hand, travel on nearly every major carrier can be constructed between most pairs of points, provided one were willing to take a circuitous routing potentially involving numerous connections. We think this kind of substitute service was not what Congress intended. A carrier will be deemed to be providing transportation on “that route” if it holds out service between the two points to the public through its website or GDS services, regardless of the circuity involved.

For example, Carrier A discontinues service between Chicago’s O’Hare Airport (ORD) and Philadelphia (PHL) due to bankruptcy. Carrier B does not offer non-stop service ORD-PHL, but does offer for sale service from ORD to PHL via Pittsburgh (PIT). Under section 145, Carrier B must provide “to the extent practicable” transportation ORD-PIT-PHL to passengers ticketed by Carrier A between ORD and PHL. As a counter example, Carrier A discontinues service between San Diego (SAN) and Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) due to bankruptcy. Carrier B does not offer for sale any service between SAN and BWI, but a person could travel on Carrier B between SAN and BWI if he or she were willing to combine flights that operated SAN-Albuquerque (ABQ)-Houston (HOU)-Birmingham (BHM)-BWI. Under section 145, Carrier B does not have to provide transportation to passengers ticketed by Carrier A between SAN and BWI, since it does not hold out service in the SAN-BWI market.


Question 11: Under section 145, must an air carrier that offers only connecting or “backhaul” service on a route, transport passengers ticketed by a bankrupt air carrier on that route?

Answer 11: Yes, under section 145, if an air carrier does not hold out or operate direct service between two cities, but holds out for sale connecting service between them, it must provide alternate transportation under section 145 to passengers ticketed by another air carrier that has discontinued its service on that route, regardless of whether the alternate transportation involves a backhaul. (See Question and Answer 10 above.)


Question 12: Under section 145, must an air carrier operating scheduled service on a route to one airport serving a city provide transportation to passengers ticketed by a bankrupt air carrier on a route to a different airport serving the same city?

Answer 12: Yes, provided that the airports are considered alternate airports for the city and the carrier from which the passenger is seeking accommodation holds out for sale service to the alternate airport. For example, Carrier A discontinues service between Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and JFK International Airport (JFK) due to bankruptcy. Carrier B, which offers service only between (LAX) and Newark International Airport (EWR), must provide transportation from LAX to EWR to a passenger ticketed by Carrier A between LAX and JFK, since JFK and EWR are considered alternate airports serving New York City and Carrier B holds out for sale service between LAX and EWR, one of the alternate airports. We recognize that the question of whether a particular airport is considered an “alternate airport” may need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Carriers should note, however, that since a primary purpose of section 145 is to assist consumers in obtaining acceptable alternate transportation and our interpretation of that provision requires transportation only on a stand-by, space-available basis, we expect carriers to take a liberal approach if this issue arises.

A carrier that serves only a portion of a passenger’s itinerary and does not operate to the destination city for which the passenger is ticketed would not be obligated under section 145 to transport the passenger to another point from which the passenger might hope to obtain accommodations to his or her ultimate destination. For example, if the passenger of an insolvent or bankrupt carrier holds a ticket from Chicago to Phoenix, a carrier that does not offer service to Phoenix but does offer service to Denver is not obligated under section 145 to provide the passenger transportation to Denver in hopes that he or she can then find further transportation to Phoenix. This same result would hold if the passenger was originally ticketed from Chicago to Phoenix through Denver.


Question 13: What charge can a carrier assess for accommodating a passenger holding a ticket on a carrier that has ceased operations?

Answer 13: In our first three guidance documents, we stated that we did not believe that Congress intended to prohibit carriers from recovering from accommodated passengers the amounts associated with the actual cost of providing such transportation. We pointed out that examples of such costs include the cost of rewriting tickets, providing additional onboard meals, and the incremental fuel cost attributable to transporting an additional passenger. Based on that methodology, we found that a reasonable estimate of such costs at that time would not exceed $25 each way, regardless of the number of segments involved. Significantly, we noted that the costs of complying with section 145 may be affected by a variety of factors, including the number of passengers, the current fuel costs to carriers, and the markets and itineraries involved. We made no attempt at that time specifically to consider such factors, but indicated our willingness to do so in the future. It has been more than two years since our last notice was issued. Several carriers have requested that we reexamine this cost issue, asserting that increased costs, including that of fuel, the proven need to increase staffing to handle last-minute influxes of stand-by passengers after another carrier ceases operations, and the need to cover certain air transportation taxes, justify the Department permitting an increase in the maximum amount a carrier can charge to recover its additional expenses for providing alternate transportation under section 145. They have asked that we increase the maximum permissible amounts to $50 each way for domestic travel and travel to or from foreign points in North and Central America and the Caribbean and $125 each way for other international travel.

We have reexamined this cost issue and conclude that an increase in permissible maximum rebooking charges, including any necessary taxes and fees, to an amount of $50 each way is reasonable. Although we invite carriers to provide further comments, we do not at this time have sufficient information to justify increasing the maximum permissible amount for long-haul international travel to the maximum of $125 as requested by certain carriers. However, as described below, some governments may impose substantial taxes and fees on passengers that are collected by carriers in the price of a ticket and turned over to the government only upon travel by the passenger. Where a carrier ceases operations without having paid such amounts on behalf of the passenger, the carrier providing alternate transportation may be required to pay the tax. Under such circumstances, the $50 maximum stated above may be increased by the amount a foreign government directly assesses a carrier providing alternate transportation under section 145.

The cost of rebooking a particular passenger can vary substantially depending upon the particular circumstances involved. For example, at airports with relatively low traffic volumes, where existing alternatives can readily accommodate a small number of new passengers, the cost of doing so would be modest. On the other hand, at high traffic volume airports, particularly during the first few days following cessation of service by a major service provider at that airport, other carriers would likely have to significantly and quickly increase personnel resources in order to efficiently accommodate a surge of new passengers, resulting in considerable additional costs. These costs may be due to the need to set up new systems to verify such customers’ existing ticket information and handle their stand-by status, which may require the issuance of paper tickets, a privilege for which many carriers today charge their own passengers $20 or perhaps more. These increased costs may affect carriers regardless of their size and can be even more pronounced where the carrier obligated to provide alternate transportation does not itself have a large presence at an airport involved. Such a situation will require extraordinary steps by a carrier to meet its section 145 obligation in handling the influx of passengers seeking to travel on a stand-by basis, particularly since such passengers require personal attention and handling, unlike a carrier’s regular customers, who are likely to be traveling on an e-ticket and checking in over the Internet or at an unstaffed kiosk. For example, Delta Airlines was required to temporarily reassign ticket agents to its Las Vegas station from other stations after Vanguard, a much smaller carrier but one that had a relatively large presence at Las Vegas, ceased operations. Vanguard’s passengers swamped the counters of Delta and other carriers seeking assistance pursuant to the requirements of section 145. Since the vast majority of passengers’ itineraries will involve one or more high traffic volume airports and in light of the substantial expenses that may occur, we conclude that the increased maximum rebooking fees of $50 discussed above are reasonable.

With regard to long-haul international routes, in their request for an increase in the maximum charge that may be assessed for accommodating a passenger under section 145, several carriers pointed to the higher costs associated with such routes due to increased expenses for fuel, meals, security, and ground handling. While this may be the case, we do not at this time have sufficient information to believe that an increase in the maximum charge to $125 is justified. However, we understand that, in certain markets, carriers may collect as part of their ticket prices departure fees that must be paid to the foreign government upon departure of the passenger. Those fees may become the responsibility of the carrier providing alternate transportation under section 145 and in such cases it is reasonable for that fee to be charged the accommodated passenger in addition to the $50 charge. As we have in the past, we invite any airline or person who believes that our estimates of the amount necessary to cover the direct costs of accommodating ticketed passengers on a space available basis are inaccurate to provide written comments and evidence of costs in support of their position.

Finally, while we are permitting the higher ceiling on fees that have been proposed, we are not mandating that any fee be charged and certainly not mandating that the ceiling fee be charged.


Question 14: If a carrier declares bankruptcy and then, after section 145 expires under its sunset clause, suspends service on a particular route, does the law apply?

Answer 14: Not if the law remains sunsetted. If, however, the law was not in effect at the time of the cessation but is later renewed, one must look to the language renewing the provision to determine if Congress intended that it not apply to cessations that have already occurred. In the absence of language to the contrary in the renewal provision, the obligation to transport qualifying passengers resumes at the time that the law goes back into effect, subject to the 60-day provision in section 145(b), without regard to when the insolvent or bankrupt carrier ceased operations.


Question 15: Does the 60-day period in which a passenger must make alternative arrangements start on the date of the bankruptcy filing or does it run from the date of the “suspension, interruption, or discontinuance” of service on a particular route?

Answer 15: The 60-day period runs from the date of the “suspension, interruption, or discontinuance” of service on a particular route. For example, if Carrier A declares bankruptcy on August 1, but continues operating its SFO-LAX service until September 1, at which time it suspends its service due to the bankruptcy, passengers ticketed by Carrier A on this route would have until October 30 to make alternative arrangements.


Question 16: Since section 145 provides a passenger 60 days in which to make alternate arrangements, does this mean that a carrier is obligated to offer standby transportation (1) on any date on which space may be available and on which the passenger desires to travel, so long as the passenger seeks such arrangements within the 60 day period, or (2) on the first date, including the passenger’s original date of travel, on which space is available, or (3) only on the date the passenger was originally ticketed?

Answer 16: Although Congress was not clear on this issue, in our initial notice dated August 2, 2002, we stated that section 145 required at a minimum that a carrier is required to transport a passenger on a space-available basis on the date of travel shown on the ticket. There is some support for this interpretation, since section 145(a) applies the law’s protections to “ticketed” passengers (on a specified route) and the 60-day provision in section 145(b) states that a passenger must make alternate arrangements “for such transportation” within that time frame. A strict view of the alternate transportation required to be provided as a passenger is “ticketed” would limit the alternate transportation to the precise date for which the passenger was originally ticketed. This could, however, produce a harsh result not intended by Congress given the consumer-oriented nature of the provision, such as could occur when a passenger is scheduled to travel on the day a carrier ceases operations and would therefore have no time to make alternate arrangement for travel that day with another carrier, or when flights of the carrier that is required to provide alternate transportation are totally booked on a particular day. On the other hand, we do not believe the provision should be read so broadly as to permit the passenger to select any travel date in the future, regardless of his or her original ticketed travel date.

We believe, therefore, that Congressional intent to assist consumers to the extent practicable is satisfied where consumers are permitted to travel on the date ticketed, or as soon thereafter as space is available, and that consumers whose ticketed date of travel is within 72 hours of the date of a cessation of operations of the carrier on which they are ticketed should be given a reasonable period of time after the cessation, not to exceed one week, in which to make such alternate arrangements.

Question 17: Must the carrier subject to a section 145 obligation provide a passenger seeking accommodation under section 145 a confirmed reservation on a flight, or can the carrier place the passenger on a “standby” list?

Answer 17: The carrier may place the passenger on a standby list.


Question 18: Assuming that the transportation provided under section 145 is on a standby basis and that a carrier does not normally create reservation records for standby passengers, how can an air carrier determine if a passenger had in fact made alternative arrangements with it within the 60-day window? If an air carrier cannot make such a determination, can it refuse to transport such a passenger? For example, Carrier A goes bankrupt and ceases all service on July 1. Jane Doe, who was ticketed by Carrier A on a flight scheduled for November 1, makes alternative arrangements with Carrier B on July 2 for a flight on Carrier B scheduled for November 1. Jane Doe subsequently presents herself as a standby passenger to Carrier B on November 1, but Carrier B has no record that Doe made the requisite alternative arrangements within the 60-day window since it did not create a reservation record when Jane Doe contacted it on July 2.

Answer 18: While the burden is in the first instance on a passenger to prove that he or she was ticketed for travel on the carrier that has ceased operations and has complied with the 60-day provision, after the passenger has done so, the burden of proof shifts to the carrier that is requested to provide alternate transportation if the carrier asserts that it has no obligation to transport the passenger on a space-available basis. Thus, while we do not proposed to prescribe how carriers are to meet that burden of proof, a carrier may not refuse transportation under the 60-day provision if a properly ticketed passenger asserts that he or she complied with that requirement and was promised alternate transportation on a particular day, and the carrier has no evidence to the contrary merely because the carrier elected not to institute some method of monitoring requests for alternate transportation required under section 145.


Question 19: Under section 145, can an air carrier refuse to transport an otherwise qualified passenger ticketed by a bankrupt air carrier on the basis that the passenger was issued an “e-ticket” for the bankrupt carrier’s flight?

Answer 19: No. However, the carrier can request reasonable proof that the passenger purchased a ticket. As stated in our prior notices, reasonable proof of purchase could be receipts and printed itineraries.


Question 20: Generally, an airline’s contract of carriage states that, in the event of a change of schedule (such as a cessation of service in a market), the carrier’s obligation is to reroute the passenger at no additional cost (it could be on its own service or that of another carrier) or, if the rerouting is unacceptable to the passenger, provide a full refund. Many bankruptcies involve carriers that continue to operate under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and are authorized by the bankruptcy court to continue to operate their systems on a “business-as-usual” basis. In many or all such Chapter 11 cases, the bankrupt carrier petitions the court to permit refunds to pre-petition passengers to cover situations where, absent the bankruptcy, a refund would have been due. Do other air carriers have a section 145 obligation if:

* (a) a bankruptcy court permits the carrier to provide a refund but the consumer does not want the refund and also does not want to accept being rerouted on the bankrupt carrier?

* (b) whether or not the bankruptcy court permits a refund, the bankrupt carrier is able to reroute passengers affected by a cessation of service on certain other carriers at no additional charge to the passenger in the way that the airline likely would have done through its interline agreements in the absence of the bankruptcy?

Answer 20: Under either circumstance, if the bankrupt airline can reroute the passenger to his or her destination on another of its own flights or pursuant to an agreement with another carrier, the passenger must accept this alternate arrangement, or a full refund, if applicable. (See Question and Answer numbers 7 and 10 above.)


Question 21: Can a carrier that is obligated to provide alternate transportation on a space-available basis under section 145 to passengers of a carrier that has ceased operations offer those passengers confirmed space at any price in lieu of the space-available option? What if the passenger accepts the offer and learns while checking in for the flight that standby seats are available?

Answer 21: A carrier may seek to accommodate passengers in such a manner, provided it makes clear to the passenger that the offer of a confirmed seat for the price set by the carrier is an alternative to being provided a space-available seat under section 145 and acceptance is the passenger’s option. Where such an election is made by a passenger after full and accurate disclosure of his or her options under section 145, including (if known) the availability of stand-by seats, the passenger cannot later demand a refund (under terms not otherwise applicable to his or her ticket) and seek to travel under section 145 if, for example, the passenger shows up for the reserved flight and discovers stand-by seats will be available.


Questions 22 through 28 Refer to Code Share Issues

Question 22: When considering the definition of a “route,” does a carrier’s obligation under section 145 to provide alternate transportation apply only to routes on which it operates its own aircraft or does it also apply to code share operations where another carrier operates the aircraft?

Answer 22: The legislation does not address this issue and accordingly we believe that the answer depends on whether it is “practicable” for the carrier to provide alternate transportation under the code share arrangement. As stated in section 145, Congress only required alternate transportation “to the extent practicable.” There are several circumstances that might make it impractical for a carrier to provide transportation under section 145 on routes on which it offers only code share service. For example, a carrier’s code share agreement may not give it access to the inventory of the carrier operating the aircraft nor the authority to provide stand-by service. By contrast, where the code share carrier does have access to the inventory of the operating carrier and the ability to put passengers on a standby list, it likely would be “practicable” to provide alternate transportation. (It appears to the Department that this would be the case in most, if not all, code share relationships between domestic regional affiliates and major carriers.)

There may be circumstances specific to code share arrangements, particularly in foreign markets, where an accommodating carrier’s cost for providing transportation on its code share partner’s aircraft may bear no relationship to the maximum direct costs specifically allocated to providing the transportation to that passenger. In such circumstances, the accommodating code sharing carrier may charge, in addition to the $50.00 fee, whatever additional amount is necessary to cover that specific direct transportation cost to the carrier to transport that passenger. Should the passenger dispute the charge, the carrier will have the burden of demonstrating that the additional amount charged is justified.


Question 23 (Both U.S. air carriers): Carrier A and Carrier B, both U.S. air carriers, have a code share agreement in which Carrier A operates the flight. Carrier A ceases operations by reason of bankruptcy or insolvency. What requirements exist, pursuant to section 145, with regard to passengers of Carrier A and Carrier B?

Answer 23: Other U.S. air carriers have an obligation under section 145 to provide transportation to passengers ticketed for transportation on Carrier A on its flight. Under section 145, no such obligation exists for passengers ticketed for transportation on Carrier B, because Carrier B was not the entity that ceased operations. Carrier B would, however, have obligations to the passengers holding tickets for transportation on it as set forth in its contract of carriage.


Question 24 (Both U.S. air carriers): Same as question 23, with Carrier A operating the flight, but Carrier B ceases operations due to bankruptcy.

Answer 24: Other U.S. air carriers, including Carrier A, have an obligation under section 145 to provide transportation to passengers ticketed for transportation on Carrier B. No such obligation attaches to passengers ticketed for transportation on Carrier A, because it has not ceased operations.


Question 25 (U.S. and Foreign air carriers): Carrier A, a U.S. air carrier, and Carrier B, a foreign air carrier, have a code share agreement in which U.S. Carrier A operates the flight. U.S. Carrier A ceases operations by reason of bankruptcy or insolvency. What requirements exist, pursuant to section 145, with regard to passengers of U.S. Carrier A and Foreign Carrier B?

Answer 25: Other U.S. air carriers have an obligation under section 145 to provide transportation to a passenger ticketed for transportation on a flight of U.S. Carrier A. No such obligation exists with respect to passengers ticketed for transportation on Foreign Carrier B, because section 145 applies only to passengers of a U.S. air carrier that actually ceases operations due to bankruptcy or insolvency and Carrier B is a foreign air carrier. Foreign carrier B has no obligation under section 145 to passengers ticketed for transportation on U.S. Carrier A.


Question 26 (U.S. and Foreign air carriers): Same as Question 25 except that Carrier B, the foreign air carrier, ceases operations due to bankruptcy on a codeshare route on which U.S. Carrier A operates the flight.

Answer 26: Other U.S. air carriers, including U.S. Carrier A, have no obligation under section 145 to provide alternate transportation to passengers ticketed by Carrier B, because it is a foreign carrier. Our interpretation here with respect to U.S. Carrier A is limited to its obligation pursuant to section 145, however, and does not consider any other obligation that it may have to carry the passengers of its code share partner, Foreign Carrier B.


Question 27 (U.S. and Foreign air carriers): Carrier A, a U.S. air carrier, and Carrier B, a foreign air carrier, have a code share agreement in which Foreign Carrier B operates the flight. U.S. Carrier A ceases operations by reason of bankruptcy or insolvency. What requirements exist, pursuant to section 145, with regard to passengers of U.S. Carrier A and Foreign Carrier B?

Answer 27: Other U.S. air carriers have an obligation under section 145 to provide transportation to passengers ticketed by U.S. Carrier A, because it ceased operations on a route due to bankruptcy. Foreign Carrier B has no obligation under section 145 to transport the passengers of U.S. Carrier A, because section 145 applies only to U.S. carriers. Our interpretation here is limited to Foreign Carrier B’s obligation pursuant to section 145, however, and does not consider any other obligation that it may have to carry the passengers of its code share partner, U.S. Carrier A.


Question 28 (U.S. and Foreign air carriers): Same as Question 27, except that Foreign Carrier B ceases operations due to bankruptcy on a code share route on which it operates the flight, leaving passengers ticketed by U.S. Carrier A without lift.

Answer 28: Other U.S. air carriers have no obligation under section 145 to provide transportation to passengers ticketed by U.S. Carrier A, because it has not ceased operations on a route due to insolvency or bankruptcy and no obligation to transport passengers ticketed by Foreign Carrier B, since it is a foreign carrier. Carrier A would, however, have obligations to the passengers holding tickets for transportation on it as set forth in its contract of carriage.

I think that the other responses indicate that because FlyI is an 100%-e-ticket based airline that will be liquidating, we do not know the exact manner with which the other airlines honor your independence air reservations. Nothing has been mentioned as to how Indy passengers are supposed to deal with this issue in requesting a seat on another airline on a standby basis.

IMHO, calling the method above as "the deal of lifetime" isn't exactly ethical. We all know it's meant to SAVE Indy passengers who otherwise would possibly not be able to afford the high walkup fares. To use this to a solely personal travel desires beyond necessary extend would be incorrect.

Thanks HeathrowGuy!!!

Well we know from question 19 below that we are fine with e-tickets if you want to be safe you can bring a copy of your credit card statement to prove they billed you. I will be flying Indy on the 19th then again on the 26th and the 29th. When I am at the airport on the 19th I will request a copy of my confirmation on airline card stock.

In response to Auracon, I will continue as always to book my flight on the cheapest carrier. So, now i have some insurance if that happens to be indy that i don't have to worry about getting in trouble or worse getting stuck in another city. As far as ethics go, it is unethical for an airline to sell tickets for flights that they don't expect to be around to serve.

Question 19: Under section 145, can an air carrier refuse to transport an otherwise qualified passenger ticketed by a bankrupt air carrier on the basis that the passenger was issued an “e-ticket” for the bankrupt carrier’s flight?

Answer 19: No. However, the carrier can request reasonable proof that the passenger purchased a ticket. As stated in our prior notices, reasonable proof of purchase could be receipts and printed itineraries.

Thanks HeathrowGuy!!!

Well we know from question 19 below that we are fine with e-tickets if you want to be safe you can bring a copy of your credit card statement to prove they billed you. I will be flying Indy on the 19th then again on the 26th and the 29th. When I am at the airport on the 19th I will request a copy of my confirmation on airline card stock.

In response to Auracon, I will continue as always to book my flight on the cheapest carrier. So, now i have some insurance if that happens to be indy that i don't have to worry about getting in trouble or worse getting stuck in another city. As far as ethics go, it is unethical for an airline to sell tickets for flights that they don't expect to be around to serve.

Question 19: Under section 145, can an air carrier refuse to transport an otherwise qualified passenger ticketed by a bankrupt air carrier on the basis that the passenger was issued an “e-ticket” for the bankrupt carrier’s flight?

Answer 19: No. However, the carrier can request reasonable proof that the passenger purchased a ticket. As stated in our prior notices, reasonable proof of purchase could be receipts and printed itineraries.


I have nothing against passengers booking with the cheapest carrier option. Indeed, I do it all the time as well. However, I AM against the idea of utilizing other airlines' courtesy and cooperation in honoring the tickets to their personal benefits only. You also specifically mentioned that you would consider this as "the opportunity of a lifetime" [to save money for yourself, i presume,]. I find that unethical. The fact that Independence Air is selling tickets for which they may not be able to actually provide service is unethical DOES NOT make it ethical for you to take advantage of other airlines' courtesy.

an 'airline courtesy' is bumping someone on a grievance into first class. Carrying out a law is not a 'courtesy.' I don't consider the safety checks an airline preforms to be a 'courtesy' to my safety but a part of doing business. By deal of the lifetime i meant that if the credit card companies refund my indy fair AND another airline honors the ticket, it turns out to be the deal of a lifetime. There is nothing unethical about any part of that. You can disagree with the law but if you do your best avenue to complain is calling your senators or congressperson.

an 'airline courtesy' is bumping someone on a grievance into first class. Carrying out a law is not a 'courtesy.' I don't consider the safety checks an airline preforms to be a 'courtesy' to my safety but a part of doing business. By deal of the lifetime i meant that if the credit card companies refund my indy fair AND another airline honors the ticket, it turns out to be the deal of a lifetime. There is nothing unethical about any part of that. You can disagree with the law but if you do your best avenue to complain is calling your senators or congressperson.

great.

an 'airline courtesy' is bumping someone on a grievance into first class. Carrying out a law is not a 'courtesy.' I don't consider the safety checks an airline preforms to be a 'courtesy' to my safety but a part of doing business. By deal of the lifetime i meant that if the credit card companies refund my indy fair AND another airline honors the ticket, it turns out to be the deal of a lifetime. There is nothing unethical about any part of that. You can disagree with the law but if you do your best avenue to complain is calling your senators or congressperson.

Dude, service-charged standby travel is far from the deal of a lifetime. If you think it is, great, but as somebody who knows what life on standby travel is like, I can tell you it's not the bargain you think it is. You can expect to pay the maximum fee allowed by law... why would the carrier charge you any less (that's the screw you - you booked with the competition that you asked about earlier)? That said, you're facing $100 r/t in service charges, which isn't exactly free.

I won't go into the what-ifs about snafus on your travel day. There are SO many things that could go wrong with your plans that you never even think about as a revenue pax. Your standby priority will probably be just above the employees, or at the bottom of all revenue pax. Doesn't so bad because just how many people can there be trying to standby, right? Wait until the first flight of the morning cancels and screws up the flights for the rest of the day. It's even worse if you're on a connection. If you're on the last flight and it cancels for whatever reason, the airline WILL NOT do ANYTHING for you. At all.

If you want to ahead and buy 20 tickets because you think flying standby for $100 r/t trip is the deal of a life time, go ahead. Nobody can stop you. But you try it enough, you're bound to run into problems sooner or later, and then you'll be here complaining about how you got "screwed over." You didn't. What you didn't understand is that the law provides you protection or a safety net in case an airline goes out of business two days prior to the day you were supposed to travel and you can't afford to buy a walkup ticket somewhere else. Safety nets break.

Heathrow Guy,

Thanks for quoting the law, but I have a question for you:

In section 8404 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458 (Dec. 17, 2004)), Congress renewed the obligation of air carriers under section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71, 115 Stat.645 (Nov. 19, 2001) (“Act”)) to provide transportation to passengers of airlines that have ceased operations due to insolvency or bankruptcy. As amended, section 145 states in pertinent part:

(a) … Each air carrier that provides scheduled air transportation on a route shall provide, to the extent practicable, air transportation to passengers ticketed for air transportation on that route by any other air carrier that suspends, interrupts, or discontinues air passenger service on the route by reason of insolvency or bankruptcy of the other air carrier.

(b) … An air carrier is not required to provide air transportation under subsection (a) to a passenger unless that passenger makes alternative arrangements with the air carrier for such transportation within 60 days after the date on which that passenger’s air transportation was suspended, interrupted, or discontinued (without regard to the originally scheduled travel date on the ticket).

(c) … This section does not apply to air transportation the suspension, interruption, or discontinuance of which occurs after November 19, 2005.


Does the bolded paragraph, paragraph (c) mean that this law is not applicable to the FlyI situation? I read it as saying this provision does not apply to airlines that go out of business after Novermber 19, 2005. As we've passed that date, it would not apply to the potential FlyI situation, right?

No, the law was extended.

Whats your source, I am not saying you are wrong i just want to have my ducks in line when I request a standby flight

No, the law was extended.

Granted $100 isn't free but for a trans-con flight it is an amazing price. Also, while i may be on standby and run into a problem the discount is worth the it to me, a college student. Plus, if you get to the airport for the first flight out there is almost always at least one empty seat. If i was traveling to an important meeting i would not want to go standby, but when I am traveling somewhere to visit a friend or something like that i can sit in the airport for a few hours waiting for a flight, hey i could even read a book or watch a movie. I am saving way more than I could ever make working a job at this point in my life.

Now i am sure there is some thing I don't know about flying standby, but a vast majority of all flights I have ever been on have at least one empty seat.

Also, if you really want to exploit the system you can book a fully refundable ticket on the flight you want and cancel it at the ticket desk then request to be put on standby. By doing this you know there will be a seat. While I understand it might go to another standby pax it still improves your odds.


Dude, service-charged standby travel is far from the deal of a lifetime. If you think it is, great, but as somebody who knows what life on standby travel is like, I can tell you it's not the bargain you think it is. You can expect to pay the maximum fee allowed by law... why would the carrier charge you any less (that's the screw you - you booked with the competition that you asked about earlier)? That said, you're facing $100 r/t in service charges, which isn't exactly free.

I won't go into the what-ifs about snafus on your travel day. There are SO many things that could go wrong with your plans that you never even think about as a revenue pax. Your standby priority will probably be just above the employees, or at the bottom of all revenue pax. Doesn't so bad because just how many people can there be trying to standby, right? Wait until the first flight of the morning cancels and screws up the flights for the rest of the day. It's even worse if you're on a connection. If you're on the last flight and it cancels for whatever reason, the airline WILL NOT do ANYTHING for you. At all.

If you want to ahead and buy 20 tickets because you think flying standby for $100 r/t trip is the deal of a life time, go ahead. Nobody can stop you. But you try it enough, you're bound to run into problems sooner or later, and then you'll be here complaining about how you got "screwed over." You didn't. What you didn't understand is that the law provides you protection or a safety net in case an airline goes out of business two days prior to the day you were supposed to travel and you can't afford to buy a walkup ticket somewhere else. Safety nets break.

to lock a seat should i book a fullyrefundable fair on another airline. Go that airlines ticket desk and cancel the fully refundable ticket and use the new 'open seat' for my non-res reservation.

There is nothing that guarantees you will get that "open seat" even if you just gave up a seat. There may be others in line (in the computer system) ahead of you waiting for space.

The only way to 'guarantee' you have a seat is to be the pilot. Other than that you might not get it if they oversell. This happened to me once and I didn't volunteer but was selected because no one wanted to take their crappy offer. Booking and canceling the fully refundable tix just improves your odds.

There is nothing that guarantees you will get that "open seat" even if you just gave up a seat. There may be others in line (in the computer system) ahead of you waiting for space.

Also, if you really want to exploit the system you can book a fully refundable ticket on the flight you want and cancel it at the ticket desk then request to be put on standby. By doing this you know there will be a seat. While I understand it might go to another standby pax it still improves your odds.

I really understand why you need to and want to save money. I am indeed another college freshman, but I would not do this to "work the system" in order for me to get on the flight w/ less money paid.

I'd hate to preach, but doesn't your standard of ethics say anything about such practice? :td:

Granted $100 isn't free but for a trans-con flight it is an amazing price. Also, while i may be on standby and run into a problem the discount is worth the it to me, a college student. Plus, if you get to the airport for the first flight out there is almost always at least one empty seat. If i was traveling to an important meeting i would not want to go standby, but when I am traveling somewhere to visit a friend or something like that i can sit in the airport for a few hours waiting for a flight, hey i could even read a book or watch a movie. I am saving way more than I could ever make working a job at this point in my life.

Now i am sure there is some thing I don't know about flying standby, but a vast majority of all flights I have ever been on have at least one empty seat.

Also, if you really want to exploit the system you can book a fully refundable ticket on the flight you want and cancel it at the ticket desk then request to be put on standby. By doing this you know there will be a seat. While I understand it might go to another standby pax it still improves your odds.



From what I read, you are planning on paying FlyI, counting on them going out of business, requesting refunds from your credit card, then taking advantage of the $100 option afforded by law to get standby seats on a legacy carrier. If I am wrong up to this point, please correct me.

A problem for you (besides the ethical question involved, I am not here to preach) may be that, depending on when FlyI does completely liquidate, you may be unable to secure a refund from your card company. To my knowledge, a time limit exists in the area of 30-60 days from the PURCHASE of the ticket to collect a refund due to insolvency or similar situation, regardless of actual travel date. Therefore, I see it as you taking a very high risk of forfeiting the ticket value to FlyI and being foced to pay the copay should you wish to still travel. In my mind, it is better to buy tickets on US or UA now while they are matching FlyI's fares, know for certain that you will have a seat, and not risk an extra $100/ticket fee to travel in the future. Basically, I think there is a good possibility of you losing a good deal of money and time should you try to play the system in this manner.

Drew, you have my plan down. To address an the 30 to 60 days issue, my card is 60 days and basically indy just has to shut down with in the next 60 days and I can request the refund. I am not so much planning on doing a lot of travel like that. All i am saying is it is an interesting way of getting cheap seats. As for the ethics, if you have a problem with the law (section 145 i think) call your senator. I really dont see anything unethical about it. The card companies don't pay indy until the flight takes off. Plus if i am flying standby on another airline they are making money by having me on the plane at $50 per flight. Which is why there is that college student x-fare program, I think its on AirTran where students can fly standby for $59.


From what I read, you are planning on paying FlyI, counting on them going out of business, requesting refunds from your credit card, then taking advantage of the $100 option afforded by law to get standby seats on a legacy carrier. If I am wrong up to this point, please correct me.

A problem for you (besides the ethical question involved, I am not here to preach) may be that, depending on when FlyI does completely liquidate, you may be unable to secure a refund from your card company. To my knowledge, a time limit exists in the area of 30-60 days from the PURCHASE of the ticket to collect a refund due to insolvency or similar situation, regardless of actual travel date. Therefore, I see it as you taking a very high risk of forfeiting the ticket value to FlyI and being foced to pay the copay should you wish to still travel. In my mind, it is better to buy tickets on US or UA now while they are matching FlyI's fares, know for certain that you will have a seat, and not risk an extra $100/ticket fee to travel in the future. Basically, I think there is a good possibility of you losing a good deal of money and time should you try to play the system in this manner.

As for the ethics, if you have a problem with the law (section 145 i think) call your senator. I really dont see anything unethical about it. The card companies don't pay indy until the flight takes off. Plus if i am flying standby on another airline they are making money by having me on the plane at $50 per flight. Which is why there is that college student x-fare program, I think its on AirTran where students can fly standby for $59.

I guess it doesn't matter then. You obviously don't find this unethical in any way at any extent.

Well, do you have a problem with the law? Do you think the law is unethical and should be repealed?


I guess it doesn't matter then. You obviously don't find this unethical in any way at any extent.

No I don't have a problem with the law. I have a problem with your logic in calling your entire scheme completely fine and dandy. But whatever, this is your life and your decision.

Well, do you have a problem with the law? Do you think the law is unethical and should be repealed?

I'd say booking a refundable ticket you have no intention of using under any circumstances, booking for the sole purpose of having an unused seat on the flight, to be unethical.

Q20 kind of says you have a choice to be transported under Section 415 OR get a refund. I always thought when you flew under 415 you had to sign over your ticket to the airline you're flying. My guess is you're going to have to lie and/or commit fraud to get a refund and fly under 415.

Q21 kind of applies if you show up with a reservation but then want to fly standby. I can see an airline giving you the choice of flying under the terms of your refundable ticket or not flying at all.

Yes, the refundable tix can be unethical, from what I understood with the original tix revenue is something else. What I mean is that you are filling a complaint and getting the money back from your credit card, since they are only paying DH once they take off, any money you didn't request a refund to would go to Citibank or another company like that which has nothing to do with the flight. Thus, requesting a refund from them shouldn't impact the ethics in the whole situation. However, if the cost of the flight goes to the new airline then we have a whole another issue on our hands.

I'd say booking a refundable ticket you have no intention of using under any circumstances, booking for the sole purpose of having an unused seat on the flight, to be unethical.

Q20 kind of says you have a choice to be transported under Section 415 OR get a refund. I always thought when you flew under 415 you had to sign over your ticket to the airline you're flying. My guess is you're going to have to lie and/or commit fraud to get a refund and fly under 415.

Q21 kind of applies if you show up with a reservation but then want to fly standby. I can see an airline giving you the choice of flying under the terms of your refundable ticket or not flying at all.

Yes, the refundable tix can be unethical, from what I understood with the original tix revenue is something else. What I mean is that you are filling a complaint and getting the money back from your credit card, since they are only paying DH once they take off, any money you didn't request a refund to would go to Citibank or another company like that which has nothing to do with the flight. Thus, requesting a refund from them shouldn't impact the ethics in the whole situation. However, if the cost of the flight goes to the new airline then we have a whole another issue on our hands.

From an ethical viewpoint there isn't any question you're not entitled to the money since you flew. The question is if you have a legal right to the refund. Assume the cc gave you an automatic refund before your flight. You now don't have a valid ticket (or ticketless) reservation. You'd have to comit fraud by presenting an e-ticket that you know isn't valid in order to fly under 415.

In any even you're no longer trying to defend the ethics of your actions.

How do you prove you had a reservation with DH when you go to the UAL desk, can you show a reservation print out? I mean anyone can make a fake one in about 1 minute. Also, if I file a complaint with master card and get a fair refund aren't i getting a flight for $50? From what I am hearing my translation of this is that I should book a lot of flights with indy for 2006. Then when they shut down I call up the card company and get my money back. After that, I fly standby for $50. To me this sounds like the deal of a lifetime. Other than $29 indy fairs which are less than the fee, but as far as flights to Vegas or San Juan its a real deal.


"It should be noted that passengers who purchased their Vanguard tickets using a credit card are entitled under the Fair Credit Billing Act to a credit refund from their credit card issuer, under specific circumstances, to the extent they do not receive the services for which they paid. If a passenger elects to accept alternate transportation under section 145, this choice is likely to affect his or her right to a refund under the Fair Credit Billing Act. The public may obtain information on obtaining refunds for Vanguard tickets on the Department’s website at http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer/vanguard.htm"

The only way to 'guarantee' you have a seat is to be the pilot. Other than that you might not get it if they oversell. This happened to me once and I didn't volunteer but was selected because no one wanted to take their crappy offer. Booking and canceling the fully refundable tix just improves your odds.

That isn't true either. You can get your trip reassigned at the whim of scheduling.

Drew, you have my plan down. To address an the 30 to 60 days issue, my card is 60 days and basically indy just has to shut down with in the next 60 days and I can request the refund. I am not so much planning on doing a lot of travel like that. All i am saying is it is an interesting way of getting cheap seats. As for the ethics, if you have a problem with the law (section 145 i think) call your senator. I really dont see anything unethical about it. The card companies don't pay indy until the flight takes off. Plus if i am flying standby on another airline they are making money by having me on the plane at $50 per flight. Which is why there is that college student x-fare program, I think its on AirTran where students can fly standby for $59.

Dude,

You really need to spend a year flying standby before you start extolling its virtues. I've looked at AirTran's X-fares program, and it's fairly useless to a college student. They flat out tell you that Fridays and Sundays are bad days to travel standby, and the times you're not in class, like holiday breaks, are filled with other college students trying to get places too. When I had NRSA priveleges, the only real way I made it work is that I had "backup" options on other carriers... options that sometimes I had to use, and weren't free. You're right about 6am flights -- if they work for you, great, but I used to hate getting up that early. Oh, and get this... I was planning a nice Biz seat on IAD to DEN because the flight was EMPTY. Guess what? Morning of departure, they downgraded it. $250 transcon, paid, earning miles, is a much better deal that $100 standby. This year, I also flew NW on a FULL 753 that was downgraded to a 752, resulting in about 30 or so IDB/VDB. Again, take it from somebody who knows what he's talking about, $100 standby is not the best deal in the world.

I am very very sorry, but I have to break the news to you: As somebody who has a lot of experience with standby travel, trips have to be planned VERY VERY carefully. Tix good only on one carrier that are NOT fully flexible (NRSA -- I could get on any UA flight to anywhere, pretty much just by showing up that the gate). You apparently under the 145 program have to make previous arrangements with the carrier. I do not know the restrictions on this, but flexibility is an absolute key to standby travel success. The type of flexibility I'm talking about is not available to you. You *do* have the privilege (okay, I'm not positive, but reasonably sure) that you have the ability of beating out NRSA employees for the seat, which is a huge bonus, but with the reduction in flight schedules and general capacity, I'm not sure how well that will bode for you.

P.S., I hope you like 23B, because that will most likely be one of the few seats left when you get your seat assignment.

Am I an experienced standby traveler like you? no. Have i traveled a lot? yes. Are most flights I am on sold out? no. Whey flying DH this summer on the GLiDE pass i would frequently book night flights and fly in the AM on standby (yes i know DH doesn't do 'standby' but i showed up at the airport and was re-booked). I never had a problem and there was always and empty seat. While i am aware that DH over saturated the market with seat miles, there is still some margin today. Granted there are about 5% fewer seat miles so it might be tougher but if it takes me a day to get somewhere but it saves me $200. I made $200 for a days work of reading a book in an airport terminal. If i where to get a job like that on campus, such as swiping IDs (a job that is 95% sit and read a book 5% working) and the gym i would only get $5/hr. You are right standby is a ..... and that there is a chance i will get screwed, you are also right that getting a confirmed flight for a few $ more is better. So i will retract 'deal of a lifetime' and replace it with 'this month's special.'


Dude,

You really need to spend a year flying standby before you start extolling its virtues. I've looked at AirTran's X-fares program, and it's fairly useless to a college student. They flat out tell you that Fridays and Sundays are bad days to travel standby, and the times you're not in class, like holiday breaks, are filled with other college students trying to get places too. When I had NRSA priveleges, the only real way I made it work is that I had "backup" options on other carriers... options that sometimes I had to use, and weren't free. You're right about 6am flights -- if they work for you, great, but I used to hate getting up that early. Oh, and get this... I was planning a nice Biz seat on IAD to DEN because the flight was EMPTY. Guess what? Morning of departure, they downgraded it. $250 transcon, paid, earning miles, is a much better deal that $100 standby. This year, I also flew NW on a FULL 753 that was downgraded to a 752, resulting in about 30 or so IDB/VDB. Again, take it from somebody who knows what he's talking about, $100 standby is not the best deal in the world.

I am very very sorry, but I have to break the news to you: As somebody who has a lot of experience with standby travel, trips have to be planned VERY VERY carefully. Tix good only on one carrier that are NOT fully flexible (NRSA -- I could get on any UA flight to anywhere, pretty much just by showing up that the gate). You apparently under the 145 program have to make previous arrangements with the carrier. I do not know the restrictions on this, but flexibility is an absolute key to standby travel success. The type of flexibility I'm talking about is not available to you. You *do* have the privilege (okay, I'm not positive, but reasonably sure) that you have the ability of beating out NRSA employees for the seat, which is a huge bonus, but with the reduction in flight schedules and general capacity, I'm not sure how well that will bode for you.

P.S., I hope you like 23B, because that will most likely be one of the few seats left when you get your seat assignment.

Am I an experienced standby traveler like you? no. Have i traveled a lot? yes. Are most flights I am on sold out? no.
That doesn't mean that the open seat was one that *you* would have gotten. In reality, it is nearly impossible to tell the exact status of the flight without inside information. The flight can be oversold and go out with open seats, it can be booked solid and go out with no seats. Hell, flying on NW this summer, those flights were jam packed, and I scored a whopping two bumps. Not full enough to get bumped, but too full for comfort for standby pax.


Whey flying DH this summer on the GLiDE pass i would frequently book night flights and fly in the AM on standby (yes i know DH doesn't do 'standby' but i showed up at the airport and was re-booked). I never had a problem and there was always and empty seat.
With few exceptions, early AM is the best time to travel standby on anybody to anywhere. What happens after day long delays and cancellations and you try to get on the last flight of the night and then get screwed? Like I said earlier, if you can make 0600 work for you, great. Personally, I hated it.


While i am aware that DH over saturated the market with seat miles, there is still some margin today. Granted there are about 5% fewer seat miles so it might be tougher but if it takes me a day to get somewhere but it saves me $200.

Well, when they go BK which is what you're expecting, ALL of their lift and ALL of their pax will be trying to go standby on the remaining flights of other carriers. Both capacity goes down and demand goes up.


I made $200 for a days work of reading a book in an airport terminal. If i where to get a job like that on campus, such as swiping IDs (a job that is 95% sit and read a book 5% working) and the gym i would only get $5/hr. You are right standby is a ..... and that there is a chance i will get screwed, you are also right that getting a confirmed flight for a few $ more is better. So i will retract 'deal of a lifetime' and replace it with 'this month's special.'

Where did you go to school? I went to college in DC. My ID checking job required that people swipe their ID's... I didn't have to do it for them :) Also, you didn't make $200, but you did save it if you never spent it :)

About the money thing... In case you care, last year I made silver status on NW by spending less than $1000 out of pocket. I got about $800 in bump vouchers from CO. I guess it's fare to say that CO and I split the cost of my silver status. This year I've spent quite a bit more to achieve Plat status, but I think it is still under $3000. NW kicked in a few bump vouchers, but by and large, there's nothing like being "guaranteed" an F seat on a transcon on a $250 fare. Now, I don't have to check loads the day before I go, I don't have to get up at 0400 to make sure I get on my flight, I don't have to worry about cancellations and delays earlier in the day, or misconnecting to the one flight that was my only hope. One of the reasons I fly NW is because of their upgrade policy, unlike UA...

Actully I go to school in Lancaster, PA, but i worked in DC this past summer and had to do a lot of traveling. As for flying, if i am standing at the gate and there is an empty seat and i have a standby ticket, are you saying i might not get the seat? Thus the plane would take off with a less than 100% load factor?


That doesn't mean that the open seat was one that *you* would have gotten. In reality, it is nearly impossible to tell the exact status of the flight without inside information. The flight can be oversold and go out with open seats, it can be booked solid and go out with no seats. Hell, flying on NW this summer, those flights were jam packed, and I scored a whopping two bumps. Not full enough to get bumped, but too full for comfort for standby pax.


With few exceptions, early AM is the best time to travel standby on anybody to anywhere. What happens after day long delays and cancellations and you try to get on the last flight of the night and then get screwed? Like I said earlier, if you can make 0600 work for you, great. Personally, I hated it.


Well, when they go BK which is what you're expecting, ALL of their lift and ALL of their pax will be trying to go standby on the remaining flights of other carriers. Both capacity goes down and demand goes up.



Where did you go to school? I went to college in DC. My ID checking job required that people swipe their ID's... I didn't have to do it for them :) Also, you didn't make $200, but you did save it if you never spent it :)

About the money thing... In case you care, last year I made silver status on NW by spending less than $1000 out of pocket. I got about $800 in bump vouchers from CO. I guess it's fare to say that CO and I split the cost of my silver status. This year I've spent quite a bit more to achieve Plat status, but I think it is still under $3000. NW kicked in a few bump vouchers, but by and large, there's nothing like being "guaranteed" an F seat on a transcon on a $250 fare. Now, I don't have to check loads the day before I go, I don't have to get up at 0400 to make sure I get on my flight, I don't have to worry about cancellations and delays earlier in the day, or misconnecting to the one flight that was my only hope. One of the reasons I fly NW is because of their upgrade policy, unlike UA...

Actully I go to school in Lancaster, PA, but i worked in DC this past summer and had to do a lot of traveling. As for flying, if i am standing at the gate and there is an empty seat and i have a standby ticket, are you saying i might not get the seat? Thus the plane would take off with a less than 100% load factor?

No, what I am saying is that you have no idea who else is standing by, with higher priority for the same seat. Especially when FlyI goes belly up (which must be the case for you to implement your plan) ALL of their capacity is eliminated, and their pax will be seeking alternate means of transportation. You won't be the only trying to go standby. I forgot to mention that one reason you were finding empty seats on DH is that DH doesn't oversell... That is NOT the case for the major carriers that you will be seeking alternate transportation on.

Actully I go to school in Lancaster, PA, but i worked in DC this past summer and had to do a lot of traveling. As for flying, if i am standing at the gate and there is an empty seat and i have a standby ticket, are you saying i might not get the seat? Thus the plane would take off with a less than 100% load factor?

Absolutely, and especially if the flights are operated with regional jets or turboprops, or with mainline birds that have to take a payload hit for some reason.

Absolutely, and especially if the flights are operated with regional jets or turboprops, or with mainline birds that have to take a payload hit for some reason.

Forgot that part. The CRJ isn't so bad in that department, but the turboprops can be the worst. Our IAD-JFK and IAD-ORF J41 flights were notorious for that. Because of the heavy bags placed on those flights it was entirely possible to leave with 3 or more empty seats for performance reasons... and this is on a good wx day where extra fuel for bad weather wasn't much of a factor. A true bump run would have been to book JFK-IAD-ORF flights all day long, somebody savvy enough could have made (or saved) a mint doing that.

ClimbGuy,

I don't believe that you would be able to get your money refunded if you ended up flying. The reason is this:

Originially you purchase a ticket on FlyI, they go belly-up, you decide to go standby on UAL using your FlyI receipt or credit card statement or whatever. Any of these would have your Eticket number on them. By flying UAL, they become the owners of your ticket. A request for the value of your ticket is sent by UAL to a clearinghouse that moves money from "possession" of one airline to another. Your credit card company would probably have to go through this clearinghouse, they would then see that the ticket has been used, thus no refund.

Regards,
Zach

OK, so bumping this up since it doesn't look like it will be long before we see this policy actually play out.
The law is $50 to standby on a 'comparable' route, including co-terminals? WN and other non-interlining LCCs are required to transport passengers too, aren't they?

And you only have 60 days from the date of purchase to dispute the charge with your credit card company and get the tickets refunded?

I have friends who bought DH tix IAD-LAS for 18Jan, return 21Jan. I am not sure when they were purchased. I am probably going to advise them to purchase WN tickets BWI-LAS for those dates, since fares are about $235 RT each including tax. They will purchase two one-way tickets, so that way if DH manages to survive to the 18th they can fly out there but would still have a way back if they fold before the 21st. And if DH stays in business the entire time, they at least have a full credit with WN for 100% of the ticket value.

Their stock market price has dropped to 3 cents and with the internal letter that went out it doesn't look like they can last more than another week.

If you file for a refund from your credit card, they will have sign a form stating that you didn't get the service you paid for and that you relenquish any recovery to the credit card company.

If you do actually fly but file for a refund claiming you didn't, you're comitting fraud.

As for the standby issue, remember that there will be a lot of other passengers also trying to find standby seats if/when they shut down. With load factors high, you're going to have trouble getting one.

Really, the law's main intent is to get people home that are stranded in the middle of their trips. If you haven't departed yet, you're much better off just filing for the refund.

For Climb Guy and others looking to "Cash In" on the disappearance of Flyi and section 145 obligations to other airlines. Consider this point from the above mentioned FAQ:

Question 20: Generally, an airline’s contract of carriage states that, in the event of a change of schedule (such as a cessation of service in a market), the carrier’s obligation is to reroute the passenger at no additional cost (it could be on its own service or that of another carrier) or, if the rerouting is unacceptable to the passenger, provide a full refund. Many bankruptcies involve carriers that continue to operate under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and are authorized by the bankruptcy court to continue to operate their systems on a “business-as-usual” basis. In many or all such Chapter 11 cases, the bankrupt carrier petitions the court to permit refunds to pre-petition passengers to cover situations where, absent the bankruptcy, a refund would have been due. Do other air carriers have a section 145 obligation if:

* (a) a bankruptcy court permits the carrier to provide a refund but the consumer does not want the refund and also does not want to accept being rerouted on the bankrupt carrier?

* (b) whether or not the bankruptcy court permits a refund, the bankrupt carrier is able to reroute passengers affected by a cessation of service on certain other carriers at no additional charge to the passenger in the way that the airline likely would have done through its interline agreements in the absence of the bankruptcy?

Answer 20: Under either circumstance, if the bankrupt airline can reroute the passenger to his or her destination on another of its own flights or pursuant to an agreement with another carrier, the passenger must accept this alternate arrangement, or a full refund, if applicable.

Read the parts I have bolded.

FlyI has stated that they have the money to provide refunds to all affected pax on flights after 01-05-06. A petition will be made to the Bankruptcy court to release funds for the return or advance ticket sales. If the bankruptcy court provides approves the payment, then IN MY HUMBLE OPINION other US Airlines do not have a section 145 obligation. Passengers will have to accept the refund and rebook with a different carrier if they want to fly.

Obviously the FAA should provide an addendum to the FAQ to cover this situation. Is someone going to contact the FAA? I would but it is inappropriate for an unaffacted Canadian in YYC to make the request. Perhaps Climb Guy could pose the question?

For Climb Guy and others looking to "Cash In" on the disappearance of Flyi and section 145 obligations to other airlines. Consider this point from the above mentioned FAQ:



Read the parts I have bolded.

FlyI has stated that they have the money to provide refunds to all affected pax on flights after 01-05-06. A petition will be made to the Bankruptcy court to release funds for the return or advance ticket sales. If the bankruptcy court provides approves the payment, then IN MY HUMBLE OPINION other US Airlines do not have a section 145 obligation. Passengers will have to accept the refund and rebook with a different carrier if they want to fly.

Obviously the FAA should provide an addendum to the FAQ to cover this situation. Is someone going to contact the FAA? I would but it is inappropriate for an unaffacted Canadian in YYC to make the request. Perhaps Climb Guy could pose the question?

No, according to what you quoted, a passenger is required to accept an airline offered reroute OR a refund. If no reroute is offered, the passenger is not forced to accept a refund.

No, according to what you quoted, a passenger is required to accept an airline offered reroute OR a refund. If no reroute is offered, the passenger is not forced to accept a refund.

I am booked for $50 to fly from PBI to SYR on friday, they didn't even ask for my DH flight info.

if the FRAUD will work also largely depends if DH simply closes up shop and walks away, or if their acct dept stays around for awhile.

From Experience Tower Air went it went under simply locked up and walked away within a couple of days, so there was no one for the CCs to contend with. PanAm was around for awhile before they locked the doors forever.

I had purchased tkts on both for other people. As for Tower they flew 1 way and had to purchase tkts to get back home from their Intl trip. I was told I couldnt Dispute just 1/2 the tkt but had to Dispute the whole thing which I did, I was told that if at any time they get proff that a portion or all of the tkt was used Id be liable for the amount that I was Refunded. Never heard from my CC as Tower literally shut down and didnt return.

With PN I had made a few charges on a couple of different CCs. The 1st one I disputed was cause the people Never flew, and the 2nd was for 1/2 used tkts. well I goofed it up and told each card that the card was for the other party. Well I was refunded by both, and Yep was evenyually recharged by the CC where the peopel had actually already completed their travels.

Now remember I was not the passenger on any of those tkts. I dont think the CC company will look at it the same when they find that it was the Card Holder who was the Passenger on the tkts, especially if theres more than 1 tkt. And they wont be so kind when they find out they gave you the Refund and they put in for Reimbursement from DH or its Executor/s, only to find out that you used the tkt as XX is also asking for $$ for having atken you.

PN had worked out most of its stuff before it shut down, Tower just shut down and vanished. If DH stays around that can be very costly to anyone who has FRAUD in mind.

I do commend the person who thought it up, but if they had any Brains whatsoever they would leave(left) it simply as a Great Scheme and not have acted on it. Its NOT worth it to wreck your Credit for the rest of your Life for a couple of Hundred Bucks. Millions well, then I still wouldnt do it but can understand why someone else might have.

to lock a seat should i book a fullyrefundable fair on another airline. Go that airlines ticket desk and cancel the fully refundable ticket and use the new 'open seat' for my non-res reservation.

Umm.. The airlines are on to this one. If you "Double book" one of your reservations will be cancelled. Plus, you still will be on standby. Anyone with a higher priority will get ahead of you and thank you for "holding" them a seat.

Now i am sure there is some thing I don't know about flying standby, .
}

The only statement you have made that makes sense is the sentence above.

You have never flown standby that's pretty apparent. WHen you get to spend a few days in the airport and miss your classes let us know what you think then.

Not to mention that when you CC company finds out you defrauded them it's going to be messy.

No...... If no reroute is offered, the passenger is not forced to accept a refund.

FlyI's notice to their customers makes reference to section 145 coming into effect on UNREFUNDED tickets. The exact excerpt is (I have added the emphasis):

Please be aware that under section 145 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (November 19, 2001) Congress has obligated U.S. airlines to offer stand-by transportation to passengers holding un-refunded tickets for airlines that have ceased operations due to insolvency or bankruptcy. The Act stipulates that passengers must make their request to carriers serving the same routes as the bankrupt carrier and must do so within 60 days of the cessation of service. The U.S. Department of Transportation has ruled that airlines who offer the stand-by transportation may charge $50 one-way per person to cover related expenses.

I still support the my original position that once the Bankruptcy court approves automatic refunds then the section 145 obligation is removed from the remaining carriers. Passengers will receive their refund and have to book for confirmed space travel at whatever the going rate is (general consensus is that UA will jack fares up and/or remove the DH competitive fare equivalents).

When is the next court date? I suspect we will have an answer by the end of the week.

What about customers on awards flights?


FlyI's notice to their customers makes reference to section 145 coming into effect on UNREFUNDED tickets. The exact excerpt is (I have added the emphasis):



I still support the my original position that once the Bankruptcy court approves automatic refunds then the section 145 obligation is removed from the remaining carriers. Passengers will receive their refund and have to book for confirmed space travel at whatever the going rate is (general consensus is that UA will jack fares up and/or remove the DH competitive fare equivalents).

When is the next court date? I suspect we will have an answer by the end of the week.

What about customers on award flights?


FlyI's notice to their customers makes reference to section 145 coming into effect on UNREFUNDED tickets. The exact excerpt is (I have added the emphasis):



I still support the my original position that once the Bankruptcy court approves automatic refunds then the section 145 obligation is removed from the remaining carriers. Passengers will receive their refund and have to book for confirmed space travel at whatever the going rate is (general consensus is that UA will jack fares up and/or remove the DH competitive fare equivalents).

When is the next court date? I suspect we will have an answer by the end of the week.

What about customers on award flights?

Dont know the actual law, but when TWA closed up (Ok sold itself to AA), I was in the middle of a Free 1st Class (Biz) trip.

I orginated from Overseas, turns out TW rebooked me onto a Foreign Carrier but Only in Coach and refunded me the # of miles bet what a 1st Class was compared to a Coach (One Way of cause).

I hoped since it was booked in "Y" that if I went with DL I would be able to use an upgrade cert that I was holding onto and about to expire. No Dice on the Up but DL took me withoyt any Additional payment on my part.

What about customers on award flights?

You'll get a refund. They'll give you your miles back. :rolleyes:

Quit trying to game the system for inconsequential gain. Extend your sympathy to the families who are starting the new year by losing their jobs and having their plans for the future put on hold.


(By the way: Section 145 is new, since 9/11; I don't remember what happened with Vanguard, and can't think of anyone else who has gone out of business since then.)

Trans-meridian went out in September. As for the families, I know the station manager at my home airport and am going to buy him a gift before I go over there tomorrow, he has been very helpful over the past year and we know each other by name. I have no intention of listing my charitable endeavors, however I would like to assure people I am not a 'cheat.'

You'll get a refund. They'll give you your miles back. :rolleyes:

Quit trying to game the system for inconsequential gain. Extend your sympathy to the families who are starting the new year by losing their jobs and having their plans for the future put on hold.


(By the way: Section 145 is new, since 9/11; I don't remember what happened with Vanguard, and can't think of anyone else who has gone out of business since then.)

(By the way: Section 145 is new, since 9/11; I don't remember what happened with Vanguard, and can't think of anyone else who has gone out of business since then.)

Vanguard was the first test of section 145. National Airlines followed immediately after Vanguard.

After the dust settled on Vanguard and National, the DOT issued a series of FAQs to clarify their position on section 145. Most of the FAQs resulted in the $50 administrative fee being established. The airlines were able to use the Vanguard case to verify that costs are around $50 (but it took them a while to get the DOT to agree on the cost methodologies). There have been other airlines since Vanguard, but DH is certainly the largest potential useage of section 145.

...As for the families, I know the station manager at my home airport and am going to buy him a gift before I go over there tomorrow, he has been very helpful over the past year and we know each other by name....

Excellent idea!!! ^ ^

I would like to assure people I am not a 'cheat.'

I can't resist:

Oh! You mean like prior to FlyI's announcement of closing shop and issuing furlough notices, that they were assuring everybody, including the employees, that life was all fine and good?

Trans-meridian went out in September. As for the families, I know the station manager at my home airport and am going to buy him a gift before I go over there tomorrow, he has been very helpful over the past year and we know each other by name. I have no intention of listing my charitable endeavors, however I would like to assure people I am not a 'cheat.'

yea you arent a "Cheat" and Nixon wasnt a "Crook". I can hear you saying that with you hands in the air just as Nixon did it.

yea you arent a "Cheat" and Nixon wasnt a "Crook". I can hear you saying that with you hands in the air just as Nixon did it.

Honestly, the only thing I can say to that is, "do you have anything else better to do than tell an 18 year old he is a 'cheat'?

I am on my ridiculously long holiday break chilling on a forum. Now look, if no one else can even admit that they thought of doing what I suggested you are all lying to your self. I just had the balls to say it.

Honestly, the only thing I can say to that is, "do you have anything else better to do than tell an 18 year old he is a 'cheat'?

I am on my ridiculously long holiday break chilling on a forum. Now look, if no one else can even admit that they thought of doing what I suggested you are all lying to your self. I just had the balls to say it.

Maturity consists in large part of knowing which thoughts to keep silent, which to speak, and which to act on.

Honestly, the only thing I can say to that is, "do you have anything else better to do than tell an 18 year old he is a 'cheat'?

I am on my ridiculously long holiday break chilling on a forum. Now look, if no one else can even admit that they thought of doing what I suggested you are all lying to your self. I just had the balls to say it.

We're all doomed if every 18 year old is turning out with ethics like this one. :(

We really don't need the attacks. Please stick with the rule 145 issues at hand.

Fortunately, many of the issues that might have come up when the first post was made have been alleviated by the advance announcement from DH about the impending shutdown.