I'm just curious how
exceptions 4, 5 and 6 work in the context of UA's representations to DOT in regards to the Great Dane mistaken fare.
When you're dealing with 15K complanants you hardly get to use personal data. So (6) is a red herring.
With the possible exception of discussion about how its ticketing systems work and/or were exploited, its programmes to detect and avoid mistaken fares and/or its revenue policy in general, I don't see what trade secrets under (4) are being divulged here - certainly not warranting a full redaction under exception (4).
I'm not sure what privilege you can claim when you make a representation to a government agency. Advice from UA's lawyers to UA is privileged, advice from DOT's lawyers to DOT is privileged, how is a representation from a regulated entity to its regulator privileged? I'm not getting how exception (5) works.
This is just a lay, foreign opinion of mine. But I will be interested to see anyone here (come on, there's gotta be some lawyers in the 15K complainants) who will be bothered to take DOT to court to challenge its redactions. It has "dare you to sue me" written all over it.