Author: Benjamin Edelman

I represented Chaim Zeev Rozen in a portion of his formal DOT complaint against Virgin Atlantic.  Mr. Rozen had transferred points from a credit card to Virgin’s frequent flyer program in order to redeem travel for relatives who shared his last name.  Inexplicably, Virgin cancelled the tickets — without telling him or the passengers.

I filed a Reply on Mr. Rozen’s behalf.  I pointed out that, contrary to Virgin’s repeated claim and even its Answer, nothing about his conduct was “fraudulent.” I criticized Virgin’s “fraud detection tools” which supposedly “flagged the booking”. I pointed out that Virgin’s Answer was oddly silent on whether any human even attempted to check whether those tools were correct.  I argued that Virgin did not act reasonably in the penalty it imposed and its handling of Mr. Rozen’s complaint and correspondence alleging error. I identified a DOT regulation and Virgin contract provision that were implicated.

The parties subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Complaint and Joint Motion to Dismiss, indicating that they reached an amicable resolution of the matter.  A footnote in that filing explains specific improvements Virgin made: new tools to better identify actual fraud, a new process for customer complaints and appeals, and new communications to passengers indicating that bookings have been canceled.  Kudos to Mr. Rozen for his role in bringing about these benefits for the traveling public.

Aviation enthusiast Mike Borsetti last month alerted the US Department of Transportation to Qatar Airways adding bogus fees contrary to prior representations: Their online check-in allowed him to select a seat free of charge, but at the airport, both check-in staff and a manager said he’d have to pay to keep that seat.  In response, Qatar tried to trivialize Borsetti’s problem — as if this overcharge doesn’t matter or isn’t important enough for DOT to investigate.  In a public comment filed today, I explained why Borsetti is absolutely right:

First, having already complained to both line staff and a manager at the airport, Borsetti had put Qatar amply on notice of the dispute.  Qatar says he should have complained again, after travel, so they could refund him then.  But two unsuccessful discussions with airline staff is more than enough to justify Borsetti’s decision to bring this matter to a regulator.

Second, by all indications the problem stretches well beyond Borsetti alone, and is bigger than Qatar admits.  Online comments already revealed four other customers with substantially the same problem — online check-in seating dishonored unless customers pay more at the airport.  Of customers affected, only a tiny fraction would both realize they were overcharged and then happen to see the one blog discussing Borsetti’s complaint.  So the problem must be substantial.  And that’s as you’d expect: If there’s a defect in Qatar’s software or process, such as airport systems mistakenly saying a seat fee is due even though online check-in already authorized a seat without charge, that problem would occur for a broad swath of passengers since software ordinarily operates predictably and consistently.

On some level Borsetti’s complaint is unusually simple.  He was overcharged, he wants a refund, and he wants Qatar Airways to stop charging passengers for seats it had said would be free.  Will DOT act to make sure all the other affected passengers — who didn’t realize they were overcharged, or didn’t take the time to complain — are also fully refunded?  And will DOT act to make sure that Qatar Airways finally fixes its systems so this problem doesn’t recur?

Congratulations to Mirel Baumgarten, who in 2020 used my formal DOT complaint template to report Turkish Airlines delivering bags 31 hours late and arbitrarily withholding compensation in violation of US law and international treaty.  DOT today cited Mirel in a Consent Order with Turkish, which had to admit its wrongful acts and pay a total of $1.3m (both for delaying refunds after COVID-19 schedule changes and cancellations, and for arbitrarily limiting mishandled bag reimbursements).

DOT summarizes the violation: Turkish Airlines “arbitrarily limited reimbursement for delayed or lost baggage to a maximum amount of $50 USD payment per day for a maximum of six days regardless of the content consumers submitted in their claims.” But, DOT explains, under the Montreal Convention, an airline may not limit its liability for expenses related to delayed baggage to any amount lower than 1,288 SDRs (currently about $1,670).  See Consent Order page 5.

If you enjoy this sort of thing, Mirel’s complaint shows the kind of nonsense airlines all too often inflict on passengers.  Mirel reported bags delivered 31 hours late (complaint page 12) and provides proof with timestamps, yet Turkish oddly categorized the baggage delay as less than 24 hours (not that that would eliminate or even reduce reimbursement under governing treaty and law).  Mirel was traveling for a wedding, had to buy expensive replacement clothes to attend, and had receipts documenting the expenditure.   (See complaint page 11.) Turkish refused to consider Mirel’s evidence, saying the only relevant factor was “the framework of the rules” which purportedly say the Turkish rep “cannot re-evaluate your case” (page 10).  When Mirel cited the specific treaty that required reimbursement of all reasonable expenses subject to the treaty’s cap, disallowing the limitation Turkish proposed, the Turkish rep remarked that no further discussion was possible, “we do not have phone service”, and the specified amount was “our final offer.”  Most consumers would give up.  Kudos to Mirel for sticking with it, telling the DOT, and thereby causing DOT to include this matter in its broader investigation of Turkish.

The DOT’s $1.3m settlement with Turkish is substantial, but that entire amount goes to the US Treasury.  Not a penny flows to the passengers who received arbitrarily reduced reimbursements from Turkish.  Both DOT and Turkish know the names and contact information of affected passengers.  I’d like to see Turkish affirmatively provide every affected passenger with the full amount shown in receipts previously submitted, plus interest.

Other affected Turkish customers should be emboldened by this consent order to demand their full documented loss, no matter any prior protestation by Turkish that its policies called for paying less. I don’t know if Turkish customer service representatives are trained to honor and pay those claims. If not, Turkish customers could contact the attorneys who represented Turkish in this matter, David Endersbee and Barbara Marrin of KMA Zuckert, who should be in a position to press Turkish staff to pay claims consistent with the consent order.