Precedent-Setting Move Against Continental Airlines And
ExpressJet
It's almost as if they were sending
a message coming into the holiday travel season. The U.S. DOT
levied a total civil penalty of $100,000 against Continental
Airlines and ExpressJet Airlines Tuesday for their roles in
causing the passengers on board Continental Express flight 2816 to
remain on the aircraft at Rochester International Airport for an
unreasonable period of time on Aug. 8, 2009. Continental also
provided a full refund to each passenger and also offered each
passenger additional compensation to tangibly acknowledge their
time and discomfort. In addition, DOT assessed a civil
penalty of $75,000 against Mesaba Airlines, which provided ground
handling for the flight, for its role in the incident.
These precedent-setting enforcement actions involve consent orders
that reflect a settlement by the carriers of violations alleged by
DOT's Aviation Enforcement Office. They are the first
enforcement orders punishing carriers for extended tarmac delays,
as well as the first time a carrier acting as a ground handler for
another airline has been punished for failing to properly help
passengers leave an aircraft during an unreasonably long tarmac
delay.
"I hope that this sends a signal to the rest of the airline
industry that we expect airlines to respect the rights of air
travelers," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
"We will also use what we have learned from this investigation to
strengthen protections for airline passengers subjected to long
tarmac delays."
The Aviation Enforcement Office's
investigation found that all three carriers violated the law that
prohibits unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation for
their respective roles in the incident, in which a Continental
Express flight from Houston to Minneapolis/St. Paul operated by
ExpressJet was diverted to Rochester due to bad weather in
Minneapolis. The aircraft reached Rochester about 12:30 a.m.
and the passengers were stranded aboard the aircraft until
approximately 6:15 a.m. when they were finally deplaned into the
terminal.
Prior to diverting to Rochester, ExpressJet contacted Mesaba
personnel at Rochester to request assistance at the airport, which
Mesaba, the only airline staffing the airport at the time, agreed
to provide. Shortly after the flight arrived in Rochester,
the ExpressJet captain asked the Mesaba employee handling the
flight whether the passengers could deplane into the airport
terminal. In response to this initial inquiry, and other
subsequent inquiries, the captain was told that passengers could
not enter the terminal because there were no TSA screeners on duty
at that hour, despite the fact that TSA rules would have allowed
the passengers to enter the airport as long as they remained in a
sterile area.
Continental and ExpressJet, in
separate orders, were found to have violated the prohibition
against unfair and deceptive practices in air transportation
because ExpressJet failed to carry out a provision of Continental's
customer service commitment requiring that, if a ground delay is
approaching three hours, its operations center will determine if
departure is expected within a reasonable time, and if not the
carrier will take action as soon as possible to deplane
passengers. ExpressJet also failed to take timely actions
required by its procedures, including notifying senior ExpressJet
officials and providing appropriate Continental officials with
notice of the delay. Continental was found to have engaged in
an unfair and deceptive practice since, as the carrier marketing
the flight 2816, Continental ultimately is responsible to its
passengers on that flight.
The consent order covering Mesaba finds that the carrier engaged
in an unfair and deceptive practice when it provided inaccurate
information to ExpressJet about deplaning passengers from flight
2816.
In November 2008, the Department proposed a rule to enhance
airline passenger protections, including a provision that would
require airlines to adopt contingency plans for lengthy tarmac
delays and incorporate them in their contracts of carriage. A
final rule is expected by the end of this calendar year.