DOT’s Ancillary Fees Rulemaking – A Work of Staggering Complexity
经过保罗·鲁登/In the name of making air travel easier to buy at prices the consumer can understand前hitting the “buy” button, DOT has resurrected and expanded a 2017 rulemaking to regulate the presentation of ancillary fees. It deserves some credit for addressing the issues raised by ancillary fees and the way consumers are informed about those fees. Whether DOT has chosen a viable solution that will truly increase clarity and understanding at the right time in the purchase process, however, presents a serious conundrum for both airlines and travel advisors.
Observers of the travel advisor industry, myself included, have long believed that marketplace complexity created commercial opportunities for advisors. We therefore generally argued that calls for fare simplification, for example, would work against the economic forces that sustained the need for professional advisors. Fare complexity, among other things, drove more consumers to seek help from advisors in navigating the morass of airline fares and rules.
Complexity, however, has its limits. Too many options can give rise to the Paradox of Choice, a phenomenon that can lead to choosing nothing rather than suffering the psychological burdens of selecting from an overwhelming array of rich options. It’s complicated, of course. You can read more about it inWikipediaif so inclined.
如果选择经常以不可预测的方式变化,那么这个问题就会更加复杂。关于接下来可能发生的事情的不确定性(例如,一个新的讨价还价通过,选择过早)会导致决策。旅行顾问很可能遇到了遭受这些决策“危机”的消费者。辅助费用特别烦恼,因为大多数航空旅行者每年仅飞一次或两次飞行。他们对工作方式的“进入”知识是有限的,而且通常是错误的。
The Department of Transportation is now focused on a related problem and believes it may have the answer(s). DOT is concerned that consumer welfare is reduced by the way in which fares and fare rules are presented, both online and in personal interactions. This happens because the typical presentation of information on ancillary fees means that the consumer may choose an airfare that, upon later realization, is higher than they wanted. When the additional fees for ancillary services, such as baggage, cancellations/changes, and adjacent seat assignments for families with small children, are presented later in the buying process, the “bargain” the consumer thought she was gaining is often undermined.
When I wrote articles about DOT’s prior rulemaking on fare refunds, I noted the complexity, among other problems, of the proposed approach to a solution.参见,例如,新的DOT规则制定在退款中脱颖而出。
关于辅助费用的新规则制定恢复了五年前DOT发起的提案。2017年,DOT发出了拟议的规则制定的补充通知,题为“辅助服务费的透明度”,其中,其中,
the Department proposed to require fees for a first and second checked bag and a carry-on bag be disclosed at all points of sale wherever fare and schedule information is provided to consumers … [and] that carriers distribute useable, current, and accurate fee information to ticket agents that receive and distribute the carrier’s fare and schedule information, including Global Distribution Systems (GDS). The … information provided by carriers [was to] be detailed enough to allow ticket agents to disclose fees as itinerary-specific or customer-specific (i.e., fees that are differentiated based on factors specific to the passenger or proposed itinerary) charges. However, the SNPRM did not propose to require that consumers be able to purchase these ancillary services through ticket agents (i.e., it did not propose transactability).
That process was interrupted by the Trump administration’s intervention against what it regarded as an unnecessary regulatory intervention in the marketplace. The SNPRM was then withdrawn in December 2017.
新规则制定的复杂性使最近的退款建议的复杂性相形见,,辅助费用建议背后的主要激励构想是“消费者无法在购买票前确定空中旅行的真实成本”,因为“现有法规不要求报价的全部票价包括各种辅助费用,消费者可能会支付可选服务。”自由航空公司享受收费的享受,导致了市场条件,在这种情况下,“辅助服务的费用通常会根据所使用的飞机类型,乘客预订的飞行或乘客的时间而有所不同。支付服务或产品。”
由于对这些费用的直接监管很可能会违反1978年放松管制的原则,将价格决策留给市场,因此DOT可以用来帮助消费者使用的唯一工具是调节在搜索过程中向旅行者出示费用的方式和时间。预订过程。因此,DOT已决定“保护消费者免受隐藏和欺骗性的费用,并使他们能够在为航空运输时以有效而有效的方式确定旅行的真实成本。”
And that is where the question arises whether the proposed solution is worse than the problem.
新规则将涵盖“第一和第二托运袋的袋装费用,以及随身携带的袋子,为与成人一起旅行的小孩的家庭座位费,以及更改和取消费用和政策。”基本规则是,每当向消费者提供票价和时间表信息,以响应于销售给美国消费者广告或出售的美国消费者的网站上的票价和时间表信息。这包括但不限于搜索结果中的第一个票价。”但这不是全部。
Adjacent family seating must be transactable. That is, the consumer must be able to save the seat or lock in the price for adjacent seating at the time of ticket purchase, an opportunity they do not now have and that would not apply to all other seat assignment fees. But that’s not all.
如果消费者进行特定于乘客的行程搜索,则必须将费用表示为特定于乘客的信息,这意味着“考虑到可能会影响辅助服务费的乘客特征的搜索(e.g.,military status, frequent flyer status, method of payment, etc.)” Moreover, the disclosure rules apply to both airline/travel advisor websites and mobile apps. And that’s not all.
The fee information would also have to be provided for “each itinerary for which a fare is quoted to a consumer during an in-person or telephone inquiry.” Airlines are required to provide ticket agents information in a form and manner that is “usable, accurate, and accessible in real-time.” Recall now that, in a manner reminiscent of the fare refunds proposal, the obligation to provide transactability of family seating arrangements falls一样在航空公司和旅行顾问上。
DOT’s proposed rules would not apply to the Global Distribution Systems.DOT’s rationale for this exclusion is that “GDSs arrange for air transportation but do not sell or display a carrier’s fare to consumers.” That may be technically true but since DOT acknowledges that advisors get almost all their fare and booking capabilities through GDSs, this crucial link in the distribution process to negotiation among the parties (the proposed implementation period is only six months!) seems destined to create unnecessary trouble. DOT states expectations that airlines will proceed “in good faith” while also saying decisions on methods and channels of distribution are “left to the discretion of the carrier.” What could go wrong?
我理解DOT不愿强迫航空公司向GDS提供信息,这是多年来维持的职位。但是,该规则不太可能侵入分销链中的中央各方之间的关系,这可能无法通过一半的措施成功。您可能还记得,DOT付出了巨大的努力,说服华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院根据《联邦航空法》是“售票代理”。Saber V点,429 F.3d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Now DOT says GDSs are only “ticket agents” for some purposes but not others. Maybe that makes sense, but this question seems to be a central problem in the proposed scheme.
The scope of these comments on the NPRM must necessarily be limited. But I do want to emphasize a few of the seemingly unavoidable and unworkable complexities in the proposal. One example is:
披露行李费的提议确实not apply to air-tour packagesadvertised or sold online by ticket agentsifthe air transportation component is not finalizedandthe carrier providing air transportation is not known at the time of booking.However, ticket agents in such situations would need to disclose that additional airline fees for baggagemay applyand那些费用可以减少或放弃based on the passenger's frequent flyer status, method of payment, or other consumer characteristics.When the identity of the carrier providing the air transportation becomes known, the ticket agent would need to provide the specific baggage fee information for the carrier to not only prospective customers, but also those who purchased the air-tour package before the identity of the carrier became known.
DOT also proposes to allow consumers to opt-out of seeing the fee details covered by the rule.
最后,很难想象规则将对旅行顾问和消费者之间的口头通信有何处理,如今,大多数人都在电话中或电子邮件交换中。拟议的规则要求披露各种费用选项,“在对话的“信息”和“决策”部分期间向消费者提供时间表信息时要制定。”
DOT readily admits that “it is not possible to quantify at this time whether the proposed rule yields benefits that exceed costs.” While the agency has invited comments on all the details of these complex proposals, influencing the outcome will not be helped by generalized objections. Advisors who intend to comment should try to be very specific about their concerns and address the costs and other issues as precisely as possible. The good news, perhaps, is that no system of rules involving this much technical and economic complexity can likely be adopted and implemented for a very long time. It is nevertheless critical to inform the government about all the practical and economic implications of these massively complex proposals.