Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. DOT Fined United For Following The Law  
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6869 times:

DOT fines United for COMPLYING with the DOT 3 hour idiocy. Maybe the dumbest fine ever...in a history of dumb actions by DOT.

DOT fines United for 'wasting valuable Department resources'

By Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAY

A United Airlines jet at a gate at Washington's Reagan National Airport in March 2008.CAPTIONBy Ben Mutzabaugh, USA TODAYUnited Airlines has become one of the first U.S. carriers to be fined by the DOT under new rules meant to prevent long ground delays, the Chicago Tribune reports. The catch? United did not actually violate the rule, but was hit with a $12,000 fine anyway. The DOT determined "United should have stopped the clock on the delays at the point where passengers were allowed to disembark … . The carrier was penalized for reporting inaccurate data to the Transportation Department, which published the totals in its monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. United's misreporting of this data wasted valuable Department resources," the DOT says in a Sept. 21 consent order quoted by the Tribune.

More here: http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/p...ines-fined-for-compliance/125117/1

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6595 times:

Government agencies are never known to be thinking straight, clearly, or operating efficiently. Seems like the DOT has issues.


Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8506 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

Poor United. D**mned if you do, d**mned if you don't.

Civil "servants" my @ss.


User currently offlineytib From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

Quoting catiii (Thread starter):
DOT fines United for COMPLYING with the DOT 3 hour idiocy. Maybe the dumbest fine ever...in a history of dumb actions by DOT.

The fine is for misrepresentation of information and nothing to do with the 3 hour rule.

"The carrier was penalized for reporting inaccurate data to the Transportation Department, which published the totals in its monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. United's misreporting of this data wasted valuable Department resources,"

If they misreported their on-time stats they also would have been fined.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting ytib (Reply 3):
The fine is for misrepresentation of information and nothing to do with the 3 hour rule.

It's still a ridiculous fine. They reported the delay even though they let the people off the plane. I can't imagine the wording of the law is clear (what law is), so they were playing it safe. And still got screwed by Uncle Sam. As someone said, damned if you do, damned if you don't...


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22863 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6263 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 4):
I can't imagine the wording of the law is clear (what law is), so they were playing it safe.

What's hard to understand about "the clock stops when the passengers disembark?"



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6254 times:

The way I understood the article, no one did disembark, They were just given the option to, no one took it and they waited till they were able to make it to DEN


Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6153 times:

Quoting ytib (Reply 3):
The fine is for misrepresentation of information and nothing to do with the 3 hour rule.

And what were they reporting on? To say it has nothing to do with the 3 hour rule is not accurate. And the analogy to on-time stats doesn't hold. Have you ever heard of anyone pencil-whipping their on-time stats to show that they were LATER than schedule?

Classic bureaucracy: promulgate a rule devoid of common sense, implement it with regulations that are unclear, and then fine a corporation for complying with the spirit of the law and self reporting a delay on their part. "A waste of valuable resources," please. Someone must have angry they had to leave their nice new DOT building and miss a Washington Nationals day game across the street to go do actual work.


User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

Usually it's the "cover up" or "not following procedure" that ultimately gets you in trouble, not the actual "crime or non-crime".

Is life fair? No.



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Quoting catiii (Thread starter):
The carrier was penalized for reporting inaccurate data to the Transportation Department, which published the totals in its monthly Air Travel Consumer Report. United's misreporting of this data wasted valuable Department resources," the DOT says in a Sept. 21 consent order quoted by the Tribune.

It costs them $12,000 to have an intern or entry-level office worker review a report and determine that it was un-necessary? I know government is inefficient, but YEESH. They could pay me $10/instance to take care of that and skip fining the airline for it.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7551 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Unbelievable......why couldn't the DOT just explain to UA how they should've filed these incidents and call it a day. It is a new procedure, that is somewhat vague, and based on the accounts in this article, UA did the right thing to do.

User currently offlinedldtw1962 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Ok, that is dumb... Leave it to the DOT to do somethnig stupid. How about the FAA fining the DOT for being dumb. Now that
would be a big fine....

Chuck


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

A $12k fine is probably cheaper than handing it out to the lawyers to dispute.


To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4802 times:

Quoting offloaded (Reply 12):
A $12k fine is probably cheaper than handing it out to the lawyers to dispute.

Likely... still would be nice to see a gov't department told not to be a bunch of whiny idiots in court, though...



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4257 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4447 times:

A stupid fine if you ask me. If the DOT is going to levy fines for this, what incentive do the airlines have to actually report truthful stuff to them. It shouldn't come back to bite them in the ass like this.

User currently offlineozark1 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

No, thank Kate Hanni for this idiocy.

User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

I can't help but think there is more to this story than is being revealed in this tiny article.


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlinepenguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Also note that United wasn't the only airline fined. Pinnacle was also fined. So maybe it is the DOT law that is vague, not the airlines' reporting.

User currently offlineGlobalCabotage From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2102 times:

November 2 can not get here fast enough!

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Booking With United For The Summer? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 17:51:23 by Blink182
New Colors For United -- "Sharing The Sky" V 2.0 posted Sat Jun 1 2002 03:06:08 by Airworthy
Tu-204 For Syria? The Last Chance? posted Tue Sep 28 2010 05:14:18 by SIBILLE
United, Republic, And The C Series posted Sat Apr 3 2010 19:35:30 by GymClassHero
United Winglets On The A-350 posted Tue Dec 29 2009 11:52:38 by RJpieces
DOT Blames Mesaba For ExpressJet/CoEx Nightmare posted Fri Aug 21 2009 08:11:22 by Ssides
Longhaul Routes Accounts For Half The SAS Loss! posted Tue May 26 2009 10:58:54 by OyKIE
No OS, SN Or SK For BA! The Future? posted Mon Sep 15 2008 12:55:35 by AIR MALTA
When United First Got The Airbus 320 posted Wed Jul 16 2008 19:14:26 by SYfan100
Is TAM In Trouble With The Law? posted Wed Mar 12 2008 06:30:44 by Columbia107