Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DOT Fines Skywest & Spirit  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25369 posts, RR: 49
Posted (2 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

DOT entered into two consent orders this week.


Skywest Airlines was assessed a $40,000 civil penalty for facilitating the publication of non-compliant advertising material.

DOT found Skywest created and distributed various airport advertisements failing to properly disclose the existence of code-sharing arrangements and identify the actual operator of air-service which could result in consumer being deceived regarding the operating airline identity.

Order-2011-11-25



In second case, the department assessed Spirit Airlines a $50,000 consent decree civil penalty for violations of advertising requirements.

Spirit Airlines during a period in June 2011 ran a truck-borne billboard campaign to promote new service including advertising fares. The signs did not include language disclosing existence or amount of additional taxes and fees applied to the fares.
Additionally, it was noted Spirit’s Twitter feed failed to comply with fare advertising rules by not disclosing roundtrip purchase requirements, plus the existence and amount of fees for fares mentioned in Tweets.

Order-2011-11-23


The Spirit Tweet violation is a bit of joke imo. With so little room to get a message out, trying to cram in information on all the taxes and fees on a short 140-character message is a bit too much.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6763 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
With so little room to get a message out, trying to cram in information on all the taxes and fees on a short 140-character message is a bit too much.

True, but then perhaps tweets aren't an appropriate medium for fare promotion for a carrier with so many fees. Or they could mention "(Fees up to $999 may apply)" using under 20% of their 140 characters.


User currently offlineRamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The Spirit Tweet violation is a bit of joke imo. With so little room to get a message out, trying to cram in information on all the taxes and fees on a short 140-character message is a bit too much.

Just because there's a character limit doesn't mean there should be an exception to the rules. They should figure out how to be in compliance or stop using Twitter.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25369 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 2505 times:

Actually seems to me what Spirit did was quite reasonable.

More specifically it tweeded following:
"Check out our fares ~ from just $9* each way!” with a link to its website.

Additionally to the website link, the restrictions and additional fees were posted on its Twitter homepage


The DOT even acknowledges it faced a precedent setting situation with this Twitter case. Ultimately as technology and advertising media changes, the department will have to review the applicability of its policies. For instance here in California soon we might have digital license plates with advertising on them when the vehicle is not moving.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6763 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
the restrictions and additional fees were posted on its Twitter homepage

Not everyone receiving those tweets would necessarily visit Spirit's Twitter homepage. And I'm not really a fan of diminishing consumer protections merely because of technological limitations. It seems they could post additional tweets each time disclosing fees & restrictions.


User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 18 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Would something simple like "*add'l fees may apply" or "*see link for details" meet DOT regs?

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21529 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 17 hours ago) and read 1980 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 4):
Not everyone receiving those tweets would necessarily visit Spirit's Twitter homepage. And I'm not really a fan of diminishing consumer protections merely because of technological limitations. It seems they could post additional tweets each time disclosing fees & restrictions.

And considering there is no actual technological limitation, just a choice by Twitter to limit the characters allowed, it's no excuse. If Twitter wants to promote it's use for this type of purpose, they need to accommodate the legal requirements companies will be held to.

You can't advertise falsely in a newspaper ad simply because you have an artificially imposed limit on characters for the size ad you choose to buy in the classifieds, and the same should hold for use of Twitter.

As others have stated, maybe Twitter isn't the place to be announcing fare details.

Spirit could easily have just said "Fares so low, you might crap your pants!" and not faced these fines...  



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 5):
Would something simple like "*add'l fees may apply" or "*see link for details" meet DOT regs?

The deal IMHO was the asterix after the $9 - but not amplification that the asterix meant "check the web site for requirements and details".

"req'd taxes & fees will apply" would have met the requirement IMHO.

I believe the statement that fees MAY apply is blatant false advertising. There are always fees and taxes in addition to the base ticket price.

Unless the quoted price states "includes all taxes and fees" - there is no MAY APPLY.


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...
DOT Fines Caribbean Airlines posted Fri Oct 28 2011 16:43:54 by LAXintl
DOT Fines South African & LAN posted Wed Oct 26 2011 16:38:02 by LAXintl
FAA Fines Skywest Over Safety Violations posted Wed Oct 19 2011 17:25:22 by LAXintl
DOT Fines Virgin Atlantic - Advertising Violations posted Mon Sep 26 2011 13:46:37 by LAXintl
DOT Fines Capital Cargo, Emirates & JetBlue posted Tue Aug 30 2011 11:07:42 by LAXintl
DOT Fines Chautaugua, Republic And Shuttle America posted Wed Sep 1 2010 14:51:10 by LAXintl
DOT Fines B6 And HA For Not Providing On Time Info posted Tue Oct 9 2007 08:18:35 by ThirteenRight
DOT Rejects Spirit Colombia App. Sides With AA posted Mon Jul 2 2007 21:31:48 by Laxintl
Spirit (NK) Gets DOT Approval For FLL-GCM posted Thu Sep 8 2005 19:13:35 by PVD757
Spirit Gets DOT Approval For PLS Service posted Tue Aug 23 2005 18:22:58 by PVD757