Posted by Seth on May 15, 2012 under Flying, News | 
And this one is working out in favor of the consumers. The recent hullabaloo about the premium cabin fares priced ex-Rangoon to various destinations at a very steep discount has been interesting to follow. Like most “mistake” fares the cycle of the booking process is following the usual steps. First euphoria at the deal, followed by apprehension and worry as to whether the fare would be honored and then confusion or outrage when the tickets were canceled. And now, euphoria again, as the tickets are being reinstated.
After trading emails with Vayama and ANA a couple weeks ago regarding the tickets I booked for our New Years vacation and their cancellation of those tickets I received the following today:
Dear Customer –
Following discussions with our airline partners the decision has been made to reinstate your previously canceled reservation from Rangoon.
There are more details, including a deadline to accept or decline the offer, but this is excellent news on the consumer rights front in the air travel world. For too long the airlines have held all the power in such situations. It seems that the tide may finally be turning.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on May 15, 2012 under Flying, News |
The wait is over. A couple months after carriers applied to provide service for four new slot pairs at Washington’s Reagan National Airport the DoT has announced the winners of the coveted operating permissions. And the winners are exactly what I predicted back when the applications were revealed:
JetBlue won their first choice of routes, adding service to their quickly growing operation in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Alaska Airlines won their first choice as well, with service to Portland, Oregon being approved. Austin, Texas had two different applications for service; both Southwest and JetBlue indicated that they wanted to add the destination. Southwest was awarded that authority. Virgin America won their only application, adding service to their hub in San Francisco. The route to SFO will be the only of the new operations with direct competition on it; United Airlines is also going to be operating on that route. Southwest will face competition on the proposed through-service aspect of their Austin service to San Diego from US Airways which will operate that route with a non-stop flight.
So no real surprises in the route authorities awarded. Probably for the best; the routes picked were the favorites because they made the most sense based on the economics of the markets. Still, every now and then I do wonder if the DoT has a sense of humor and would award something like the Colorado Springs application Frontier put out there.
Related Posts:
Tags: Alaska Air, Alaska Airlines, Congress, DoT, FAA, Frontier, JetBlue, Portland, Puerto Rico, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, Southwest Airline, United, United Airlines, US Air, Virgin America, Washington DC
Posted by Seth on May 14, 2012 under frequent flyer, News |
When the announcement came out that the PeoplExpress brand was looking to get back into the skies it also included an announcement about a loyalty program, Club Travelati. Customers could sign up as a lifetime member for only $19. In addition to other benefits (including a souvenir pin), the Club promised access to super discounted sales and deals from the carrier once they actually started flying. It turns out that the DoT isn’t so keen on such a marketing approach; the carrier agreed to a $10,000 fine based on the effort.
The company settled with the DoT, admitting no fault, and pulled all content relating to the Club off their website. At issue is whether selling access to discounts is permissible given that the airline cannot actually legally operate flights yet. By enticing customers with discounts for fares that they cannot actually sell the DoT felt that the company violated a couple CFRs. The company has stated they disagree with that position but that they are choosing to avoid litigation in an effort to not derail their pending operational certificate application.
The company has pulled the offer to buy in to the Club from their web site, showing only this now:
Club Travelati is an exciting new club by PEOPLExpress™ for people just like you! We can’t tell you all the details just yet, since we are not yet a certificated airline. But we can tell you it will be fun! Stay tuned here for more details.
Oh, and they apparently only sold about 130 of the $19 memberships since they launched the product per the DoT claim.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on May 10, 2012 under Flying, News |
Odds are you don’t know the answer to this question. I know that I have no certain answer to it. But I do know that the most recent revisions to it carry tremendous potential impact on passengers, travel agents and airlines. The most recent rules took effect only earlier this year, meaning there haven’t been many opportunities for test cases. It looks like a pretty significant test case has just shown up. The above referenced cite is the rule the DoT uses to handle unfair and deceptive advertising practices. While it is focused on truly misleading or bait-and-switch actions where one price is advertised and then the fare changes after a ticket is purchased, it also appears to have potential impact on mistake fares.
Here’s the text of 49 U.S.C. 41712 § 399.88(a) :
It is an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712 for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, or of a tour (i.e., a combination of air transportation and ground or cruise accommodations), or tour component (e.g., a hotel stay) that includes scheduled air transportation within, to or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation, tour or tour component to a consumer, including but not limited to an increase in the price of the seat, an increase in the price for the carriage of passenger baggage, or an increase in an applicable fuel surcharge, after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of an increase in a government-imposed tax or fee. A purchase is deemed to have occurred when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer.
Airlines have, with some frequency, cited clauses in their Contract of Carriage when they load mistake fares into the GDSes and sell them. Korean Air canceled a whole bunch of flights to Palau last year and British Airways did the same to customers who were ticketed to India (self included) prior to that. In each case the airline claimed that the fares were simple and obvious errors and therefore they could absolve themselves of their obligations simply by refunding the charge.
The DoT seems to feel otherwise these days. In fact, this specific type of case is directly addressed in their Second Final Rule on Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections FAQ:
Does the prohibition on post-purchase price increases in section 399.88(a) apply in the situation where a carrier mistakenly offers an airfare due to a computer problem or human error and a consumer purchases the ticket at that fare before the carrier is able to fix the mistake?
Section 399.88(a) states that it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any seller of scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, or of a tour or tour component that includes scheduled air transportation within, to, or from the United States, to increase the price of that air transportation to a consumer after the air transportation has been purchased by the consumer, except in the case of a government-imposed tax or fee and only if the passenger is advised of a possible increase before purchasing a ticket. A purchase occurs when the full amount agreed upon has been paid by the consumer. Therefore, if a consumer purchases a fare and that consumer receives confirmation (such as a confirmation email and/or the purchase appears on their credit card statement or online account summary) of their purchase, then the seller of air transportation cannot increase the price of that air transportation to that consumer, even when the fare is a “mistake.”
A contract of carriage provision that reserves the right to cancel such ticketed purchases or reserves the right to raise the fare cannot legalize the practice described above. The Enforcement Office would consider any contract of carriage provision that attempts to relieve a carrier of the prohibition against post-purchase price increase to be an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712.
Seems like good news for consumers, right? Well, that depends on whether the airlines are actually held to the rule. Both Korean Air and ANA, among others, are now facing just such a question after a “mistake” fare for travel from Burma/Myanmar to pretty much anywhere in the world was available last week. The “mistake” came about due to a currency devaluation, essentially causing a few zeroes to disappear from fares. When just a few were being purchased here and there it was no big deal. Once the deal was widely publicized, however, hundreds were purchased and the airlines realized they had a problem.
They managed to pull most of the fares pretty quickly though some were still available several days later. But what to do about the hundreds of tickets already issued? For obvious reasons the airlines want to cancel them; in many cases the costs to cater for the passengers, much less carry them, are greater than the fare paid. The airlines are going to lose money on these fares. But does that give them the right to unilaterally cancel the flights?
At least for now, the carriers seem to be erring on the side of “Yes” for that question. Both Korean and ANA have contacted the booking agents and most tickets booked at the mistake rate have been canceled. But that doesn’t mean the DoT actually approves of such an approach. Korean seems to be taking the approach that since they never changed the fare and instead simply canceled the tickets they are not in violation of the rule. ANA has similarly responded that the “genuinely regret the circumstances that prompted [a complaint]” and that they are “now in contact with the appropriate agencies and departments.” Vayama, one of the booking agents which was party to many of the tickets issued has claimed, in part,
The DOT Ruling was set up in part to prevent unfair and unethical business practices associated with pricing on the part of airlines… [T]he cause of the dramatic decrease in fares out of Rangoon was not the result of unfair or unethical business practices on the part of the airlines.
… Although we have no way of knowing at this time how the DOT will rule on this case, we are confident that the actions taken were NOT in an effort to unfairly or unethically impact any customers.
All three seem to be of the opinion that, because it was truly an accident that they should be excused from the rule. I can certainly understand the position of the airlines in this case. Maybe they shouldn’t be held responsible for a country devaluing its currency by a few decimal points. Then again, they’re the ones who publish the fares and they’re the ones who have control over such things, so maybe they should be held accountable. After all, what is the threshold for really an accident versus not?
One thing is certain: the DoT has quite a doozy of a first test for their revised rule. They’ve shown little sympathy with respect to fines handed out relative to the 3-hour tarmac rule since that went into force so perhaps that is a hint as to their consumer-friendly leanings these days.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on March 22, 2012 under News |
It wasn’t too long ago that the concept of the fuel surcharge in the context of airline tickets simply didn’t exist. The full price of the transaction was simply the ticket cost and the mandated airport and government taxes or fees and that was that. A few years ago airlines realized that they could manipulate the pricing systems a bit, charging a fuel surcharge rather than just raising fares and an ugly trend began. In theory the fuel surcharges would be relative to the actual costs of fuel and would decrease when those costs decrease, but that sort of behavior has not been particularly common.
Perhaps the most adversely affected group from these fees are those traveling on corporate contracts. Those deals allow for discounts on the fare paid but the taxes and fees are not subject to discount. By shifting the cost to the fuel surcharge the airlines have effectively killed a chunk of those discounts. The US government has finally caught on, however, and they don’t seem too impressed.
In a notice published in the Federal Register two weeks ago the Department of Transportation put the airlines on notice that they consider the current practice to be a violation of the unfair or deceptive trade clauses which they have the power to enforce. To that end, they are proposing that the airlines must change their behavior in two significant ways.
First, all fuel surcharges and any other fees which the airlines keep for themselves must be identified separately from fees which are paid to the government or airport authorities.
We have found, in reviewing airline Web sites, that many Web sites which detailed additional fees labeled all additional charges, government and carrier-imposed, as taxes when in fact carrier-imposed fees were often the major portion of these fees. Such displays were deceptive and in violation of section 41712.
This should help clear up the fact that a $100 base fare plus $650 in "taxes & fees" for a NYC-London flight is actually $550ish to the airline and $200 in real taxes (still obscene, but way better than the old way it was shown). Interestingly, they do indicate that it would be acceptable to have a single entry called "Taxes and carrier-imposed fees" rather than just "Taxes and fees"
Second, the airlines will be required to align the fuel surcharge component with the actual cost of fuel to provide the service, or at least a near approximation.
When a cost component is described as a fuel surcharge, for example, that amount must actually reflect a reasonable estimate of the per-passenger fuel costs incurred by the carrier above some baseline calculated based on such factors as the length of the trip, varying costs of fuel, and number of flight segments involved.
…
Therefore, the “fuel surcharge” of $476 in the above example, which is associated with a transatlantic trip originating in New York City, must be an accurate reflection of the fuel cost over some reasonable baseline for an individual passenger for that trip and the carrier should be prepared to detail the services and costs per passenger associated with its “Passenger service charge international.”
In other words, the numbers have to actually line up with something that vaguely resembles the cost of the service being offered. Take, for example, the fuel surcharges levied by United Airlines for non-stop flights from Newark to four nearby destinations in Europe (all rates are one-way for travel in late March 2012):
- Dublin – $101
- London – $219
- Paris – $248
- Amsterdam – $248
With a spread of less than 500 miles from the shortest to the longest, it is clear that the numbers do not reflect the actual costs of the fuel. According to the company’s 2011 10-K filing the cost for fuel averaged 4.77 cents per ASM. That puts the actual fuel cost per seat for the above flights somewhere around $150. And that assumes that there is a direct correlation from the fuel costs to the miles flown, something that doesn’t actually work out quite so directly. Plus, the DoT seems to think that the "surcharge" should actually reflect the difference over some acceptable baseline, not the entire fuel cost.
This might mean that base fares go up while fuel surcharges go down, leaving the final fare the same for most folks. Not a huge deal in the end if the number is the same, but at least the fares will more properly reflect the reality of what is being offered.
Posted by Seth on March 13, 2012 under Flying, News |
Washington, DC‘s National Airport is one of the "lucky few" airports in the country where the government has limited destinations which can be served. The so-called "perimeter rule" keeps the long-haul flights out at Dulles for the most part, but there are a few exceptions to rule and those are coveted by the airlines. As part of the most recent FAA budget authorization bill Congress has added a few perimeter exceptions to the pool at DCA and now airlines are scrambling to grab those slots. The filing deadline was yesterday, and here’s what the proposals look like.
New Entrants
The slots are split into two pools, one for legacy carriers and one for new entrants. In the new entrants category six carriers – JetBlue, Virgin America, Southwest, Air Canada, Frontier and Alaska Airlines have applied.
Alaska Airlines is going big with their application, hoping to offer transcon service from both their Portland, OR hub as well as San Diego. Virgin America is also hoping for hub service from San Francisco. Southwest is aiming to provide service to Austin, TX, with onward connections to San Diego and JetBlue has applied to serve both Austin and San Juan. Air Canada is hoping for Vancouver service and Frontier is looking to serve Colorado Springs.
There is some interesting overlap with the routes being requested and it seems somewhat unlikely that the DoT is going to approve such applications so perhaps the final approval will look something like this:
Legacy Carriers
For the legacy carriers the access to beyond perimeter slots comes with a slightly higher price, as they have to give up service to a destination inside the perimeter to get the new service. On the plus side, the route authorities are more or less guaranteed given that condition so the DoT has less work to do there. Of the eligible carriers, Delta, United Airlines and American Airlines all made their intentions known a couple weeks ago, with service to their Salt Lake City, San Francisco and Los Angeles hubs, respectively. Apparently US Airways has decided to not apply for an additional beyond perimeter slot. They already have service to Phoenix and Las Vegas but it is still somewhat surprising that they haven’t tried for more.
The new routes should be interesting to watch, especially with the potential for competition on the LAX and SFO routes.
Tags: Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Congress, Delta, DoT, FAA, Frontier, JetBlue, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, San Juan, Southwest Airline, United, United Airlines, Virgin America, Washington DC
Posted by Seth on January 30, 2012 under Flying, News |
I love when our elected representatives decide to speak up and express just how idiotic their thoughts are. I’ve heard a Representative state for the record that she thought Adobe Acrobat should be outlawed, for example, but I’m not so convinced that her view there is more ridiculous than that put forth today by Representative Tom Graves of Georgia. Graves, who represents Georgia’s 9th Congressional District (North of Atlanta, up to the Tennessee, North Carolina and Alabama borders), has announced that he will be introducing legislation which will repeal the DoT rule requiring airlines to list the full price of tickets, including all taxes, when they advertise.
This rule, put forth as part of the DoT’s consumer protection efforts, has come under attack from such legendary consumer advocates as Sprit Airlines, who is complaining the rule violates their first amendment rights because they cannot advertise one number and then charge a completely different number when the customer goes to actually make the purchase. Seems like just the sort of actions that should be protected, right?
The Congressman has a very simple premise for why the rule is bad: It prevents the airlines from indicating what part of the fare is actually the fare and what part is taxes and fees.
The federal government should not be inserting itself in the private sector to limit consumers’ ability to see how much they’re getting taxed. If the American people can’t see these costs clearly, I fear it will be easier these fees and taxes to be raised without their knowledge.
There’s just one problem with this line of thought (two, really, but I’m ignoring that the second line there isn’t a complete sentence): it is completely unfounded in reality. There is absolutely nothing in the rule that prevents the airlines from explaining in excruciating detail how much the taxes are and how much the fare is. There is nothing preventing them from reminding the consumer that there are a dozen or so different taxes and fees on the average airfare and way more on international itineraries. What the rule does, however, is prevent an airline from advertising a $9 fare which cannot be purchased for less than $20, no matter how hard you try. And that’s a good thing for consumers.
Fare listings like these, which are fully compliant with the rules, make it quite clear what the taxes and fees are, without violating the DoT rules:
And, yet, somehow apparently it is actually impossible for the airlines and OTAs to actually publish the information this way, as they are inhibited by the DoT rules. Strange, isn’t it, how they’ve managed to do it anyways??
I understand the complaint that nothing else in the USA is required to be marketed with the all-in price rather than allowing for customers to be surprised at the cash register. Let’s not use the examples of things that are bad for us as citizens as examples of why progress shouldn’t be made. Let’s got the other direction instead. Let’s hold hotels and rental car companies accountable, too. Let’s stop rental car companies from hiding the 50%+ surcharges until the final page of the check-out process. Let’s stop hotels from adding on $15-30 or more, per guest, per night, as a "resort fee" rather than actually including those charges in the fine print. After all, you cannot avoid paying them.
There is nothing wrong with calling attention to the fact that the average airfare has so many taxes associated with it. But pretending that there is some unwritten rule out there which is somehow preventing airlines from actually doing so is just plain lying.
Time to step up and face the facts, Congressman Graves: you’re full of it. Step up and do something that actually helps your constituents rather than lying to them. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it when elections roll around.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on January 24, 2012 under Flying, News |
Spirit Airlines is protesting the new fare rules requiring full disclosure of all costs for a flight, claiming that the government is requiring them to hide the taxes from their customers. And they’re doing it in style. Their main homepage now shows this when you visit:
If you click the link offered you get this:
Thanks to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s latest fare rules, Spirit must now HIDE the government’s taxes and fees in your fares.
If the government can hide taxes in your airfares, then they can carry out their hidden agenda and quietly increase their taxes. (Yes, such talks are already underway.)
And if they can do it to the airline industry, what’s next?
As the transparency leader and most consumer-friendly airline, Spirit DOES NOT support this new USDOT mandate. We believe the better form of transparency is to break out costs so customers know exactly what they’re buying.
The scary thing here is that I almost actually agree with them.
It is true that, by requiring the big, final price number to be displayed to the customer the actual tax burden is obfuscated. So they’re not really wrong there. But that obfuscation also prevents all sorts of other fees from being hidden, the sorts of fees that Spirit is famous for. And that’s a good thing.
Plus, at the end of the day, most customers care much less about how much of the fare is for taxes and how much is for the airline. A $300 ticket is a $300 debit on my credit card. Whether the airline keeps $150 or $250 of that doesn’t skew whether I think it is a good price for the trip.
Besides, there is nothing stopping Spirit from showing the full breakdown underneath the all-in price. That way they can continue to be a "transparency leader and most consumer-friendly airline" as they always have.
Posted by Seth on October 12, 2011 under Flying, News |
The deal for US Airways and Delta to trade large chunks of their operations at New York City‘s LaGuardia and Washington, DC‘s National airports has received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. The swap, which has been in limbo since it was initially proposed about two years ago, will see Delta increase its market share significantly in the New York area, bringing it on par with United Airlines which has held a significant lead thanks to the hub operations at Newark by its Continental subsidiary.
The final agreement calls for Delta to gain 132 slot pairs at LaGuardia in exchange for 42 slot pairs that US Airways will gain in Washington. An additional 24 slot pairs – 16 in NYC and 8 in Washington – will be divested by the carriers to competitors. The divestment plan, which pretty much matches the original proposal from years ago, will have the slots auctioned in a cash-only, blind bid offering managed by the FAA. With the Southwest buyout of AirTran and acquisition of those slot portfolios the Texas-based carrier is no longer in as strong a position to oppose the swap or the blind distribution of the slot divestiture.
In addition to the FAA review of the slot swap there is a Department of Justice Anti-Trust investigation ongoing for the transaction. The DoJ announced that they are no longer concerned with the anti-trust implications in the New York City market but they are still looking into the US Airways monopoly issues at National. If that is too significant an issue it could still result in the deal being scuttled but at this point it does seem like the deal is quite likely to go through.
This represents a significant shake-up in both markets. Delta has not been shy recently about wanting to attack the New York City market and taking a sizeable chunk of that market share from competitors. They will still be running a split hub environment with major operations at both LaGuardia and JFK airports but they’ll have significantly more traffic going forward. For the Washington, DC market the domination at National by US Airways will be much more significant (hence the continued DoJ efforts).
Still plenty of excitement and new developments to come on this front but things are finally back in motion after being stalled for so long.
Related Posts:
Tags: AirTran, Continental, Delta, DoT, FAA, merger, New York City, Newark, Southwest Airline, United, US Air, Washington DC
Posted by Seth on September 27, 2011 under Flying, News |
The "3-hour rule" regarding flight delays was supposed to make things better for passengers by preventing them from being stuck on airplanes on the ground rather than actually flying. And the statistics year-over-year since the rule was implemented are pretty clear: the number of 3 hour delays dropped from 693 to 20 the year before and year after the rule was implemented. Great news, right?
Maybe not. According to a recent report from the GAO the reduced delays come with a side-effect of making flight cancellations much more likely:
GAO analysis suggests the rule is also correlated with a greater likelihood of flight cancellations. Such cancellations can lead to long overall passenger travel times. Airlines and other aviation stakeholders maintain that the tarmac delay rule has changed airline decision-making in ways that could make cancellations more likely.
The report is 111 pages of tables, statistics and generally dry reading. But there are some telling numbers that come out of it. The GAO performed two different regression analyses against the data covering 70 airports around the USA and Puerto Rico. Data was reviewed for both flights canceled before they left the gate and after they left the gate and began to taxi. Unsurprisingly, more flights are canceled at the gate than once they’ve pushed back. But the data from 2010 – after the new rule went into effect – suggests that cancelations are notably more common in both scenarios.
The number of flights cancelled in each year was incredibly small once the plane actually left the gate. Only 992 flights of the 1,846,288 scheduled flights that pushed back from the gate ended up not flying. But that number was 24% higher weighted for the total number of scheduled flights. And the chances of a cancelation are dramatically higher as the time on the tarmac grows. A plane that has been taxiing for more than 60 minutes was 88% more likely not to fly. Over 120 minutes that number was 216%. For flights that never left the gate the odds of a cancellation were also higher, to the tune of 13% year-over-year with 2010 having just over 1% of flights canceled at the gate.
Those are the unadjusted, raw data numbers from the DoT and FlightStats reports. The GAO also performed regression analysis to determine what other factors – weather, ATC, flight distance, time of day and others – might affect the cancelation rates to see if the rule is better or worse than other effects. The numbers do not appear all that promising for passengers. For the Tarmac-Cancellation Model (post push-back) the GAO has the following to say:
In all hour categories of tarmac time, the odds of cancellation were greater in 2010 than in 2009 because all of the odds ratios exceed 1. Moreover, the differential in the odds ratio of cancellations across the 2 years increased with the time a flight was on the tarmac. For flights that were on the tarmac for less than an hour, the odds of a cancellation were about one-third higher in 2010 than in 2009. … For flights with 61 to 120 minutes of tarmac delay, the odds ratio rose to 2.14, indicating that the odds of a cancellation more than doubled in 2010 compared with 2009, and for flights with 121 to 180 minutes of tarmac delay, the odds of cancellation more than tripled in that same time period. …[T]he inclusion of key variables to control for other factors did not have much effect on our findings related to the tarmac rule.
For the Gate-Cancellation Model the numbers are actually even more dramatic:
One significant finding is that the odds ratio for the rule change is substantially greater, when adjusted, than indicated by the simple unadjusted odds ratio shown in table 16. The model results indicate that the odds of gate cancellations rose by 24 percent after the rule went into effect, whereas the simple result indicated only a 13 percent increase in those odds.
Yes, fewer folks are sitting on the airplanes, but fewer are also actually getting where they are going. That’s not necessarily a good thing.
The report recommendations are pretty toothless, suggesting that the DoT collect more data than they do today and better analyze it for comprehensive impact against passengers. Not likely that will have much impact in the long run.
Related Posts:
Posted by Seth on April 25, 2011 under News, TSA |
Can you list every address you’ve lived at since birth? What about every employer – including the name of your supervisor and their phone number – you have ever had? Every school you attended, including address and phone number? If not, you might not be able to get a passport if the State Department has its way. And those are the easy questions on the newly proposed form DS-5513.
Here’s the justification for the new form as provided in the Federal Register filing:
The primary purpose for soliciting this information is to establish citizenship, identity, and eligibility for a U.S. Passport Book or Passport Card. The information may also be used in connection with issuing other travel documents or evidence of citizenship, and in furtherance of the Secretary’s responsibility for the protection of U.S. nationals abroad.
If you can demonstrate (arguably via a certified birth certificate) that you were born in the US then the above questions are the only ones you really need to complete. If not, however, the questionnaire gets way more detailed. Here are some of the specifics that are asked for:
- What type of document, if any, did your mother use to enter into the United States before your birth?
- Please describe the circumstances of your birth including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth.
- Was there any religious or institutional recording of your birth or event occurring around the time of birth? (Example: baptism, circumcision, confirmation or other religious ceremony. Please provide details including the name, location of the
institution, and date.)
They even ask for specific details regarding any medical professionals that may have been involved, including a history of appointment dates. Oh, and the mother’s profession, address and, because we don’t want to be particularly obvious that we’re discriminating against immigrants, "What type of document, if any, did your mother use to enter into the United States before your birth?"
In case you’re curious, they estimate that compiling all this information will take only 45 minutes on average. I only have to answer the easy questions and I’m not sure I can do it that quickly.
Sadly, this will almost certainly become the rule, just like all the other asinine things the government is doing to infringe upon our rights "out of an abundance of caution." Today is the last day to register a complaint to the appropriate officials. The easiest way to do so is to email GarciaAA@state.gov. You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and OMB control number in any correspondence. For this particular abomination those details are DS-5513 and Biographical Questionnaire for U.S. Passport; there is no OMB control number currently assigned.
UPDATE (17:55 EDT 25 APR): This form is supposedly only to be used if the veracity of the initially supplied documentation is in doubt. So it probably won’t apply to everyone. Still, there is a TON of data in here way beyond what should be needed to establish citizenship and well beyond what the government should need from us.
Here’s the letter I’m sending. I encourage you to contact them as well. Oh, and the 60-day comment period started on February 24th so it is pretty much over so it is important to act quickly (i.e. TODAY) on this issue!
To: GarciaAA@state.gov
Subject: Comments on proposed rule for DS-5513 – Biographical Questionnaire for U.S. Passport
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to comment on the proposed rule change published in the Federal Register as Public Notice 7345 regarding form DS-5513 – Biographical Questionnaire for U.S. Passport; there is currently no OMB control number assigned to this document.
The proposed form is collecting an excessive amount of data, well beyond what is necessary to confirm citizenship and issue a passport for qualified individuals. The time burden suggested – an average of 45 minutes – is a gross underestimate of how long it will take to collect even the basic information; answering questions 5-12 will take significantly longer. As an adult in my 30s who is qualified to answer only the basic questions I found that it took me well over one hour to compile the information and it is still incomplete.
My schooling and job history have no bearing on my citizenship status, yet the form asks for full details of both. If I fail to provide it (and potentially if I miss something) the State Department can deny me a passport, even though I am a naturally born citizen.
The form show significant bias against home-birthed children, requiring them to complete extensive documentation as though they are an undocumented alien in this country. Similarly, the extensive details requested about the circumstances of the birth – names and phone numbers of everyone present, for example – are excessive and go well beyond what is necessary to document citizenship.
Travel is a wonderful thing. It provides education, experiences and perspective all at once, helping to better both the people doing the traveling as well as those whom they visit. It should be encouraged and facilitated by our government, not impeded. This form represents an excessive data collection against US citizens and is an undue burden for demonstrating citizenship. It is working against these goals, not towards them.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Wandering Aramean.
