A mouse, bees, and the roots of terrorrential peeism

It’s that time of the year that lawyers and judges are on holiday and nothing much seems to happen in the world of Air Passenger Rights. However, for passengers the world of flying remains full of adventures.

Mouse grounds SAS plane in Stockholm

At Stockholm airport, a mouse grounded an SAS Airbus 330 bound for Chicago. The little animal was seen scurrying across the cabin floor just before boarding. Despite an extensive search and numerous mousetraps the creature managed to escape capital punishment. The airline cancelled the flight. It said that as well as unsettling passengers the mouse posed a safety risk as it could chew the aircraft's cables.

Passengers had to be rebooked and suffered delays of over five hours, enough to claim Sturgeon compensation. The interesting point is whether the airline can argue that the mouse created an ‘extraordinary circumstance’. You may want to find the answer with the guidance in Air Passenger Rights, p. 50-51.

Bees on Russian plane panic passengers

Can you take living animals on board (Air Passenger Rights, p. 64)? In Russia, an official at Blagoveshchensk airport took a hive of bees on to a plane. They were stashed in a box and put in a coat locker in business class. The bees were apparently not happy with this arrangement and midflight they decided to break out and make their way through the cabin, frightening and shocking passengers. After a while, the crew managed to tape up the cloakroom doors to stop the bees flying out. The other bees were merciless killed by frightened passengers (apologies to the bees for any inconvenience caused).

Carrying insects aboard a plane is banned under Russian (and other national) aviation rules. In this case, the airport’s deputy director had carried the bees on the plane by simply skipping security checks. It was not the first time security failed at that airport. In June 2011, a woman was caught after managing to board a plane without a ticket, documents or any luggage. So if you are fed up with all the airport security measures, you know which airport to fly from.

Depardieu caught urinating on jet

French celebrity Gérard Depardieu, 62 was caught peeing in a CityJet plane (a witness said she saw a bottle of Perrier in the actor’s other hand). The actor was refused permission to use the lavatory as the plane prepared for take-off. Because of Depardieu going peenuts the jet had to taxi back to the gate and the dépar(dieu) was delayed for a further two hours.

One may wonder what caused the actor to behave in such an incontinental way. My guess: the liquid rules. Before going through security, Depardieu realised he had a full bottle of Perrier water in his hand luggage. And rather than throwing it away he decided to down it. Such irresponsible behaviour is encouraged by the mismatch between the heavy regulation of liquids in hand luggage and the complete lack of regulation of liquids carried inside the human body (Air Passenger Rights, p. 79).

This mismatch leads to regrettable scenes of passengers no longer able to control their jet stream. I contacted the airline authorities and they promised a robust response. They intend to introduce a new generation of body scanners at the departure gates to measure the human body’s liquid levels. As one spokesman said: ’It is the only way to stamp out this form of terrorrential peeism root and branch. And to boost the business of body scanners, of course.’

>> Order the Book 'Air Passenger Rights’ <<

>> Download the App 'Air Passenger Rights’ <<

The Assumption of Mary, trainee pilots, and Richard Branson

On 15 August, I checked in at Munich airport for my flight to London. In Southern Germany, 15 August is a public holiday to celebrate the Feast of the Assumption of Mary. At the airports, passengers are kindly invited to attend a special religious service.

I felt tempted but I had to catch my flight so I gave the mass a miss. Also because I was not too optimistic about convincing easyJet that attending the service was an extraordinary circumstance that entitled me to a refund (Air Passenger Rights, p. 97). Slightly regretting this missed opportunity to be uplifted by the service, I found consolation in the fact that my easyJet flight also provided for an assumption, albeit temporary and to a much lower level than the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The plane was almost fully booked but after the usual easyJet passengers fight I managed to end up between the aisle and a free seat. The flight was quiet, both inside and outside the cabin, and also the approach to Stansted went smoothly - although seemingly a bit faster than normal.

When we were about to touch down the engines of the Airbus 319 suddenly made a roaring sound and were spooled up to full throttle. In moments we were slowly but steadily gaining height again. We had experienced a very elegant go-around (on 15 August also known as a Mary-go-around).

The senior cabin crewmember (easyJet still seems to have a hard time finding pursers) announced that the go-around was a completely normal procedure. Indeed, it’s a routine manoeuvre, and can for example be triggered by a non-cleared runway (but hey, this was Stansted, not Heathrow) or a dangerous weather condition (but hey, the weather was nice and quiet).

While the aircraft made a right turn back to the airport, the captain came on the intercom. The sound of his voice suggested he once must have pondered between becoming a pilot or a newsreader. Without apologising, he revealed that the first officer was only a trainee pilot and did not have that much experience with landing procedures. ‘When I saw that the approach was not done with the correct speed, I decided to intervene and to make a go-around as a fail-safe measure.’

The second landing went much better. Indeed, practice makes perfect, particularly when you practice on a plane with 150 passengers.

So what about these trainee pilots? On its website easyJet writes: ‘For those wishing to start an airline career as a pilot, we are able to offer a sponsorship scheme that will enable up to 24 applicants a year to achieve their dream. This exciting commitment by easyJet will enable a select few to benefit from a highly extensive training process. Of course, as we are expanding at such a high rate, our requirements may change.’

Erm, yes. Of course. The requirements for trainee pilots may change. Watch this space. Soon you may only need to have good newsreader skills.

I suddenly felt an urge to attend a service for the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. But at Stansted no such service was offered. It was only then I remembered that the only Virgin to be worshipped in this country is Sir Richard Branson.

~~~~~~~~~

>> Order the Book 'Air Passenger Rights’ <<

>> Download the App 'Air Passenger Rights’ <<

New preliminary question on Sturgeon and Montreal, Part II

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand

when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

In my previous post I discussed whether Sturgeon violates the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity. Another question is whether Sturgeon violates the Convention’s requirement that damages for delay must be awarded solely on a compensatory basis. A number of national courts have asked the European Court whether Sturgeon compensates real damage or rather requires airlines to pay more than the damage passengers actually suffer.

The European Court’s answer to these pending questions can be twofold. The strongest distinction between Montreal and the Regulation would be to hold that Sturgeon compensation for identical damage is independent of the Montreal Convention. It is therefore not at all affected by Montreal and can even be non-compensatory. One could draw this conclusion from IATA, where the Court held that standardised and immediate compensatory measures are not among those whose institution is regulated by the Convention.

However, also a less bold answer is possible. Throughout its case law the Court has emphasised that compensation for delay is compensatory. More precisely, in Sturgeon the Court held that Article 7 provides for compensation for ‘loss of time’. Loss of time is identical yet real damage for all passengers as they all suffer the same delay. Loss of time may have different consequences for each passenger. These consequences constitute individual damage, which is governed by Montreal.

The identical damage is compensated in a standardised manner. The standard is partly related to the length of the flight and partly to the length of the delay (Air Passenger Rights, p. 52-53). Airlines argue that compensation is therefore not related to the actual damage and that the regime of Article 7 is therefore non-compensatory. Indeed, a delay of 20 hours provides for the same compensation as a delay of 4 hours.

It is unlikely that the European Court will be convinced by this argument. It is more likely that it will emphasise the Regulation’s aim is to provide quick redress and that this justifies a standardised form of compensation.

However, the airlines are correct in that a more subtle system of standardised compensation is conceivable. In the forthcoming review of the Regulation the European Commission may consider proposing an amount of compensation for each hour delay and with no discount for long delays. This would even more clearly show that Sturgeon compensation for loss of time is compensatory and therefore in line with Montreal.