The nightmare of a White Heathrow

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand
when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

You may want to think twice whether it is a good idea to travel to, from or through London Heathrow between November and March, when there is a chance of 'heavy snow' (say 3 inches or 8 cm) in Greater London. Unlike other London airports, Heathrow was still not up to the job of clearing stands and runways of snow and keeping the airport running without too much disruption this winter.

On Sunday 5^th February 2012, Gatwick and Stansted experienced delays but almost all flights departed. 30 miles away, a spokeswoman for Heathrow said: ‘Airlines expect to operate about 50% of the 1,300 flights originally scheduled.’ She added: ‘Our snow plan has worked far better than in previous years and the airport is getting back to normal.’

Well done Heathrow’s PR department. This is how you present failure as an act of competence. The gaffe of the day came from Conservative Transport Secretary Justine Greening. Rather than lambasting Heathrow for doing a poor job as compared to neighbouring airports, she commended the airport for the way it had handled the problems. With such a Cabinet minister Heathrow can do without a PR department.

Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, once famously said: ‘We don’t do God’. London airport bosses, however, regularly did God. As soon as it started to snow they were keen to explain that this was an Act of God for which they were not responsible. This may have been true in the old days, nowadays the damage/investment ratio (the costs of cancelling flights vis-a-vis the investment in snow clearing and de-icing equipment) has dramatically changed. Disruptions caused by heavy snow are now no longer an Act of God but an Act of the Airport, or rather the Airport’s Failure to Act.

In December 2010, both Gatwick and Heathrow were severely criticised for the chaos in the aftermath of heavy snowfall, which left thousands of people stranded with delays and cancellations beyond Christmas Day. Siim Kallas, the EU’s transport chief and vice-president of the European Commission, was furious. ‘I am extremely concerned about the level of disruption to travel across Europe caused by severe snow. It is unacceptable and should not happen again,’ he said. ‘Airports must get serious about planning for this kind of severe weather conditions’.

It looks like Gatwick, unlike Heathrow, got serious. Might this have something to do with ownership? And with Margaret Thatcher’s sorry politics to privatise public bodies without creating a proper market? In the 1980s, the British Airport Authority that operated seven airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen) was privatised, turning it into a private company with an unhealthy market dominance around London and in Scotland.

It was only in 2009, following a report by the Competition Commission, that BAA sold Gatwick Airport to GIP, the owner of London City Airport. Competition was created. And whereas Gatwick has since made clear improvements in preventing disruptions because of snow, Heathrow has only come up with a major cancellation plan so that passengers can experience the flight disruption at home rather than at the airport. Either Heathrow has not invested in proper equipment as it promised it would do, or it bought the equipment but it is unable to operate it in a proper way.

After the Christmas 2010 disaster, the European Commission threatened to impose minimum service requirements unless airports could prove that planning and investment is in place to deal with snow. Heathrow’s cancellation plan is unlikely to convince the European Commission. 

Indeed, what is the point of having European air passenger rights, imposing obligations on airlines, if the EU’s busiest airport can get away with cancelling 50% of the flights, disrupting the travel plans of 100,000 passengers without there being extraordinary circumstances? In such a case airlines potentially would have to pay passengers 30 to 40 million euros in compensation. Perhaps there is an idea for Commissioner Kallas on top of his recent proposal on groundhandling services at EU airports: granting passengers not only rights against airlines but also against airports.

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand
when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

Ryanair’s excessive fee to change name on ticket

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand
when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

Ryanair is well known for punishing its passengers for their human errors. So it’s not the best airline for absent-minded professors and other people with reading and spelling difficulties. If you misspell your name on your booking, Ryanair will charge you 160 euro to correct it.

Fortunately, litigation prone Germans regularly help to make the world a better place. This time an annoyed German passenger lodged a claim against Ryanair for having to pay such an excessive fee. And he won. The court ruled that Ryanair must reimburse the passenger.

Yes Mr O’Leary, I see your hand up. What would you like to say?

PEOPLE SAY THE PASSENGER IS ALWAYS RIGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT - THEY’RE ****ING NOT. SOMETIMES THEY ARE WRONG AND THEY NEED TO BE TOLD SO. AND OTHER PASSENGERS ARE NOT GOING TO GET A REIMBURSEMENT SO **** OFF.

  

Thank you Mr O’Leary, that’s enough ****’s for today.

The case was about Mr Heinz Peters, an office manager at a notary firm in the German village of Nettetal. His firm had organised an outing and they were booked on a Ryanair flight to Venice. At Weeze airport, Ryanair refused to check him in. The problem? A classic one: the name on his ticket was Heinz but the name in his passport Heinrich.

The flight was booked on Ryanair’s website by one of the firm’s PA’s. And despite the fact that the website explicitly stated that the name of the passenger must be the same as the name in the passport, the young lady just couldn’t imagine that her colleague’s official name was Heinrich. She considered him every bit a Heinz.

At check-in Ryanair showed excellent customer service by offering to change Heinz’s name on the ticket. Heinz was delighted until he was told that Ryanair would like to pocket 150 euro for this service (Heinz was lucky, currently it’s € 160).

Back from the Venice trip Heinz sued Ryanair before the local court. ‘A 150 Euro changing fee is excessive for a 10 euro ticket’, Heinz argued. Before the case was heard, Ryanair acknowledged the claim. The court then ruled that Ryanair was obliged to reimburse Heinz. Not on the basis of substantive law but on the basis of Ryanair’s acknowledgement of the claim.

Ryanair said that the problem had been entirely Heinz’ fault and reimbursement was a sign of the airline’s good will. The high fee served to prevent the resale of cheap tickets. The latter might be a defendable policy in general but in Heinz’ case there was no reason to assume that he abused the system. He, rather the young lady, had just made an error when booking the ticket.

Obviously, Ryanair wanted to prevent a substantive court decision. And they were right because it is beyond doubt that in a case like this the court would have declared Ryanair’s contract term invalid. Under European law (Article 3, Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts) a contract term is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer. The annex to the Directive says that a term may be regarded as unfair when it requires a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation (sub e).

Particularly when a passenger mistakenly registers under an incorrect first name or makes a small error in his surname a € 160 is excessive and therefore invalid. This goes for every ticket, regardless of whether it is sold for € 10 or for € 1000. If the contract term is invalid it is not converted into a valid one so in that case the airline is not entitled to charge the passenger anything. It goes without saying that an airline is entitled to charge a reasonable fee for changing the name on the ticket but it is likely that this cannot be more than around € 25.

------ Your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them ------

Air Passenger Rights Book at <Amazon> and UK book shops
Air Passenger Rights App at the <App Store>
<Passagiersgids> bij ANWB en boekhandels in Nederland en Vlaanderen

Good tidings: airline bites the dust before Court of Appeal Amsterdam

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand
when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

On 6 December 2011, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal confirmed that Sturgeon is good law. It considered that there was no reason to ask the ECJ preliminary questions or to stay the proceedings and it awarded the passengers’ claim for compensation.

It did so in a case brought by China Southern Airways against EUclaim, the Dutch-based company that handles claims based on EU Regulation 261/2004 on Air Passenger Rights.

The case was about a couple and their son who had booked a flight Amsterdam-Beijing from tour operator Kuoni. The flight was to be carried out by China Southern Airlines. However, a technical problem with the aircraft caused the family to arrive in Beijing with a delay of over 24 hours. The three passengers transferred their claim of € 600 compensation per person to EUclaim on a no cure no pay basis.

In July 2010, the Dutch first instance judge considered that the ECJ’s Sturgeon decision is valid and it awarded the claim for compensation. The airline lodged an appeal with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal where it sang the chorus most airlines have been singing over the past two years. So here we go again: the airline argued that the ECJ’s Sturgeon decision is invalid, that the Court of Appeal should ask the ECJ preliminary questions and if it was not prepared to do so stay the proceedings until the ECJ has answered the pending preliminary questions regarding Sturgeon.

Like virtually all Dutch first instance judges, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal was not impressed by the airline’s arguments. It considered that the ECJ’s case law has been consistent from IATA to Sturgeon and that there are no indications that the ECJ will change its mind. It went on to refute the airline’s point of view with the same arguments I set out in my article in Air & Space Law. It did not come as a surprise that the Court concluded it saw no reason to ask the ECJ preliminary questions. 

The decision is a major boost for passengers and for claim handler EUclaim who are now able to bring thousands of claims against the airlines, backed by this Court of Appeal decision. 

At the same time, the decision is another blow for the airlines. This is the first time a Dutch Court of Appeal decides a Sturgeon case as a matter of principle and considers Sturgeon valid. The airlines are becoming more and more desperate and indeed China Southern Airlines has decided to bring the case before the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). The Supreme Court will deal with this appeal, together with a number of similar appeals, in the spring of 2012. This may sound like a cliffhanger, but even the airlines know that it is not. Story to be predictably continued.

------ Your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them ------

Air Passenger Rights (Book) at <Amazon> and UK book shops
Air Passenger Rights (App) at the <App Store> 
<Passagiersgids> bij ANWB en boekhandels in Nederland en Vlaanderen

European Commission updates airlines blacklist

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand

when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

This week, the European Commission published its updated black list of carriers that are banned from flying to and from an EU airport.

When you have booked a European flight (Air Passenger Rights, p. 13) and your carrier appears to be on the black list, you find your rights in Air Passenger Rights, p. 105.

If an airline is not on the list, this does not necessarily mean that it meets the applicable safety standards.

Also note that passengers are not banned from flying with airlines that are on the list.

See for the complete list:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air-ban/doc/list_en.pdf.

Order the Air Passenger Rights Book

Or download the Air Passenger Rights App

Make sure you have your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them

The European Court on hotels, meals, and taxi costs (Rodriguez II)

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand

when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

In my previous blog post (21 October 2011), I discussed the first part of the European Court’s decision in Rodriguez. In the second part the Court confirmed the airline’s duty to reimburse passengers for the costs of meals, hotels, and taxis.

It follows from the first part of the Court’s decision that the Air France flight from Paris to Vigo was cancelled. Something no one doubted apart from Air France and some French and British government officials in their pleadings before the European Court.

Fixed compensation

In case of cancellation a passenger is entitled to a fixed amount of compensation (€ 250 for this flight of under 1.500 km), unless the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances (Air Passenger Rights, p. 35-37). Whether this was the case with respect to the Air France flight is for the referring Spanish court to decide.

Assistance: meals and hotel

In case of cancellation, a passenger is always entitled to assistance, such as meals and hotel accommodation, regardless of the reason for the cancellation. Air France breached its obligations under the Regulation by failing to provide passengers with meals and hotel accommodation. When passengers later asked Air France to reimburse them for the costs they had incurred, the airline refused to do so. In Rodriguez, the Court confirmed that Air France was wrong. If the airline fails to provide assistance, it must compensate passengers for the costs they incurred for hotel and meals (Air Passenger Rights, p. 33). If the passenger is also entitled to fixed compensation (here: € 250), the reimbursement comes on top of this.

Re-routing and taxi costs

In case of cancellation a passenger is always entitled to either a re-routing or a refund. If the passenger is re-routed to a different airport, he is also entitled to a free transfer to the original destination (Air Passenger Rights, p. 30-32). In the Air France case, three passengers were rerouted to Oporto and had to take a cab to Vigo (90 miles). The airline refused to pay for the costs of the cab (€ 170). In Rodriguez, the Court confirmed that Air France was wrong: it must reimburse passengers for these costs. If the passenger is also entitled to fixed compensation (€ 250), the reimbursement comes on top of this.

Compensation for spending the night at the airport

If a passenger is not offered hotel accommodation and he is not able to find it himself, he has no choice but to spend the night on a cold airport floor. This experience comes for free so he has no expenses to claim from the airline. In such a situation only the passenger feels the pain (non-material damage), not the airline.

The problem is that the Regulation does not provide for a remedy for this airline’s breach of European law. However, the Court confirmed that the passenger can claim compensation on the basis of his national law or the Montreal Convention (see the European Court in Walz). Not all national laws provide for compensation for non-material damage. But in such a case it may very well be that European law requires the national law to be interpreted in such a way that it provides a real and effective remedy (compensation for the passenger) for the airline’s breach of European law.

Alternatively, in the forthcoming review of the European Regulation, the European Commission could consider proposing a right of passengers to claim € 200 compensation for each night the airline fails to provide hotel accommodation to encourage airlines to respect the passengers’ right to assistance.

Article 12 European Regulation

The Court also explained Article 12, one of the more opaque provisions of the Regulation. It runs as follows: ‘This Regulation shall apply without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation. The compensation granted under this Regulation may be deducted from such compensation.’

The Court said that Article 12 allows the national court to order an airline to pay a passenger compensation for breach of contract on another legal basis than the Regulation. This ‘other legal basis’ may be the Montreal Convention or national law. Compensation on the basis of the Regulation may be deducted from compensation on the basis of Montreal or national law.

What does this mean in practice? Claims for reimbursement of costs a passengers makes for hotels, meals, and taxis (Article 8 and 9 Regulation) always come on top of the fixed compensation (Article 7 Regulation). Claims for other damage based on Montreal or national may (not: must) be set off with the fixed compensation.

And what about the claim for spending the night at the airport? This would be a claim under Montreal or under national law and such a claim may be set off with the fixed compensation of the Regulation. However, it is unlikely the courts will do this because this claim is so strongly related to the breach of Article 8 of the Regulation that offsetting would be unreasonable.

>>><<< 

Make sure you have your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them

Order the Air Passenger Rights Book

Or download the Air Passenger Rights App

>>><<< 

The European Court on: ‘When is a flight cancelled?’ (Rodriguez I)

Your Air Passenger Rights at hand

when you need them

Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App
Passagiersgids

In my first posts on this blog, I discussed the Advocate General Sharpston’s Opinion in the Rodriguez case (29 June, 1, 3, and 8 July). On 13 October 2011, the European Court followed her Opinion, thus further clarifying and strengthening the rights of air passengers. The Court's decision concerns two topics: cancellation (this post) and compensation (next post).

The case was about an Air France flight from Paris to Vigo (Spain) that took off as planned, but returned to Paris a short time later due to a technical problem. The plane did not proceed any further and all passengers were rebooked onto alternative flights, most on flights that only departed the following day. Air France did not offer the passengers meals or hotel accommodation. Some of the passengers were rebooked on a flight to Oporto and had to take a cab to Vigo (90 miles). The airline refused to pay for the costs of the cab (€ 170, £150).

Passenger: My flight was cancelled and I need a hotel room for me and my two children.

Air France: Je suis désolé, but your flight was not cancelled.

P: Excusez-moi? Our flight returned to the airport and here we are again!

AF: This doesn’t mean your flight was cancelled.

P: Why not?

AF: Because the flight took off.

P: Yes, but we're back and didn’t get to our destination.

AF: Madame, the European Regulation only requires us to get you in the air, not to get you to your destination. And, à propos, did we ever say the flight was cancelled?

P: But if it wasn’t cancelled, then what the hell was it?

AF: I don’t know. That’s not my business. My business is to reject passenger claims.

P: So you don’t offer us accommodation for the night?

AF: Of course I do. This wonderful airport is all yours so please find yourself a nice spot on the floor. I’m sure your children will love it.

In short, Air France argued that a flight could only be cancelled if it did not take off at all. As the flight did take off, the airline said it was not obliged to assist or compensate the passengers under the European Regulation.

In the European Court, it was not Air France that argued its case because it was late with submitting its observations. Their interests were duly represented by ... the French and British governments. In the European Court, governments often act as lobbyists for their national airlines, identifying them with their ‘national interests’, and consequently considering consumer rights as not being in the national interest.

Not surprisingly, the European Court wiped the floor with the airline’s/governments’ arguments. It said that a flight is not only cancelled if the aircraft fails to take off at all, but also if the aircraft takes off but, for whatever reason, returns to the airport of departure where the passengers are transferred onto other flights.

How did the Court reach its conclusion? The Regulation defines a cancellation as ‘the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved’. This definition begs the question what the term ‘flight’ means. When can you speak about the non-operation of a flight?

The Court answered this question in two steps. First, it repeated that a flight consists of air transport performed by an airline that fixes its itinerary (Emirates Airlines, paragraph 40). Second, it recalled that the itinerary is an essential element of the flight, as the flight is operated in accordance with the carrier’s pre‐arranged planning (Sturgeon, paragraph 30).

The Court then considered (par. 28) that ‘itinerary’ means: the journey to be made by aircraft from the airport of departure to the airport of arrival according to a fixed schedule. So, for a flight to be operated the aircraft must have left in accordance with the scheduled itinerary and have reached its destination as appearing in the itinerary. If the latter is not the case, the flight cannot be considered as having been operated. A decision of the airline to cancel the flight is not necessary. For a flight to be cancelled, it is sufficient that the passenger’s original flight planning has been abandoned.

This implies that the focus must be on the predicament of the individual passenger, not on the predicament of the aircraft (oops, not exactly the way many airlines tend to think). 

The Court’s decision also implies that the passengers’ flight was cancelled so they were entitled to meals and a hotel, regardless of the reason for the cancellation (Air Passenger Rights, p. 33).

The reason for the cancellation is only relevant to determine a passenger’s right to compensation (€ 250 for this short haul flight). A passenger is not entitled to compensation if the airline proves that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances (Air Passenger Rights, p. 35-37). It is now for the referring Spanish court to decide on the facts whether this was the case for the cancelled Air France flight to Vigo.

Make sure you have your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them

Order the Air Passenger Rights Book

Or download the Air Passenger Rights App