European Parliament Exchange of Views on Air Passenger Rights Simon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

European Parliament Exchange of Views on Air Passenger Rights

Simon McNamara European Regions Airline Association

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

About ERA

• 51 airline members
• 1.6 million flights per year
• 70.6 million passengers per year
• 72 minute average sector time
• 72 seat average seating capacity

Focused on intra-European, short haul flights by narrow body and regional aircraft

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Aegean Airlines Suckling Airways Aer Arann Air Alps Aviation Air Contractors Ireland Air Iceland Airlinair Air Urga Blue Islands Blue 1 Binter Canarias Belle Air Aurigny Air Services Air Nostrum Sky Work Airlines Eastern Airways Darwin Airlines Danish Air Transport CityJet Cimber Carpatair Brit Air BMI Regional Malmo Aviation Luxair KLM Cityhopper Golden Air Eurolot Estonian Air Sky Express Sata Air Acores Regional PGA Portugalia Olympic Air Wideroe West Air Sweden Welcome Air Amapola Flyg Astra Airlines Atlantic Airways Avanti Air Avion Express Belavia Denim Air ACMI DOT Farnair Switzerland Mistral Air Montenegro Airlines Titan Airways Trade Air

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

EU261 as it stands now

We welcome the opportunity to improve EU261 where:

• It provides greater clarity
• It improves the fair application of the Regulation
• It provides real additional rights
• It re-balances passenger rights with airline
• bligations

Some parts of the proposal by the Commission achieve this, others do not…

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Pros and Cons…

This presentation will focus on three issues of concern for ERA members:

 Liability for compensation in the event of long arrival (at final destination) delays in the case of connecting flights (Article 6a)  Delay at final destination (Article 6, par. 2)  Diversions considered as cancellations (Article 2l)

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

• The “Hub &

Spoke” concept is still a major part of connecting Europe’s regions with the world

Connecting flights matter..

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Missed connecting flights Case study

Faroe Islands – Copenhagen – Tokyo

• First Leg: a regional airline
• Second Leg: a network airline
• A small delay (45 mins) on leg 1 causes a

missed connection in Copenhagen

• Copenhagen-Tokyo: passenger is re-routed on

the next day’s flight and reaches Tokyo with a 24hour delay

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Missed connecting flights (the situation today)

Faroe Islands – Copenhagen – Tokyo Passenger is already protected by:

• 1999 Montreal Convention: recovery in case of damages

to passengers and luggage caused by the delay in the air carriage

• Multilateral Interline Traffic Agreements (MITA): over 350

worldwide IATA and non-IATA airlines’ network covered:

 First leg operator: responsible for re-routing, care/assistance at transit

• MITA: internationally well-established agreements; care

and assistance is what disrupted passengers need An unhappy passenger? YES An abandoned passenger? NO

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Missed connecting flights (proposed art.6a)

Faroe Islands – Copenhagen - Tokyo

Compensation due by first leg operator (regional):

• Disproportionate: based on “Faroe-Tokyo” distance
• Inconsistent: punitive although connecting delay is

below the “long delay” threshold level normally triggering compensation

• Disincentive to interlining agreements (MITA):

 Hub & Spoke principle damage  European Regions potentially isolated from the hubs and therefore from the world  Multiple luggage check-ins and tickets An unhappy passenger? YES An abandoned passenger? YES

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Delay at final destination (art. 6, par. 2)

London‐Dubai‐Bangkok:

• First leg: an EU air carrier arrives on time
• Second leg: a non‐EU air carrier and arrives late

For compensation purposes, (long) delay is now considered at final destination Who pays?

• Paradox 1: First carrier has to pay compensation

although it provides a service with no delay? Unfair

• Paradox 2: Second carrier has to pay compensation

although flight out of the scope of the Regulation? Unenforceable

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

Flight diversions as cancellation (art. 2, letter l)

“…A flight where the aircraft took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to land at an airport

• ther than the airport of destination or to return to the

airport of departure, shall also be considered a cancelled flight”.

• Flight safety is and must always be the number one

priority for air operators

• Airlines will always make prudent decisions to divert

when necessary, always for flight safety reasons

• Does this amendment potentially pose a threat to

safety by providing a disincentive to divert?? Passenger safety must always come first

www.eraa.org twitter.com/eraaorg

• Article 6a (missed connecting flights):

 passengers’ protection (MITA) poorer;  EU regions connectivity to the hubs reduced;  inconvenience to passengers increased (multiple luggage check-in, multiple tickets for one journey)  Inconsistent with long-established airlines cooperation  Inconvenience at airports: increased transit of passengers

• Article 6, par. 2 (long delay at final destination)

 May impose compensation despite punctuality;  May be unenforceable;

• Article 2l (flight diversions):

 No compromise on safety is acceptable  No challenge to a captain’s decision taken exclusively on safety grounds

Summary