ARTICLE AD BOX
Flight cancellations, long delays and overbooking resulting in passengers being denied boarding: for decades, airlines could cause all kinds of problems without regard for travellers. In many parts of the world, they still can.
But in 2004 the European Union announced Regulation 261 – which transformed air passengers’ rights rules across Europe. It stipulated a duty of care for disrupted travellers and provided cash compensation for short-notice cancellations and overbooking.
Three things happened over the following years:
- A series of increasingly eccentric European Court of Justice rulings distorted the original intentions of the rules and made impossible demands of Airlines
- Claims firms sprang up to extract cash from carriers for delayed flights
- Airlines realised they could ignore many of the rules, particularly on passenger care, with impunity
The EU is now in the process of revising the regulation. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union have agreed fresh proposals that try to clear up some of the many anomalies in the law. But the proposals could yet be amended, and there is no clear indication when they will take effect.
These are the key questions and answers.
In the beginning …
The EU said airlines must improve their attitude to passengers. Cancellations, delays and overbooking are common. Brussels decreed that airlines making short-notice cancellations should pay compensation – unless “extraordinary circumstances” were responsible. The amount: between €250 and €600, depending on the length of the flight. The same applied to airlines denying boarding to passengers because they had sold too many tickets.
Cash payouts comprise one half of the rules. The other half is to do with passenger care in the event of disruption – requiring meals and, if necessary, accommodation to be provided until the journey begins. Airlines must get the traveller to their destination as soon as possible, including on rival carriers if need be.
What happened next?
Many airlines ignored at least some of the rules, for example:
- Neglecting the first rule of the rights register, which is: tell people their rights
- Insisting passengers could only be rebooked on the carrier’s own services
- Not providing accommodation for passengers stranded at airports
At the same time, an industry of claims handlers sprang up – fighting for compensation in return for about one-third of the payout.
A series of test cases came up with some surprising conclusions, such as that a three-hour delay constitutes the same degree of harm to a passenger as a cancellation, and therefore deserves identical compensation if the airline is responsible.
This led to all kinds of passenger-unfriendly outcomes, such as airlines shuffling fleets to delay multiple flights by less than three hours rather than having one flight
Another case concluded that if a pilot tragically died in service and a flight was delayed or cancelled, the carrier should pay compensation for failing to have spare crew everywhere it flew.
What is proposed?
Compensation
The EU accepts that initial compensation rates were ridiculously high. Inflation has halved their value in the past two decades, but there is no attempt to keep up with general price rises. In fact, payouts will be cut for many passengers – except for those on the shortest flights.
- Flights up to 1,500km: Now €250, future €300
- Flights 1,500-3,500km: Now €400, future €300
- Flights over 3,500km: Now €600, future €500
The length of the delay will also rise before a pay-out is made:
- Flights up to 3,500km: now three hours, future four hours
- Flights over 3,500km: now four hours (with half-compensation after three hours), future six hours
In a bid to increase the proportion of passengers claiming compensation, airlines must “provide the passenger with a pre-filled form” to help them get the payout.
Airlines’ excuses
“Extraordinary circumstances” are excuses that allow airlines to dodge compensation payouts, though not the duty of care. They will be more clearly specified so that:
- Airlines will no longer be expected to have pilots and cabin crew stationed at all their destinations in case a crew member falls ill or dies
- Strikes among airline staff in protest against government decisions (eg on pensions or retirement age) no longer require compensation to be paid
Other key changes
The duty of care will be limited to three nights accommodation; cases that are longer than this are rare.
No-show outbound should not lead to cancellation of whole itinerary – eg Air France passenger from Manchester to Paris who doesn’t take the first leg should still be able to fly back.
Airlines can claim redress for financial damage from third parties that trigger a duty of care – eg the Heathrow fire, which cost carriers up to £100 million.
Greenland swerves compensation payouts due to “particularly harsh meteorological conditions, and is characterised by very low population density and the remoteness of its populated places”.
Will the UK follow suit?
It will have to, or there will be some irrational outcomes – for example on an Amsterdam-London flight operated by an EU-registered aircraft, the rules would be different from a UK aircraft. Since easyJet has both kinds of planes, and deploys them on this route, the entitlement to compensation could hinge on the registration – causing yet more passenger confusion.
English (US) ·