1 / 12

We support this revision of Reg. 261 where

Revision of the Air Passenger Rights legislation Industry views Anca Apahidean – Area Manager Eastern Europe Gdansk, 15 November, 2013.

ipo
Download Presentation

We support this revision of Reg. 261 where

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revision of the Air Passenger Rights legislationIndustry viewsAnca Apahidean – Area Manager Eastern EuropeGdansk, 15 November, 2013

  2. About usThe International Air Transport Association (IATA) is the trade association for the world’s airlines, representing some 240 airlines or 84% of total air traffic.Common position together with AEA, ELFAA, ERA, IACA.

  3. We support arevision of Reg. 261 We support this revision of Reg. 261 where • it clarifies • it improves application • it gives real additional rights

  4. Few examples: Positive elements – real additional passenger rights • Care is provided after 2 hours instead of 2/3/4 hours depending on the length of the flight (Art.6.1) • Better and more timely information to be provided to passengers (Art.14) • Possibility to correct a spelling mistake (Art.4.5)

  5. We support this revision of Reg. 261 where • it re-balances passenger rights with airline obligations

  6. Few examplesPositive elements – a balanced approach • “Trigger” points introduced for length of delay - even if they should be aligned with the trigger points related to the level of the compensation in Art.7 (Art.6) • five hours for all intra EU flights and other flights of less than 3500km • nine hours for flights between 3500 and 6000kms • twelve hours for longer flights. • Time limitation for assistance when event due to extraordinary circumstances (Art.9.2)

  7. We do not support this revision of Reg. 261 where • it creates “false” passenger rights

  8. Few examplesElements with negative impacts on passengers (1) • Jeopardizing safety - intrusion into safety related operational decisions • Diversions are not cancellations (Art.2 l) • Documentedtechnicalproblems are extraordinarycircumstances (annex) • Limiting pricing and contractual freedoms and increasing fares • Partial ban of no-show policy (Art.4.4) will lead to higher prices, encourage overbooking and have a negative impact on the environmental performance of airlines

  9. Elements with negative impacts on passengers (2) • Jeopardizing interlining and regional connectivity • Definition of a delay at final destination and notion of “journey”: unintended consequences • Missed connection (Art.6a) • Unfair treatment of carriers • Contradiction with industry practices • Connecting flights with transfers outside of the EU • Extension of scope / inapplicability

  10. The purpose of the no-show policy • Pricing is based on “directional imbalances” and market demand • The No show policy is a pro-consumer practice to ensure low prices! = more demand in summer to visit Marseille than Brussels: the price of the ticket for this destination is higher BRU MRS = less demand in summer to visit Brussels than Marseille: the price of the ticket for this destination is lower MRS BRU = more demand in summer to visit Marseille than Brussels: the price of this return journey is higher BRU MRS BRU = less demand in summer to visit Brussels than Marseille: the price of this return journey is lower (may be lower than one way BRU-MRS) MRS BRU MRS

  11. Considerations on delays • European Commission • The explanatory memorandum to the original proposal shows that the EC’s intention was not to apply a dissuasive compensation for delays (it distinguished between denied boarding/cancellation on the one hand and delay on the other on the basis that the carrier is always responsible for the former and not always for the latter) • Council • The observations of the Council in the TUI/easyJet/BA/IATA CJEU (challenge to Sturgeon) go as far as saying that it is very doubtful that they would ever have accepted a regulation that imposes compensations for delays. • European Parliament • The observations of the EP in the TUI/easyJet/BA/IATA CJEU case (challenge to Sturgeon) show that cancellations and delays are not to be treated in a similar way because they are completely different situations /  loss of time is not what compensation is for since under a cancellation, carriers can offer an earlier re-routing flight/ delays can be created in the interest of passengers and carriers should therefore not be penalized for them.

  12. Thank You

More Related