European Parliament Exchange of Views on Air Passenger Rights

Transcription

1 European Parliament Exchange of Views on Air Passenger Rights Simon McNamara European Regions Airline Association

2 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

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

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

5 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)

6 Connecting flights matter.. The Hub & Spoke concept is still a major part of connecting Europe s regions with the world

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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 other 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

12 Summary 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