Athens Internatinal Airprt Airprt Terminal Operatr Liability Stamatis Varsams WALA - IX Cnference January 19, 2017
1. Intrductin - Airprt terminal peratr as an agent f the carrier (Vumbaca V. Terminal One Grup Assciatin LP, 2012) case law develpment n the ntin f agent f the carrier under the Warsaw and the Mntreal Cnventin facts f the Vumbaca case and the reasning f the curt assessment f the Vumbaca reasning cnclusins. -2-
2. The case law In the absence f any definitin f the term Agent under any f the Cnventins (Warsaw/Mntreal) Curts had t decide whether the term carrier (als nt defined) was limited t the crprate entity r was intended t embrace the grup f cmmunity f persns actually perfrming the crprate entity s (i.e. the airline) functin. (Reed V. Wiser, 1977). -3-
Case law Chutter V. KLM and Allied Aviatin Service Internatinal Crpratin (1955) Agency relatinship if a part f the cntract is fulfilled by anther entity Reed V. Wiser (1977) Airline emplyee can invke the liability limitatins Julius Yung Jewelry Manufacturing C V. Delta Air Lines & Allied Aviatin Service Cmpany (1979) Furtherance f the cntract f carriage -4-
Case law Baker V. Lansdell Prtective Agency, (1984) furtherance f the cntract f carriage BA under statutry bligatin t perfrm security checks Jhnsn V. Allied Eastern States Maintenance (1985) An agent perfrms functins within the scpe f the Cnventin that the carrier wuld be bund t perfrm Lckerbie In Re Air Disaster (1991) Same reasning as in Baker case Kabbani V. Internatinal Ttal Services (1992) Same reasning as in Baker case -5-
Case law Waxman V. CIS Mexicana De Aviacin & Signature Flight Supprt Crpratin (1998) Imprtant is the nature f the activity and nt the cntractual relatinship Alleyn V. Prt Authrity f New Yrk et al (1999) Nt flight related services are nt in furtherance f the cntract f carriage Daz V. Glbe Airprt Security Services (2002) Dual agent nt furtherance f the cntract f carriage-basic airprt services -6-
3. The Vumbaca case (Vumbaca V. Terminal One Grup Assciatin, 2012) - Facts f the case: On 26 December 2010, JFK Internatinal Airprt and due t heavy snw fall shut dwn its peratins. When after almst ne day it resumed peratins, delays were ccurred. Terminal 1 peratr, TOGA - a cnsrtium f Terminal One Management Inc, Air France, Japan Airlines, Krean Airlines and Lufthansa - which leased Terminal 1 f JFK culd nt prperly execute the snw plan due t shrtage f grund handling persnnel (due t the adverse weather cnditins). -7-
TOGA is respnsible fr managing the gates by which passengers mved between the gates and the aircraft. TOGA is als respnsible fr chsing the grund handler prvider t mve planes t and frm the gates Thus, and since the snw culd nt be cleared and the aircraft t be guided t and frm the gates, sme flights remained at tarmac fr many hurs. Ms. Vumbaca an Alitalia passenger had t wait fr almst five and a half hurs n tarmac befre its flight culd be mved t a gate and t disembark its passengers. Alitalia leased space by TOGA and bth TOGA and ASIG the grund-handler assigned by TOGA- were cntractual indemnified by Alitalia fr their services. -8-
- The Judgment The curt held: "Under the undisputed facts, TOGA is an agent f the air carriers it serves and thus cvered by the Cnventin. Althugh TOGA is a terminal peratr, nt an internatinal air carrier, its peratins are vital parts f Alitalia's carriage - particularly thse services that are necessary t get planes t and frm the gates. While TOGA prvided assistance t several air carriers, all the flights it served were internatinal. (Cmpare Daz v. Glbe Airprt Sec. Servs., 295 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.2002) (hlding that defendant security cmpany was nt an agent f an air carrier when the security checkpint it perated served three different airlines; bth dmestic and internatinal passengers fr all three airlines had t pass thrugh the security checkpint, as did nnpassengers wh merely wanted t access the gates r retail establishments beynd the checkpint; and [t]he services being rendered... were nt in furtherance f the cntract f carriage f an internatinal flight, but were basic airprt security services required at all airprts by dmestic federal law (emphasis added) [.])That the services prvided t Alitalia were a necessary part f the air carrier's relatinship with its passengers is demnstrated by the fact that bth TOGA and ASIG were cntractually indemnified by Alitalia fr their services. -9-
- Assessment The Curt in reaching t this cnclusin relied: On previus case law, namely: In Re Air Disaster in Lckerbie, Waxman V. CIS Mexicana De Aviacin & Signature Flight Supprt Crpratin, Chutter V. KLM and Allied Aviatin Service Internatinal Crpratin, Jhnsn V. Allied Eastern States Maintenance and surprisingly Daz V. Glbe Airprt Security Services. On the failure f the Airprt Operatr t carry ut thse services necessary (snw cleaning) t get the planes t and frm gates. On the fact that bth TOGA and ASIG were cntractually indemnified by Alitalia. -10-
Hwever: The case law cited by the Curt may lead t different cnsideratins: In Air Disaster in Lckerbie exclusive prvisin f securities services frm a subsidiary f the air carrier Waxman case nature f the activity addressed directly t the passenger Jhnsn & Chutter cases cncerned activities that were directly related t the aircraft and/r t the passengers and which the carrier wuld be bund t perfrm Daz case dual agent - the nature f the activity irrespective f destinatin Snw remval basic airprt functin Annex 14 f ICAO and ICAO Airprt Services Manual (Dc 9137) that aims t maintaining the surface f the aprn apprpriate fr all users irrespective f the destinatin.- Article 37 par. 2 f the CC. Cntractual indemnificatin f Alitalia t TOGA r t ASIG insufficient t render the later agents f Alitalia. -11-
Cnclusin There t be cnsiderable authrity that: furtherance f the cntract f carriage means activity which therwise wuld be undertaken by the carrier. Indeed, in all cases the service was indispensable part f the jurney and it was addressed specifically t the airline cncerned r t its passengers. Services r activities which are nt flight related, (Alleyn V. Prt Authrity f New Yrk), r prvisin f basic airprt services (as the security services in Daz V. Clbe security services) cannt be deemed as part f the cntract f carriage. The cntractual arrangements regulating the relatinship between an airprt and a carrier are nt per se a decisive factr (Waxman) but rather the nature f the activity. -12-
Grund handling services are addressed directly t the aircraft, its carg, the passengers r their baggage and therefre are activities which the carrier wuld have therwise t perfrm. Cnsequently and irrespective if the handling agent is the airprt itself r its subsidiary r any ther entity, there is strng line f case law as frm 1955 (Chutter V. KLM) that grund handlers are agents f the carrier Julius Yung Jewelry Manufacturing C V. Delta Air Lines & Allied Aviatin Service Cmpany, Waxman V. CIS Mexicana De Aviacin & Signature Flight Supprt Crpratin). Cnversely when an airprt prvides basic airprt services in rder t keep the infrastructure in accrdance with ICAO r EASA standards (like snw remval r security services) it cannt be cnsidered as an agent t the carrier. -13-
Thank yu! -14-