European Union Passenger Rights

[Palmetto Lady]

There was an interesting article in Sunday's New York Times Travel Section regarding Law EU 261, in effect since 261. It applies to any EU airline flying to or from a member state, but it also applies to ALL flights departing from the EU regardless of the passenger's nationality!

"When a flight is cancelled, regardless of cause, a passenger can choose to get a refund for the unused portion of the ticket or get rerouted on another flight. If this results in an overnight stay, the airline has to pay for a hotel, meals and transportion between the hotel and the airport, EVEN IF THE CANCELLATION IS DUE TO WEATHER OR ANY OTHER FACTOR OUTSIDE THE AIRLINE'S CONTROL." Many European airlines have instructions on their websites on how to make claims.

The author of the article says that none of the American carriers would say how to go about filing a claim. "Seeking compensation is especially challenging for passengers flying non-EU airlines since there is no enforcements agencies outside the EU, including in the United States, although travelers can also try contacting the enforcement group in the country where the incident happened."

[Globaliser]

There was an interesting article in Sunday's New York Times Travel Section regarding Law EU 261, in effect since 261. It applies to any EU airline flying to or from a member state, but it also applies to ALL flights departing from the EU regardless of the passenger's nationality!

If anyone needs it, it's actually called Regulation 261/2004.

 

You can easily get a PDF copy of the entire Regulation here. I always have a copy in my carry-on (right next to the copy of my travel insurance policy), although I'm lucky never to have had to resort to it in the 5½ years that it's been in force.

 

I think that the article would have been better written if the second part of the sentence about applicability had made clear that it applies to all flights departing from the EU, regardless of the airline's nationality. Obviously, every passenger on any flight to which the law applies will benefit irrespective of the passenger's nationality; it would be absurd if a German passenger got compensation but the Brazilian passenger sitting next to him didn't qualify on the ground of nationality.

Many European airlines have instructions on their websites on how to make claims.

 

The author of the article says that none of the American carriers would say how to go about filing a claim. "Seeking compensation is especially challenging for passengers flying non-EU airlines since there is no enforcements agencies outside the EU, including in the United States, although travelers can also try contacting the enforcement group in the country where the incident happened."

The Regulation itself requires that airlines must tell their passengers how to make claims. If there's an airline operating to the EU that fails to do this, I'm sure that there must be enforcement mechanisms at the EU ports to which it operates. It would certainly be worthy of a separate complaint, in addition to the entitlement to compensation.

[Palmetto Lady]

Thank you Globalizer for making the pdf file of EU 261 available. In my report on the article in the NY Times, I intended to say that the act became effective in 2005. I proof read my comments after I have written them, but sometimes I don't see my error until I come back later on. Lately, it seems at times like my hands don't translate what is in my head.

[6rugrats]

I read other boards where this is discussed, but have yet to read of anyone successfully using this to get money from an American carrier. It would be interesting to see if there were any.

[spongerob]

I also greatly appreciate the posting. It clears some things up because it appears that misinformation has been posted on some of the other boards.

 

Air carriers should compensate passengers if they

fail to do this, except when the cancellation occurs in

extraordinary circumstances which could not have been

avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

 

I'm referring to the Icelandic volcano incident and subsequent lawsuits. The key point is that the highlighted section allows reasonable limits on the scope of the regulations. The message we are getting on the cruise line boards is that if air is booked in conjunction with a cruise and an "extraordinary circumstance" occurs, the cruise line is then responsible for the Right to Care and Right to Compensation sections listed in the regulation.

 

Is this true, do Tour Organizers who book packages that include air travel shoulder the burden regardless of the circumstances, or is there a similar provision for incidents like closure of airspace that occurred as a result of the volcanic eruption with regards to tour operators and organizers?

[Globaliser]

I'm referring to the Icelandic volcano incident and subsequent lawsuits. The key point is that the highlighted section allows reasonable limits on the scope of the regulations. The message we are getting on the cruise line boards is that if air is booked in conjunction with a cruise and an "extraordinary circumstance" occurs, the cruise line is then responsible for the Right to Care and Right to Compensation sections listed in the regulation.

 

Is this true, do Tour Organizers who book packages that include air travel shoulder the burden regardless of the circumstances, or is there a similar provision for incidents like closure of airspace that occurred as a result of the volcanic eruption with regards to tour operators and organizers?

Tour operators have additional obligations under Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours - see definitions (d) and (e) in Article 2, and Articles 3(6) and 8(2).

 

In particular, Article 3(6) ("Scope") provides:-

6. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of passengers under Directive 90/314/EEC. This Regulation shall not apply in cases where a package tour is cancelled for reasons other than cancellation of the flight.

And Article 8(2) ("Right to reimbursement or re-routing") provides:-

2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.

I think that in the volcanic ash incident, the tour operators concerned were responsible for picking up the entire disruption bill because of the provisions of the package travel directive, not because of this Regulation.

 

In any event, airlines providing standalone travel (ie not as part of a package) still had some obligations under this Regulation, notwithstanding the fact that the eruption could not be foreseen. You quoted part of recital 12. That is part of the interpretative background to the Regulation, but not one of its operative provisions. If you look closely at the operative provisions, you can work out which oblgiations do and do not apply in the case of something like the volcanic ash incident.

 

Or, if you prefer, I can work it out for you at my hourly charging rate. ;)

[spongerob]

Thanks, but no, my thought process is based in logic and reasoning, and I think I'd just fall asleep if I dug into it any more.

 

Unless it's over pint, that is, then it would be time well wasted. :)

[Globaliser]

A pint: Now you're talking!

[new salt]

Thank you for that tip Globaliser, duly actioned and also retained on my laptop!

 

New Salt