LEGAL IAN SKUSE
RESTRICTED PRICE, RESTRICTED TRADE
UPDATES ON THE LATEST LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR TRAVEL PROFESSIONALS
S
kyscanner and various other parties have successfully complained to the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) over alleged price restrictions imposed by Intercontinental Hotels (IHG) on Expedia and Booking. com. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT – now the Competition and Markets Authority, CMA) had previously agreed that commitments offered by IHG and the online travel agencies to offer discounted accommodation rates to a closed group would satisfy their concerns.
This agreement was appealed by Skyscanner to CAT, which found that the OFT’s consultation process was defective and ignored certain objections raised by interested parties. The matter has been sent back to the OFT/CMA to reconsider. Suppliers operating vertical agreements – that is, agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain, rather than direct sales to the consumer – need to ensure freedom of pricing by their agents to avoid these problems. It can be argued that the restrictions on pricing limit discounted prices.
BUYINGBUSINESSTRAVEL.COM
PAYMENT FOR AIRLINE FACILITIES EXTRA TO THE TICKET can include fast check-in, extra legroom seating, and additional baggage allowances. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), in the Vueling Airlines SA vs Instituto Galego de Consumo case, in September explored EU Regulation 1008/2008 and debated whether the basic cost of the flight included the cost of checking in a suitcase – if so, the airline would not be entitled to charge a supplement. The ECJ decided that baggage surcharges are legal, and that airlines were entitled to charge customers for checking in their luggage, as carriers faced extra costs storing and processing checked-in baggage. However, ticket prices should include hand baggage, so no surcharges are allowed.
IT HAS BEEN A TORRID TIME for airlines regarding passenger rights compensation for cancelled and delayed flights under EU Regulation 261/2004. The current battle- lines are drawn in some recent cases, which are likely to be decided by our Supreme Court in 2015. First, there is Huzar vs
Jet2.com, which asks the
It has been a torrid time for airlines regarding passenger rights compensation
question: can a technical fault with an aircraft, which causes a delay in excess of three hours, ever amount to extraordinary circumstances, entitling the airline to decline compensation? Airlines point to defects that are both serious and included in the “minimum equipment list” for the aircraft. The Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether it should follow the Huzar decisions to date – essentially meaning that hardly any technical defects will amount to extraordinary circumstances – or to adopt a more pragmatic approach. Second: Dawson vs Thomson Airways. How long has a passenger got to bring a claim arising out of delay to a flight under EU261/2004? Should it be up to six years in the UK, or two years under the
Montreal Convention – or some other period of time? Meanwhile, in the recent case of Germanwings vs Henning, the ECJ had to decide whether the three hours-plus delay, triggering compensation under EU261/2004, was calculated from the touch-down of the aircraft, or from when the doors were opened. The ECJ found that it is calculated from when at least one door of the aircraft is opened upon arrival.
WITH WAR ERUPTING in the Middle East again and the Ebola virus spreading, the issue of destination safety is becoming even more important for employers and travel managers. There is a duty-of-care and a need to avoid any suggestions of negligence where destinations become dangerous between booking and departure. There is data available to business travellers and their employers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website if a real problem arises, and precautions can be put in place. The real issue is where an employer knows that a particular safety issue or danger has arisen, but then fails to advise appropriately. Those responsible for arranging business trips should be aware of any safety changes and arrange to keep the traveller informed where possible.
Ian Skuse is a partner and head of Piper Smith Watton LLP’s Aviation, Travel & Tourism department. Piper Smith Watton LLP (
pswlaw.co.uk) is a business and private client law firm based in Westminster.
BBT NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2014
97
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100