LEGAL IAN SKUSE Delayed reaction
The long-running battle between airlines and passengers over compensation for flight delays is off to the Court of Appeal
claims from passengers who have suffered flight delays. Airlines have to prove that the cancellation or delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. This has generated plenty of litigation for airlines and claimants seeking rulings upon what might be deemed extraordinary and when airlines must pay the set levels of compensation for delays.
A
EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS The regulation contains a number of recitals putting the regulations into context. In particular, examples are given of possible extraordinary events, including political instability, weather incompatible with the operation of the flight, security risks and strikes (recital 14). Recital 15 states that
extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist when a long delay is caused by the impact of an air traffic management control (ATC) decision, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline.
Many passenger claims are defended on the basis of delay due to weather conditions and other associated ATC decisions that the airline was obliged to follow. Such a case was decided in the airlines’ favour in Blanche vs Easyjet at Luton county court earlier this year. The passenger’s claims were dismissed on the basis that while recital 15 is not binding on the court, it is persuasive and it was not
BUYINGBUSINESSTRAVEL.COM
N ARTICLE WITHIN EU REGULATION 261 allows airlines to defend compensation
Ian Skuse is a partner in Blake Morgan’s Aviation team (blakemorgan.
co.uk) and is based in the London office. Ian was a partner with Piper Smith Watton LLP, which merged with Blake Morgan LLP in August 2015.
for the court to go into the reasons and merits of the ATC decision. The passenger’s argument that the delay was caused by thunderstorms over Gatwick and did not amount to “freak weather conditions” was irrelevant. It was the consequences of
the ATC decision that caused the delay and, therefore, “extraordinary circumstances” apply. This decision has now been appealed to the Court of Appeal. This case has significant impact upon the operations of major airlines given the number of passengers who are delayed by weather-related issues and ATC decisions, and they will be anxiously awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeal expected by the end of the year.
REGULATION OVERLOAD There has been a lot of groaning in the travel industry about regulations arriving like buses – several at once – with 2018 requiring travel firms to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation, the Package Travel Regulations and the Payment Services Directive 2, all of which will impact their businesses. Perhaps not surprisingly, many industry players are leaving review processes and any necessary changes to the last minute. However, there are positives to getting ahead of the curve, as this can help to enhance a company’s reputation as well as demonstrating knowledge and compliance with these new rules. Some of the main implications for the corporate travel sector from these regulations are:
• Corporates are increasingly expecting TMCs, intermediaries and suppliers to be fully compliant with these new regulations. Those already complying are in a far better position in any RFP (request for proposal) or tender process to show that they understand and have implemented the changes required by these new regulations.
• Many TMCs, corporates and suppliers are revisiting their standard terms of trading. New and compliant contracts give consistency across their legal landscape and demonstrate that they are complying with the new rules.
• Travel buyers are particularly concerned about compliance with GDPR. They want the best possible compliance by their business partners and indemnities to protect their traveller data.
• Non-compliance with the new regulations is likely to create a bad impression, which will put a company at a disadvantage when competing for clients.
Compliance doesn’t have to be expensive. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is well aware of potential costs to SMEs in particular. The ICO’s website is a good starting point to analyse what needs to be done. Non- compliance may end up costing a company considerably more.
BBT March/April 2018
121
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
