Your flight is delayed. You arrive at your destination more than three hours late. You’ve heard of Regulation 261/2004 (hereafter: Reg261) that entitles you to € 400 compensation for that delay. Perhaps you call the airline and ask for compensation. You are told to fill out a web form on the airline’s website. After weeks of silence, you call again. The customer service asks you to fill out the same web form once more. You send a rather annoyed e-mail about the delay, your complaint, and your feelings about customer care services in general. You receive an e-mail in which you are thanked for choosing the airline’s service, followed by an expression of regret for the delay of the flight in question, and a notification that – unfortunately – you are not eligible for compensation because the delay was caused by an extraordinary circumstance which exonerates the airline from paying compensation.
Lees verder
Auteursarchief: Ingrid Koning
Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators: A Rock and a hard place
On 5 March 2014, the UK Supreme Court delivered a remarkable decision. It denied a passenger’s claim for damages from an airline for a violation of a fundamental right under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 (the EC Disability Regulation) because the Montreal Convention 1999 prevented this. What does this decision mean for passengers who want to enforce their rights under this regulation? And what will the long-term backlash be for the Montreal Convention 1999? Lees verder