Joseph Felice Pace writes:
A correspondent who says he has been using Ryanair wrote thus in the letter section of The Sunday Times (October 8, 2006): "I know that if my bags get lost (on a Ryanair flight), I'll get no satisfaction for them".
Does that mean that Ryanair, and other airlines that sell low-cost flights, are not bound by the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention and the EU Directive for the Carriage of Goods by Air (which incorporates both conventions) in respect of damage to air travellers' luggage?
EU law on passenger rights applies across the board to all EU airlines. That includes low-cost airlines.
EU law on passenger rights now cover a wide range of rights, from compensation in cases of accidents (injury and death) to compensation for denied boarding, flight cancellation and lost luggage. The law also provides for assistance in case of delays as well as rights in connection with package travel, package holidays and package tours.
There is nothing in the law that exempts low-cost airlines and, therefore, the law applies to them as well.
Some laws apply only to EU airlines, that is, an air carrier holding a licence granted by an EU country. However, some obligations also apply to non-EU airlines as well. Thus, for instance, the law on denied board, cancellation and delays also applies to passengers departing from an EU airport, regardless of whether the airline is an EU airline.
On the other hand, in the case of passengers departing from an airport located outside the EU and flying to an EU airport, the law only applies if the airline is EU-registered.
As the reader states, the co-called Warsaw and Montreal conventions are both incorporated into EU law. The Warsaw Convention, originally signed in 1929, dealt with the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air. The Montreal Convention, which strengthened it, was signed in 1999. Both are now part of EU law thanks to Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air. So this means that low-cost airlines are also bound by EU law on the damage, delay, loss or destruction of luggage.
True, it has to be said that low-cost airlines have been vociferous in their objections to EU law on passenger rights. Indeed, along with IATA, they had even challenged in court the validity of the most recent law (EC/261/2004) that applies in cases of denied board, cancellation and delays.
They had claimed that the law limits consumer choice and does nothing to improve delays and cancellations in air transport as these are often beyond the control of airlines. In particular, the European Low-Fares Airlines Association (ELFAA) had insisted that with this law, low-fares airlines are forced to pay compensation that is often several times the amount of the actual fare paid by the consumer. In a judgement delivered in January this year, the European Court of Justice rejected these claims and confirmed that the law stands and remains valid.
The court also rejected the ELFAA's argument that the law discriminates against low-cost airlines because it imposes the same obligations on all airlines without distinction on the basis of their pricing policies and the services they offer.
The court said that the damage suffered by passengers in the event of cancellation or a long delay is similar regardless of whether the airline is low-cost. It is therefore proper for the law to treat all airlines identically with regard to passenger rights.
Now, clearly, rules that protect passenger rights come at a cost for airlines, all of them. And I agree that one needs to strike a fair balance between too little protection and too much regulation. Yet, as I see it, the law seeks to rebalance the relationship between airlines and consumers in cases where consumers have for too long got the raw end of the deal.
Competition and low fares are fine. But they should not come at the expense of reasonable consumer rights.
Correction
Last week a mistake crept into my article with regard to visa requirements for Thailand. Whereas it is true, as I wrote, that Thai citizens require a visa to enter all EU countries, I was not correct in stating that this situation is reciprocated by Thailand. Indeed, Thailand only imposes a visa on the new EU member states. I will follow this matter with the European Commission and I apologise for any inconvenience that this may have caused to the reader, Mark Pace.
Readers wishing to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.