13 Compensation for air passengers
| (a)
(24862)
12190/03
—
(b)
(24936)
10823/03
—
|
Commission Opinion on European Parliament amendments to the Council's common position on a draft Regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights.
European Parliament amendments to the Council's common position on a draft Regulation establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delays of flights.
|
| Legal base | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | (a) 11 August 2003
(b) 7 July 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (a) 15 September 2003
(b) 9 October 2003
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | (a) EM of 29 September 2003
(b) EM of 25 July 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (23121) 5129/02 (23947) 13312/02: HC 63-ii (2002-03), paragraph 1 (27 November 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
13.1 In November 2002 we recommended the proposals amending the
existing Council Regulation EEC No. 295/91 about common rules
on compensation to air passengers for denied boarding for debate
in European Standing Committee A.[22]
This debate took place on 18 December 2002.[23]
The documents
13.2 In its Second Reading, the European Parliament adopted 15
amendments to the common position adopted by the Council in March
2003. The most significant amendments are:
- restricting rights when flights are cancelled only to flights
cancelled less than seven days before scheduled departure (the
common position would allow rights on all cancelled flights unless
at least two weeks notification was given) (Amendment 7);
- restricting rights when flights are delayed to
practical assistance (meals, accommodation etc.) and not reimbursement
or re-routing (Amendment 11);
- requiring Member States to ensure that airlines
can exercise their right of redress against any third party (such
as air traffic management providers)(Amendment 17); and
- changing the date of entry into force from three
to 12 months after the Regulation's publication (Amendment 20).
The Commission has accepted, wholly or partially,
eight of the European Parliament's amendments, including Amendments
11 and 20. It has rejected the remaining amendments, including
Amendments 7 and 17.
The Government's view
13.3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Department of Transport (Mr Tony McNulty) says:
"The original proposal was flawed in many areas
and despite some improvements made by the Council, the UK voted
against the political agreement [on which the common position
is based] at the Transport Council in December 2002, primarily
because some key concerns of the no-frills airlines, and those
of the charter airlines, had not been satisfactorily addressed."
13.4 On the amendments the Minister tells us:
"The two most significant amendments that were
accepted were amendments 11 and 20.
"Amendment 11 sought to remove the right to
reimbursement and re-routeing for passengers in the event of a
delay in excess of two hours. This is a key issue for charter
airlines who have been keen to remove the right to re-routeing,
at least for package tour passengers. The reason for this is that
since most of their passengers are flying as part of a package
holiday, charter carriers are under an obligation to carry their
passengers to their destination as soon as possible and do not
have the option of cancelling flights and leaving passengers to
fend for themselves. They believe that the ability of scheduled
carriers to cancel flights and cite extraordinary circumstances
gives those carriers a competitive advantage. Charter carriers
also have less scope to transfer passengers to alternative services
and are concerned that giving passengers the right to re-routeing
would be costly, especially if they were forced to re-book passengers
on alternative scheduled carriers. Amendment 11 would meet the
charter carriers concerns but in so doing would remove the right
to reimbursement and re-routing for all passengers, which could
prove to be detrimental to passengers on scheduled airlines.
"The effect of amendment 11 would also oblige
airlines to provide meals and accommodation in the event of long
delays, regardless of the cause. The Common Position does not
place this obligation on airlines where exceptional circumstances
can be cited and the airline can prove that it was not responsible
for the delay. Some airlines will be unhappy with providing meals
and accommodation in circumstances beyond their control. However,
scheduled airlines are more likely to cancel flights in the event
of exceptional circumstances, rather than suffer long delays and
may not therefore be greatly affected by the amendment. The charter
airlines, while less than happy with the situation, are understood
to be prepared to live with it. No-frills carriers will, perhaps,
feel most disadvantaged by this amendment due to the fact that
the cost of providing such assistance could in many cases be disproportionate
to the average cost of the ticket purchased. An amendment to link
compensation to ticket price, as the UK would have wished, was
put forward in the European Parliament but was not supported.
We had hoped that a suitable compromise could be found.
"Amendment 20, supporting a delay in the Regulation
entering into force would be welcomed by the airlines as it would
allow them more time to change their customer service systems.
"Of the eight amendments either rejected by
the commission or accepted only in part, two are of significance.
Amendment 7, dealing with the definition of the term "cancellations",
is closely linked to the use of computer reservation systems (CRS).
However, not all carriers use such systems and where one of their
flights does not take place this would not be classified as a
cancellation because it had not been listed on a CRS. In addition,
if a carrier removes a flight from a CRS and subsequently the
flight does not take place, this again would not be considered
as having been cancelled for the purposes of the proposal. Accordingly,
the rights of passengers could be greatly restricted by this amendment.
"Amendment 17, would require Member States to
ensure that airlines were able to exercise their right of redress
against any responsible party in the event of denied boarding
compensation being paid to passengers. This could affect air traffic
service providers, such as NATS, who may otherwise enjoy certain
domestic legislative protections limiting liability. In the UK
this protection is afforded by the Transport Act 2000. As well
as being difficult to implement, we have received legal advice
that the amendment would permit the overriding of such protections
and allow claims to be pursued against NATS as a potential 'responsible
party'."
13.5 The Minister also says:
"The amendments have now gone to conciliation
involving the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.
In general the UK's views on the amendments are closely aligned
with those of the Commission."
Subsequent developments
13.6 The conciliation process was completed on 14
October 2003.[24] The
agreed draft Regulation will be adopted by the Council shortly.
Conclusion
13.7 We are grateful to the Minister for his explanation
of the Government's view of these further developments in this
contentious matter. We note that the European Parliament's amendments,
both those accepted and those rejected by the Commission, would
mean more adjustments to the balance between the interests of
airlines and those of passengers and that each group would gain
some advantage and suffer some disadvantage . We clear
the document.
22 See headnote. Back
23
Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 18 December
2002, cols. 3-22. Back
24
See Council Press Notice 294: No. 13290/03 of 15 October 2003.
Back
| 
