The Swiss Civil Aviation Authority (Bundesamt für Zivilluftfahrt BAZL) initiated proceedings against 14 airlines which alledgedly have violated passenger rights as provided by Reg. 261/2004. This European Regulation came into force in Switzerland on Dec. 1, 2006. Though the BAZL observed that for the most part the complaints filed by passengers were unfounded, it decided to take a closer look with regard to 14 airlines and has asked them to deliver detailed statements.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in separate cases assessed civil penalties against Continental Airlines and US Airways for violating the Department’s rules prohibiting deceptive price advertising in air travel. A review of Continental’s website revealed instances in which the carrier failed to include fuel surcharges in its listed fares. US Airway’s homepage advertised fares to Rome for $659.
In 2005, American Ailrines started to charge passengers who checked their luggage at curbside stations using skycaps a USD 2 fee per bag. Some skycaps filed a law suit against AA’s retention of the fee, alleging that it was a “service charge” under the Massachusetts Tips Statute – and thus had to be distributed to them because customers reasonably expected that.
The European Commission has adopted the 17th update of the list of airlines banned in the European Union. Some airlines – including four all-cargo air carriers from Indonesia and one air carrier from Ukraine – have been removed from the list as safety concerns have been satisfactorily addressed.
Plaintiff had booked a round trip flight from Frankfurt to Antigua. The return flight started on time and had a scheduled stopover in Punta Cana. From there the aircraft started on time as well but due to a technical problem - the landing gear could not be retracted - had to return to Punta Cana airport from where it could only depart again 24 hrs later.
Plaintiff filed a law suit claiming compensation pursuant to Reg. 261/2004. Court of first instance granted the claim. Upon defendant's appeal, the appelate court (LG Frankfurt am Main) referred the following questions to the ECJ
The plaintiffs had booked a flight from Linz to Perth via Frankfurt and Hongkong with the defendant. The flight from Linz to Frankfurt, however, was to be operated not by the defendant but by another airline. The flight from Linz to Frankfurt was cancelled and the operating carrier offered plaintiffs an alternative flight. This (substitute) feeder was delayed and the plaintiffs thus missed their connecting flight to Hongkong.
Most airlines don’t provide a refund of baggage fees if the bags are lost or delayed. A new DOT rule would require airlines to refund the fee if a bag is lost or not delivered in a “timely” manner. Exactly what “timely” means is yet to be determined.
On August 31, 2008, the plaintiff traveled together with her husband on a flight from Frankfurt/Main to Malaga, operated by the defandant. Upon arrival she discovered that her golf bag (checked baggage) was lost. She claimed that the bag did not only contain her own golf equipment but also that of her husband who had assigned his claims to her. She sued for a compensation which in total exceeded the amount of the limit under Article 22 para. 2 Montreal Convention.