Revision of Regulation 261/2004 (passenger rights in Europe)
FR

Translated into English.

Original post
EL
Hello,

Since it came into force, Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council, which defines air passenger rights, has faced fierce resistance from airlines, backed by IATA (the association representing almost all passenger airlines).

Beyond the airlines' often abusive—and even frequently bad-faith—resistance to passenger rights, IATA has been lobbying EU institutions for years, with the Council paying close attention for a long time.

As a result, the Council and the Commission have been proposing revisions to Regulation 261/2004 for years that are particularly unfavorable to passengers. The latest attempt nearly eliminated the right to compensation for delays of 3 hours or more upon arrival at the final destination.

However, since this is a regulation of both the European Parliament AND the Council, the two bodies had to agree.

But the European Parliament has always stood firm, consistently responding that passenger rights must be preserved.

After 11 years of struggle, it seems likely that we’re finally nearing the end of the match between the European Commission, the Council (the 27 heads of state or government), and the European Parliament.

Indeed, the Commission and the European Parliament have agreed on a text that will be debated again on Monday, July 6, 2026, with a vote scheduled for July 7, 2026. It’s very likely that this text, which would come into force in a year, will be adopted.

The main changes would be as follows: - Families with children will no longer be forced to pay to sit together on planes; - A flight will be considered canceled (not just delayed) if it departs more than one hour late; - Right to compensation for arrival at the final destination if the delay exceeds 3 hours (no longer "3 hours OR more"). The arrival time will be when the plane, having reached its parking spot, engages its parking brakes (no longer when the aircraft door opens); - Airlines can no longer refuse boarding or charge extra on the return flight for a passenger who didn’t take the outbound flight; - If a flight is canceled, the airline must, at the same time as informing passengers of the event, offer the choice between a refund and re-routing, and inform them of their rights to assistance and, if applicable, compensation; - The airline must, without undue delay, inform passengers of the reason; - In the case of a connecting flight, if the connection is missed and the delay at the final destination entitles the passenger to compensation, the responsible airline will be liable. This is very different from the current situation, where, under the KLM ruling, any airline operating a segment of the flight is liable for compensation. This promises more disputes that the Court of Justice of the European Union will have to resolve if two separate airlines operating segments of a connecting flight are both responsible for the delay. See this case for an example: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/ Moreover, this case demonstrates in advance another potential dispute: It could be argued that it wasn’t a missed connection since the flight was canceled before the first leg even departed. - Within 96 hours of a flight that could entitle passengers to compensation, the airline must contact them to inform them of their rights and explain the next steps. - Passengers must claim their right to compensation within 9 months. This is very different from the current situation, as Regulation 261/2004 sets no time limit. Currently, national law applies—in France, the limit is 5 years. The airline must respond within 30 days. If the airline refuses compensation on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances," it must specify which type of case it refers to from the list in the annex of the new regulation. If the case isn’t on the list, the airline must explain what the event was, why it qualifies as extraordinary circumstances with "clear, substantial, and concise" explanations, and why it’s directly linked to the reason given. It must also declare what "reasonable measures" were taken to mitigate the issue. This is, of course, a huge change in the regulation, with the clear goal of preventing airlines from declaring just anything as "extraordinary circumstances" to avoid compensation. - If, within 3 hours of a last-minute canceled or delayed flight, the airline hasn’t offered re-routing under comparable transport conditions and as soon as possible—whether on one of its own flights or another airline’s—the passenger will have the right to arrange their own re-routing and demand a refund for the new ticket, up to 400% of the original ticket price. This is a significant improvement that would have likely prevented the case described here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/ - If a flight is canceled due to "extraordinary circumstances," the airline will only be required to offer up to 3 nights in a hotel. This is a major change, as there’s currently no limit. Expect disputes if the extraordinary circumstances end while the passenger hasn’t been re-routed. - The price of a flight, as first displayed, must obligatorily include a cabin bag. This doesn’t prevent the airline from offering a price reduction if the passenger waives the cabin bag. This will put an end to abnormal practices, such as (just one example) Condor charging extra for a cabin bag on long-haul flights like Frankfurt (Germany)–Puerto Plata (Dominican Republic)–Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)–Frankfurt. - Free correction of a passenger’s name if requested 48 hours before departure. Note: This can’t be used to replace one passenger with another—just to correct a typo, e.g., Dupont instead of Dpont. - Airlines’ websites and apps must include information on how to file a claim.

It’s clear that, despite a few details, these changes are very positive for upholding passenger rights. It remains to be seen whether this text will be definitively adopted on July 7, 2026, as is very likely, and, more importantly, whether IATA will encourage airlines to loyally respect these new rules or persist in their old habits.

Best regards,
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Good evening,

airlines can no longer, on the return flight, refuse boarding or charge extra to a passenger who didn’t take the outbound flight

So on this point, we’re heading toward higher fares. Sometimes good ideas end up costing passengers a lot.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hello,

The debate in the European Parliament has just concluded. A strong show of unity. The vote by MEPs tomorrow should therefore be a mere formality.

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
LE Lescaribous Globetrotter ·
Thanks for your always super thorough follow-up!! But despite the changes, there’s no doubt we’ll still have to "fight" the airlines—but it’s worth it!
"Homme libre, toujours tu chériras la mer" (Baudelaire)
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hi,

I don’t really see much cause for celebration here.

Airlines will adapt to this new landscape.

You can already see it coming, for example:

- Selling one-way tickets at a higher price than round-trip fares that would have required using the first ticket, or decoupling the two flights of a connecting itinerary... - Adjusting with longer layovers, which means extra costs for passengers stuck in airports...

Overall, it seems like this could push fares up.

Don’t you think?

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hello,

Generally speaking, one might think this will push fares up.

Right?

Michel

Hello,

You’ll allow me to have a different opinion.

This argument from airlines, repeated ever since Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council came into being, has never convinced the Members of the European Parliament.

Moreover, this argument was used in the Nelson case (Court of Justice of the European Union) when it was claimed that if the right to compensation were extended to delays of "3 hours or more," ticket prices would rise.

The study that followed showed that the proportion of flights affected was less than 0.15% (a percentage cited in the ruling in question). And the Court added, in its judgment of 23/10/2012, to quote: "Finally, no concrete evidence has been presented to the Court showing that paying compensation for significant delays would lead to an increase in fares or a reduction in the number of regional flights and service to remote destinations."

The outcome proved the Court right...

It’s quite significant that during yesterday’s debate in the European Parliament, after each parliamentary group was given the floor, ALL the MEPs, speaking on behalf of their groups, expressed their full support for the new text. Even more telling, the floor was given to the representative of the European Commission. While the Commission, on this issue, has always echoed the Council’s position—until now always favorable to the airlines’ point of view—the Commission’s representative also strongly supported the new text on behalf of the Commission, which provides better predictability and legal stability for airlines: in particular, the 9-month deadline to file a complaint and the limitation to 3 days of hotel accommodation.

The vote in the European Parliament will take place today between 12:00 and 13:00. The outcome seems like a foregone conclusion.

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hello,

The European Parliament vote has just concluded. The new regulation has been adopted. Nearly unanimous: only 12 votes against and 646 in favor!

Next steps: translation of the text into all EU languages, followed by publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. However, we’ll still have to wait before the new regulation replaces the current one.

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hello,

Your legal expertise is undeniable and inspires either admiration or skepticism, but I can’t quite see what in this new text is generating so much enthusiasm. Could you break it down in simple terms—just two or three key points? But keep each to three lines max—no need for a legal addendum.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hello,

You just need to read the first post in this discussion, which, despite its length, is only a summary. In particular, several new provisions offer better protection for travelers with reduced mobility.

The summary of the summary is that the new regulation incorporates multiple case laws directly into the regulation itself, which greatly simplifies things.

Another major point is the tightening of screws (significantly strengthened information obligations, procedures that airlines must follow, and much clearer framework for "extraordinary circumstances") in response to the persistent, often abusive, and even bad-faith resistance to applying the regulation.

Personally, I’ve always found it completely unacceptable that airlines act as if they’re above the law, routinely flouting passenger rights, with the well-known consequence of overwhelming the courts that handle airport-related cases across the European Union.

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
General principles, legal stuff... I get it, but as a passenger, I look at the experience I get for the price I pay. And I don’t really see how I’ll benefit—I’m even a little worried I’ll end up worse off. Let’s leave it at that.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hi,

Just to give one example: parents will no longer be forced to pay to sit next to their children. It’s definitely a win for them!

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
To take just one example: parents will no longer be required to pay to sit next to their children. They’ll definitely come out ahead on this one!

Oh, okay. That’s good. Was this common practice? They’ll save money, that is, if the cost isn’t passed on elsewhere.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hi,

Free correction of a passenger name error if requested 48 hours before.

What do you think about this?

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hello,

free correction of a passenger name error if requested 48 hours before.

What do you think?

Not much, and the devil is in the details. Realistically, how does it currently work in the vast majority of cases? The passenger notices a mistake—a letter or two—if they call the agency or airline, they’ll often try, out of self-interest, to make them believe they have to pay... If they go to the airport, everything is sorted at check-in. Many airlines—at least the ones I use—now offer a link on the booking itself to correct minor name errors.

What’s going to happen now? Airlines will accept corrections within 48 hours, but after that, everything will systematically become chargeable, even things that were previously fixed for free without formalities at check-in. Hunting down minor errors that were once corrected without fees or hassle will become profitable, and it’ll become standard practice for boarding or check-in agents. Bingo.

For me, this is a bad measure whose unintended consequences will ultimately hit passengers’ wallets. This is what happens when you’re caught up in regulatory frenzy and feel the need to legislate things that aren’t actually a real problem.

Anything else?

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hello,

Detailed real case here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/

Summary: During a layover, the connecting flight was canceled. Even though there were possible rebookings available every day, the passenger was only rebooked 4 days later, allowing them to reach their final destination with a 5-day delay (the final arrival airport was far from the one initially planned).

The airline completely abandoned and forgot about them! Two days later, the passenger went to the airline’s counter to ask to be rebooked on a flight leaving 3 hours later. The airline refused, arguing that the only available seat was in business class and the passenger had to pay. Obviously, the passenger refused to pay, and the rebooking was denied!!!

Once again, the airline abandoned them. The passenger returned to the airline’s counter at the airport. That’s when they were granted the exact same rebooking they had been denied, but 48 hours later.

New rule: If, within 3 hours of a canceled or last-minute delayed flight, the airline has not offered a rebooking—within reasonable limits, under comparable transport conditions, and as soon as possible—whether on one of its own flights or through another airline, the passenger will have the right to organize their own rebooking with any airline and demand a refund for the new ticket, up to 400% of the original ticket price. So, if they take a flight with another airline, it’s clear they won’t have taken the outbound trip as planned on their ticket, but for the return flight, the airline can’t refuse boarding or charge an extra fee.

What do you think?

Best regards,
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
What do you think?

The question is whether dysfunctions—certainly regrettable and condemnable, but quite rare and isolated—should necessarily be governed by standards, rules, and constraints. For you, the answer is yes, because that’s the only way you see things, whether as a profession or at least a calling. But it’s entirely debatable. If all these regulatory efforts result in preventing a handful of abuses like the ones you mention at the cost of rigidity that passengers ultimately pay for—through a degraded experience or higher fares—I think it’s a bad thing, yes. Are you really sure you’re measuring the unintended and counterproductive effects?

The issue you’re talking about—who did it happen to? A handful of people. Over decades of intensive flying, which I haven’t even counted (probably a thousand flights), I’ve never experienced or even witnessed anything like it.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
A pregnant woman traveling with a companion should be seated next to the person accompanying her without having to pay for it.

What do you think?

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
A pregnant woman traveling with a companion must be seated next to the person accompanying her without having to pay for it.

What do you think?

I think a world that, in a frenzy of regulation, wants to legislate everything like this is a sick world and quite unpleasant to live in. How many documented, proven cases are there of pregnant women who wanted to travel next to a specific person and didn’t get to? You can keep making more laws and more regulations: you could consider the same for people with psychosis on treatment, phobics, newlyweds, new couples who aren’t married... There’s no end to the regulatory expression of "rights" or benefits.

This friendly discussion could go on forever, but the bottom line—even if it seems incomprehensible or too exotic to you—is that I, like the creator of this forum, am, whether you like it or not, fundamentally liberal.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
An airline can only issue a voucher instead of a cash payment with the passenger's agreement.

New rules: The validity period of a voucher is limited to 12 months.

Upon expiration of the voucher, it can only be extended once, for no more than 12 months, and only with the passenger's agreement.

The airline must refund any expired voucher that hasn't been fully used.

What do you think about this?

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
"An airline can only issue a voucher instead of a cash payment with the passenger's agreement.

New rules: The validity period of a voucher is limited to 12 months.

Upon expiration of the voucher's validity, it can only be extended with the passenger's agreement, once, and for no more than 12 months.

The airline must reimburse any expired voucher that hasn't been fully used.

What do you think?"

The same thing, meaning nothing 😏; these are commercial, civil, contractual practices, and I can't conceive why legislation is needed for stuff like this. Do you really find it desirable to live in a world made up of millions of regulations or legal provisions like this? I'm not convinced it's relevant—regulatory frenzy, as I was saying. Doesn’t a world like that scare you a little?

Michel
GI Gilmau Regular ·
What a great discussion, with substance and class. It's so rare on a forum... Keep it up, gentlemen, for the few of us following the twists and turns of Regulation EC 261/2004—it's a fascinating topic!
Si tous les gens qui disent du mal de moi savaient ce que je pense d'eux, ils en diraient bien davantage...
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Hi Gilmau,

A major advantage of the new regulation, which will replace Regulation 261/2004 in a year, is that it will be much simpler and less convoluted.

With Regulation 261/2004, you have to juggle between the regulation itself and multiple rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Not easy for non-lawyers.

The new regulation incorporates most of the case law, making it much clearer and, in the process, making it significantly harder for airlines to resist—whether abusively or in bad faith—passengers' rights, especially since the claims procedure is greatly simplified.

Here are some of the new features:

If a passenger with reduced mobility arrives at their final destination and finds their wheelchair damaged (or missing), the airline will have to provide an immediate temporary solution while waiting for the delivery of their wheelchair or its replacement, at the airline's expense (which, as expressly provided, can claim reimbursement from the at-fault service provider, if applicable).

I can’t understand why some people disapprove of all these improvements.

Some think the price of a flight ticket is calculated the same way a local butcher calculates the selling price of a steak—that is, the wholesale cost of the goods + operating expenses + profit margin.

But the price of a flight ticket is mainly calculated according to the law of supply and demand: if the plane isn’t filling up, the price drops, or if the plane fills up quickly, the price goes up.

That’s why the introduction of Regulation 261/2004 many years ago didn’t lead to an increase in airfare prices, nor did the more recent introduction of compensation for delays, or the recent right to compensation for flights departing more than an hour earlier.

Even the European Commission, echoing the Council’s positions—which, as usual, align with airlines’ complaints—wasn’t convinced at all that these improvements would impact ticket prices. This is especially true since airlines are particularly satisfied with the 9-month limit on claims and the restriction to 3 nights in a hotel while waiting for a rebooking flight.

Most airlines have gone way too far in resisting passenger rights, even nearly paralyzing the courts near airports across the European Union (with waiting times of several years for simple cases!!!). The human resources (judges, clerks, etc.) assigned to air travel disputes are resources taken away from all other cases, civil or criminal...

A solution had to be found to try to end—or at least improve—this situation: - the court backlog, verging on paralysis; - the respect for passengers' minimum rights.

Abuses can only lead to more restrictive regulations to limit those abuses.

Here’s another example, this time targeting low-cost airlines in particular:

A passenger checks in online but fails to download their boarding pass, or their phone runs out of battery. The airline can no longer charge them for printing their boarding pass at the airport. Who could be against such a measure?

Best regards,
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
KU Kurtinet Regular ·
Good evening,

Thanks for the clear and precise information, and I admire your patience with all these endless comments... 😉
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
I’m old enough to have been an enthusiastic Europhile amid the ruins of the Berlin Wall, but I never imagined the institution’s plan was to standardize every last detail of the continent’s commercial contracts. Still, Foucault taught me how institutions work 🤓😊. Seriously, I think—beyond whether any single point is advantageous in isolation—that this isn’t in the long-term, general interest of passengers. It seems to me there are valid objections for anyone thinking beyond principles.

Michel
AT Attila Globetrotter ·
In a perfect world, there’d be no need for a regulation.

In our world, it protects consumers. 🙂
Ponts du monde : concours de photos amical de juillet 2026 Rubrique Jeux Voyages C'est le moment de poster vos meilleurs clichés !
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
In a perfect world, there would be no need for regulations.

In our world, it protects consumers. 🙂

Hi Attila,

The whole problem is that we don’t live in a fairy-tale world.

Just a reminder that court hearings are public. As a result, anyone can attend the hearings dedicated to air travel disputes at the local court covering Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport.

This means any curious observer can see on the display at the entrance of the courtroom that, at every air travel dispute hearing, there are around a hundred cases listed "for order," but only a few are scheduled for pleading.

Explanation: apart from these few exceptions, airlines prefer to settle just before being condemned. This abusive, almost last-minute resistance clogs up the courts, leading to near-paralysis, which affects all other types of cases because the resources allocated to air travel disputes aren’t available for other civil or criminal cases.

It also means that most airlines prefer to resist on principle, even if it clogs the courts and ends up costing them significantly more: legal fees and reimbursing passengers for their defense costs.

Faced with such abuses, it’s normal for lawmakers—in this case, the European Parliament—to step in by strengthening existing regulations to try to reduce these abusive resistances that seriously impact the proper functioning of justice.

Furthermore, national authorities should have long ago enforced the penalties (fines) provided for in Article 16 of Regulation 261/2004 by the European Parliament and Council against recalcitrant airlines. Article 16 states that penalties must be (I quote) "effective, proportionate, and dissuasive."

Take Lufthansa, for example, which doesn’t hesitate to go all the way to a certain conviction (simply reimbursing a ticket canceled by the airline). This case is detailed here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/10/23/lufthansa-championne-du-refus-des-droits-des-passagers/

And it goes even further: after the conviction, since Lufthansa was reluctant to comply, the passenger had to hire a bailiff to serve the judgment! So, Lufthansa went all the way to a certain conviction in advance, paying for a lawyer, reimbursing the passenger’s defense costs, and the bailiff’s fees!!! The result is that the airline paid significantly more and deliberately clogged up the court for nothing! This kind of behavior is unacceptable.

Hopefully, the new regulation, which will come into force one year after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, will reduce the volume of air travel disputes due to a much stricter framework for the complaint procedure—a direct consequence of the often abusive and bad-faith resistance of most airlines.

Best regards
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hi Agnès,

I see you’re adding your two cents to this friendly discussion.

Before diving into the details, allow me a little sarcasm. You’re responding in a very French way—quite stereotypically, actually. In a world of villains, nothing beats taking refuge under the protective, all-knowing wing of the omnipotent state, which has an opinion on everything, regulates everything, and meddles in every aspect of life—public, private, personal, even intimate... Not that I blame you for it. After all, we’ve all been raised to find that normal, even desirable. Me? Not so much. Sorry, but no.

I don’t share the optimism or enthusiasm about the effects of this new regulation. In economics, when you lower the barrier to accessing a procedure or multiply the grounds for it—with endless details and edge cases—you generally see... an increase in its use. In other words, if the new process becomes clearer, more structured, and offers passengers greater legal certainty, economic theory suggests it’ll lead to *more* claims, then *more* disputes, spiraling into a vicious cycle—not the opposite. Sociology also makes me skeptical, and I have to question ElviajeroPar’s certainties. Organizations adapt to the rules of the game. Airlines will tweak their internal processes, specialized firms will adjust their offers, and claim platforms will refine their algorithms. Nothing suggests another layer of rules will magically resolve conflicts on its own. On the contrary: new rights, new precise (and ever-expanding) rules will likely *multiply* disputes, not eliminate them.

So, in my view, it’s a bit hasty to claim this regulation will automatically ease court backlogs. If anything, there’s reason to think the opposite. And—stepping back even further—the EU institutions themselves don’t exactly have a vested interest in *actually* resolving conflicts. In a world where their legitimacy is questioned, their survival depends on feeding their own importance, justifying their role, and proving their usefulness. So, they’ll keep churning out regulations to sustain their existence. Who here really lives in a fairy-tale world? What’s *really* the goal of this new regulation, anyway?

Michel
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hi,

We can hope that the new regulation, which will come into effect one year after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, will reduce the volume of air travel disputes somewhat, due to the much stricter framework for the complaint procedure, which is merely a consequence of the resistance—often as abusive as it is in bad faith—from most airlines.

Honestly, I think that’s really living in a world of illusions and a dream filled with ideals. Airlines don’t act in "bad faith"—they have "interests," and making a procedure clearer doesn’t make it rarer; quite the opposite.

Michel
EL ElviajeroPar Globetrotter ·
Airlines don’t act in "bad faith"—they act in their "interests."

Hello, And don’t you think it’s possible to defend one’s interests while acting in bad faith?

and making a procedure clearer doesn’t make it rarer—quite the opposite.

It depends on how well it’s clarified. Real-world example in the same field: Decree 2025-772, which forces passengers to use a summons instead of a simple request to the court. It led to a sharp drop in air travel disputes. But here, the government missed the mark by making the process more complicated for passengers. This decree will very likely be overturned by the Council of State due to the legal challenges against it. And even if—though it’s unlikely—it isn’t struck down, it’ll become void as soon as the new regulation comes into effect.

Best regards,
https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com
BA Bairrovoyage Veteran ·
Thanks ElviajeroPar,

This discussion is really, really interesting! True, I was also wondering if this is good news for passengers and travelers. In other words: Who will "win" and/or who will benefit—airlines or passengers (who’ve been wronged)? We’ll see...

Even though I understand Michel’s reservations, I don’t think he’s proven that a decision in favor of airlines will actually lower (REALLY LOWER) ticket prices. And would that also make life easier for passengers facing issues during their trip? And strengthen their rights? We mustn’t forget that often, the mistakes and failures are on the airlines’ side.

In the same context—saying/claiming that a (stronger/more extensive) regulation will drive up ticket prices seems simplistic to me. Sure, it’s a possibility, but so far, there’s no proof. Anyway, the vast majority of ticket prices adapt more to the market (and competition) than to what airlines want to charge (to stay profitable—covering all their costs and expenses).

From my experience as a traveler (and trip organizer), I’ve often had to deal with airlines (in complaints) that dragged their feet in applying Regulation 261/2004 (under the old version). And also with state regulators (e.g., DGAC) or NEBs (National Enforcement Bodies). Their actions and decisions are pretty "timid" and toothless, especially when it comes to national airlines (see France with AF, or Portugal with TP). I hope things improve from now on—meaning real refunds without arguments, faster payments when they’re due, and a much more "assertive" regulator. And that we’ll have to go to court less often to get "justice" and win what Regulation 261/2004 "grants" us.

Thanks, Chris

PS: I’ve had two cases in France—with no decisive intervention from the DGAC/NEB (yes, we’re aware that...)—but I won both times in court.... (food for thought).
TA Tatra Globetrotter ·
Hello,

Michel couldn't prove that a decision in favor of airlines will actually lower (REALLY LOWER) airfare prices?

I never claimed that. Aren’t there more taxes for passengers when they’re sold two one-way tickets than when they’re sold a round-trip ticket? Isn’t the lower price of round-trip tickets, though conditional, a discount for passengers who reduce costs in exchange for a constraint?

I don’t have an answer to the first question, but someone here will know. For the second, this has been my understanding so far: the passenger pays less but gives up some of the benefits they’d have with two separate, non-linked one-way tickets.

I’ve had few experiences with delays or cancellations; things have always been resolved quickly and smoothly. That was with LOT Polish and Turkish Airlines several times.

Michel
BA Bairrovoyage Veteran ·
Merci cher Michel,

En principe je suis d'accord avec vous. Mais je ne savais pas qu'un aller simple a (systématiquement) plus des taxes qu'un aller - retour? C'est du nouveau pour moi. En ce qui concerne les taxes de sûreté et d'aéroport - s'est toujours effectif (selon les prix des aéroports et de la sûreté). Peut être pour la taxe YQ (taxe/surcharge carburant) il y a une différence par compagnie aérienne, mais par exemple Swiss International ne fait pas de différence - 100% de la taxe YQ pour un vol aller - 200% pour un vol aller - retour). A voir les autres compagnies aériennes...

Merci, Chris

Similar discussions

You might also like