Disons que quand tu prends un billet prime en business, ça reste une affaire de ne payer que les taxes, même si celles-ci semblent élevées. Un Paris-Tokyo aller-retour coûte selon les périodes entre 3500 et 5000 euros, franchement, ça ne me dérange vraiment pas de payer 300 euros de taxes. Mais évidemment, sur un vol court en classe éco, c'est nettement moins intéressant.
Par ailleurs, depuis Paris, c'est assez logique de garder AF : pour des Paris Tokyo, Paris-NY, Paris LA, Paris Sao Paulo, Paris-Shanghai, j'ai des vols directs alors qu'avec Lufthansa, BA ou d'autres compagnies étrangères, il y a très souvent une escale dans une ville étrangère (Francfort, Londres...). Et alors là, franchement, les long courrier avec une escale, ça ne m'intéresse pas du tout !
Maintenant, les programmes de fidélité sont gratuits (contrairement à un programme de fidélité SNCF…) donc tu n'as vraiment aucune obligation d'y rester si tu trouves ton compte ailleurs 😛...
Bonsoir
Meme en J je préfère payer 80€ que 300€ et si je devais malgré tout payer 300€ j'aimerai comprendre pourquoi (j'ai ma petite idée surtaxes carburants ?? )
AF fait passer sa surcharge carburant sur les taxes alors que d'autres compagnies le font passer sur le billet. C'est un choix pas particulièrement judicieux pour le client FB... Sur un PAR-JFK AR la taxe kérosène est de 180€ par exemple. Je ne trouve pas délirant de faire payer à un passager un billet ou seulement la taxe kérosène s'applique (puisqu'on va quand même devoir embarquer le kérosène pour le passager), mais c'est choquant car les autres compagnies ne le font pas.
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,
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,
