Abstract

Several air disasters involving loss of lives of passengers and others on the ground have illustrated the key role expected of airlines in ensuring the security of aircraft and the safety of those affected by the contract of carriage by air. The culmination of these expectations came immediately after 11 September 2001 when aircraft were used as weapons of mass destruction against passengers of the aircraft concerned and those on the ground. Sustained debate followed between the air transport industry and regulators as to whether airlines could justifiably be expected to bear full responsibility for the safety of those on board and on the ground who may be affected by an air disaster. The international community now recognizes that the airlines have to bear some responsibility in the decision-making process regarding persons boarding their aircraft. Modern techniques for passenger screening include the use of machine readable travel documents (MRTDs) and advance passenger information (API). In addition, the practice of passenger profiling is not uncommon among some carriers who cooperate with customs and immigration authorities to identify possible offenders, with a view to preventing them from boarding their aircraft. The process of refusal to board, however, may entail legal consequences, particularly in the context of the contract which has already passed between the air carrier and passenger prior to boarding. Although usually a contract can be frustrated thus affecting the performance of that contract, the instance of a potential offender is unique in that refusal of carriage is based on conjecture rather than empirical evidence. This article examines this issue with a focus on developments in some European and United States jurisdictions.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call