Passenger Rights Research Articles

Persons with Disabilities and Their Right to Fly

At the beginning of 2008, a landmark ruling was issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA); the decision ordered some carriers to adopt a ‘one-person-one fare’ policy for persons with severe disabilities who travel within Canada by air. The rule provided the airlines a one-year period for the implementation of the new policy. This decision was unsuccessfully challenged before a Canadian Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence, the rule became effective as of 10 January 2009. This article analyzes this decision and the legislation in force in the European Union and the United States addressing the rights of air passengers with disabilities. It also includes a brief commentary on the pertaining rules contained in Annex 9 of the Chicago Convention, and the most relevant and recent jurisprudential developments in this matter are summarized. In addition, the possibility of adoption of a similar regulation in other countries and some nuances derived from the construction and implementation of the Canadian regulation are presented.

Air Carrier Responses to the Fuel Price Crisis: Some Issues

The Summer of 2008 heightened the burgeoning fuel price crisis which had been felt by the global community several months earlier, forcing numerous air carriers to react spontaneously and precipitously. Some carriers proceeded to apply surcharges on the first piece of baggage carried by a passenger – a practice hitherto unknown in the industry – and increased air fares as they thought fit, while others retrenched staff and cut down on their services. The air transport product has, throughout its availability over the past six decades, customarily carried a person and his baggage at a maximum free allowance. The measures taken by the carriers to transfer the burden of rising fuel prices to the passenger to the detriment of this accepted practice, brings to bear the issue as to whether the carriers could have considered alternate steps before taking these impulsive measures, which were clearly calculated to adversely affect the consumer of the product they offered. It also examines the critical role played by the air transport industry in its contribution to the global economy and the issue of passenger rights. The article concludes by examining as to what prudent measures could be taken by the carriers to more efficiently operate their air services in times of such crises.

Passengers with Reduced Mobility in the EU, Canada and the US

Over the last few years the protection of the rights of passengers with reduced mobility have attracted ever increasing attention of the international community. Two years ago Constance O’Keefe has already discussed in two articles the ongoing proposed Rule Making process in the United States. This article will address now the European Community. Regulation 1107/2006 as well as the recent decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency determining the rights and obligations of the handicapped public travelling by air as well as those of the carriers, airports and third–party providers.

Passengers, consumers, and travellers: The rise of passenger rights in EC transport law and its repercussions for Community consumer law and policy

EC transport law is set to be complemented by a series of Regulations giving rights to passengers for almost every mode of transport. These Regulations not only give transport law a distinct consumer dimension but also add new elements to European private law. This paper attempts to provide a horizontal, or intermodal, survey of these Regulations, adopted and proposed. It is argued that passenger law, although originating separately and remaining a sector distinct from other fields of law, has become part of a wider, three-stranded notion of European consumer policy deserving due attention as the force most dynamically expanding the area of Community law of contracts and of torts. The paper will point to the elements of consumer contract law and the law on travel and tourism related to passenger transport and elaborate on the basics for finding a common notion of the key terms like “passenger” and “damage” for Community law. It concludes with some points for further reflection.

Issues on liberalization of air cargo services in international aviation

This paper provides a general discussion of various issues related to the liberalization of air cargo services in international aviation. It shows that all-cargo carriers may have different routing needs than passenger carriers and thus require different sets of air traffic rights from those needed by passenger carriers. On the other hand, separation of air cargo and passenger rights will be fraught with difficulty in Asia because of distinctive characteristics of its air cargo market, where most passenger carriers have substantial cargo business and operate “combi” fleets. Customs and inter-modal transportation are also discussed in the context of cargo liberalization.

A model of air cargo liberalization: passenger vs. all-cargo carriers

This paper employs a multi-market oligopoly model to examine the effect of cargo liberalization on competition between all-cargo carriers and mixed passenger/cargo carriers. We find that if home carriers engage in the joint production of cargo and passenger services, whereas foreign carriers produce the two outputs separately, then unilateral cargo liberalization by the home country will reduce home firm profits and increase foreign profits, and raise air fares for passenger travel when foreign competition in the passenger sector is limited. Our analysis suggests that the separation of air cargo and passenger rights might be fraught with difficulty in Asia due to the characteristics of its air cargo market, in which most passenger carriers have substantial cargo businesses and operate “combi” fleets.

Street Railways: Issuance of Wrong Transfer: Passenger's Rights

Street Railways: Issuance of Wrong Transfer: Passenger's Rights

Street Railroads. Transfers. Rights of Passengers. Jenkins v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 51 N. Y. Supp. 216

Street Railroads. Transfers. Rights of Passengers. Jenkins v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 51 N. Y. Supp. 216