Ian Skuse of law firm Piper Smith Watton looks at the latest legal developments for travel professionals
Hotel price restrictions
Skyscanner and various other parties have successfully complained to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) over alleged price restrictions imposed by Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG) on Expedia and Booking.com.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT – now the Competition and Markets Authority, CMA) had previously agreed that commitments offered by IHG and the online travel agencies to offer discounted accommodation rates to a closed group would satisfy their concerns.
This agreement was appealed by Skyscanner to CAT, which found that the OFT’s consultation process was defective and ignored certain objections raised by interested parties. The matter has been sent back to the OFT/CMA to reconsider.
Suppliers operating vertical agreements – that is, agreements between firms at different levels of the supply chain, rather than direct sales to the consumer – need to ensure freedom of pricing by their agents to avoid these problems. It can be argued that the restrictions on pricing limit discounted prices.
Ancillary airline charges
Payment for airline facilities on top of the ticket price can include fast check-in, extra legroom seating, and additional baggage allowances.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ), in the Vueling Airlines SA vs Instituto Galego de Consumo case, in September explored EU Regulation 1008/2008 and debated whether the basic cost of the flight included the cost of checking in a suitcase – if so, the airline would not be entitled to charge a supplement.
The ECJ decided that baggage surcharges are legal, and that airlines were entitled to charge customers for checking in their luggage, as carriers faced extra costs storing and processing checked-in baggage. However, ticket prices should include hand baggage, so no surcharges are allowed.
Compensation for delayed flights
It has been a torrid time for airlines regarding passenger rights compensation for cancelled and delayed flights under EU Regulation 261/2004. The current battle-lines were drawn in some recent cases, which were decided by the UK's Supreme Court on October 31.
First, there is Huzar vs Jet2.com, which asks the question: can a technical fault with an aircraft, which causes a delay in excess of three hours, ever amount to extraordinary circumstances, entitling the airline to decline compensation claims?
Airlines point to defects that are both serious and included in the “minimum equipment list” for the aircraft. The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether it should follow the Huzar decisions to date – essentially meaning that hardly any technical defects will amount to extraordinary circumstances – or to adopt a more pragmatic approach. The court declined to hear the appeal of the airline indicating that it approved the earlier court decision.
Second: Dawson vs Thomson Airways. How long has a passenger got to bring a claim arising out of a delay to a flight under EU261/2004? Should it be up to six years in the UK, or two years under the Montreal Convention – or some other period of time? The airline's appeal against the earlier ruling of six years was again declined by the Supreme Court. This means that airlines are likely to have to pay compensation for claims going back over six years.
Meanwhile, in the recent case of Germanwings vs Henning, the ECJ had to decide whether the three hours-plus delay, triggering compensation under EU261/2004, was calculated from the touch-down of the aircraft, or from when the doors were opened. The ECJ found that it is calculated from when at least one door of the aircraft is opened upon arrival.
Destination safety concerns
With war erupting in the Middle East again and the Ebola virus spreading, the issue of destination safety is becoming even more important for employers and travel managers.
There is a duty-of-care and a need to avoid any suggestions of negligence where destinations become dangerous between booking and departure.
There is data available to business travellers and their employers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website if a real problem arises, and precautions can be put in place.
The real issue is where an employer knows that a particular safety issue or danger has arisen, but then fails to advise appropriately.
Those responsible for arranging business trips should be aware of any safety changes and arrange to keep the traveller informed where possible.
Ian Skuse is a partner and head of Piper Smith Watton’s Aviation, Travel & Tourism department. Piper Smith Watton (pswlaw.co.uk) is a business and private client law firm based in Westminster.