• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.249-277
• /
• 2015

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("Regulation") is a common rule on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In some recent cases of European nations, passengers sued the air carrier in order to obtain monetary compensation under Article 7(1) of the Regulation. Some courts dismissed the actions on the grounds that, unlike denied boarding or cancellation of the flight, the Regulation provides no compensation in relation to delayed flights. However, Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) ruled that Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted to mean that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation in cases when the loss of time is equivalent to, or is in excess of three hours - where the passengers eventually reached their final destination three hours or more later than the originally scheduled arrival time. It is true that a strict interpretation of the regulation would suggest that passengers whose flight has merely been delayed are not entitled to compensation. They should only be offered assistance in accordance with the Articles 6 and 9. Nevertheless, the Court recognized the same right to the same compensation for passengers of flights delayed by more than three hours as that explicitly provided for passengers of cancelled flights. On the one hand, the Court bases this ruling on the recitals of the Regulation, in which the legislature links the question of compensation to that of a long delay, while indicating that the Regulations seek to ensure a high level of protection for passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled or delayed. On the other hand, the Court interprets the relevant provisions of the Regulation in light of the general principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the Court delivered a ruling that the loss of time inherent in a flight delay, which constitutes an inconvenience within the intention of Regulation No 261/2004 and which cannot be categorized as 'damage occasioned by delay' within the meaning of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, cannot come within the scope of Article 29 of that convention. Consequently, under this view, the obligation under Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate passengers whose flights are subject to a long delay is in line with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. Although the above interpretation of the Court can be a analogical interpretation, the progressive attitude of the Regulation and the view of Court forward to protect passengers' interest is a leading role in the area of international air passenger transportation. Hopefully, after the model of the positive support in Europe, Korea can establish a concrete rule for protecting passengers' right and interest.

• Proceedings of the KSR Conference
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.558-563
• /
• 2007

Walking passenger injury accidents in and around stations have increased in recent years, and passengers are now more aware of being able to claim compensation for such accidents. Therefore, it is anticipated that station managers and owners will need to take measures to improve the condition of walking areas so that performance objectives are met an the compensation paid for passenger accidents is limited. The aim of this study covers the following: accidents statics and contributory factors, station flooring and footway material, guidance for flooring, and test methods for slipperiness and surface profile.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.33-62
• /
• 2020

The current air transportation industry is facing a lot of changes not only in the quantitative growth of the market, but also in the legal aspects. For many years, the Warsaw Convention has contributed to the uniform discipline of civil carriers' legal liabilities arising from international aviation accident and has fulfilled the duties of legal guardians for the development of the air transport industry. In the process, however, the consumer interests of the air transport industry did not have much protection compared to other industries. In response, the Montreal Convention has effected for protecting the interests of aviation consumers, and there are numerous legal changes around the world to protect aviation consumers like passengers. The mental damages of airline passengers arising from the accident can also be understood as part of the protection of air consumers. Considering that the US Federal Court has dealt with the recognition of mental damages for air passengers since the early 1990s. However, Korean judicial precedent still excludes mental anguishes from the scope of damage compensation. From this point of view, it is considered academically meaningful to analyze the latest case of the US federal court. Recently, the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit in Doe v Etihad Airways applied a different interpretation against the traditional opinion: passengers could not recover for mental distress unless that mental distress resulted from a bodily injury sustained in an airplane accident. The background of the court's conclusions can be explained in many ways, among other things, unlike the Warsaw Convention the new international rule, Montreal Convention is recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews and criticizes some issues as to the case of A and Others v. Finnair Oyj [2020] Case C-832/18 by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Under this case, the travellers brought an action against Finnair in light of the Air Passenger Regulation12, seeking compensation for both the first cancelled flight, and the delayed re-routed flight. Finnair had paid the first compensation, but refused to grant the second claim, arguing that the regulation did not set out that passengers were eligible for a second claim in those situations, and that the delay of the second flight was a consequence of 'extraordinary circumstances' under the regulation. The Court of Appeal in Helsinki has asked the CJEU whether an air passenger is entitled to a further compensation where a re-routed flight they have agreed to take is delayed, where both the original and rerouted flight are operated by the same air carrier. The CJEU held that the regulation does not in any way limit the rights of passengers where they find their flights being re-routed. As such, under earlier CJEU case law, the relevant travellers here were entitled to compensation for cancellation of the first flight and delay of the second flight. It also disagreed with Finnair's assessment that the technical failure in the re-routing flight was a matter of extraordinary circumstances.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology
• /
• v.15 no.11
• /
• pp.1472-1481
• /
• 2001

In this paper, an advanced shift controller that supervises the shift transients with adaptive compensation is presented. Modern shift control systems for vehicle automatic transmission are designe d to provide smooth transients for passengers' comfort and better component durability. In the conventional methods, lots of testing and calibration works have been done to tune gains of the controller, but it does not assure optimum shift quality at all times owing to system variations often caused by uncertainties in shifting hydraulic systems and external disturbances. In the proposed control scheme, an adaptive compensation controller with intelligent supervisor is implemented to achieve improved shift quality over the system variations. The control input pattern which generates clutch pressure commands in hydraulic actuating systems, is updated through a learning process to adjust for each subsequent shift based on continuous monitoring of shifting performance and environmental changes. The proposed algorithm is implemented and evaluated on the experimental test setup. Results from the experimental studies for several operation modes show both improved performance and adaptability of the proposed shift controller to uncertain changes of the shifting environment in vehicle power transmission systems.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society For Composite Materials Conference
• /
• 2004.10a
• /
• pp.203-206
• /
• 2004

Tilting train has been developed to increase the operational speed of the trains on conventional lines which have many curves. This train are tilted at curves to compensate for unbalanced carbody centrifugal acceleration to a greater extent than compensation produced by the track cant, so that passengers do not feel centrifugal acceleration and thus trains can run at higher speed at curves. This paper developed PDM(product data managemnet) to make a system engineering of TTX(tilting train express) with maximum operation speed 180 km/h.