• 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.

• Journal of the military operations research society of Korea
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.90-100
• /
• 2000

This paper proposes a computer model for airline overbooking. The model is constructed in such as way that users feel easy to find the daily optimal number of additional customers given the reservations already bookded on that day by providing the appropriate cost of denied boarding. In this model, however, the reservations are restricted only up to 40 seats due to the limited P.C. capability. Heuristic approaches may be highly recommended for the larger number of reservations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.63-96
• /
• 2013

Recently, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) expanded the "Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections" on August 23, 2011 and October 24, 2011. The Rule regulates tarmac delays, denied boarding compensation, customer service plans, and fare advertising. The adopted rule is to protect passengers by improving passenger service requirements on U.S. national or domestic carriers and foreign air carriers as well. The major issues are as follows: First, regarding to so called Tarmac Delay, carriers must establish a Tarmac Delay Contingency Plan setting forth the number of hours the carrier will permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac at U.S. airports before allowing passengers to deplane. Carriers also must provide passengers with food and water in the event the aircraft remains on the tarmac for two or more hours and must provide operable lavatories and medical attention while the aircraft remains on the tarmac, irrespective of the length of the delay. Carriers also must create and retain records regarding tarmac delays lasting more than three hours. Also they need to update passengers every 30 minutes during a tarmac delay of the status of the flight and the reason for the delay, allow passengers to deplane if the aircraft is at the gate or another disembarkation area with the door open. Second, carriers now must adopt a "Customer Service Plan" that addresses offering customers the lowest fares available, notifying customers about delays, cancellations, and diversions; timely delivery of baggage; accommodating passengers' needs during tarmac delays and in "bumping cases"; and ensuring quality customer service. Third, the new regulations also increase minimum denied boarding compensation limits to $650 / $1,300 or 200% / 400% of the fare, whichever is less. Last, the DOT also has modified its policies related to enforcement of Rules pertaining to full fare advertising. The Rule states that the advertised price for air transportation must be the entire price to be paid by the customer. Similarly, Korea revised the passenger protection clauses within Aviation Act. However, it seems to be required to include various more issues such as Tarmac Delay, oversales of air tickets, involuntary denied boarding passengers, advertisements, etc.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.143-166
• /
• 2012

This paper deals in depth with airline over-booking practices and legal questions therefrom in the light of public interests. Chapter I as an introduction gives clear ideas of what are the over-booking, fact-revealing current state of denied boarding and nature of the problems inherent but veiled in those practices. In Chapter II, it is reviewed whether legal instruments for DBC(Denied Boarding Compensation) are adequately equipped for airline passengers in R. O. K. Upon the results of the review that international law to which Korea is a party, domestic law and administrative preparedness for the DBC are either null or virtually ineffective, the Chapter by contrast illustrates how well the U. S. and the E. U. safeguard civil rights of their passengers from such an 'institutionalized fraud' as the over-booking. In Chapter III on which a main emphasis lies, it is examined whether the over-booking practice constitutes a criminal offense: Fraud. In section 1, the author identifies actus reus and mens rea required for fraud then compares those with every aspect of the over-booking. In conjunction with the structural element analysis, he reviews the Supreme Court's precedents that lead the section into a partial conclusion that the act of over-booking judicially constitutes a crime of fraud. Despite the fulfillment of drawing up an intended answer, the author furthers the topic in section 2 by arguing a dominant view from Korean academia taking opposite stance to the Supreme Court. The commentators assert, "To consummate a crime of fraud, there must be property damage of the victim." For this notion correlates with a debate on legally protected interest in criminalization of fraud, the section 2 shows an argument over 'Rechtgut' matters specific to fraud. The view claims that the Rechtgut comes down rather to 'right to property' than 'transactional integrity' or 'fair and equitable principles'. However, the section concludes that the later values shall be deemed as 'freedom in economic decision-making' which are the benefit and protection of the penal law about fraud. Section 3 demonstrates the self-contradiction of the view as it is proved by a conceptual analysis that the infringement on freedom in economic decision-making boils down to the 'property damage'. Such a notion is better grounded in section 4 by foreign court decisions and legislation in its favour. Therefore, this paper concludes that the airline's act of over-booking is very likely to constitute fraud in both theory and practice.

• 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.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.109-134
• /
• 2014

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation of assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (Regulation No 261/2004) provides extra protection to air passengers in circumstances of denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay. The Regulation intends to provide a high level of protection to air passengers by imposing obligations on air carriers and, at the same time, offering extensive rights to air passengers. If denied boarding, cancellation and long-delay are caused by reasons other than extraordinary circumstances, passengers are entitled for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane SpA(Case C-549/07, [2008] ECR I-11061), the Court did, however, emphasize that this does not mean that it is never possible for technical problems to constitute extraordinary circumstances. It cited specific examples of where: an aircraft manufacturer or competent authority revealed that there was a hidden manufacturing defect on an aircraft which impacts on safety; or damage was caused to an aircraft as a result of an act of sabotage or terrorism. Such events are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin. One further point arising out of the court's decision is worth mentioning. It is not just necessary to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test for the airline to be excused from paying compensation. It must also show that the circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. It is clear from the language of the Court's decision that this is a tough test to meet: the airline will have to establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able - unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time - to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.3-51
• /
• 2017

From a historical point of view, while the Warsaw Convention was passed in 1924 to regulate the unified judicial responsibility in the global air transportation industry, protection of airline consumers was somewhat lacking in protecting air carriers. In principle, the air carrier does not bear any obligation or liability when the aircraft is not operated normally due to natural disasters such as typhoon or heavy snowfall. However, in recent years, in developed countries such as the US and Europe, there has been a movement in which regulates the air carriers' obligation to protect their passengers even if there is no misconduct or negligence. Furthermore, the legislation of such advanced countries imposes an obligation on the airlines to compensate the loss separately from damages in case the abnormal operation of the aircraft is not caused by force majeure but caused by their negligence. Under this historical and international context, Korea is also modifying the system of aviation consumer protection by referring to other foreign legislation. However, when compared with foreign countries, our norm has a few drawbacks. First, the airline's protection or care obligations are mixed with the legal liability for damages in the provision, which seems to be due to the lack of understanding of the airline's passenger protection obligation. The liability for damages, which is governed by the International Convention or the Commercial Act, shall be determined by judging the cause of the airline's liability in respect of the damage of the individual passenger in the course of the air transportation. However, the duty to care and the burden for compensation shall be granted to all passengers who feel uncomfortable with the abnormal operation regardless of the cause of the accident. Also, our compensation system for denied boarding due to oversale is too low compared to the case of foreign countries, and setting the compensation amount range differently based on the time for the re-routing is somewhat unclear. Regarding checked-baggage claim, it will be necessary to refund the fee only from the fact that the baggage is delayed without asking whether there is any damage occurred from the delayed baggage. This is the content of the duty to care, which is different from the current Commercial Act or the international convention, in which responsibility is different depending on whether the airline takes all the necessary measures in order to prevent delaying of the baggage. The content of force majeure, which is a requirement for exemption from the obligation to care passengers on the airplane, shall be reconsidered. Maintenance for safe navigation is not considered to be included in force majeure, and connection to airplanes, airport conditions are disputable. According to the EC Regulation, if the cause of the abnormal operation of the airline is force majeure, the airline's compensation obligation is exempted but the duty to care of airline company is still meaningful. Furthermore, even if the main role of aviation consumer protection is on an airline, it is the responsibility of government agencies to supervise the fulfillment of such protection obligations. Therefore, it is necessary for the Korean government to actively take measures such as enforcing incentives for airlines that faithfully fulfill their obligation to care and imposed penalties on the contrary.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.63-97
• /
• 2016

Ago the passenger who using a wheelchair was denied boarding from the airline. The ACT ON THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST DISABLED PERSONS prohibits discriminatory treatment of persons with disabilities in transportation. But there are situations that limits the movement on persons with reduced mobility. The international community promote to protect disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility against discrimination and to provide them with assistance when travelling by air. According to news report, the governing Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has established new global core principles on air transport consumer protection. The principles cover three phases of a customer's experience: before, during and after travel, and will now be considered by ICAO's 191 Member States when they develop or review their applicable national regimes. The international community are recognizing that passengers can benefit from a competitive air transport sector, which offers more choice in fare-service trade-offs and which may encourage carriers to improve their offerings, passengers, including those with disabilities, can also benefit from consumer protection regimes. In accordance with these we will also be provided to regulations that can prevent and protect the air passenger. In this paper analyze the regulations of the international air passenger rights, point out the lack of policy.

• 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.