• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제34권1호
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

본 논문에서는 탑승거부와 관련한 EC 261/2004 규칙의 규정 및 그에 관한 판결들을 검토해 보았다. 항공여객운송 분쟁과 관련하여 빈번히 발생하는 탑승거부는 그 의미가 EC 261/2004 규칙상으로 그리 명확한 것은 아니지만, 앞서 살펴본 EU 판결들에서 어느 정도 그 범위에 관한 해석기준을 제시되어 있다. 일반적으로 탑승거부는 초과예약으로 인해 발생한 경우를 상정하는 것이 기존의 관점이었지만, 일련의 EU 판례에 따라 EC 261/2004 규칙상의 탑승거부에 다양한 경우의 탑승거부 사례들이 포함되게 되었다. 즉, 탑승거부의 개념과 범위가 포괄적으로 확대되고 보다 적극적인 항공소비자 보호가 실현될 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 이와 같은 관점에서 논문의 결론으로서 몇 가지 시사점들을 제시해 보고자 한다. 첫째, EC 261/2004 규칙상 탑승거부의 개념에는 초과예약으로 인해 발생한 탑승거부만이 아닌 다양한 경우의 탑승거부 사례들이 포함될 필요가 있다. 이는 EC규칙이 항공소비자의 권리보호를 제정목적으로 하고 있다는 점, 초과예약에 의한 탑승거부만을 규칙에서 의미하는 탑승거부만으로 볼 경우 항공여객의 권리구제가 훼손될 수 있다는 점, EC항공여객보상규칙 제2조 j호의 문면상 초과예약에 의한 탑승거부만으로는 결코 한정시킬 수 없다는 점 등의 이유 때문이다. 둘째, 탑승거부와 관련하여, 항공사의 초과예약도 없었고 항공사의 별도 과실이나 귀책사유도 발견되지 않은 경우, 여기서 그 원인의 본질에 EC 261/2004 규칙상의 특별한 사정이 존재하고 있는 경우에는 그 특별한 사정의 판단을 적절하게 고려할 필요가 있다. Finnair 판결에서는 파업과 같은 특별한 사정으로 인해 결항이 발생하였고, 연결항공편의 일정 조정은 불가피한 것이었음에도, 그러한 과정에서 탑승거부가 발생하였다. 여기서 항공운송인의 과실 내지는 귀책을 명확하게 찾을 수 없었다는 점이 중요하다. 법원은 이 경우에도 운송인의 보상책임을 인정하고 있는데, 결항의 원인이 항공운송인이 모든 합리적인 조치를 취했어도 피할 수 없었던 파업에 의해 발생한 것이라면 특별한 사정의 판단이 적용되어야 할 필요성이 있다. 셋째, EC 261/2004 규칙상 탑승거부와 결항의 경우에는 여객에게 금전보상이 이루어지고, 항공지연의 경우에는 금전보상이 아니라 대체항공편과 같은 항공사의 적절한 지원책만이 제공되고 있다. 만약 제1항공편과 제2항공편으로 연결항공에 의한 환승이 포함되어 있는 항공일정이 있을 때, 천재지변에 의해 제1항공편이 지연되었다. 지연은 되었으나 가까스로 여객은 제2항공편에 탑승게이트에 도착하였다. 이 경우의 문제는 어떻게 해결하여야 하는지가 문제이다. 제1항공편의 지연은 천재지변으로 특별한 사정에 해당하여 항공사는 면책을 주장할 수 있지만, 제2항공편의 탑승거부도 그렇게 주장할 수 있는지 명확하지 않다. Finnair 판결의 취지를 따르면, 제2항공편의 탑승거부에 대한 항공운송인의 보상의무가 가능할 수 있는데, 항공운송인이 아무런 과실과 귀책이 없는 경우에도 보상이 가능한 것인지 의문이다. 또한 동일한 원인으로 발생한 지연과 탑승거부에 대해 이처럼 다른 보상기준이 적용될 수 있는지도 문제이다. 향후의 EU사법재판소 판례가 EC 261/2004 규칙의 해석과 적용상 이러한 문제를 어떠한 방식으로 접근할 것인지 기대된다.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.