On Thursday (June 5) EU transport ministers are scheduled to vote on the revision of Regulation (EC) No. 261, the cornerstone of Europe’s passenger rights law.
EC 261 has set the gold standard for air passenger rights for over 20 years and is considered a global success story in consumer protection.
The current regulation stipulates that airlines are allowed to delay planes by 3 hours. The proposed change would allow airlines to delay flights to 5, 9 or even 12 hours and face no consequences.
With the proposed changes in place, 85% fewer delayed flights would be eligible for compensation, meaning 85% less protections in place. Such a rollback on consumers’ right to compensation disruptions would be the most significant regression in the history of EU consumer protection, airHelp has warned.
A4E: Misleading arguments to distract from real issues
Airlines for Europe (A4E) recently claimed that “70% of cancelled flights could be saved” under the proposed revision, suggesting that extending delay thresholds would reduce cancellations. This narrative is highly misleading and fundamentally flawed, AirHelp – the leading travel tech company supporting passengers with flight disruptions – has said.
“Airlines don’t cancel flights to avoid compensation, as in fact cancellations are far more expensive for carriers than delays. They involve refunding or rebooking all passengers, and in the process, dealing with major operational disruptions cascading across their network. The argument that current compensation rules incentivize cancellations is not only incorrect, it is economically nonsensical,” it said.
“Instead, delays and cancellations stem from poor scheduling, understaffing and crew shortages, and other operational system inefficiencies. Changing compensation rules won’t fix any of these issues. But it will cause many more and longer delays, as motivations for airlines to stick to their schedule will disappear, leaving passengers with fewer rights when disruptions occur.
“What A4E is really asking for is less responsibility. By reducing the circumstances under which airlines owe compensation, this proposal removes the key incentive for reliability and operational discipline, shifting the costs of disruption from airlines to passengers. Despite airlines already being exempt from compensation if the disruption wasn’t their fault.”
In a recent development, airline lobbyists have just programmed a meeting 24 hours before the scheduled Council vote. This is an attempt to apply final pressure on the European Union to abolish the benefits provided under EC 261, AirHelp said.
“The EU cannot succumb to external pressure, now more than ever global challenges demand solidarity, the EU must strengthen, not dilute its policies to affirm the powerful unity it represents and fight for consumers’ rights,” it said.
Skipping democratic processes
AirHelp added: “Also of concern is how the EU plans to implement the change, as what it’s attempting is a procedural shortcut designed to bypass the European Parliament in the legislative process and avoid public debate.
“By skipping the first reading and using the Parliament’s outdated position from 2014, the Council is attempting to lock in changes without giving elected representatives the chance to negotiate amendments, nor to reflect the interests of European consumers. Crucially, there is no evidence of public demand for such a rollback; travellers have not voiced satisfaction with current airline practices that would justify the erosion of their rights.
“Approving this revision through a procedural shortcut and bypassing the democratic input of the European Parliament sets a deeply troubling precedent. It shows how not only can fundamental consumer protections radically weaken overnight, they can also be quietly undone behind closed doors.”
CEO of AirHelp and President of APRA Tomasz Pawliszyn said: “This is unprecedented in the EU: we have never seen before the sudden cutback of existing consumer rights or the rushed and unorthodox way they’re going about it with the specific intent to avoid public scrutiny. After 20 years of a thriving travel industry under EC261, no one understands why passengers are willing to accept more delays and less airline accountability for those delays. Much of what is happening is being done in a rush and under cover because those pushing for the revision know that it will not be acceptable to the public. If they are concerned about competitiveness, the easy solution isn’t stripping European rights, but making non-European airlines comply with European standards.”
