The Committee on Transport and Tourism in the European Parliament has voted to maintain its strict demands for revising EU air passenger rights rules, prompting a notice of “deep concern” from the aviation industry.
Airlines for Europe, the European Regions Airline Association, and the International Air Transport Association combined to reveal deep concern over the recent push by the European Parliament by what id describes as “a bid to reduce consumer choice and harm the competitiveness of the European aviation industry”
They say this decision ignores evidence that consumers favour prioritising choice, value for money, and punctual air transport services over extra compensation that increases ticket costs.
EU261 provides air transport consumer protections that place the heaviest burdens on airlines globally without offering the value consumers seek.
Thy say the EU Commission’s revision of EU261 aimed to rebalance protections to support consumers while fulfilling the requirements of a modern and competitive air transport network in Europe. Airlines and passengers share the objective of a robust aviation network that delivers connectivity, value for money, and reliable performance.
The groups claims that adding more financial and operational burdens fails to tackle the underlying causes of travel disruption, such as infrastructure and air traffic management constraints, while endangering the affordability of air travel and the choice and competitiveness of transport to, from, and across the EU.
The airline groups pointed out critical concerns including the absence of impact assessment, contradictions with passenger preferences, and disregard for operational realities. They urge EU decision-makers to adopt a more realistic position as EU261 costs airlines and passengers €8.1 billion per year, with the focus on clarifying rules, maintaining accessible flying, and ensuring Europe remains connected.
- No impact assessment: The EU faces a competitiveness crisis. Proposing additional cost burdens on airlines and consumers without understanding their impact on ticket prices and route viability is reckless.
- Contradictions with passenger preferences: Passengers consistently report that they prefer to arrive late rather than not at all, especially in peripheral areas where no other forms of travel are available. The present three-hour threshold for compensation is simply not enough time to fly in a replacement aircraft and crew. Raising the threshold to match airlines’ operational needs would allow us to get a delayed plane in the air faster. This is a vital element which the TRAN Committee is dismissing.
- Disregard for operational realities: Proposals relating to carry-on luggage have been developed without any analysis of the impact of airline operations, such as limited onboard capacity, the potential to create additional delays, plus heavier flights with more emissions.
- Proposals to adopt a non-exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances fail to consider the reality of operating flights safely and efficiently.
- Airlines and their passengers have a shared goal: a strong aviation network that offers connectivity, value for money and performs as promised.
A4E shared in a written statement “The intention of the EU Commission’s revision of EU261 was to rebalance elements of that protection, supporting the consumer while meeting the needs of a modern and competitive air transport network for Europe. EU261 already offers air transport consumer protections that create the heaviest burdens on airlines in the world without delivering the value that consumers are looking for. The priority should be to clarify the rules, keep flying accessible to all and keep Europe connected.”
