Remove Red Tape

Passenger Rights

These Regulations deal with issues which are aimed at providing protection for those travelling to and from the UK by air. They include regulations which offer protection for UK travellers who are stranded overseas and offering support to disabled passengers travelling by air.

You can see a list of the regulations that apply to passenger safety below and to the left of this page.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

Go back to the Aviation theme landing page by clicking here.

11 comments on “Passenger Rights”

1. Frank Brehany on August 1, 2012 at 7:38 am said:

   I am the Consumer Director for HolidayTravelWatch. I find it remarkable that the government has included this issue within the so-called ‘red tape’ challenge when they know perfectly well that this area is governed by EC Regulation 261/2004! They will also know that this area has been subject to several EU wide Consultations on the future of 261/2004 the culmination of which was the recent Air Passenger Rights Stakeholders meeting in Brussels. I attended that meeting as did I believe several UK government officials. There were over 300 people at the said meeting and it was clear, that apart from several usual objections to its provisions, there was overwhelming support to amend, clarify and increase Consumer protections. Several contributors here have already hit the mark with their comments – enforcement is the key! This was the reaction of the audience in Brussels and it is clear that our own NEB falls woefully short of its obligations. It was also demonstrated in Brussels that there was a surprisingly small number of Consumers who had to employ the provisions of 261/2004 which lays to rest the notion that the Regulation is disproportionate! We must guard against those within this debate (as some suggested in Brussels), who suggest that we should adopt a US style Regulation – be wary of those that do, because they are a useless set of ‘regulations’ – the EU Regulations are substantially sound! There is a suggestion that following the Ash Cloud crisis, 261/2004 should be repealed. That is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water! We have offered, in recognition of the difficutlies of a major crisis, that a ‘crisis clause’ should be inserted into the Regulation which provides for a base set of rights for passengers and recognition of the commercial difficulties such crises cause for commercial entities. We have submitted several detailed reports on passenger rights to the EU Commission and [EDITED TEXT] If the relevant department that deals with air passenger rights or for that matter, the ‘red tape’ challenge team wish to discuss these issues directly with me, then they should not hesitate to contact me directly, as we can offer many Consumer experiences with airlines and their rights!Comment Tags: 261/2004, air passenger rights, consumer rights, ec regulation 261/2004, flight cancellation, flight delay, flight denied boarding, flights delays, travel consumer rights

   Reply ↓
2. Christine Standing on August 1, 2012 at 5:50 am said:

   The legislation is not strong enough to protect passengers. Self-regulation does not work. The issue of clean air on board aircraft has not been addressed, indeed the Government has sought to cover up the problems despite there being a wealth of academic literature – and litigation – that supports the view that aircraft ‘bleed air’ is poisoning people. Cabin air is harming people – who are NOT TOLD that there is a problem, even where pilots and cabin crew are hospitalised post-flight. Passengers cannot find adequate health care in these circumstances; passengers have no rights on this issue.

   A shameful tactic by the Government is the use of biased organisations to promote their own ‘industry-favoured’ views. Letters from the Government to me and others on this subject use out-dated intelligence. Even Boeing was forced to admit that bleed air contains noxious substances and intoxicants – [EDITED TEXT] So the Government looks silly when it denies the problem. This is ‘profits over safety’ at its worst.Comment Tags: bleed air; cabin air.

   Reply ↓
3. Sara Slocombe on July 24, 2012 at 9:10 pm said:

   I agree with what the others have said. The regulations should remain, though be clarified (as Peter Manley expounded on). They should not be changed to some non-regulatory option; we have many examples of this causing inaction and apathy on the companies’ and industries’ part. Leave the regulations there to protect consumers – keep the strong tradition of consumer protection in this part of the world.Comment Tags: Airline passenger rights, voluntary

   Reply ↓
4. Peter Manley on July 12, 2012 at 5:51 pm said:

   The regulations should remain . Generally the regulations should be clarified to to to enable proper implementation of same , and to do away with vague , ambiguous terms such as ‘ extraordinary circumstances ‘ in the case of flight delays / cancellations . Clariification should also be applied to definitions of delays and cancellations although I appreciate this is currently being considered by European Courts .Stricter guidlines should also be applied as to how airlines deal with complaints.

   Any relaxation of the current regulations would lead to certain airlines treating their customers with more contempt than they currently do so.

   A voluntary code would only mean one thing – less protection for the customer !

   In addition , hopefully the EU ruling on delays / cancellations will confirm their prior judgement and not give the airlines the excuse for offering a poor quality service with little regard for the consumers rights.Comment Tags: Flight delays cancellations

   Reply ↓
5. Brendan O'Friel on July 9, 2012 at 12:43 pm said:

   I regard existing protections for air passengers as insufficient and these protections should not be reduced. There is plenty of evidence of some airlines failing to deal with passenger issues especially by poor and slow complaints handling. While small improvements are being achieved in making airline fares more transparent , there is still a long way to go with this issue. Airlines do not provide adequate public information on their performance in so far as it is relevant to passengers – for example providing regular statistics on their punctuality and reliability. It is most regretable that the terms of reference of Passenger Focus – the rail and bus passenger advocate – were not extended to cover air travel. There are serious deficiencies in the co-ordination between air and surface transport so provide through journeys for passengers and to encourage people to use public transport to access airports rather than using private cars.

   Reply ↓
6. Richard Williamson on July 7, 2012 at 6:59 am said:

   The regulations should be enforced. Voluntary codes are an excuse to do nothing.

   Some airlines think that when services are cancelled or they have overbooked the seats that they can keep your money and you should buy another ticket. It’s even suggested that you should claim against your travel insurance when this happens.

   They should be forced to honour their contract and either rebook you on another flight or provide a full refund including the ‘tax’.

   The Red Tape is to protect the consumer not the airline.Comment Tags: Airline passenger rights

   Reply ↓
7. Dominic Dickins on July 6, 2012 at 7:08 pm said:

   It should be left as it is. It is a vital protection for air passengers. On past experience of other areas I am not impressed by the implementation of voluntary codes.

   Reply ↓
8. Ed Ward on July 5, 2012 at 4:28 pm said:

   just look at (Text deleted) and take note of all the tricks that have been mooted by this one airline to the detrement of passengers.
   Self regulation would be the fifth columns way of destroying englands airline carrier industry

   Reply ↓
9. Bob Pulker on July 5, 2012 at 11:26 am said:

   A voluntary Code does NOT work. We’ve seen that with the Banks and Tax Accountants and we know that [Deleted Text] would drive a coach and horses through any guideline as a matter of principle.

   They should be written with the consumer in mind NOT for the benfit of the industry. Get it right for the customer and the rest will follow.

   Customers should have the right to: standard sizing of bags, an allocated seat as part of the ticket price (which included all charges) and the company should be under statue to respond to customers without ANY form of extra charge being imposed.Comment Tags: voluntary

   Reply ↓
10. David Franklin on July 4, 2012 at 8:12 pm said:

    Passenger rights must be maintained, and certainly not made voluntary.

    Reply ↓
11. Steve Woodhead on June 28, 2012 at 11:38 am said:

    Enforce the provisions of 261/2004 via a statutory body (NEB), as is done in some other European states, rather than leaving it to the individual passenger to enforce their rights. This would ensure a more level playing field, would add consistency to some of the bizarre judgements emanting from the small claims process dealing with such matters and should speed up decisions in this area. I know of several cases where the claimant has only now received reimbursement of some fairly sizeable expenses incurred as a result of the Volcanic Ash incident, some 2 years after the event as the airline involved consistently denied responsibility despite their clear duty to reimburse these types of expenses incurred.Comment Tags: 261/2004 enforcement responsibility NEB Volcanic Ash

    Reply ↓