KLM looses case on claims with delay at Hato

May 25, 2011 6:59 AM

THE HAGUE — The Conciliation Board of Aviation decided against airline company KLM in a dispute with at least one passenger, who had been delayed more than one day due to a technical defect, demanding repayment of her ticket.

KLM is meanwhile waiting for a hearing with the Aviation Inspection and developments with regard to the so-called Sturgeon-decree (see box Sturgeon-decree).

The case with the Conciliation Board regards the flight from Hato airport to Schiphol. Instead of departing in the afternoon of January 10th, this flight was delayed for 27 hours. The delay was caused by a defect to a part of the so-called flap transmitter that steers the moving parts of the wings and was discovered when the aircraft had still been on St. Maarten. As a spare part had to be flown in, the aircraft arrived at Hato with a delay, subsequently landing at least a day later than scheduled in The Netherlands, the Conciliation Board concluded. Nevertheless, KLM had arranged for meals and hotels for the duped passengers.

One of the passengers, the Aruban Evelin-Pierre Dumfries, had called in the Conciliation Board of Aviation and the Inspection of Transport and Public Works after a KLM co-worker told her the airline company would only compensate any additional costs made, but would not refund her ticket.

At the Conciliation Board, the airline company stated they had several reasons for this. The most important reason was that KLM had wanted to postpone the case in anticipation of additional jurisprudence on claims to passengers. In particular, it regards the jurisprudence on the so-called Sturgeon-decree where the European Court of Justice stated that airline companies with delays of more than three hours are compelled to compensate their passengers. “That applies all the more now the issue in question could have far-reaching consequences for KLM,” says the airline company. Other arguments presented by KLM in the dispute were the question of a delay and not a cancellation of the flight and the delay was due to exceptional circumstances, namely a defect to the wings.

Defect

The Conciliation Board rejected the arguments from KLM. The Board does not wish to wait for new developments regarding the Sturgeon-decree because the ‘presented prejudicial questions by the English High Court of Justice and the court of Breda, perhaps – even with a dismissal – could be put aside or be closed with a brief motivation with reference to previous jurisprudence’. As regards the other arguments, the Conciliation Board refers to the judgment of the Inspection of Traffic and Public Works that Dumfries’ complaint was valid. “A technical defect is not an exceptional circumstance, but inherent to regular management,” the Inspection states in their judgment. Therefore, the Conciliation Board ordered KLM last Thursday to pay a claim of 600 euros and a compensation of 50 euros for costs made upon filing the complaint.

For that matter, KLM has lodged an objection with the Inspection of Traffic and Public Works, whose task is to supervise the observance of international aviation rules and protect the rights of passengers with the airline companies. The hearing will come up in court on June 9th where the compliant from Dumfries will be handled as well as the complaints from eleven other passengers. For the time being, Dumfries is happy with the ruling of the Conciliation Board. “I enjoy flying with KLM and will continue to do so. Their service is excellent, but this regards a matter of principle.” Dumfries does not preclude she will eventually institute court proceedings to be put in the right if KLM does not pay. After all, the Conciliation Board has no authority to recoup the damage from the airline companies, although the verdict is binding and all parties are compelled to observe such.

Sturgeon-decree

In November 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled that passengers are entitled to compensation not only with cancellation of flights but also with delays over three hours; the so-called Sturgeon-decree, named after Christopher Sturgeon, who had instituted court proceedings against airline company Condor. Since then, several European airline companies complained against this ruling of the European Court, stating that the obligation contravenes other European treaties. The English High Court of Justice and the court of Breda, amongst others, presented the court several so-called prejudicial questions on this issue.

(Source: National Newspaper Amigoe)

25 May 2011