-
Hi there,
I recently travelled with Saudia, by who I had to suffer a 17 hour delay at MAN airport due to them announcing a sudden bank holiday after they scored against Argentina in the world cup.
Nonetheless, they’ve been fantastic and willing to pay out for the delay, however they have said that due to CAA rules they cannot compensate for the infant. Is this true and could anyone shine any knowledge on this?
Many thanks,
If passengers are travelling on a ‘free of charge’ basis as UK261 Article 3 s3, then it appears not.
It is correct, the same happened to me few months ago with TAP, they only paid compensation for my wife and me, not my son.
It’s another deficiency in the legislation that doesn’t address lap infants. Some lower courts have allowed compensation and others have not but I don’t think there is an ECJ decision. The favourable decisions seem to revolve around how an airline charges for infants – whether it is actually a fare or an administrative charge.
It’s another deficiency in the legislation that doesn’t address lap infants. Some lower courts have allowed compensation and others have not but I don’t think there is an ECJ decision. The favourable decisions seem to revolve around how an airline charges for infants – whether it is actually a fare or an administrative charge.
It might vary by airline, but my recent cash bookings on BA and SQ both have separate tickets for the infant and those tickets have an explicit nonzero fare component alongside other taxes and charges.
It’s another deficiency in the legislation that doesn’t address lap infants. Some lower courts have allowed compensation and others have not but I don’t think there is an ECJ decision. The favourable decisions seem to revolve around how an airline charges for infants – whether it is actually a fare or an administrative charge.
If consideration is paid to the airline for passenger transport, that isn’t ‘free of charge’.
It might vary by airline, but my recent cash bookings on BA and SQ both have separate tickets for the infant and those tickets have an explicit nonzero fare component alongside other taxes and charges.
If any of those charges are carrier surcharges then there is an argument to be had that they had a paid ticket given the surcharge is down to the airline and not any other authority such as a government (tax) or an airport related fee.
It’s another deficiency in the legislation that doesn’t address lap infants. Some lower courts have allowed compensation and others have not but I don’t think there is an ECJ decision. The favourable decisions seem to revolve around how an airline charges for infants – whether it is actually a fare or an administrative charge.
If consideration is paid to the airline for passenger transport, that isn’t ‘free of charge’.
It isn’t a question of whether it is free of charge because low fare tickets (eg staff ones) are excluded from EC261. An administrative charge would also constitute ’consideration’ but some judges have distinguished that concept from fares. There is simply no definitive answer yet.
I’d be happier if Article 3 s3 of Uk261 referred to ‘charge’ or ‘fare’ and didn’t use both.
Thanks everyone for the insight, I have checked and can see that the infant was charged a small surcharge however i might pursue this after i get the amount for the other passengers back in my account.
If the infant had a seat then there should be no question.
If lap infant then it hinges on what was charged. So if just official airport-charged fees (such as immi) and government taxes then no you wouldn’t have paid for a seat as such. If it was a route from the UK this would now be easier to work out as kids up to quite a high age aren’t required to have APD paid on their seats.
I wouldn’t be put off by any documentation stating any charge is purely admin. Ryanair does that to try to reduce paybacks of govt tax they’re fully liable to pay out in full and with a bit of luck a court will definitively identify that as a scam to frustrate the passenger’s legal entitlement sometime soon.
If you had to pay any amount for the infant over and above the amount of true taxes in your own booking, I’d definitely go for it.
Just to be clear the APD exemption for under 16 year olds only applies to economy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
