Regulation (EC) 261/2004 and Internal Strikes Under Article 5.3: <i>Its All About Control, Stupid</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the preamble of the EU passenger rights regulation (EU Regulation 261/2004) strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier are explicitly provided as an example of extraordinary circumstances, exempting the air carrier from having to pay compensation to the passengers. Complex in this regard is how one should see strikes by airlines staff also named ‘internal strikes’. There are persons – often boosted by commercial claim companies – who advocate that due to the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) judgment of 17 April 2018, Helga Krüsemann and Others v. TUIFLY it has been clearly established that these internal strikes do not constitute an extraordinary circumstance and thus obliges the air carrier to pay compensation. The authors have a different view. With this contribution, they want to put internal strikes and the concept of extraordinary circumstances in the proper context. For this they are ‘filleting’ EU Regulation 261/2004, the Montreal Convention, relevant ECJ case law and European social principles pursuant to which they want to show the proper nuances as regards internal strikes and the extraordinary ordinary defence for the air carrier. All of which should lead to a rewording of article 5(3) of the EU regulation 261/2004. Something for the EU legislator to take into account, as part of the still pending revision of this regulation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".