New Tendencies in EU Law on Air Passenger Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
egulation (EC) No 261/2004 depending on the circumstances of the travel disruption, requires air carriers to: provide passengers with assistance, such as meals, refreshments, telephone calls and hotel accommodation; offer re-routing and refunds; pay a flat-rate compensation of up to €600 per passenger, depending on the flight distance; and proactively inform passengers about their rights.Under the Montreal Convention (as translated by Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 into EU law), a passenger may be entitled to compensation in case of mishandled baggage (but with a limit of about €1200), except if the airline can demonstrate it has taken all reasonable measures to avoid the damages or it was impossible to take such measures. Airlines often fail to offer passengers the rights to which they are entitled in instances of denied boarding, long delays, cancellations or mishandled baggage, in particular under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("the Regulation") and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97. Case law has had a decisive impact on the interpretation of the Regulation. The Commission Communication of 11 April 2011 reported on the varying interpretation being taken on the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text, and the non-uniform enforcement across Member States. Furthermore, it is difficult for passengers to enforce their individual rights. With regard to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the European Parliament asks the Commission to propose a clarification of the passengers' rights, in particular the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. On 13 March 2013, the European Commission made a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing8common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air. This paper takes a closer look at this proposal. The proposal aims to improve enforcement by clarifying key principles and implicit passenger rights that have given rise to many disputes between airlines and passengers in the past; and by enhancing and better coordinating the enforcement policies carried out on a national level. Issues covered by the proposal are the following.\nDefinition of "extraordinary circumstances"\nRight to compensation in case of long delays\nRight to rerouting\nRight to care\nMissed connecting flight\nRescheduling Tarmac delays\nPartial ban of the "no show" policy\nRight to information\nHandling of individual claims and complaints\nBetter take into account the financial capacities of the air carriers\nEnsure better enforcement of passenger rights with regard to mishandled baggage\nAdapt liability limits in accordance to general price inflation
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 | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".