› EALA, 9th Munich Liability Seminar, 19th May 2012

01.11.2012, Hamm

European Passengers’ Federation

The revision of Regulation 261/2004: a passenger viewJosef Schneider www.epf.eu

› EPF MapMay 2015y

• 35 member organisations• 19 countries

› WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN PASSENGERS FEDERATION?

• Association of national and regional passengers’ organisations

• 35 member organisations in 19 European states

• Represents passengers’ views at the European level

• Covers all public (collective) transport modes -Covers all public (collective) transport modes railways, buses, aviation and maritime transport

• Works collaboratively with opinion formers and policy makersWorks collaboratively with opinion formers and policy makers

• Independent – always asks:

‘What’s in it for passengers?’

› EU CONSUMER MARKETS SCOREBOARD, 2012 Satisfaction with services : meeting expectations -“T h t t t did th i ff d li t h t t d?”“To what extent did the service offered live up to what you wanted?”

90%

100%

60%

70%

80%

90%

7165 63 60 60 58 55 54 52 50 51 51

45 41 36

40%

50%

60%

3540 45

48 High

Moderate

10%

20%

30%

10 9 9 10 11 11 13 15 14 16

2631 33 36 35

33 37 37 38 39 38 35 Moderate

Low

0% 4 4 4 4 5 10 9 9 10 11 11

› VULNERABLE AIR TRAVELLERS

• Passengers in stressful situation

• Flying can be an infrequent andFlying can be an infrequent and unfamiliar experience

• A hard earned holiday or key• A hard-earned holiday or key business meeting at stake

O h i l l k f• Others in control; lack of personal empowerment

• The importance of information – especially when things are going wrongg g g

› KEY CONSIDERATIONS

• Timely access to sufficient and reliable information

• Practical assistance

• Identification of suitable• Identification of suitable alternatives

A di• Access to remedies

• Assured and consistent enforcement

• Informed consumers make for better business: need to monitor carriers’ and airports’ performance

› WHY APR HAS NOT MET USERS’ EXPECTATIONS

• Carriers’ non-compliance

• Lack of awareness of APR

• Too many ‘ifs and buts’• Too many ifs and buts

• Deficient enforcement

• Failure to address 3rd party liabilities (eg impact of air traffic control strikes)

• Current APR regime perceived as g pover-onerous for airlines

› OVER-COMING THE POLICY DEFICIT

• Proper application of APR by carriers and member states

• Enforcement of sufficient, simple, means of redress

• Publicise accurate information on APR

• Ensure informed, proportionate debate of issues – e.g.

R i d ‘EU261 L ’• Ryanair and ‘EU261 Levy’• Majority don’t enforce

entitlements

• Focus on outcomes, not causes

› KEY CONSIDERATIONS

• Timely access to sufficient and reliable information

• Practical assistance

• Identification of suitable• Identification of suitable alternatives

A di• Access to remedies

• Assured and consistent enforcement

• Informed consumers make for better business: regular monitoring information

› WELCOME THINGS IN THE PROPOSED REVISION

• Drafting clarifications: e.g. ‘extreme circumstances’

• Obligation to rerouting with another carrier or mode

• Keeping passengers informed

P i i f i• Provision for contingency planning obligation

• EU monitoring of national enforcement

› MISSING INITIATIVES

• Monitoring and publication of carriers’ performances; c.f. $28 of 1371/2007of 1371/2007

• Common practice obligation for NEBsNEBs

• Obligatory carrier i irepresentation at airport

• Consistent treatment between modes

• Absence of one-stop-shopp p

• Greater simplicity

› Key principals

A level playing field for all passengers

for all modes of transport

Passenger Rights ConsistentConsistent

Publicised

MonitoredMonitored

Reported

f d enforced

› AND ABOVE ALL….

• Make understanding the needs and aspirations of end-users central to all policyusers central to all policymaking in transport

• do this for all modes ofdo this for all modes of transport, thinking in end-to-end journeys

› Thank you for your attention!

Josef SchneiderJosef SchneiderSecretary EPF

Josef.Schneider@EPF.eu

www.epf.eu