Latest news with #passengerRights
Zawya
09-07-2025
- Business
- Zawya
Saudi: GACA imposes fines for 87 civil aviation violations in Q2 2025
RIYADH —The General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) announced that it imposed financial penalties exceeding SR2.8 million for a total of 87 civil aviation violations during the second quarter of 2025. The fines were slapped on entities and individuals who failed to comply with the Civil Aviation Law, executive rules, and directives issued by GACA, according to a report by GACA's pertinent committee. Of the total, 63 violations were recorded against air carriers for not adhering to the Passenger Rights Protection Regulation, resulting in fines exceeding SR1.9 million. Additionally, SR70,000 in fines were issued for 13 violations by air carriers for failing to verify required passenger documentation and for not adhering to approved time slots. GACA also imposed SR775,000 in fines for 8 violations against companies and air carriers for non-compliance with its regulations and instructions. Regarding individuals, a total of SR10,000 in fines was imposed for three violations by passengers for failing to comply with the provisions of the Civil Aviation Law and for engaging in inappropriate behavior onboard aircraft. GACA emphasized that these actions reflect its commitment to transparency and clarity, reaffirming its ongoing regulatory and supervisory role in the aviation sector. The authority underscored its dedication to enhancing the passenger experience and improving the quality of air transport services in Saudi Arabia. © Copyright 2022 The Saudi Gazette. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Daily Mail
07-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Philly mom reveals shocking seat reclining behavior on Virgin Atlantic flight...and says cabin crew backed offender
A Philadelphia mother sparked an airplane etiquette uproar after sharing a squabble she had with another passenger on a Virgin Atlantic flight over a reclined seat. Traveler blogger Mari Di Chiara, known as Mari on the Map, claimed a woman sitting behind her sleeping son on a plane asked for her to un-recline his seat so she could fit her family-of-five in a row meant for just four people. 'She was trying to squeeze her family of 5 (2 parents & 3 kids) into 4 seats bc her husband didn't reserve a seat nearby,' Mari wrote in a Thread post on Sunday. 'She had a child well-over lap age on her lap (mid flight, seatbelt sign off).' When Mari refused - not wanting to wake her son up - the other woman made a fuss and called over a flight attendant, according to her post. To the influencer's surprise, the staffer allegedly took her adversary's side and asked again for her to move the seat up to give the tightly-packed family more room. But Mari was growing increasingly frustrated with the bizarre encounter and stood her ground. 'I refused again. I did not want to wake my son up, and that family shouldn't be squeezing 5 people into 4 seats,' the mother explained. 'Flight attendant gave me a bit of a hard time, then dropped it and left.' Although Mari got her way, she claimed the woman she feuded with spent the next hour or so complaining about her and her family. 'So I want to know, do you think the person in the seat can choose if they recline, or is it up to the person behind them?' she asked her more than 1,800 followers on Threads. 'I personally think if my seat reclines, I have the right to recline it. What do you think?' Mari's anecdote piqued the interest of nearly 5,000 viewers - who had mixed reactions to her uncomfortable travel experience. 'I would report that flight attendant for violating safety protocols,' one user, siding with Mari, responded. 'Absolutely no. What u did was correct. This people who think they are privileged and can do anything are biggest jokers,' another agreed. 'They like to create scene for their benefit and cry for sympathy.' But others called out Mari for being 'rude,' saying she should have been more considerate of the other passengers. 'Some people are willing to make small sacrifices for the benefit of others. You clearly aren't one of them,' one commenter, who thought Mari was in the wrong, wrote. 'I think you are a selfish passenger,' another said. 'I think you were being willfully petty. You could've lifted the arm rest and let your kid lie down on you. I wish people would relearn kindness,' someone added. 'If you recline your seat in Economy, you are just the f***ing worst, and that's the end of it,' one user bluntly stated. Some users were skeptical of Mari's story altogether, as they found it hard to believe a flight attendant would allow five people to sit in a row. The Daily Mail has reached out to Mari and Virgin Atlantic Airlines for comment. Mari's blog and overall social media presence focuses on affordable travel for families. 'I specialize in helping families travel smarter. As a parent, I understand the challenges of finding destinations and activities that are truly family-friendly,' she wrote on her website.
Irish Times
13-06-2025
- Irish Times
Airline passenger denied exit row seat because of autism is awarded €7,500
An airline has been ordered to pay a passenger €7,500 for refusing to let him sit in an exit row seat he had booked specially for extra legroom because he had disclosed that he was autistic. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) made the award after upholding a complaint of disability discrimination and harassment in breach of the Equal Status Act brought against the airline in an anonymised decision published on Friday. The tribunal heard the difficulty arose when the man arrived to check in for a return flight to Dublin from London in March 2024. The claimant, whom the tribunal noted was 'autistic and uses a sleep apnoea machine', had written to the airline requesting special assistance before he left. In the letter, he referred specifically to difficulties with queuing and requiring space for the sleep apnoea machine, the tribunal heard. READ MORE 'All went well on the first leg,' he told the tribunal and he flew in seat 12A, which he had pre-booked. When he went to check in his baggage for his return flight on March 18th that year, he was told he had been moved out of the emergency exit row seat he had booked 'due to his disability', he said. His evidence was that he produced his medical certification and asked to have the matter 'resolved quickly and discreetly' so that he 'would not have to keep explaining his disability in the presence of other passengers'. He was told to speak to the cabin crew, he said. He was first to the boarding gate and spoke to a worker there who 'did not understand his difficulty', he said. By the time she had called over a colleague, he said, the gate was full of passengers and a queue was forming behind him. He 'again told the entire story'. The second worker told him that 'as a result of being autistic they would not let him sit at the emergency exit', he said. The claimant said it was 'humiliating and degrading' to have to discuss his diagnosis 'in front of a large crowd of onlookers' who 'all could hear what was happening'. Having explained that his disability did not amount to any 'cognitive or physical impairment' that would impair his ability to aid in an evacuation of the plane in an emergency, he was again told to speak with the cabin crew. When the time came to board, he was put in the second row and said he sat with his legs 'pinned up against the seats in front of him' and 'unable to move'. After asking twice to speak to a member of the cabin crew, one came and told him he could not sit in the emergency exit row 'because of his disability'. He remained in that seat for the rest of the flight, which he called a 'distressing, humiliating and degrading' experience. The passenger's position was that being required to repeatedly refer to his diagnosis in public because of the 'persistent' questions of airline staff amounted to harassment. In its defence of the claim, the airline's lawyers, Arthur Cox LLP, relied on safety regulations governing 'special categories of passengers'. The rules covered people requiring 'special conditions, assistance and/or devices when carried on a flight' and barred such passengers from being seated in seats which 'permit direct access to emergency exits', the tribunal was told. As the claimant had registered himself as a person with a disability, he therefore fell under the remit of those regulations, the airline's lawyers submitted. Adjudication officer Pat Brady wrote in his decision: 'A full reading of the regulations makes it clear the critical criterion is that of mobility, and its impact on safety in an emergency.' He said the regulations 'do not provide a blanket ban on seating any person who may be a special category passenger at an emergency exit row, unless the nature of that person's disability or lack of mobility pose a reasonable impediment to the safe evacuation of the aircraft'. Mr Brady wrote that what happened at the boarding gate could only be described as 'a shambles'. He concluded that the passenger had been discriminated against in breach of the Equal Status Act by being denied reasonable accommodation for his disability as well as suffering harassment. Mr Brady directed the airline to pay the claimant €7,500 for discriminatory treatment. He also ordered the airline to establish procedures for ascertaining the 'capacity and mobility' of any passenger seeking the special category status according to the regulations 'before declining a booking in any part of an aircraft'.
Fox News
10-06-2025
- Fox News
Flight passenger stands firm against entitled seat swapper's demands: 'I'm not moving'
As summer travel kicks into high gear, the game of musical chairs in the sky shows no signs of slowing down as the seat-swapping trend continues. In the "r/americanairlines" forum on Reddit, a user titled a post, "Finally happened to me." The person wrote, "Maybe I should stop reading about seat swappers … because it finally happened to me. Get in my 2A seat and I tell the woman, 'Hey, before you get settled, I'm at the window.' And she goes, 'Well, my husband and I are apart in separate aisle seats.'" The user continued in the post, "I go, 'OK, well, I'm not moving, so I hope you figure it out.' She goes, 'Well, it's still business class.' No." The Reddit poster added, "To clear this up, I'm on an airbus 2x2. No middle. And it was my seat that I paid for. Moving to an aisle when I booked a window months ago is not the same … otherwise [I] would've obliged," the flight passenger clarified. The post garnered over 1,000 reactions as people took to the comments section to discuss the issue and share their own encounters with seat swappers on board flights. "I'm not at all for seat swapping. It's ridiculous," wrote one user. Another user wrote, "Returned recently from Munich and the lady across the aisle kept asking me to switch seats so she could sit next to her husband." Another person wrote, "I mean, there's no harm in asking, but if the answer is 'No,' politely drop it and move on." "Unless a person has some sort of illness where their traveling partner needs immediate proximity, there's no point in this," wrote one user. Many users addressed fellow flyers' need to be near their spouses or family members on planes. "Why can't grown-ups just suck it up if they are not next to one another for a few hours?" commented one user. A Redditor wrote that she and her spouse "fly often, and sometimes we can't sit next to each other - big deal. We never ask someone to trade seats." A user admitted, "I am one of these seat swappers any time I travel with family. We reserve a row and the window and aisle seat … hoping no one gets the middle … If we happen to get a middle [seat]er, we ask them if it's OK if they get the window instead or aisle. Haven't had a complaint yet … Hoping it stays that way." California-based etiquette expert Rosalinda Randall weighed in on the situation, telling Fox News Digital that "no one has the obligation to switch their seat." "The person making the request has no right to expect [this] or make a scene when they don't get their way," said Randall. Randall said there may be some circumstances in which it would be a minor inconvenience to switch. "It's a short flight, you can find a similar seat in another row, or anyone would be an improvement from the passenger [you're currently] sitting next to," said Randall.
The Independent
09-06-2025
- The Independent
How the EU's biggest air passengers' rights shake-up in a generation will affect you
Flight cancellations, long delays and overbooking resulting in passengers being denied boarding: for decades, airlines could cause all kinds of problems without regard for travellers. In many parts of the world, they still can. But in 2004 the European Union announced Regulation 261 – which transformed air passengers' rights rules across Europe. It stipulated a duty of care for disrupted travellers and provided cash compensation for short-notice cancellations and overbooking. Three things happened over the following years: A series of increasingly eccentric European Court of Justice rulings distorted the original intentions of the rules and made impossible demands of Airlines Claims firms sprang up to extract cash from carriers for delayed flights Airlines realised they could ignore many of the rules, particularly on passenger care, with impunity The EU is now in the process of revising the regulation. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union have agreed fresh proposals that try to clear up some of the many anomalies in the law. But the proposals could yet be amended, and there is no clear indication when they will take effect. These are the key questions and answers. In the beginning … The EU said airlines must improve their attitude to passengers. Cancellations, delays and overbooking are common. Brussels decreed that airlines making short-notice cancellations should pay compensation – unless 'extraordinary circumstances' were responsible. The amount: between €250 and €600, depending on the length of the flight. The same applied to airlines denying boarding to passengers because they had sold too many tickets. Cash payouts comprise one half of the rules. The other half is to do with passenger care in the event of disruption – requiring meals and, if necessary, accommodation to be provided until the journey begins. Airlines must get the traveller to their destination as soon as possible, including on rival carriers if need be. What happened next? Many airlines ignored at least some of the rules, for example: Neglecting the first rule of the rights register, which is: tell people their rights Insisting passengers could only be rebooked on the carrier's own services Not providing accommodation for passengers stranded at airports At the same time, an industry of claims handlers sprang up – fighting for compensation in return for about one-third of the payout. A series of test cases came up with some surprising conclusions, such as that a three-hour delay constitutes the same degree of harm to a passenger as a cancellation, and therefore deserves identical compensation if the airline is responsible. This led to all kinds of passenger-unfriendly outcomes, such as airlines shuffling fleets to delay multiple flights by less than three hours rather than having one flight Another case concluded that if a pilot tragically died in service and a flight was delayed or cancelled, the carrier should pay compensation for failing to have spare crew everywhere it flew. What is proposed? Compensation The EU accepts that initial compensation rates were ridiculously high. Inflation has halved their value in the past two decades, but there is no attempt to keep up with general price rises. In fact, payouts will be cut for many passengers – except for those on the shortest flights. Flights up to 1,500km: Now €250, future €300 Flights 1,500-3,500km: Now €400, future €300 Flights over 3,500km: Now €600, future €500 The length of the delay will also rise before a pay-out is made: Flights up to 3,500km: now three hours, future four hours Flights over 3,500km: now four hours (with half- compensation after three hours), future six hours In a bid to increase the proportion of passengers claiming compensation, airlines must 'provide the passenger with a pre-filled form' to help them get the payout. Airlines' excuses 'Extraordinary circumstances' are excuses that allow airlines to dodge compensation payouts, though not the duty of care. They will be more clearly specified so that: Airlines will no longer be expected to have pilots and cabin crew stationed at all their destinations in case a crew member falls ill or dies Strikes among airline staff in protest against government decisions (eg on pensions or retirement age) no longer require compensation to be paid Other key changes The duty of care will be limited to three nights accommodation; cases that are longer than this are rare. No-show outbound should not lead to cancellation of whole itinerary – eg Air France passenger from Manchester to Paris who doesn't take the first leg should still be able to fly back. Airlines can claim redress for financial damage from third parties that trigger a duty of care – eg the Heathrow fire, which cost carriers up to £100 million. Greenland swerves compensation payouts due to 'particularly harsh meteorological conditions, and is characterised by very low population density and the remoteness of its populated places'. Will the UK follow suit? It will have to, or there will be some irrational outcomes – for example on an Amsterdam-London flight operated by an EU-registered aircraft, the rules would be different from a UK aircraft. Since easyJet has both kinds of planes, and deploys them on this route, the entitlement to compensation could hinge on the registration – causing yet more passenger confusion.
