ACI/IATA Friction

Airports Council International is to Airports what IATA is to carriers. The two international trade associations are at odds over several issues regarding airport costs, responsibility for pre-boarding security costs, etc. Earlier this year, ACI issued a report that dealt in detail with what it calls the three weak links in pre-boarding security....processes, people and equipment. Improvements in all three areas will require money and airport/airline co-operation. However, in a July 2006 speech to The Aviation Club of the UK, ACI's Director General called for IATA to disengage from any role in such discussions, suggesting that IATA does not really want the principals to meet directly. ACI denounced IATA for engaging in a "phoney war", "distortions", "empty rhetoric" and "an anti-airports agenda". It called on IATA to become a partner, and not an adversary.

(Originally posted by Doug Crozier)

Supreme Court (OGH) partly dismissed injunction against no-frills airline

OGH had to decide whether low price advertising of a no-frills airline was misleading. Plaintiff (another airline) claimed that defendant was promoting low price ticktes on his website although these tickets were not avialable on each flight, sometimes not even over the period open for online-booking, or only available for the outward but not the return flight. Plaintiff therefore moved for interim injuncion to interdict such misleading advertising. OGH held that consumers concerned were well aware that flight seats are sold at different fares and categories and they therefore knew that the cheapest fares normally have to be booked several months in advance. However, OGH prohibited to advertise low fares on the website if, over the period bookable there, no flight could be booked at these fares at all (but at higher fares only) or only outward but no return flights were available for booking (OGH 20.04.2006, 4 Ob 265/05g)

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)

Supreme Court (BGH) affirmed liability for water slide accident

Supreme Court (BGH) affirmed liability for water slide accident and dismissed tour operator's appeal. Plaintiffs' eleven year old child was killed at a holiday resort in Greece when his arm got trapped in a water slide's suction pipe which was not protected by a grating. The water slide had been built up without permission of the competent authority. BGH held that even though the water slide was not mentioned in the tour operators brochure and tourists had to pay the hotel seperately for using it, it still had been part of his performance under the package tour contract. As the tour operator had failed to provide reasonable security and to check construction permit he was liable for the accident. Plaintiffs were granted a compensation of EUR 40.000 in total. (BGH 18.07.2006, X ZR 142/05; press release 105/2006).

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)