Brussels’ plans to reform air-passenger compensation rights are being met with much scepticism from passenger rights organisations that adhere to the notion of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”.
Experts from several organisations held a press briefing on the matter today.
They expressed their views on the legislative state of play and key insights at the European negotiations regarding EC261, the European Union regulation that entitles passengers to financial compensation for flight disruptions.
Brussels wants an overhaul of that, claiming a need for modernisation.
Doubt came from consumer organisations, which pointed to many benefits under the current system.
They stressed that the passenger rights system in Europe was a success story and that if changes were made, they would have to be beneficial for consumers, the weaker party in the equation, who often do not know their rights.
If anything, they said, there should be an adjustment in light of inflation, which would mean passengers could claim higher compensations for missed flights.
A change they supported was an expansion of passenger rights with regards to luggage, which can still get lost or end up in the wrong destination.
Airliner operators, though, did not want to open discussions on what they saw as a “pandora’s box”. Instead, they pushed for a change to their own advantage, claiming there was an urgent need to change the regulations after years of the same systems.
The consumer organisations had doubts about this alleged urgency and noted that the airline companies lacked crucial data to back their claims.
It was noted that EC261 was a great success, both for passengers who have extended rights in Europe and for airliner companies, that have higher net profits in the EU compared to the US.
Moreover, next to the higher profits, Europe enjoys fewer flight disruptions compared to other regions lacking this consumer protection.
Rather than a cost or burdensome regulation, the EC261 was framed as service level agreement with limited liability for a low costs, clean and simple.
The Association of Passenger Rights Advocates has come out against Brussels' plans to reform air passenger compensation rights. https://t.co/Tyi6fMIpJq
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) August 25, 2025
A scientific study on the economic impact of the proposed reform found that the current regulation has led to a reduction in average delays, comparing EU and non-EU airlines.
Routes with limited competition had a stronger positive effect.
In total, the EC261 is attributed to save 8,400 years of delay with 1.1 billion passengers across the EU.
Delays of more than three hours were reduced by two-thirds when comparing areas covered by the rules versus those not covered.
According to the study, conducted by Dr Hinnerk Gnutzmann and Dr Piotr Spiewanowski, EC261 clearly improves on-time performance and reduced long delays because it offered strong incentives for delay mitigation.
On top of this, the mitigation measures only represent a small cost compared to total ticket prices and 0.4 per cent of the total airline cost base.
Concerns of a trade-off between passenger protection and route viability were also not supported by operational data.
A proposal to protect passenger in Europe was an expanded scope, to all inbound flights, akin to what Canada, Brazil and the US already do.
Another idea, pushed forward by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) was to involve airports in the debate, sharing the burden with operators.
They also highlighted the importance of European case law, where the highest court has set out several landmark precedents, for example on what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, key definitions or on technical aspects of safety issues.
If Brussels wants to enact changes, it should lead to better communication about rights, standardised complaint handling procedures, pre-filled forms for all types of disruptions, better harmonisation and so on.
They also stressed that a Court of Justice of the European Union case, the Vueling case, ruled that hand luggage is considered essential and cannot be made subject to a price supplement and that this could be made part of new regulations also.
There was also room for sharper rules regarding booking intermediaries, no-show clauses (ruled unfair by national supreme courts) and infant fees (too costly).
The European Passengers Federation added that there should be stronger protections for special-needs passenger and more price transparency.
Under the existing EU regulation, passengers can claim compensation when flights are delayed by three hours or more, with payouts ranging from €250 for short-haul trips to €600 for long-haul journeys.
A new proposal, backed by the EU, aimed to raise the minimum delay and cut long-haul compensation.
EU transport ministers said they wanted to change the current regulation streamlining and the balancing of greater clarity for passengers with maintaining aviation sector viability.
The proposed changes, though, were seen as a reduction of existing rights and caused a huge backlash, both in the European parliament as with consumer protection groups.
Campaigners with the European Citizens’ Initiative 'Save Your Right, Save Your Flight!' have flagged up plans in Brussels to cut back on air-passenger compensation rights. https://t.co/mhQtpIRnvK
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) August 13, 2025
