EN
Aviation

Automatic rebooking system recognised as a reasonable precaution

logo
Legal news
calendar 16 February 2024
globus Denmark

A group of passengers refused to accept the automatic rebooking by the air carrier’s automated computer system. The Danish Eastern High Court found that the search system had concluded that there were no other and better rebooking options. The air carrier had taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004 through its rebooking system.

Effective rebooking of passengers

The passengers were supposed to fly from Bucharest via Amsterdam to Copenhagen. The flight from Bucharest was delayed, and the passengers missed their connecting flight to Copenhagen. The passengers were rebooked and arrived in Copenhagen with a total delay of over three hours. As a starting point, they were entitled to compensation under Regulation 261/2004.

The air carrier’s automatic rebooking system did the rebooking. The system was designed to find the rebooking that would create the least possible delay for each passenger under the given circumstances. The search system considered, among other things, which flights were available to the specific destination on the same day, whether there were open seats, the possibility of rebooking to surrounding airports, and the customer's preferences. The system took the air carrier’s flights into account, as well as flights with other air carriers.

The Danish Eastern High Court disagreed with the City Court of Copenhagen

The case was initially brought before the City Court of Copenhagen, which did not find that it would have been unreasonably burdensome for the air carrier to take further precautions beyond those actually taken. It was not enough that the air carrier used an automatic system to find the fastest possible rebooking for the passenger in question.

However, the case was appealed to the Eastern High Court. The tone had changed significantly here, as this court found that the air carrier had taken reasonable precautions through its automatic search system.

IUNO's opinion

The decision confirms that air carriers can advantageously use automatic rebooking systems in connection with rebooking. The courts recognise that this type of system can be considered in assessing whether an air carrier has taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004. The judgment aligns with the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the business world.

IUNO recommends that air carriers consider the use of rebooking systems in connection with compensation claims under Regulation 261/2004. Provided that the rebooking system works as intended, its use may be sufficient for the air carrier to meet its burden of proof for having taken reasonable precautions.

[Eastern High Court judgment of 21 November 2023 in case BS-6150/2023-OLR]

Effective rebooking of passengers

The passengers were supposed to fly from Bucharest via Amsterdam to Copenhagen. The flight from Bucharest was delayed, and the passengers missed their connecting flight to Copenhagen. The passengers were rebooked and arrived in Copenhagen with a total delay of over three hours. As a starting point, they were entitled to compensation under Regulation 261/2004.

The air carrier’s automatic rebooking system did the rebooking. The system was designed to find the rebooking that would create the least possible delay for each passenger under the given circumstances. The search system considered, among other things, which flights were available to the specific destination on the same day, whether there were open seats, the possibility of rebooking to surrounding airports, and the customer's preferences. The system took the air carrier’s flights into account, as well as flights with other air carriers.

The Danish Eastern High Court disagreed with the City Court of Copenhagen

The case was initially brought before the City Court of Copenhagen, which did not find that it would have been unreasonably burdensome for the air carrier to take further precautions beyond those actually taken. It was not enough that the air carrier used an automatic system to find the fastest possible rebooking for the passenger in question.

However, the case was appealed to the Eastern High Court. The tone had changed significantly here, as this court found that the air carrier had taken reasonable precautions through its automatic search system.

IUNO's opinion

The decision confirms that air carriers can advantageously use automatic rebooking systems in connection with rebooking. The courts recognise that this type of system can be considered in assessing whether an air carrier has taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004. The judgment aligns with the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the business world.

IUNO recommends that air carriers consider the use of rebooking systems in connection with compensation claims under Regulation 261/2004. Provided that the rebooking system works as intended, its use may be sufficient for the air carrier to meet its burden of proof for having taken reasonable precautions.

[Eastern High Court judgment of 21 November 2023 in case BS-6150/2023-OLR]

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

30 October 2024

Long delay on the horizon

logo
Aviation

9 October 2024

Staff shortages in baggage handling can be an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

18 September 2024

Guidelines for the Danish air passenger tax

logo
Aviation

18 September 2024

Denmark introduces new air passenger tax

logo
Aviation

12 June 2024

Strike in the sister company

logo
Aviation

22 May 2024

Sudden illness was an unusual circumstance

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Senior legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Junior legal advisor

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Aurora

Maria Thunes Truyen

Junior associate

Benedicte

Rodian

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chanel

Adzioski

Junior legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Junior legal advisor

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal advisor

Daniel

Bornhøft Nielsen

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal advisor

Emilia

Naledi Madonsela Mikkelsen

Junior legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Junior legal advisor

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Senior legal advisor

Holger

Koch-Klarskov

Junior legal assistant

Ian

Englev Jensen

Junior legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Senior legal assistant

Jacqueline

Lucia Chrillesen

Junior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Josefine

Sørensen

Junior legal assistant

Julia

Wolfe

Legal advisor

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Legal assistant

Kateryna

Buriak

Legal advisor

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Junior legal advisor

Nanna

Damkjær

Junior legal assistant

Nourchaine

Sellami

Legal advisor

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silja

Brünnich Fogh von Deden

Junior legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Ulrikke

Sejersbøl Christiansen

Legal assistant

Victoria

Mai Gregaard Handberg

Junior legal assistant