A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Friday, February 28, 2020
The Corona Virus And Air Transport – Rights And Liabilities
What are the rights of an airline to stop operations to affected areas, and what rights do passengers have in this case?
Writing from Montreal
Yesterday, a distinguished airport colleague in charge of a European airport wrote to me asking the following questions:
What are the rights of an airline to stop operations to affected areas, and what rights do passengers have in this case?
In case a passenger decides not to take a flight due to health
recommendation in an affected area, but his flight is operated to an
area not affected by the Coronavirus, does he have the right of
reimbursement?
Is an airline liable if a passenger is infected on a particular
flight by an infected flight attendant, or by infected passengers on the
flight?
Do handling agents bear responsibility for refusing boarding to a sick passenger or in fact boarding a sick passenger?
What are international standards for aircraft cabin disinfection between two flights?
In the case of a cruise ship, some ports refuse acceptance of the ship
carrying sick passengers. Can any airport or Member state refuse licence
for landing of the airplane in to its territory or airport if it is
declared that it has a passenger with a communicable disease on board?
I will address these questions in their order of appearance.
What are the rights of an airline to stop operations to affected areas,
and what rights do passengers have in this case? The decision of an
airline to halt operations to its agreed destinations is a commercial
decision and one which is presumably taken with good reason. The
International Air Transport Association (IATA) – the association of
airlines – has issued guidelines by way of an Emergency Response Plan to
its member airlines for use in any public health emergency: IATA -
which has forecast that airlines stand to lose $29.3bn (£23.7bn) of
revenue this year due to the coronavirus outbreak- recommends that “all
air carriers have emergency response plans to deal with public health
emergencies. While a number of air carriers already have such a plan in
place, many do not”. The document has two primary objectives: identify
in broad terms how to prepare for a public health emergency and provide
checklists of actions that should be built into a public health
emergency plan.
One of the main recommendations is for airlines to establish an
emergency response centre and an emergency response team to handle the
crisis. IATA says: “The information triggering an emergency response
could come from any number of different areas. The most likely scenario
would probably be a notification from the World Health Organization
(WHO) that there has been a progression into a more critical phase of
the emergency in question. However, the information could also come from
National Public Health Authorities, as it did for some countries during
the SARS crisis and the Fukushima accident. Lastly, a response could
also be triggered at the air carrier level if, for instance, many
passengers and/or crewmembers on a particular flight display symptom
compatible with communicable diseases.
As for State responsibility, The International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) – the specialized agency of the United Nations for
matters concerning international civil aviation - has requested that
States that are not yet members of the ICAO Collaborative Arrangement
for the Prevention and Management of Public Health Events in Civil
Aviation (CAPSCA) programme are strongly encouraged to become members as
per ICAO Assembly Resolution A40-14: Mitigation of the spread of
disease through, inter alia, aircraft disinsection and vector control
methods, and the importance of CAPSCA (Collaborative Arrangement for the
Prevention and Management of Public Health Events in Civil Aviation)
for implementation. It is important to note that neither IATA nor ICAO
has recommended the stoppage of flights, presumably following the same
position so far taken by the World Health Organization.
Operating a flight into a State and allowing a flight into a State are
two different things and the latter is the prerogative of that State.
Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention, which comes within the purview of
ICAO, recommends that, in cases where, in exceptional circumstances, air
transport service suspensions on public health grounds are under
consideration, States should first consult with WHO and the health
authority of the State of occurrence of the disease before taking any
decision as to the suspension of air transport services. The Annex also
requires that Contracting States must not prevent an aircraft from
calling at any international airport for public health reasons unless
such action is taken in accordance with the International Health
Regulations (2005) of WHO. However, provisions of the Annexes are not
actionable law as they are not mandatory.
As for a passenger’s rights, the airline cannot be held liable for any
outcome relating to a flight concerned or cancellation thereof unless,
on a preponderance of probabilities, it can be shown that the airline
was negligent.
In case a passenger decides not to take a flight due to health
recommendation in an affected area, but his flight is operated to an
area not affected by the Coronavirus, does he have the right of
reimbursement? The answer is in the negative. The air transport
undertaking is based on a contract between the airline and the passenger
and this is one instance that would be a breach of contract by the
passenger.
Is an airline liable if a passenger is infected on a particular flight
by an infected flight attendant, or by infected passengers on the
flight? In common law countries this would be based entirely on whether
the airline was negligent in allowing the infected flight attendant or
the passenger on the flight and this would be based on the test of
foreseeability. The Montreal Convention of 1999 (for those States which
have ratified the treaty) states that the carrier is liable for damage
caused in the event of death or bodily injury if the accident which
caused the damage occurred on board the aircraft or during embarkation
of disembarkation. The word “accident” has been broadly defined by the
courts. The carrier has an exculpatory condition in the treaty that says
it would not be liable if the damage was caused by the contributory
negligence of the claimant.
Do handling agents bear responsibility for refusing boarding to a sick
passenger or in fact boarding a sick passenger? The handling agent is an
agent of the airline. Ultimately, it is the airline that will be held
accountable. The principles of the law of agency will apply. The
claimant will however not be precluded from bringing a separate action
grounded on tort against the agent if the agent was negligent and such
negligence caused damage to the claimant.
What are the international standards for aircraft cabin disinfection
between two flights? Disinfection is the procedure whereby health
measures are taken to control or kill infectious agents on a human or
animal body, in or on affected parts of aircraft, baggage, cargo, goods
or containers, as required, by direct exposure to chemical or physical
agents. Annex 9 provides that States must determine the conditions under
which aircraft are disinfected. When aircraft disinfection is required,
the following provisions apply: the application must be limited solely
to the container or to the compartment of the aircraft in which the
traffic was carried; the disinfection must be undertaken by procedures
that are in accordance with the aircraft manufacturer and any advice
from WHO; the contaminated areas must be disinfected with compounds
possessing suitable germicidal properties appropriate to the suspected
infectious agent; the disinfection must be carried out expeditiously by
cleaners wearing suitable personal protective equipment; and flammable
chemical compounds, solutions or their residues likely to damage
aircraft structure, or its systems, such as by corrosion, or chemicals
likely to damage the health of passengers or crew, must not be employed.
In the case of a cruise ship, some ports refuse acceptance of the ship
carrying sick passengers. Can any airport or Member state refuse licence
for landing of an airplane into its territory or airport if it is
declared that the aircraft has a passenger with a communicable disease
on board? Permitting entry into a State is the prerogative of the State
concerned. This is under the principle of State sovereignty recognized
by the UN Charter and under customary international law. No one can
question that at law or in international relations. In the aviation
context this right is guaranteed by Articles 1 &2 of the Chicago
Convention.
Dr. Abeyratne, who is former Senior Legal Officer at ICAO and
currently Senior Associate at Aviation Strategies International as well
as lecturer in aviation law and policy at McGill University, has
provided the above answers in his personal capacity and they should not
necessarily be attributed to his present or past professional and
academic affiliations.