The sixth edition of The Aviation Law Review marks the continuation of one of The Law Reviews’ most successful publications; the readership of which has been vastly enhanced by making it accessible online since the fifth edition to over 12,000 in-house counsel as well as subscribers to Bloomberg Law and LexisNexis. This year I welcome new contributors from Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Romania, as well as extending my thanks and gratitude to our seasoned contributors for their continued support. Readers will appreciate that contributors voluntarily donate the considerable time and effort needed to make these contributions as useful as possible to readers.

As this is written, news has come in of an aviation disaster in Cuba where an ageing 737 operated by Mexican carrier Global Air, on behalf of Cubana crashed during a domestic flight, killing 110 of the occupants. The Mexican carrier had assumed responsibility for the liabilities under its agreement with Cubana and reportedly insured the hull and liabilities in Russia. The accident will throw up familiar issues as to the extent to which Cubana audited the operation of Global Air, the latter having apparently been barred for safety reasons from operating in Guyana. Doubtless plaintiff lawyers from Florida will be gathering to secure instructions and seek routes out of Cuba’s jurisdiction to maximise compensation, and questions will be asked about the adequacy of oversight of the operator given reports as to its operating history.

In the year since the last review was published, there have been some significant developments with regard to international air carrier liability, with both Russia and Thailand acceding to the Montreal Convention on air carrier liability of 1999 alongside Chad, Indonesia, Mauritius, Sudan and Uganda. Russia, which seems to have had a disproportionate share of recent aviation accidents (Socchi in 2016 and Saratov in 2018), will now face the challenge of persuading its domestic courts to apply the treaty, as they have, historically, awarded moral damages in the absence of bodily injury in Warsaw Convention cases. Thailand’s accession brings one of the jurisdictions that has been most resistant to international regulation of carrier legal liability to passengers (ever since the Warsaw Convention of 1929) within the international family. International practitioners will also be aware of the historic resistance of Brazilian courts to the internationally accepted exclusivity of the Warsaw/Montreal system, with many Brazilian courts preferring to apply conflicting provisions of national law. The recent decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court upholding the supremacy of the Montreal Convention may mark a turning point in what has historically been a difficult country within which to defend aviation liability claims.

Inevitably, the European aviation legal scene continues to be dominated by Brexit where reassuring words, at least by regulators in the UK, have yet to be capped by any positive developments in terms of final agreements. This has led major carriers to focus on developing European air operator certificates and some are also now ensuring they satisfy the European tests for majority ownership, which may cause interesting issues in the future for some of the low-cost carriers that heretofore have been able to operate from the UK – assuming always that the UK continues to apply majority ownership and control rules and that outmoded rule does not fall away.

The other seemingly inevitable development of note within Europe concerns the infamous EU Regulation 261, which from its humble beginnings as a modest attempt to ensure fair treatment of passengers has become, by virtue of the legislative inclinations of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), a monster devouring the assets of European airlines. Practitioners will be aware that one of the principal focuses of attack of the CJEU has been to decree that although airlines are entitled to a defence based on exceptional measures, nowadays in Europe there are no exceptions.

The latest decision defining extraordinary as ordinary is that of Kruesemann v. TUI Fly where the CJEU held that a wildcat strike by flight staff following a surprise announcement of a restructuring does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance releasing the airline from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of cancellation or long delay of flight. The court reasons that the risks arising from the social consequences that go with such measures are inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity. The decision is another in a long line of aviation decisions by the CJEU that underscore the proposition that in European jurisprudence, Orwellian doublethink is alive and well! As was made clear at a recent conference of the European Regions Airlines Association, the uninformed extrajudicial legislative impulses of the CJEU in this area threatens regional connectivity and the operation of routes that are only marginally profitable. It can hardly be appropriate to inhibit operations in the regions so as to provide passengers with compensation from events that in any right-thinking person’s view would be regarded as outwith the reasonable control of the operator. The European Regions Airline Association continues with other industry groups to lobby for change, which, once Brexit takes effect and the Spanish veto on progress pending resolution to its satisfaction of the Gibraltar dispute falls away, may at last happen.

CJEU 261 decisions are not uniformly in favour of consumers. In May 2017, the Court held in Marcela Pešková v Travel Service that a collision between an aircraft and a bird may constitute extraordinary circumstances. The decision is contrary to the EU advocate general’s 2016 opinion in the case, which stated that bird strikes do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. The ruling is inconsistent as it appears to contradict the consolidated consumer-friendly court’s orientation regarding the interpretation of extraordinary circumstances, and though welcome to carriers and comporting with common sense, underlines that the CJEU does little to ensure the predictability of the court; which of course is in conflict with its own principle of legal certainty, in its supposedly mandatory General Principles of Law.

The year 2017 also posed a number of new old problems for aviation legal practitioners in the context of aviation liquidations; not least of Air Berlin, Alitalia and Monarch Airlines. The collapse of Monarch and the consequent costs incurred by the UK Department for Transport (DFT) posed another challenge to the funds held by the DFT to support passengers stranded in the event of airline collapse. The DFT has announced an independent airline insolvency review to determine whether its system is fit for purpose and adequate to protect passengers after having to repatriate 110,000 passengers following the collapse. The risk for operators is, of course, that the assets of the many will be used to repatriate the passengers of the few at further and greater cost to the many, which has inevitably resulted in resistance from trade bodies including the International Air Transport Association.

In the regulatory world, the General Data Protection Regulation has been an immense boon to regulatory lawyers while burdening all industries including aviation. Numerous developments have also taken place with regard to unmanned aerial devices following a series of near misses around the world. At the same time, Amazon and Google are collaborating on package delivery by drone and Boeing is actively pursuing the goal of pilotless aircraft. Each of these developments has and will continue to produce new regulations, and developments in this area will continue to be followed closely in this Review.

Once again I would like to extend my thanks to the many contributors to this volume and welcome those who have joined the group. Their studied, careful and insightful contributions are much appreciated by all those who now refer to The Aviation Law Review as one of their frontline resources.

Sean Gates
Gates Aviation Limited
London
July 2018