TARIFAS AÉREAS Y PASAJEROS CON NECESIDADES ESPECIALES

Although the issue is receiving an increasing amount of public attention, the international uniform law of air carriage (the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions) does not explicitly guarantee the right to transportation for people with reduced mobility. Airlines can therefore refuse to carry such passengers without violating these conventions.
Recently, some US airlines have changed their policies and now require obese passengers to purchase a second seat. In Canada, however, the «one person, one fare» rule guarantees a free second seat for those who cannot lower their armrests, as obesity is considered a disability there.
Regulation (EC) n. 1107/2006 protects the rights of passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility. Regulation (EC) n. 261/2004 sets out rules regarding assistance and compensation in the event of service irregularities. However, the practical application of this regulation can be problematic, particularly with regard to paid services. The regulation requires companies to make every effort to allocate adjacent seats to passengers and their companions. In Italy, the National Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC) has ruled that such allocations must be free of charge for children and people with disabilities. Companies have challenged this rule, but it has been confirmed as legitimate by the Council of State.
This text discusses the carrier’s liability for damage caused by airport handling agents. Italian and Scottish case law has established that independent contractors can also be considered agents of the carrier, thereby making the carrier liable. Unlike in maritime transport, there is no equivalent rule in air transport guaranteeing full reimbursement for damage to mobility equipment (Regulation (EC) n. 392/2009). There is ongoing debate as to whether these devices can be considered baggage under the terms of the Montreal Convention. The UK Supreme Court has ruled out compensation for psychological damage in cases of inadequate assistance based on the exclusivity principle of the Montreal Convention. The doctrine of exclusivity of action is generally not accepted by scholars, and it was rejected by the Court of Justice of the European Union.