Spanish court suspends fines for two airlines over cabin bag fees
MADRID, June 26 (Reuters) - A Spanish court on Thursday ordered a temporary halt to a fine slapped by the government on two budget airlines, including Ryanair (RYA.I), opens new tab, for practices such as charging for larger cabin bags, which according to the consumer ministry violated customer rights.
The airlines have appealed the decision, and the court said it was impossible to get to the bottom of the issue at the moment, and paying the fine while it is being challenged in court would financially strain the companies.
The injunction order effectively maintains the airlines' policies until a final decision is reached, and represents a first victory for the airlines.
Ryanair and Norwegian Air (NAS.OL), opens new tab logged the appeal after they were fined 109.6 million euros ($128.40 million) last year, saying they believe the fine has no basis.
Madrid's administrative court ordered both airlines to issue bank guarantees worth 111.8 million euros, equivalent to the sanctions plus interest, while the suspension is in place, it said in a statement.
Industry group ALA praised the court's decision and claimed that the fines have no basis. It argued the fines "limit customers' ability to choose, and distort (the European Union's) common market". It said airlines would continue their charging policy until a final ruling is issued.
Other airlines were also fined by Spain's consumer rights ministry last year. ALA said it hoped the court ruling will be later applied to all airlines.
The ministry imposed a combined sanction of 179 million euros to all the airlines, which also included IAG's (ICAG.L), opens new tab low-cost unit Vueling, easyJet (EZJ.L), opens new tab, and Volotea.
It argued they violated customers' rights when charging for larger carry-on bags, picking seats or boarding pass print-outs and not allowing cash payments at check-in desks or to buy items on board.
($1 = 0.8536 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
‘Cabin baggage wars' set for another major battle – here's what it means for airline passengers
Taking two pieces of cabin baggage on board a flight is 'a fundamental right to avoid unjustified extra costs', according to the European Parliament. The legislators believe some budget airlines are penalising passengers by permitting only one 'small personal item' with the cheapest tickets. MEPs want to force carriers to allow two pieces of hand luggage. The move is the latest strike in the ' cabin baggage wars ' that broke out two decades ago. Up to and including 2005, almost every airline allowed around 20kg of checked luggage as part of the ticket price. So there was no big squeeze: passengers naturally packed voluminous and heavy stuff in their free checked allowance. Then a now-defunct airline, Flybe, started charging extra for checked-in luggage. Quickly Ryanair, easyJet and others followed suit in charging for checked luggage. Inevitably, travellers switched en masse to cabin baggage. Initially passengers were allowed chunky cabin baggage – typically one roll-along case and a smaller backpack or laptop case. That is still the policy of British Airways, Jet2 and many other airlines. But the giant budget airlines have shrunk the amount they allow and charge a ludicrously large sum for taking larger cabin baggage. On many cheap flights on easyJet, Ryanair and Wizz Air, taking a 'large cabin bag' can roughly double the cost of the trip. To make matters worse, the three budget giants have different dimensions for the 'small personal item'. Now the European Parliament is demanding that all airlines should allow second piece of luggage as well. What could this mean for travellers? These are the key questions and answers. What has been agreed? The transport and tourism committee of the European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly that: 'Passengers should have a right to carry on board one personal item, such as a handbag, backpack or laptop (maximum dimensions of 40 x 30 x 15cm), and one small hand luggage (maximum dimensions of 100cm and 7kg) without an additional fee.' The crucial points are that the 'small hand luggage' will be in addition to the current free 'personal item'. It has been reported as allowing passengers to bring a roll-along or trolley case on board. But looking at the policy voted upon, it would be tiny. To comply with 'maximum dimensions of 100cm' the second bag would need to be something like 45 x 35 x 20cm, which adds up to 100cm. Yet oddly that is actually smaller than easyJet's existing free personal bag. The maximum volume of something with dimensions of 100cm is about 37 litres, far less than the current allowance for a paid trolley bag on any airline. What is the European Parliament saying? 'Today's vote marks an important step toward fairer and more transparent travel,' says Matteo Ricci, the rapporteur on enforcement of passenger rights. 'The clear definition of free hand luggage up to a maximum size of 100cm [is] a fundamental right to avoid unjustified extra costs.' Earlier this year 16 consumer groups from across the EU, under the main European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) umbrella, demanded 'a small item and a piece of hand luggage' to be included with every air fare. Already courts in Italy and Spain have come down on the side of the passenger wanting to bring two pieces of cabin baggage, with fines imposed on various budget airlines, particularly Ryanair. Appeals are currently in progress. What happens next? Later this year the committee's proposal will be voted on by the European Parliament. The plan is likely to be rubber-stamped. But that is still a long way from anything of this nature coming into effect. Once the parliament in Brussels (or Strasbourg, depending on the week) votes in favour, the issue goes to a 'trilogue'. What's a trilogue? 'An informal inter-institutional negotiation bringing together representatives of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission,' says the EU. 'The aim of a trilogue is to reach a provisional agreement on a legislative proposal that is acceptable to both the Parliament and the Council, the co-legislators. This provisional agreement must then be adopted by each of those institutions' formal procedures.' In other words, a talking shop where individual member states make their views heard. It is likely that Italy and Spain – where ministers have lobbied in favour of extra free cabin bags – will want to push through the new rules. But they are likely to face opposition from countries such as Ireland and Hungary, which are homes of Ryanair and Wizz Air respectively, seeking to protect these big companies from new legislation. The UK, having chosen the many glorious benefits of Brexit in favour of any influence in Europe, will not be at the party – though easyJet Europe, based in Austria, could have its views heard. Who could possibly argue against consumers getting a better deal? Budget airlines say these proposals are both unworkable and anti-consumer – reducing choice and increasing cost. Britain's biggest budget airline, easyJet, says that 39 per cent of its passengers currently travel only with the small personal item. A spokesperson for Wizz Air said the plan would 'make flying more expensive for millions of travellers ... forcing passengers to pay for services they may not use'. The carrier says increasing the free allowance would slow down the boarding process and 'undermine the operational efficiency and low-cost model that make affordable air travel possible in Europe'. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair told The Independent: 'We can only allow about half the passengers to bring a wheelie bag on board. There isn't space on board the aircraft for any more bags. 'So we don't think there's going to be any legislation that will impose a right, impose on all airlines, 'You must take all these wheelie bags' – because the aircraft won't fit the bags.' MEPs will no doubt say that's the airline's problem, and if necessary the carrier could allow people to check baggage free of charge. But it all adds complexity and cost. When the last UK government started looking into the issue in November 2023, a senior aviation figure compared the idea of bundling in an automatic right to take more cabin baggage to making everyone who orders a pizza pay for extra toppings they may not want. But this is EU legislation – surely the UK could ignore any such law? On domestic flights and links from the UK to non-EU destinations such as Morocco and Montenegro, British carriers would not have to comply. But many links from the UK to European Union destinations are operated by EU airlines – including Ryanair, Wizz Air and easyJet Europe. Were a new 'two cabin bags' law to come in, it is likely that the big airlines would have a uniform policy to avoid even more confusion. Of course, British Airways and Jet2 would comply anyway with their current cabin bag allowances. Why do British Airways and Jet2 have different policies to the others? Because of their specific business models. BA carries many intercontinental passengers, who are accustomed to taking two pieces of cabin baggage – which are easily accommodated in wide-bodied aircraft. It would not be reasonable to have a different European policy. On a typical Jet2 flight, half the passengers are on Jet2 Holidays packages and get a 22kg checked baggage allowance. So in my experience there is never any overcrowding in the overhead bins on Jet2 flights. The Leeds-based firm can market its more generous cabin baggage limit as a customer benefit. What do you think will happen? European airlines will coalesce on common limits for the 'small personal item' that is currently free for everyone. That would enable to them to comply with a separate European Parliament resolution in 2024 calling for 'EU-wide harmonisation' of baggage rules. To align, Ryanair would need to increase one of its dimensions by 5cm. Michael O'Leary has indicated that would be possible. It might be enough for the airlines to dodge the EU bullet on a second bag.
Glasgow Times
5 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Spain's leader sticks by decision to break with Nato on defence spending
On Thursday, the progressive Spanish leader stuck by his decision to break with Nato allies and responded to Mr Trump's comments by pointing out that the European Commission — and not Spain — was who decided the bloc's trade policy. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez (Omar Havana/AP) 'What is clear is that trade policy is a policy directed from here, from Brussels,' Mr Sanchez said. 'Spain is an open country. It is a country that is friendly to its friends, and we consider the United States a friend of Spain.' At the military alliance's summit on Wednesday, members agreed to raise their defence spending to 5% of GDP. But Mr Sanchez secured a last-minute exemption, saying that Spain will only spend up to 2.1%, which he called 'sufficient and realistic'. Mr Trump criticised the country after the summit, saying Spain wanted 'a little bit of a free ride,' and that it would 'have to pay it back to us on trade' through higher tariffs. How Mr Sanchez's gamble could play out was up for debate on Thursday. 'It is not always easy to interpret exactly what Mr Trump means,' Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters at an EU summit. 'How he wants to impose import tariffs on Spain separately is a mystery to everyone. Could this perhaps concern specific products from Spain? We will have to wait and see.' Spain's move on the international stage comes at a complex moment for Mr Sanchez at home as corruption cases involving his inner circle have ensnared his Socialist party and resulted in louder calls — even from some left-wing allies — to announce early elections. So far, Mr Sanchez has refused. 'To Trump's theatre, Mr Sanchez responds with something similar,' said Montserrat Nebrera, political analyst and professor of constitutional law at the International University of Catalonia. 'Domestic problems are piling up, and this resistance to meeting the arbitrary 5% target also seeks to wink at his partners most critical of defence spending.' Spain is Nato's lowest spender, with just 1.28% of its GDP spent on defence (Omar Havana/AP) Spain was Nato's lowest spender last year, according to the alliance's estimates, spending around 1.28% of its GDP on defence expenditure. In April, Mr Sanchez announced that the country would reach 2% this year, for which he was criticised by some left-wing allies. On Thursday, Antonio Garamendi, president of the Spanish Confederation of Business Organisations, criticised Mr Sanchez for the spending opt-out. 'We have to stick with our allies and not going along with the other Europeans is an error, and even more so if that increases the chance we will be punished,' Mr Garamendi said. While Spain is under the umbrella of the European Union, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 27 member countries, it could still be targeted by tariffs that hit its most vulnerable industries, Mr Garamendi said. He specifically pointed to Spanish steel, cars and olive oil sectors. 'There are industries that can be impacted, and that has to concern us,' he added.
Rhyl Journal
5 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Spain's leader sticks by decision to break with Nato on defence spending
On Thursday, the progressive Spanish leader stuck by his decision to break with Nato allies and responded to Mr Trump's comments by pointing out that the European Commission — and not Spain — was who decided the bloc's trade policy. 'What is clear is that trade policy is a policy directed from here, from Brussels,' Mr Sanchez said. 'Spain is an open country. It is a country that is friendly to its friends, and we consider the United States a friend of Spain.' At the military alliance's summit on Wednesday, members agreed to raise their defence spending to 5% of GDP. But Mr Sanchez secured a last-minute exemption, saying that Spain will only spend up to 2.1%, which he called 'sufficient and realistic'. Mr Trump criticised the country after the summit, saying Spain wanted 'a little bit of a free ride,' and that it would 'have to pay it back to us on trade' through higher tariffs. How Mr Sanchez's gamble could play out was up for debate on Thursday. 'It is not always easy to interpret exactly what Mr Trump means,' Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters at an EU summit. 'How he wants to impose import tariffs on Spain separately is a mystery to everyone. Could this perhaps concern specific products from Spain? We will have to wait and see.' Spain's move on the international stage comes at a complex moment for Mr Sanchez at home as corruption cases involving his inner circle have ensnared his Socialist party and resulted in louder calls — even from some left-wing allies — to announce early elections. So far, Mr Sanchez has refused. 'To Trump's theatre, Mr Sanchez responds with something similar,' said Montserrat Nebrera, political analyst and professor of constitutional law at the International University of Catalonia. 'Domestic problems are piling up, and this resistance to meeting the arbitrary 5% target also seeks to wink at his partners most critical of defence spending.' Spain was Nato's lowest spender last year, according to the alliance's estimates, spending around 1.28% of its GDP on defence expenditure. In April, Mr Sanchez announced that the country would reach 2% this year, for which he was criticised by some left-wing allies. On Thursday, Antonio Garamendi, president of the Spanish Confederation of Business Organisations, criticised Mr Sanchez for the spending opt-out. 'We have to stick with our allies and not going along with the other Europeans is an error, and even more so if that increases the chance we will be punished,' Mr Garamendi said. While Spain is under the umbrella of the European Union, which negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 27 member countries, it could still be targeted by tariffs that hit its most vulnerable industries, Mr Garamendi said. He specifically pointed to Spanish steel, cars and olive oil sectors. 'There are industries that can be impacted, and that has to concern us,' he added.
