logo
Hand luggage fees could soon be banned. We have the Spanish to thank

Hand luggage fees could soon be banned. We have the Spanish to thank

Telegraph22-05-2025

Last week, a court in Spain's 31st biggest city issued Ryanair a €147 (£124) fine. Small fry, for a multi-billion euro business, I know. But the ruling could have wide-reaching ramifications for both airlines and passengers, and could even spell the beginning of the end for hand luggage fees.
The court in Salamanca ordered Ryanair to reimburse a passenger for hand luggage charges paid over five flights between 2019 and 2024. The passenger travelled with a standard small suitcase that was larger than Ryanair's free hand luggage allowance, but small enough to take on board.
According to Ryanair's rules, the passenger was correctly charged to bring the case on the flight. But according to the Salamanca judge, hand luggage is an essential and indispensable element of air transport and, therefore, the airline was ordered to issue a refund plus interest and costs.
There are a number of different legal considerations in the mix here. In 2014, a European Union court said hand luggage 'must, in principle, be considered an indispensable element of passenger transport and that its carriage cannot, therefore, be subject to a price supplement.'
This is supported by Article 97 of Spain's Air Navigation Law, which says airlines are 'obliged to transport not only the passenger, but also, and without charging anything for it, the objects and hand luggage that they carry' with them.
But on the flip side, many airlines and Spain's Airline Association says that charging for hand luggage is legal under EU law.
This €147 fine might seem quibbly and irrelevant to your summer holiday plans. But the Salamanca case sets a legal precedent that could spell more court cases for low-cost airlines, potentially even in the UK, and the ultimate end of hand luggage charges for passengers.
Spanish courts vs low-cost airlines
The Salamanca case is the latest chapter in an emerging war between Spanish lawmakers and low-cost airlines. In October 2024, Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs fined five low-cost airlines a total of €179m (£149m) for hidden fees. Ryanair faced the biggest fine of €108m (£90m), while easyJet received a penalty of €29m (£24m). Vueling, Volotea and Norwegian were also fined.
The Salamanca case was backed by the Spanish consumer rights group, Facua, and marked their fifth success in battling Ryanair and Vueling over hand luggage fees. In a similar 2025 case in San Sebastian, Vueling were ordered to refund a passenger €11.
After the latest Salamanca case, lawyer Isaac Guijarro said it was a 'huge win for travellers everywhere. It shows Ryanair can't get away with treating passengers like walking ATMs.'
The drip fees have, indeed, ramped up in recent years. In November 2018, Wizz and Ryanair began charging passengers to bring a large cabin bag on board. Only a laptop bag or small backpack, small enough to fit under a seat, could be carried on for free. EasyJet followed suit in December 2020. These days, low-cost airlines make the bulk of their profits from ancillary sales; in 2023, Ryanair made €4.2bn through things like luggage extras, seat selection and speedy boarding.
Some legacy airlines are at it, too. At least seven – United, Air Canada, Finnair, Sas, KM Malta Airlines, Latam and Avianca – now offer only a limited cabin bag allowance at their cheapest rate. But is a reversal now on the cards?
A legal precedent
While the add-on fee structure feels relatively entrenched in aviation, lawyers say this could change after the Salamanca ruling.
Daniel Scognamiglio of the law firm Blake Morgan told The Telegraph: 'This will have consequences for all airlines flying to and from Spain and possibly other EU destinations as well.
'It was a small claims process, so the authority of the judgment could be brought into question, but it does show how courts are likely to deal with this issue and the judgment is going to be persuasive.'
'The judgment is likely to cause further difficulties for an airline not being completely transparent in its charges. It is also likely that passengers in the UK and elsewhere may well challenge charges for taking hand luggage on board a flight,' Scognamiglio added.
In the event that Ryanair and other low-cost airlines do end up scrapping their additional luggage fees, this would not necessarily be a 'huge win' for all travellers. A clampdown on cabin luggage fees would almost certainly lead to return to higher base-line fares as airlines look to make up for lost revenue.
So a 'loss', in fact, for air passengers who travel light or who usually just pay for a bigger bag in the hold. This, on top of Ryanair's impending fare rises announced this week, could make low-cost airlines feel less low-cost than before.
But that's all hypothetical for now, because Ryanair remains bullish. In response to the ruling, a spokesperson for Ryanair said: 'Ryanair allows each passenger to carry a generous (40 x 25 x 20 cm) personal bag on board as part of the basic air fare, with the option to add extra bags for an optional fee should they so wish.
'This policy promotes both low fares and consumer choice, and is fully compliant with EU law, as upheld by several recent Spanish court rulings, including in Coruña, Segovia, Ontinyent, Seville, and Madrid.'
Ryanair may be unwavering, but I suspect that Spanish air passengers, Facua and, who knows, maybe even some disgruntled, litigiously minded British holidaymakers, will be emboldened by what happened in Salamanca this month. The battle for the wheelie bag has only just begun.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms
The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms

Sky News

time27 minutes ago

  • Sky News

The big problem facing UK as deadline to finalise US trade deal looms

When push comes to shove, the question of whether British industry faces crippling tariffs on exports to the US or enjoys a unique opportunity to grow may come back to three seemingly random words: "melted and poured". To see why, let's begin by recapping where we are at present in the soap opera of US trade policy. Donald Trump has just doubled the extra tariffs charged on imports of steel and aluminium into the US from 25% to 50%. In essence, this would turn a painfully high tariff into something closer to an insurmountable economic wall (remember during the Cold War, the Iron Curtain equated to an effective tariff rate of just under 50%). Anyway, the good news for UK steel producers is that they have been spared the 50% rate and will, for the time being, only have to pay the 25% rate. But there is a sting in the tail: that stay of execution will only last until 9 July - on the basis of President Trump's most recent pronouncements. 1:00 For anyone following these events from the corner of their eyes, this might all sound a little odd. After all, didn't Sir Keir Starmer announce only a few weeks ago that British steel and aluminium makers would be able to enjoy not 25% but 0% tariffs with America, thanks to his bold new trade agreement with the US? Well, yes. But the prime minister wasn't being entirely clear about what that meant in practice. Because the reality is that every trade agreement works more or less as follows: politicians negotiate a "heads of terms" agreement - a vague set of principles and red lines. There then follows a period of horse-trading and negotiation to nail down the actual details and turn it into a black and white piece of law. In this case, when the PM and president made their big announcement 28 days ago, they had only agreed on the "heads of terms". The small print was yet to be completed. Right now, we are still in the horse-trading phase. Negotiators from the UK and the US are meeting routinely to try and nail down the small print. And that process is taking longer than many had expected. To see why, it's worth drilling a little bit into the details. The trade deal committed to allowing some cars to pass into the US at a 10% rate and to protecting some pharmaceutical trade, as well as allowing some steel and aluminium into the US at a zero tariff rate. When it comes to cars, there are some nuances about which kind of cars the deal covers. Something similar goes for pharmaceuticals. Things get even knottier when you drill into the detail on steel. 2:13 You see, one of the things the White House is nervous about is the prospect that Britain might become a kind of assembly point for steel from other countries around the world - that you could just ship some steel to Britain, get it pressed or rolled or worked over and then sent across to the US with those 0% tariffs. So the US negotiators are insisting that only steel that is "melted and poured" in the UK (in other words, smelted in a furnace) is covered by the trade deal. That's fine for some producers but not for others. One of Britain's biggest steel exporters is Tata Steel, which makes a lot of steel that gets turned into tin cans you find on American supermarket shelves (not to mention piping used by the oil trade). Up until recently, that steel was indeed "melted and poured" from the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. But Tata shut down those blast furnaces last year, intending to replace them with cleaner electric arc furnaces. And in the intervening period, it's importing raw steel instead from the Netherlands and India and then running it through its mills. Or consider the situation at British Steel. There in Scunthorpe they are melting and pouring the steel from iron made in their blast furnaces - but now ponder this. While the company has been semi-nationalised by the government, it is still technically a Chinese business, owned by Jingye. In other words, its steel might technically count as benefiting China - which is something the White House is even more sensitive about. 👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Anne's wherever you get your podcasts 👈 You see how this is all suddenly becoming a bit more complicated than it might at first have looked? This helps to explain why the negotiations are taking longer than expected. But this brings us to the big problem. The White House has indicated that Britain will only be spared that 50% tariff rate provided the trade deal is finalised by 9 July. That gives the negotiators another month and a bit. That might sound like a lot, but now consider that that would be one of the fastest announcement-to-completion rates ever achieved in any trade negotiations in modern history. There's no guarantee Britain will actually get this deal done in time for that deadline - though insiders tell me they think they could be able to finalise it in a piecemeal fashion: the cars one week, steel another, pharmaceuticals another. Either way, the heat is on. Just when you thought Britain was in the safe zone, it stands on the edge of jeopardy all over again.

Eberechi Eze breaks silence on Crystal Palace's battle to keep European place - after Eagles' chiefs held crunch two-hour talks with UEFA
Eberechi Eze breaks silence on Crystal Palace's battle to keep European place - after Eagles' chiefs held crunch two-hour talks with UEFA

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Eberechi Eze breaks silence on Crystal Palace's battle to keep European place - after Eagles' chiefs held crunch two-hour talks with UEFA

Eberechi Eze says it would be a 'huge shame' if Crystal Palace were kicked out of the Europa League, but he is confident the issue will be resolved. Mail Sport revealed this week that the club's participation in next season's competition is in doubt because of UEFA rules on multi-club ownership. American businessman John Textor has a stake in both Palace and French club Lyon, who have also qualified for the Europa League. Textor is now offering to sell his 43 per cent share in Palace and UEFA are expected to confirm in the next 10 days the outcome of this week's hearing in Nyon. Eze, who scored the only goal in the FA Cup final win over Manchester City, is currently training with England here in Spain, but he is aware of the situation unfolding with his club. 'I really hope that that's not the case (removed from the Europa League) and I hope that Palace do get the reward for that (FA Cup win), because of what it took to actually achieve it,' he said. UEFA ownership rules may mean they cannot compete. US businessman John Textor is majority shareholder at Lyon while Brondby are owned by Palace co-owner David Blitzer 'It would be a huge shame if that was the case, but I'm trusting that it will work out in the end. 'I'm sure it will work itself out and it should work itself out, because there are players who have worked to be in this position. 'There are fans who have been with the team throughout the whole season and experienced everything. 'It would be unfortunate, but I'm positive that it won't be the case.'

Dave Brailsford to step back from Manchester United and return to Ineos
Dave Brailsford to step back from Manchester United and return to Ineos

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Dave Brailsford to step back from Manchester United and return to Ineos

Sir Dave Brailsford is to reduce his role at Manchester United under a reshuffle being planned by minority owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe. Brailsford has played a major part since Ratcliffe secured his stake in United in February 2024, stepping down as team principal of the Ineos Grenadiers cycling team to take charge of footballing operations at Old Trafford and investing considerable time and energy in driving change at the club. But after a season in which United ended in 15th place, their worst Premier League finish, and lost the Europa League final against Tottenham, Ratcliffe is planning a shake-up in which Brailsford will return to his role as director of sport for the wider Ineos group, as first reported by the Times. Under the plans, the former Tour de France winner and Olympic champion Geraint Thomas is poised to take on a leadership role with the Grenadiers when he retires as a rider at the end of the year. Brailsford, 61, has overseen a major overhaul of United's operations, including a £50m redevelopment of the Carrington training ground. Ratcliffe has scaled back some of Ineos's sporting commitments, terminating its sponsorship of the New Zealand rugby team and ending his bid to win the America's Cup. However, Ratcliffe remains committed to the cycling team, who no longer hold the dominant position they did when winning the Tour de France in seven out of eight editions between 2012 and 2019. Thomas, 39, has said he will retire after the Tour of Britain in September.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store