On 24 May 2014 Federal Judge Francisco De Asis L Soto of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court 2, Secretary 3 held in favour of Aeromexico in a case in which two passengers had claimed compensation for moral damages following the rescheduling of their flights.(1)
In April 2015 the plaintiffs, Lohle and Calzado, bought two tickets through a travel agency for flights with Aeromexico from Paris (Charles De Gaulle) to Buenos Aires via Mexico City on 28 February 2016. The plaintiffs alleged that in January 2016 they received an email from Aeromexico indicating that their flights had been rescheduled to 27 February 2016. The plaintiffs contacted Aeromexico to try to find alternative flights, but were unsuccessful. Therefore, the plaintiffs accepted the rescheduled flights and flew with Aeromexico on 27 February 2016.
Once in Argentina, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Aeromexico at the Federal Court claiming compensation of Ps41,600 (approximately $903.16) plus interest in moral damages due to Aeromexico's rescheduling of their 28 February 2016 flights to 27 February 2016.(2)
Aeromexico responded by citing that the plaintiffs had been informed of the rescheduled flights via email. Further, Aeromexico alleged that the decision to reschedule the flights had not been made unilaterally and that it had informed the Argentine Aviation Authority (SSTA) one month in advance of the change.
Finally, Aeromexico alleged that the plaintiffs had expressly accepted the rescheduled flights and therefore the doctrine of actos propios (derived from the general principle of contractual good faith) applied.
In the court ruling, the judge indicated that the scheduling of flights is approved by the SSTA. Under Chapter III(a) and III(b) of Disposition 6/03 of the secretary of transport, the SSTA must be informed of flight cancellations no less than two working days before the cancellation date. Further, the judge stated that Aeromexico had proven that the rescheduled flights had been approved by the SSTA. Therefore, the judge concluded that Aeromexico had acted lawfully. Nonetheless, the judge also examined the case in the light of Law 24,240 (the Consumer Law), as passenger rights are not covered in the Aviation Code.
Article 63 of Law 24,240, as amended, stipulates that said law applies "in case of air transport contracts, the Aviation Code, international treaties and, subsidiaries". Therefore, Law 24,240 applies to an air transport contract only if the Aviation Code and international treaties do not rule on the matter under discussion (eg, passenger rights information provided to passengers). Article 4 of Law 24,240, as amended by Law 26,361, sets out that service providers must provide consumers with all information concerning the essential characteristics of the services that they provide and the conditions of their sale in a correct, clear and detailed manner. The judge examined whether the carrier had informed the plaintiffs of the rescheduled flights in a correct, clear and detailed way such that they could accept or decline the new flights.
In this case, the plaintiffs expressly recognised that Aeromexico had informed them of the rescheduled flights one month in advance and they had accepted the change. The judge therefore concluded that Aeromexico's conduct had contravened neither Disposition 6/03 nor Law 24,240 and rejected the plaintiffs' lawsuit, ordering them to pay court and legal fees.
The plaintiffs appealed the first-instance ruling but failed to provide their grievances to the Court of Appeals on time. Thus, the first-instance ruling remained the final decision.
Endnotes
(1) Lohle v Aerovias de Mexico.
(2) These amounts were calculated at the corresponding exchange rate in Argentina on 24 May 2019.
