No Cover Image

Book chapter 208 views 168 downloads

Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System

Georgios Leloudas Orcid Logo

Commercial Disputes: Resolution and Jurisdiction

Swansea University Author: Georgios Leloudas Orcid Logo

  • RESOLVING AIRLINE PASSENGER DISPUTES BY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS.pdf

    PDF | Accepted Manuscript

    Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy (rights retention).

    Download (331.47KB)

Abstract

Passenger disputes with airlines for issues like death, injury, and lost luggage are generally handled by courts, not because airlines force this, but due to a historical international legal framework. This framework began with the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29), which was designed to protect the the...

Full description

Published in: Commercial Disputes: Resolution and Jurisdiction
ISBN: 9781032726199 9781032726243
Published: Informa Law from Routledge 2024
Online Access: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032726243-6/resolving-airline-passenger-disputes-alternative-dispute-resolution-methods-george-leloudas?context=ubx&refId=665fc0b6-ae82-49b8-ab08-3d792325a93f
URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa70197
first_indexed 2025-08-19T10:52:26Z
last_indexed 2025-09-25T04:16:08Z
id cronfa70197
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-09-24T14:02:17.3098269</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>70197</id><entry>2025-08-19</entry><title>Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>0e971cacb2ff8d275bc34532b829256c</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-9397-4407</ORCID><firstname>Georgios</firstname><surname>Leloudas</surname><name>Georgios Leloudas</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-08-19</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>Passenger disputes with airlines for issues like death, injury, and lost luggage are generally handled by courts, not because airlines force this, but due to a historical international legal framework. This framework began with the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29), which was designed to protect the then-developing aviation industry by creating a uniform set of rules for liability claims. While the WC29 was amended several times, the core provisions remained until the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99) came into force in 2004. The MC99 shifted the focus from protecting airlines to protecting consumers, yet it kept the four litigation forums from the WC29 and only added a fifth for passenger death and injury claims. The goal of both conventions has been to provide a level playing field where airlines know the jurisdictions for potential lawsuits, and passengers are protected from restrictive terms. However, this court-centric system, which has been in place for nearly a century, doesn't account for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration or mediation. This puts it at odds with modern domestic consumer protection laws, which increasingly favour these alternative methods to handle high volumes of low-value claims and avoid burdening judicial systems.The paper you provided does not analyse the ongoing debate about the coexistence of domestic laws and the MC99. Instead, it will examine the historical and future role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in airline passenger disputes and consider how these methods might be integrated into the MC99.</abstract><type>Book chapter</type><journal>Commercial Disputes: Resolution and Jurisdiction</journal><volume/><journalNumber/><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Informa Law from Routledge</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint>9781032726199</isbnPrint><isbnElectronic>9781032726243</isbnElectronic><issnPrint/><issnElectronic/><keywords/><publishedDay>16</publishedDay><publishedMonth>12</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-12-16</publishedDate><doi/><url>https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032726243-6/resolving-airline-passenger-disputes-alternative-dispute-resolution-methods-george-leloudas?context=ubx&amp;amp;refId=665fc0b6-ae82-49b8-ab08-3d792325a93f</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-09-24T14:02:17.3098269</lastEdited><Created>2025-08-19T10:48:43.7210173</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Georgios</firstname><surname>Leloudas</surname><orcid>0000-0002-9397-4407</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>70197__34969__c58a9335ca9b47d4aa472d956ed82b36.pdf</filename><originalFilename>RESOLVING AIRLINE PASSENGER DISPUTES BY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2025-08-19T11:04:33.1295178</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>339425</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy (rights retention).</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-09-24T14:02:17.3098269 v2 70197 2025-08-19 Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System 0e971cacb2ff8d275bc34532b829256c 0000-0002-9397-4407 Georgios Leloudas Georgios Leloudas true false 2025-08-19 HRCL Passenger disputes with airlines for issues like death, injury, and lost luggage are generally handled by courts, not because airlines force this, but due to a historical international legal framework. This framework began with the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29), which was designed to protect the then-developing aviation industry by creating a uniform set of rules for liability claims. While the WC29 was amended several times, the core provisions remained until the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99) came into force in 2004. The MC99 shifted the focus from protecting airlines to protecting consumers, yet it kept the four litigation forums from the WC29 and only added a fifth for passenger death and injury claims. The goal of both conventions has been to provide a level playing field where airlines know the jurisdictions for potential lawsuits, and passengers are protected from restrictive terms. However, this court-centric system, which has been in place for nearly a century, doesn't account for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration or mediation. This puts it at odds with modern domestic consumer protection laws, which increasingly favour these alternative methods to handle high volumes of low-value claims and avoid burdening judicial systems.The paper you provided does not analyse the ongoing debate about the coexistence of domestic laws and the MC99. Instead, it will examine the historical and future role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in airline passenger disputes and consider how these methods might be integrated into the MC99. Book chapter Commercial Disputes: Resolution and Jurisdiction Informa Law from Routledge 9781032726199 9781032726243 16 12 2024 2024-12-16 https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032726243-6/resolving-airline-passenger-disputes-alternative-dispute-resolution-methods-george-leloudas?context=ubx&amp;refId=665fc0b6-ae82-49b8-ab08-3d792325a93f COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University 2025-09-24T14:02:17.3098269 2025-08-19T10:48:43.7210173 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Georgios Leloudas 0000-0002-9397-4407 1 70197__34969__c58a9335ca9b47d4aa472d956ed82b36.pdf RESOLVING AIRLINE PASSENGER DISPUTES BY ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHODS.pdf 2025-08-19T11:04:33.1295178 Output 339425 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy (rights retention). true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
title Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
spellingShingle Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
Georgios Leloudas
title_short Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
title_full Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
title_fullStr Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
title_full_unstemmed Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
title_sort Resolving Airline Passenger Disputes by Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods: An Appraisal of the UK System
author_id_str_mv 0e971cacb2ff8d275bc34532b829256c
author_id_fullname_str_mv 0e971cacb2ff8d275bc34532b829256c_***_Georgios Leloudas
author Georgios Leloudas
author2 Georgios Leloudas
format Book chapter
container_title Commercial Disputes: Resolution and Jurisdiction
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
isbn 9781032726199
9781032726243
publisher Informa Law from Routledge
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
url https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781032726243-6/resolving-airline-passenger-disputes-alternative-dispute-resolution-methods-george-leloudas?context=ubx&amp;refId=665fc0b6-ae82-49b8-ab08-3d792325a93f
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description Passenger disputes with airlines for issues like death, injury, and lost luggage are generally handled by courts, not because airlines force this, but due to a historical international legal framework. This framework began with the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC29), which was designed to protect the then-developing aviation industry by creating a uniform set of rules for liability claims. While the WC29 was amended several times, the core provisions remained until the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99) came into force in 2004. The MC99 shifted the focus from protecting airlines to protecting consumers, yet it kept the four litigation forums from the WC29 and only added a fifth for passenger death and injury claims. The goal of both conventions has been to provide a level playing field where airlines know the jurisdictions for potential lawsuits, and passengers are protected from restrictive terms. However, this court-centric system, which has been in place for nearly a century, doesn't account for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods like arbitration or mediation. This puts it at odds with modern domestic consumer protection laws, which increasingly favour these alternative methods to handle high volumes of low-value claims and avoid burdening judicial systems.The paper you provided does not analyse the ongoing debate about the coexistence of domestic laws and the MC99. Instead, it will examine the historical and future role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in airline passenger disputes and consider how these methods might be integrated into the MC99.
published_date 2024-12-16T06:49:01Z
_version_ 1851284145083252736
score 11.090362

Similar Items