A CASE FOR COMPROMISE

Jesper Rungholm of The European Regions Airline Association (ERA) is right to sound the alarm about the dangers that EU consumer protection regulations pose to the regional sector (News, page 6).

A “one-size-fits-all” regulatory framework that ignores the basic arithmetic of regional aviation is unsustainable. When a carrier is forced to pay five times the ticket price in compensation for a delay, it amounts to a swingeing tax on a wafer-thin-margin business model.

For a global legacy carrier at a major hub, a technical fault is a logistical hurdle. For a regional operator at a remote airfield with no spare aircraft and limited ground support, that same glitch turns into a financial catastrophe under EU261 rules.

The current legal interpretation of “extraordinary circumstances” is dangerously narrow, effectively penalising airlines for the inherent mechanical risks of flight. If a route’s operating costs consistently outweigh potential profits, the outcome is inevitable: airlines will pull the plug.

However, from the traveller’s perspective, one could argue that, without these stinging penalties, airlines would be incentivised to perform economic cancellations, scrapping half-empty flights whenever the balance sheet looks better with the aircraft on the ground.

Compensation isn’t just a refund; it is the only leverage the public possesses to ensure operational reliability.

We need a regulatory evolution that recognises the unique economics of the regional model without stripping away essential passenger rights.

If we don’t find a middle ground, we risk losing the routes that keep European regions moving.