Beyond the Algorithm: Dutch Court Rules Airlines Must Proactively Find Indirect Flights for Stranded Passengers

The Bottom Line

• Expanded Rebooking Duty: Airlines cannot simply rely on automated systems to find direct replacement flights. A recent ruling confirms they have an active duty to search for viable indirect routes to get passengers to their destination.
• Burden of Proof is on the Carrier: If an airline claims no alternative flights were available, the onus is on them to comprehensively prove it. Stating that their standard rebooking software found no options is not a sufficient defense.
• Increased Financial Exposure: This decision, grounded in the Montreal Convention, reinforces that airlines are liable for passengers’ reasonable, self-incurred costs—such as long-distance taxis and new tickets—if they fail in their duty to provide alternative transport.

The Details

This case involved a family whose connecting flight from Zurich to Tirana was cancelled by the carrier, Edelweiss Air. Left without a suitable alternative offered by the airline, the passengers took matters into their own hands. They hired a taxi to Vienna, Austria, and from there booked a new flight to their final destination. They subsequently sued the airline to recover these costs, totaling over €1,100. The airline denied liability, arguing it had fulfilled its obligations.

The court’s decision hinged not on the well-known EU261 regulation for fixed compensation, but on the broader principles of the Montreal Convention. Specifically, Article 19 of the Convention holds carriers liable for damages caused by delays in air transport. The court reasoned that the cancellation inevitably led to a significant delay, which caused the passengers to incur extra costs. The central legal question was whether the airline had taken “all reasonable measures” to prevent this damage, a key defense available under the Convention.

The court delivered a clear verdict: the airline had not done enough. The carrier’s defense that its automated rebooking system could not find any alternative flights was deemed insufficient. The judge explicitly stated that an airline’s responsibility extends beyond its own systems and direct routes. It must also proactively investigate indirect travel options to fulfill its duty of care to passengers. Because the airline failed to prove that it had searched for such alternatives or that no viable indirect routes existed, it could not rely on the “all reasonable measures” defense and was ordered to reimburse the passengers’ costs for the new flight and the necessary taxi journey.

Source

Source: Rechtbank Noord-Holland