Europe is once again debating rules that directly affect millions of air passengers. The issue is EU261 - a regulation that protects travelers when flights are delayed, cancelled or when passengers are denied boarding.
At first glance, the logic seems simple: if a trip is disrupted because of the airline, the passenger should receive compensation. But the aviation industry argues that the current system has become too expensive, too complicated and not always fair.
This was highlighted in Rio de Janeiro, where the 82nd IATA Annual General Meeting and the World Air Transport Summit are taking place. Rafael Schvartzman, IATA’s Regional Vice President for Europe, said that EU261 costs the aviation industry around €8 billion every year.
That equals roughly €8 per passenger. At the same time, according to Schvartzman, 99% of travelers never receive any direct benefit from these rules. For airlines, this burden does not simply disappear. It affects flight economics, ticket prices, flight frequency and decisions on launching new routes.
What the Conflict Is About
EU261 has indeed given passengers important protection. If a flight is significantly delayed or cancelled, a traveler may be entitled to compensation. But airlines say the regulation does not always reflect how aviation actually works.
A flight delay is not always the airline’s fault. Schedules can be affected by weather, closed airspace, airport congestion, air traffic management restrictions, emergencies and geopolitical crises.
That is why IATA insists that the rules should not only be strict, but also reasonable. Passengers must be protected when an airline is truly responsible. But carriers should not have to pay for circumstances they cannot control.
Schvartzman noted that negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU on reforming EU261 have dragged on for too long. According to him, the industry expected practical solutions that would make the system simpler and fairer, but the discussion has increasingly moved into the political arena.
“Instead of developing a practical reform, aviation has become the subject of political disputes, while the negotiations address operational issues whose specifics are not always fully understood by politicians,” he said.
Why the Three-Hour Rule Is So Controversial
One of the main issues in the reform is how long a delay should be before passengers become eligible for compensation. Today, the key benchmark remains the three-hour threshold.
IATA considers it too strict and proposes increasing the threshold to five hours. The Council of the EU has suggested a compromise: four hours for short-haul flights and six hours for long-haul flights. The association sees this as a step in the right direction.
KMG
The problem is that overly strict rules can sometimes have the opposite effect. If a flight is delayed and approaches the compensation threshold, in some cases it may become more practical for an airline to cancel the flight rather than continue operating it with the risk of additional payouts.
For passengers, this may sound paradoxical. But in aviation, the economics of a flight matter enormously. One disruption can affect following flights, crews, connections and the entire schedule chain.
Why This Matters for Kazakhstan
At first glance, EU261 may seem like a purely European issue. But it also matters for Kazakhstan.
Kazakh passengers are increasingly flying to Europe and through European hubs. If a flight from the EU is delayed or cancelled, compensation rules become not theory, but a real part of the journey. People need to understand their rights and know when they can genuinely count on assistance.
There is another important point. Kazakhstan is actively developing its own aviation market. Passenger traffic is growing, new international routes are opening, airports are being modernized and domestic carriers are becoming stronger. The country wants to become a more visible aviation center in Central Asia, which means passenger protection will become an increasingly important issue.
But the European experience shows that regulation cannot be built on attractive slogans alone. If passenger protection is too weak, people lose trust. If the rules are too heavy, airline costs rise, tickets may become more expensive and new routes may be launched more slowly.
For Kazakhstan, it is important to find its own balance. Passengers should be protected when a carrier is genuinely at fault. Airlines should also be able to operate sustainably, develop routes and invest in service.
The debate around EU261 shows a simple truth: aviation needs not only compensation after problems occur, but also a working system that reduces the number of those problems. Passengers need clear rights, fair treatment and reliable flights. Businesses need rules that do not hold back development.
This balance is important not only for Europe, but also for Kazakhstan, which is gradually taking a more visible place on the region’s aviation map.
