The airline’s online check-in system fails. The passenger is unable to obtain their boarding pass. The passenger arrives at the airport two hours in advance instead of three, as required for international flights. The flight closes. Who should bear the consequences of such a situation: the airline or the passenger?
The incident occurred in Mexico. A federal court recently held that the consequences should not fall on the passenger but rather on the airline.
A passenger was unable to complete check-in for an international flight because the airline’s website displayed an error. For that reason, the passenger arrived at the airport two hours in advance to complete check-in but was denied boarding because the flight had closed, given that the standard for international flights is to arrive three hours in advance.
The Federal Consumer Protection Agency (Profeco) issued a ruling with the nature of an executory instrument against the airline. The consumer attached such ruling to the claim and obtained a favorable decision.
In a constitutional lawsuit against the foregoing decision, the airline argued that the consumer could not only check in through the website but also had the option to do so at the airport counters.
It also argued that the user failed to comply with their obligation to appear at the airport three hours in advance, since it was an international flight.
The court gave greater weight, within the framework of the contract of carriage by air, to the airline’s failure to allow the user to check in online than to the passenger’s failure to appear at the airport three hours in advance.
According to the court, within that contractual relationship, the possibility for the passenger to complete online check-in is relevant, since if the person has a boarding pass obtained through that means, the minimum timeframes for baggage checking and boarding the flight change.
Conversely, if the passenger was unable to obtain it online because the airline did not allow it, the passenger is deprived of the possibility of arriving at the airport with a shorter advance time than the aforementioned three hours. Such a circumstance, according to the court, must operate to the detriment of the airline.
This decision of the court is consistent with prior judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico that have favored passengers. Therefore, even though it is not binding but merely persuasive, the fact that it follows the line of Supreme Court precedents suggests that this pro-consumer trend is likely to remain consistent in similar cases.
For airlines operating in Mexico, the practical question is straightforward: do their operational protocols already contemplate this scenario?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Judicial Precedent with a digital registry number 2031818.
