D1.2: Policy, Legal and Standardisation Requirements ... · Definitions. Interoperability: The...

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement No 636148.

D1.2: Policy, Legal and Standardisation Requirements Analysis Report

Project Title: Optimodal European Travel Ecosystem Acronym: EuTravel

Start date of project: 01/05/2015 Duration: 30M

Due date of deliverable: 01/10/2015

Actual submission date: 01/10/2015

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: HILL DICKINSON

[Final v1.0]

Dissemination Level

PU Public, fully open

CO Confidential, restricted under conditions set out in Grant Agreement to consortium members and the Commission Services.

Ref. Ares(2015)4057055 - 01/10/2015

EuTravel DEL1.2 – Final v1.0

2

Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 9

2. OBJECTIVES OF WORK-PACKAGE AND TASK ............................................................................................. 10

3. EU POLICY – BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 AN EFFICIENT AND INTEGRATED MOBILITY SYSTEM ..............................................................................................12 3.2 INNOVATING FOR THE FUTURE: TECHNOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR .............................................................................12 3.3 MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SMART FUNDING ..............................................................................................12

4. LEGAL – CURRENT REGULATION: BARRIERS AND ENABLERS .................................................................... 13

4.1 LIABILITY FOR DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE ..........................................................................14 4.1.1 Primary Liability ..................................................................................................................................14 4.1.2 Embarkation and Disembarkation ......................................................................................................14 4.1.3 Contracting v Performing Carrier .......................................................................................................15

4.2 DELAY, CANCELLATION AND DENIED BOARDING ................................................................................................18 4.2.1 Method of Calculating Compensation ................................................................................................22 4.2.2 Missed Connections ............................................................................................................................22

4.3 IMPACT OF THE PACKAGE TRAVEL DIRECTIVE .....................................................................................................24 4.3.1 Primary Liability ..................................................................................................................................24 4.3.2 What is a package? Analysis of the current definition .......................................................................25 4.3.3 ‘Pre-arranged Combination’ ...............................................................................................................25 4.3.4 Two or more travel services ................................................................................................................26 4.3.5 ‘Inclusive Price’ ...................................................................................................................................27 4.3.6 Does the PTD apply to the multi-modal transport ecosystem? ..........................................................28 4.3.7 Financial Protection under the PTD ....................................................................................................30

4.4 CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS .......................................................................................................................31 4.4.1 Passenger Relationships .....................................................................................................................31 4.4.2 Business to Business Relationships .....................................................................................................32 4.4.3 Licensing Authorities ..........................................................................................................................32

4.5 CONSUMER PROTECTION ..............................................................................................................................33 4.5.1 Pricing Transparency ..........................................................................................................................33 4.5.2 Minimum Inventory Sales ...................................................................................................................34 4.5.3 Availability ..........................................................................................................................................34 4.5.4 Payment Surcharges ...........................................................................................................................34 4.5.5 Language Requirements .....................................................................................................................34

4.6 DATA PROTECTION AND OWNERSHIP ...............................................................................................................35 4.6.1 Protection of personal data: the current regime ................................................................................35 4.6.2 Protection of personal data: the new regime .....................................................................................37 4.6.3 Data ownership and accuracy ............................................................................................................39

5. STANDARDISATION OVERVIEW................................................................................................................ 41

5.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................41 5.1.1 EU Policy regarding multimodality, travel information and interoperability .....................................41 5.1.2 Current situation.................................................................................................................................43

5.2 DEFINITIONS ...............................................................................................................................................44 5.2.1 Standard .............................................................................................................................................44 5.2.2 Protocol ..............................................................................................................................................45 5.2.3 Data Models .......................................................................................................................................45 5.2.4 Data Exchange Interfaces ...................................................................................................................45

5.3 EUROPEAN STANDARDISATION .......................................................................................................................47 5.3.1 Policy and key organisations ..............................................................................................................47 5.3.2 European Standardisation for Transport Modes ................................................................................48


3

5.3.3 European Standardisation in the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Domain ...................................49 5.3.3.1 CEN TC/278 ................................................................................................................................................49 5.3.3.2 Architecture and Terminology ...................................................................................................................49 5.3.3.3 Liaisons ......................................................................................................................................................50

5.4 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDISATION BODIES RELATED TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT ...................................................50 5.4.1 The Open Travel Alliance ....................................................................................................................51

5.5 STANDARDS AND INITIATIVES RELATED TO THE EUTRAVEL PROJECT RESEARCH AREAS ................................................52 5.5.1 Air .......................................................................................................................................................52

5.5.1.1 IATA - NDC (New Distribution Capability) ..................................................................................................52 5.5.2 Rail ......................................................................................................................................................53

5.5.2.1 TAP TSI .......................................................................................................................................................53 5.5.2.2 Full Service Model......................................................................................................................................55

5.5.3 Waterborne (Ferry) .............................................................................................................................57 5.5.3.1 Overview of standards in use ....................................................................................................................57 5.5.3.2 Ferrygateway .............................................................................................................................................58

5.5.4 Road ...................................................................................................................................................60 5.5.4.1 DATEX II .....................................................................................................................................................60 5.5.4.2 Geographic information and spatial data ..................................................................................................60 5.5.4.3 The Association of Car Rental Industry System Standards (ACRISS) ..........................................................60 5.5.4.4 Other Open Standards ...............................................................................................................................61

5.5.5 Urban (Public Transport) ....................................................................................................................61 5.5.5.1 TRANSMODEL ............................................................................................................................................62 5.5.5.2 IFOPT (CEN/TS 00278207) ........................................................................................................................62 5.5.5.3 General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) .................................................................................................62 5.5.5.4 SIRI .............................................................................................................................................................62 5.5.5.5 NeTEx ........................................................................................................................................................63 5.5.5.6 Transport Protocol Experts Group (TPEG) .................................................................................................63 5.5.5.7 Open Ticketing Institute e-ticketing Specifications (OTI) ...........................................................................64 5.5.5.8 Open Mobile Ticketing Alliance (OMTA) ....................................................................................................64

5.5.6 Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) ....................................................................................................64 5.6 THE EUTRAVEL PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH ................................................................................................65

6. RECOMMENDATIONS: A PRACTICAL SOLUTION ....................................................................................... 68

6.1 PASSENGER RIGHTS ......................................................................................................................................68 6.2 THE CONCEPT OF ‘PACKAGE’ ..........................................................................................................................68 6.3 FINANCIAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................................................68 6.4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS/CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE .........................................................................................69 6.5 DATA PROTECTION.......................................................................................................................................69

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS – KEY POINTS .................................................................................................... 70

8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 72


4

Summary Information Abstract

This report intends to identify policy and legal influence factors for multimodal travelling, relevant

standards and standardisation activities regarding multimodal information, along with gaps that could

be addressed by the project.

Keywords

Liability, Travel Package, Passenger Rights, Protection of personal data, Standardisation, Travel

information, Interoperability, Data Models, Data Exchange Interfaces, APIs.

Authors and contributors

Initials Name Organisation Role

JK Joanna Kolatsis HILL DICKINSON Deliverable Leader

LH Laura Halfhide HILL DICKINSON Author

LS Lucy Schofield HILL DICKINSON Author

JR Jenny Rainbird BMT Quality Manager

NB Nicholas Belle PHAROS DATACOM Author/Reviewer

DC David Classey TRAVELPORT Reviewer

MT Marco Tognaccini TRENITALIA Peer Review

IF Ioanna Fergadioti INLECOM SYSTEMS (ILS) Author/Reviewer

Revision history (including peer reviewing)

Revision Date Who Comment

ToC 10.06.2015 IF/JK Table of Contents

Draft v1 06.08.2015 All First draft of Legal/Policy sections

Draft v2 28.08.2015 All Second draft covering all sections

Draft v3 08.09.2015 JR Peer Review

Draft v4 10.10.2015 IF Edits

Draft v5 28.10.2015 MT Peer Review

Final v1 1.10.2015 IF Update - Edits


5

Quality control

Role Who Date

Deliverable leader HILL DICKINSON 28.09.2015

Quality manager BMT 08.09.2015

Project manager ILS 01.10.2015

Disclaimer The content of the publication herein is the sole responsibility of the publishers and it does not necessarily represent the views expressed by the European Commission or its services. While the information contained in the documents is believed to be accurate, the authors(s) or any other participant in the EuTravel consortium make no warranty of any kind with regard to this material including, but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the EuTravel Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be responsible or liable in negligence or otherwise howsoever in respect of any inaccuracy or omission herein. Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing neither the EuTravel Consortium nor any of its members, their officers, employees or agents shall be liable for any direct or indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by or arising from any information advice or inaccuracy or omission herein.


6

Abbreviations API Application Programming Interface

CEN European Committee for Standardization

CENELEC European Committee for Electro-technical Standardisation

CER Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies

CRS Computer Reservation System

EN European Standard

ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System

ESOs European Standardisation Organisations

ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute

FSM Full Service Model

GDS Global Distribution System

ICT Information and Communications Technology

ITS Intelligent Transport Systems

MMTIPs Multimodal travel information and planning services

OTA Online Travel Agent

PTD Package Travel Directive

PLR (EC) No 392/2009 on the Liability of Carriers of Passengers by Sea in the Event of

Accidents

PT Public Transportation

SERA Single European Rail Area

TAP Telematics Applications for Passenger services

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability

WG Working Group

XML eXtensible Markup Language


7

List of Figures Figure 1: WP1 deliverables relationship .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2: New Airline Retailing Model (Source: IATA) ............................................................................. 53 Figure 3: FSM Working Groups................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 4: The Ferrygateway communication standard ........................................................................... 59 Figure 5: EuTravel Ecosystem Components (initial draft – under development) ................................... 65

List of Tables

Table 1: Demonstrating key liability limits as between different modes of transport ........................... 16 Table 2: Demonstrating key features of delay, cancellation and denied boarding regulations ............. 18 Table 3: Types of Interfaces and ICT standards ....................................................................................... 46 Table 4: International Standardisation Bodies ........................................................................................ 50 Table 5: List of Standards in use in the Ferry industry ............................................................................ 58 Table 6: CEN TC/278 - WP3 Public road transport activities ................................................................... 61 Table 7: Standards Overview – Research Baseline .................................................................................. 67


8

Definitions Interoperability: The capacity of systems and the underlying business processes to exchange data and to share information and knowledge. Compatibility: The general ability of a device or system to work with another device or system without modification. Continuity of services: The ability to ensure seamless services on transport networks across the Union. Multimodal travel information and planning services (MMTIPs): Information that allow travellers to plan their journey from A to B comparing different travel options combing different variations of transport modes. MMTIPs may include a combination of two or more of the following transport modes which might be used by a traveller: air, rail, waterborne, coach, public transport, walking and cycling. Road data: Data on road infrastructure characteristics, including fixed traffic signs or their regulatory safety attributes. Traffic data: Historic and real-time data on road traffic characteristics. Travel data: Basic data such as public transport timetables and tariffs, necessary to provide multi-modal travel information before and during the trip to facilitate travel planning, booking and adaptation. Raw data: Data that has not been subjected to processing or any other manipulation. Processed data: Collected and manipulated data in order to produce meaningful information. Spatial information: Information which includes a reference to a two or three dimensional position in space as one of its attributes [Walker, R. Ed (1993) AGI Standards Committee GIS Dictionary]. It is also referred to as geospatial or geographic information (GI). Specification: A binding measure laying down provisions containing requirements, procedures or any other relevant rules. Standard: laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (as defined in Article 1(6) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998). Standard Adoption: makes reference to the moment when the relevant European standardisation organisation makes a standard available for its members or to the public.


9

1. Executive Summary

This report is an overview of Policy, Legal and Standardisation issues regarding multimodal travelling and the use of travel information in Multimodal travel information and planning services. It intends to identify policy and legal influence factors (barriers and enablers) for multimodal travelling, relevant standards and standardisation activities regarding multimodal information, along with gaps that could be addressed by the project.

More specifically it discusses the following issues:

1. EU POLICY

2. LEGAL ISSUES

• Overview of Current Regulation

3. STANDARDISATION

• Key Standardisation Bodies

• Industry standards in use

• Current standardisation initiatives

• EuTravel project research baseline regarding standards

The report highlights the fact that multimodal services and the realisation of seamless multimodal travelling, has to consider policy and regulatory issues -that need to be addressed at an EU Policy level- and makes some practical suggestions regarding:

• Passenger Rights

• Travel Directive (PTD)

• Financial Protection

• Terms and Conditions/Conditions of Carriage

• Liability Issues

• Data Protection Issues


10

2. Objectives of work-package and task

The overall objective of WP1 is to ensure that the research and development undertaken in EuTravel is driven by stakeholder needs and requirements for achieving the EuTravel objectives, which will in turn be achieved by developing an Optimodality Framework, composed by a variety of interconnected models representing different facets of multimodal travel. The Optimodality Framework will guide work in all other work packages and will be constructed through a fusion of the existing technology drives and opportunities on the one side, and the stakeholder’s capacity, priorities and constraints on the other side. This review is complementary to deliverables 1.1 and 1.3; all three deliverables will contribute to the Optimodality Framework development. (Figure1).

Figure 1: WP1 deliverables relationship

The challenge of this task is addressed by reviewing legislation, regulations and recent surveys, with regard to the current barriers, fragmentation and other shortcomings of the transport and travel industry in Europe. In addition, a series of working group meetings/interviews were held with EuTravel partners (representatives of transport and travel services providers) during M2 and M3 of the project, which contributed to the identification of optimodality barriers and enablers, standards in use today and new standardisation initiatives.


11

3. EU Policy – Background

Creating a Single European Transport Area will necessitate the integration of national systems into a fully connected and seamless transport network.

Key barriers towards achieving this major step towards completing the EU internal market are excessive bureaucracy and administration, technical incompatibilities and missing physical links across States’ borders1. The Directorate General for Mobility and Transport’s White Paper on transport [2]; Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, 2011 (the White Paper)2, aims to address these barriers and presents the Commission’s vision for the future of the EU transport system. The White Paper compliments Horizon 2020’s Smart, Green and Integrated Transport Challenge3, which sets out three calls for proposals in the areas of:

1. Mobility for Growth 2. Green Vehicles 3. Small Business and Fast Track Innovation for Transport

Whilst the further development of the EU internal market is a significant motivator, the EU’s oil dependency and need to significantly reduce world greenhouse gas emissions, as well as growing congestion are identified in the White Paper as key drivers to radically overhaul the EU transport system in order to preserve the EU’s economic security.

Horizon 2020 aims to achieve “better mobility, less congestion, more safety and security with a substantial reduction of traffic congestion; with a substantial improvement in the mobility of people and freight; by developing new concepts of freight transport and logistics and by reducing accident rates, fatalities and casualties and improving security.”

The White Paper defines a number of goals designed to guide EU policy, the most relevant being to reduce transport emissions to around 20% below their 2008 level by 20304 – achieving a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions and comparable reduction in oil dependency.

These goals are underpinned by 40 concrete initiatives that are divided into four categories:

1. An efficient and integrated mobility system 2. Innovating for the future: technology and behaviour 3. Modern infrastructure and smart funding 4. Transport in the world: The external dimension.

1http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2015-0246+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 2 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm 3 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/smart-green-and-integrated-transport 4 The EU have taken steps to ratify the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol which enshrines this commitment into international law. See http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php for further.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/smart-green-and-integrated-transport

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php


12

3.1 An efficient and integrated mobility system The EuTravel project falls firmly into this category along with a number of more mode specific initiatives including the development of a true internal market for rail services (the Single European Rail Area – SERA)5, the completion of the single European sky, the creation of a maritime ‘blue belt’ (the European Maritime Transport Space – EMTS) and market access to ports, as well as the development of a suitable framework for inland waterways. To complement the development of these ecosystems, are initiatives addressing job quality and working conditions, security, transport safety and passenger rights.

3.2 Innovating for the future: technology and behaviour The ‘All Ways Travelling’ Consortium6, which produced its final report in June 2014 [1], is an example of an initiative that has directly derived from the White Paper and specifically addressed access to data in the context of multi-modal integrated transport systems. Mode specific initiatives which have looked at how technology can address increasing congestion include Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR), a collaborative project, now in deployment stage, to completely overhaul European airspace and its air traffic management (ATM) and the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), a standardised way of controlling trains and signals to enhance cross-border interoperability. The Commission recognises the need to create a regulatory framework for innovative transport whilst also addressing and promoting sustainable transport behaviour through education7; i.e. the provision of travel information and vehicle labelling for CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency, encouraging business-based carbon footprint calculating and the introduction of eco-driving speed limits.

3.3 Modern infrastructure and smart funding The EU’s transport infrastructure policy TEN-T, aims at connecting Europe and improving transport networks by removing bottlenecks and overcoming technical barriers that create a barrier to seamless transport within the EU. The ‘strategic heart’ of TEN-T is the development of a core network of nine corridors by 2030, with a comprehensive network being established by 2050. A key part of establishing the core network will be improving connectivity to all regions, addressing disparities in infrastructure and technology and more relevantly the improvement of multi-modal connectivity. A separate but complementary initiative falling within this category is the Smart Ticketing Alliance, which “represents a platform for cooperation and a coordinated approach for establishing ticketing interoperability for the Public Transport sector”8. The aim of the alliance is to create a certification scheme to allow customers with smartcards to move freely within Europe by establishing functional and technical requirements for smart ticketing interoperability and seamless travel between schemes. 5 Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking has also been set up as a public-private partnership in the rail sector, established under Horizon 2020, to provide a platform for coordination of research activities with a view to driving innovation in the rail sector in the years to come. See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/shift2rail_en.htm for further. 6 http://www.allwaystravelling.eu/ 7 Against a background of a range of EU policies already in place aimed at lowering emissions. For example, the inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). See further: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/index_en.htm 8 http://www.smart-ticketing.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/shift2rail_en.htm


13

4. Legal – Current Regulation: Barriers and Enablers

The EU passenger rights regime is fairly comprehensive, yet when viewed as a whole is complex and fragmented. The regime has its foundation in international conventions that have been amended over time to take into account the specificities of the mode of transport each convention is intended to govern. The international conventions have been incorporated into the laws of each EU Member State through EU regulations which should take direct effect in each Member State9. Whilst this should therefore mean that each regime is applied uniformly in the national courts of each Member State, unfortunately, in practice, this is not necessarily the case. The development of a seamless multimodal transport ecosystem is therefore challenged in two ways: 1. The texts of the liability regimes are not aligned; 2. Implementation across Member States is not necessarily uniform. Not only are the texts of the liability regimes themselves not fully aligned, potentially causing confusion for the consumer and a perceived injustice between travel service providers servicing different modes of transport, but implementation of each text as it relates to a specific mode of transport is also not aligned at Member State level – meaning that the outcome for the consumer and travel service provider may differ depending on where any ‘claim’ is actually brought – in complete contrasts to the intended effect of the passenger rights regime – to create a harmonised approach to liability issues for both the consumer and travel service provider. The concept of ‘passenger rights’ has developed significantly over recent years, now covering a range of liability issues including for death, personal injury and property damage, for delay, cancellation and denied boarding, liability towards disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility (PRMs) and passenger information requirements. Whilst there are a number of commonalities between each modal regime, with for example primary liability for example tending to rest with the ‘carrier’, ‘operator’ and/or ‘organiser’ of each mode of transport – with a distinction being drawn in some cases between the contracting and performing carrier where applicable – as alluded to above, perhaps necessarily due to the specificities of each mode of transport, there are stark contrasts to be drawn between each regime. These contrasts may need to be addressed in order to make way for the development of a seamless multimodal transport ecosystem within the EU that is transparent to the consumer and fair to all travel service providers involved. This contrast is demonstrated more fully at Annex I and dealt with in summary below.

9 EU regulations take ‘direct effect’ in the national law of Member States. This means that individuals can invoke a European provision before a national or European Court, without the need for further implementing measures to be taken at either national or European level.


14

4.1 Liability for death, personal injury and property damage Each mode of transport is subject to a different international convention dealing with liability issues, which in turn have been enshrined into EU law by separate EU regulations. Annex I sets out the key characteristics of each regime. Perhaps due to the fact that the regimes have been developed in response to the nuances of each mode of transport and the associated issues – as they have arisen on an ad hoc basis – rather than as a result of a comprehensive multi-modal review of liability issues more generally, it is not surprising that the characteristics of each regime differ. That said, as each regime has been amended over time, certain key commonalities have emerged in line with EU policy– with each regime that is later in time drawing from the key characteristics of the regimes that have gone before it, and adapting to fit with the key themes developing at EU level. Although not appearing in each and every regime, the key commonalities that can be more readily identified are listed below:

1. Primary liability rests with the ‘carrier’, ‘operator’ and/or ‘organiser’ (all modes) 2. Distinction between contracting carrier and performing carrier (air, sea, rail, road) 3. A tiered approach to limitation of liability (air, sea) 4. A distinct regime for damage to mobility equipment (sea, road, rail) 5. Loss of right to limit where damage results from act or omission done with intent of recklessly

(air, sea, rail) 6. Advance payments in the event of death/personal injury (air, sea, rail)

The key principle behind the liability regimes for every mode of transport – whether at international or European level – is one of transparency and certainty for the passenger if something should go wrong. Passenger perception and protection is key and of paramount importance from an EU perspective when considering the potential impact of passenger rights. The ability of the carrier to then limit any liability is arguably secondary.

4.1.1 Primary Liability It is therefore not surprising that the only commonality across all modes of transport is that primary liability to the passenger in the event of death/personal injury or property damage rests with the ‘carrier’ – with the caveat that the incident causing the damage must have taken place during the course of carriage - in most cases including embarkation and disembarkation from the mode of transport (i.e. where the loss/damage when the passenger is not actually yet physically ‘in his seat’ on board the mode of transport).

4.1.2 Embarkation and Disembarkation What constitutes ‘embarkation’ and ‘disembarkation’ has already created a legal ‘grey area’ particularly in relation to carriage by air and sea10 which has to date in the main been dealt with at a 10 See the English case of Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Limited [2014] UKSC 15, for a factual consideration of whether the particulars of the claimant’s injury related exclusively to events on the aircraft.


15

national level in the courts of the various Member States as a matter of fact. The underlying legal issue being whether any claim for compensation for example should properly be dealt with by the carrier under one of the various international/European passenger rights regimes (where the damage/loss is caused during the course of embarkation or disembarkation) or by another party entirely (i.e. the ‘occupier’ or party in control of the area where the incident occurred) (or more likely their public liability insurers), where as a matter of fact it is determined that the passenger was not embarking or disembarking from the mode of transport – but suffered loss or damage en route in an area not within the control of the carrier. This ‘grey area’ becomes wider still, when considered in the context of creating an infrastructure to facilitate the emergence of a multi-modal transport ecosystem through the development of transport hubs and is an issue that will need to be addressed as between the various transport service providers and where applicable ground handlers/other service providers on the ground at the various transport hubs through a series of contractual arrangements and indemnities. In the interests of creating seamless connectivity between the modes: Will it be possible to identify as a matter of fact where disembarkation from one mode of transport ends and embarkation to another commences – such that the appropriate liability regime can be engaged? What will the role of ground-handlers be at these hubs? As more multi-modal transport hubs emerge and case law develops: Is it possible that the scope of what is considered embarkation/disembarkation will be extended to bridge any perceived liability gap? Additional input from infrastructure managers such as port managers, airports and ground-handlers for example will be necessary to address this issue further.

4.1.3 Contracting v Performing Carrier An additional layer of complexity can be added to the relatively straightforward principle that primary liability rests with the carrier when the contracting carrier and performing carrier are different11. This has however already been addressed in the most part for all modes of transport, with the exception of inland waterways, with each regime (either at international or European level)

11 An example of this utilising one mode of transport is interlining between airline carriers – whereby, based on a voluntary commercial agreement (usually on standard industry terms), two carriers agree to ‘share’ a route – with one carrier for example performing the short-haul leg and another, performing the long-haul leg. A single ticket will be issued by the contracting carrier covering both legs of the flight.

An example of this utilising multiple modes of transport are the rail/fly arrangements in place between a number of air and rail carriers. See Singapore Airlines and First Great Western’s Rail-Fly service: http://www.rail-fly.com/ Air France’s Air & Rail: http://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/common/resainfovol/avion_train/reservation_avion_train_tgvair_airfrance.htm DB Bahn’s AIRail service: http://www.bahn.com/i/view/USA/en/prices/germany/airail.shtml. Eurostar now also has interline agreements with most TOCs with services into London.

http://www.rail-fly.com/

http://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/common/resainfovol/avion_train/reservation_avion_train_tgvair_airfrance.htm

http://www.airfrance.co.uk/GB/en/common/resainfovol/avion_train/reservation_avion_train_tgvair_airfrance.htm

http://www.bahn.com/i/view/USA/en/prices/germany/airail.shtml


16

establishing that the contracting carrier – i.e. the carrier who is principal to the contract of carriage with the passenger - shall at all times remain liable to the passenger, with the performing or ‘actual’ carrier also finding itself jointly and severally liable to the passenger for the segment of the journey it so performs. This element of the regime honours the contractual privity between the passenger and the contracting carrier, ensuring contractual certainty and transparency for the consumer whist being alive to the commercial realities of the modern day transport network which relies increasingly on the concepts of charter, code-share and inter-line. It is perhaps when addressing limitation of liability where the disparity between the various regimes becomes most apparent. Table 1 below sets out how the various regimes deal with limitation of liability (as addressed more fully at Annex I).

Table 1: Demonstrating key liability limits as between different modes of transport

12 Amended from 100,000 SDR following ICAO review in 2014. 13 Amended from 1,000 SDR following ICAO review in 2014.

*Limits expressed as per passenger unless otherwise stated.

Sea

Inland Waterway *Currently applies only to travel on the Rhine and Moselle

Air Road Rail

Death/ Personal Injury

Strict Liability 250,000 SDR 400,000 SDR for a ‘shipping incident’ Capped fund of 175,000 SDR per passenger

60,000 SDR Capped fund of not less than 720,000 SDR

Strict liability 113,100 SDR12 Fault based unlimited No capped fund

220,000 SDR

175,000 SDR

Luggage

Cabin: 2,250 SDR Vehicles: 12,700 SDR Other: 3,375 SDR

Capped fund of not less than 100,000 SDR Single claim limit based on dimensions of vessel

1,131 SDR13 Unlimited if special declaration made

1,200 SDR

Hand: 1,400 SDR Registered: 1,200 (proven loss)/ 800 SDR (not proven) Vehicle: 800 SDR

Mobility Equipment

Cost of repair/replacement

Silent Assume per

Silent

Cost of repair/replacement Unlimited


17

Limitation of Liability Apart from generally using a per passenger method to calculate the level of the carrier’s potential liability, it is clear that there is no harmonised approach between modes of transport as to both the circumstances in which a carrier may limit its liability and the extent to which it may do so. In terms of passenger rights, of itself, this lack of uniform approach creates concern when dealing with issues of transparency and creates complexity particularly in relation to the terms and conditions of carriage for a multi-modal ticket – which will have to be drafted carefully to address this issue, although it is not insurmountable. An issue which may cause greater concern amongst and between stakeholders however, is the disparity in the level of protection afforded to the carriers themselves by the regimes. It is perhaps not surprising that it is those carriers providing carriage by air and sea that are afforded the least protection (who do not benefit from any cap on the overall limit of liability for death/personal injury) under the various regimes given the devastating and costly consequences of a catastrophic air or sea event – where typically larger numbers of passengers are involved. That said, even as between air and sea, there is a significant disparity between the ‘strict liability’ element of the limits imposed upon carriers in the event of death/personal injury14. An air carrier may limit its initial strict liability to 113,100 SDR per passenger, whereas at sea, for ‘shipping incidents’, the limit may not be any less than 250,000 SDR per passenger (albeit with an overall cap of 400,000 SDR per passenger). The only explanation for this disparity is the fact that the regime dealing with liability for carriage by sea was more recently amended (at both an international and European level) than the regime dealing with liability for carriage by air. In addition to being subject to a strict liability regime for the first 113,100 SDR, unlike carriers for all other modes of transport, air carriers may not cap their liability for death or personal injury of their passengers at all. Any perceived injustice created by the differing regimes, becomes even greater when considered in the context of creating a seamless, multi-modal, transport ecosystem across Europe – which should be fair, just and non-discriminatory not only to passengers but for the benefit of the industry. Whilst this is not normally a consideration for the EU, it is necessary to consider the impact on industry – a robust industry means healthy competition and increased options for passengers. Passengers rights must,

14 See further Annex I.

luggage Assume per luggage unless special declaration

Advance Payments

Yes For ‘Shipping Incident’ only: payment to meet immediate economic needs

No

Yes Not less than 16,000 SDR

No

Yes Payment to meet immediate economic needs


18

and do, take precedence; but we must also consider the impact on industry when faced with heavy regulation that could hinder participation in the relevant markets, which is ultimately to the consumer’s detriment. Whilst the liabilities referred to above are insurable, how can the increased costs to air and sea carriers associated with a greater liability exposure be addressed in order to ensure ‘buy-in’ to a multi-modal system? Will this potentially disproportionate expense exposure vis-à-vis other modes of transport have an impact on the price of a multi-modal ticket such as to undermine the concept of passenger autonomy that is at the very heart of the multi-modal transport system?

4.2 Delay, Cancellation and Denied Boarding Passenger rights in relation to delay and cancellation of their journey and the consequences of denied boarding derive from international convention, but are more fully set out in a series of European regulations that have been developed over time in response to the practical realities of travel by various modes. The key features of the various regulations are summarised in table 2 below. As with the various liability regimes discussed above, there are certain disparities in the provisions of the regulations. Some can be justified in response to the practical realities of the particular mode addressed. However others have simply developed into the form they now take as a result of the point in time in which they were drafted and came into force; evolving more organically in response to certain issues as they have arisen rather than there having been any significant concerted attempt to harmonise passenger rights - with a view to one day giving rise to the fully integrated multi-modal transport ecosystem envisaged by EuTravel. The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which passengers are entitled to care, assistance and compensation in the event of delay and cancellation and the steps that a carrier must take in the event that a passenger is denied boarding.

Table 2: Demonstrating key features of delay, cancellation and denied boarding regulations

Sea

Inland Waterway -Member States may choose to apply ‘Sea’ regime to inland waterways.

Air15 Road Rail

Notification Period

As soon as possible. No later than 30 minutes after scheduled time of departure.

Per Sea if applied by Member State.

No compensation if informed within certain time frame

As soon as possible. No later than 30 minutes after scheduled time of departure.

No compensation if informed prior to purchasing ticket.

15 It should be noted that Regulation 261/2004 is currently being reviewed. On 11 June 2015 the EU Transport Council only “took note” of another Progress Report on the revision of Regulation 261. This document is not an agreement and does not allow the Council to enter into negotiations with the Parliament. Discussions will have to continue but the next presidency (July-December 2015) has already confirmed that they would not deal with the file unless the ‘Gibraltar’ problem is resolved. See http://www.eraa.org/policy/passenger-rights/passenger-rights for further information.

http://www.eraa.org/policy/passenger-rights/passenger-rights

http://www.eraa.org/policy/passenger-rights/passenger-rights


19

Compensation not payable/No liability

No compensation payable if: cancellation or delay caused by: -Weather conditions endangering the safe operation of the ship -Extraordinary circumstances hindering the performance of the passenger service which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.


No compensation payable if: Delay/cancellation is due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.16

No liability where delay/cancellation attributable to: -Circumstances not connected with the operation of the railways, which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particularly circumstances, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent -Fault of the passenger -Third party not connected with the operation of the railway, which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particularly circumstances, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent

Delay

Compensation % of ticket price (up to 50%) based on length of delay and length of journey *Where a return journey, ‘ticket price’ half price paid


Compensation Fixed sum based on length of delay17 to destination and length of journey AND Delay to destination of over 3 hours 18

Delay of more than 90 minutes for a journey of more than 3 hours -Assistance Delay of more than 120 minutes (actual

-Reimbursement of full cost of ticket for parts of journey not made -Continuation or re-routing -Assistance Compensation

16 Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 does not define ‘extraordinary circumstances’; however, the Regulation is currently under review with plans to provide a definition to achieve clarity. To date, what will and will not constitute as an extraordinary circumstance has been driven by case law. See Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07): A technical problem which comes to light during aircraft maintenance or is caused by failure to maintain an aircraft cannot be regarded as ‘extraordinary circumstance’. See also Sandy Siewert v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Case C-394/14): collision of mobile boarding stairs with the aircraft cannot be considered an ‘extraordinary circumstance’. National courts have also held that a bird strike can not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. See Ash V Thomas Cook Airlines, Manchester County Court. 17 ‘Arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, corresponds to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft. See Germanwings (Case C-452/13). 18 In the joined cases of Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Case C-402/07) and Stefan Böck, Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA (Case C-432/07), the CJEU held that passengers whose flights face long delays (i.e.


20

for ticket. AND Delay of over 90 minutes (actual or expected) -Re-routing to final destination or -Reimbursement of ticket price and repatriation to place of departure AND Assistance

-Compensation -Assistance -Reimbursement -Repatriation to place of departure

or expected) -Re-routing -Reimbursement of ticket price and -Repatriation to place of departure If above not offered: 50% of ticket price

% of ticket price (up to 50% of the ticket) based on length of delay (minimum of 60 minutes) *Where a return journey, ‘ticket price’ half price paid for ticket.

Cancellation -As per delay Per Sea if applied by Member State.

Compensation Fixed sum based on length of delay to destination and length of journey -Assistance -Reimbursement -Repatriation to place of departure -Re-routing

-Re-routing -Reimbursement of ticket price and -Repatriation to place of departure For a journey of more than 3 hours -Assistance

-As per delay -Alternative means of transport as soon as possible

Denied Boarding against will


Compensation Fixed sum based on length of delay to destination and length of journey Assistance Per delay and cancellation as applicable

Assistance

-Snacks, meals or refreshments in reasonable relation to waiting time -Accommodation (80 EUR per night, max. three nights)


>4 hours -Meals and refreshments -Two phone calls, telex, fax or emails >4 hours and time of departure day after scheduled -Meals and refreshments

-Snacks, meals or refreshments in reasonable relation to waiting time -Accommodation (80 EUR per night, max. two nights)

-Passengers to be kept informed of estimated time of departure and arrival -Meals and refreshments as can reasonably be supplied -Hotel accommodation -Transport between hotel and station

where they reach their final destination more three hours or more after their schedule arrival time) may be treated the same way as those whose flights are cancelled as regards their right to compensation.


21

-Two phone calls, telex, fax or emails -Hotel accommodation -Transport between hotel and airport Cancelled -Meals and refreshments -Two phone calls, telex, fax or emails Cancelled and re-routing and time of departure day after scheduled -Meals and refreshments -Two phone calls, telex, fax or emails -Hotel accommodation -Transport between hotel and airport

-Transport from station to alternative departure point if applicable

Seat downgrading


% of ticket price (up to 75%) based on length of flight

Missed Connections

Reasonable efforts to inform passengers of alternative connections.

Per Sea if applied by Member State Silent. 19

Reasonable efforts to inform passengers of alternative connections.

Where journey cannot be continued same day: -Reasonable costs of accommodation -Reasonable costs of notifying persons expecting passenger

Disabled/PRMs Particular attention to be given


-Priority to be given -Right to care and assistance as above as soon as possible

Particular attention to be given

Particular attention to be given

19 Although the subject of missed connections is not explicitly dealt with in the Regulation, European case law suggests that the Regulation is only concerned with individual components of a journey. Therefore, if for example a short-haul flight with an EU carrier or departing from the EU is delayed by only 20 minutes (and therefore falls outside the scope of the compensation regime), but causes the passenger to miss their connecting long-haul flight with another non-EU carrier or from an airport outside of the EU, leading to an overall delay to the final destination of more than 3 hours, no compensation is payable by the first carrier. See Emirates Airlines – Direktion für Deutschland -v- Diether Schenkel (Case C-173/07). The outcome differs in a case where a passenger flies with an EU carrier and misses a directly connecting flight (provided by the same EU carrier) departing the EU. In such circumstances, a passenger would be entitled to compensation, their arrival at their final destination having been delayed by over three hours. See Folkerts -v- Air France SA (Case C-11/11).


22

4.2.1 Method of Calculating Compensation As table 2 demonstrates the building blocks of the regulations are essentially the same – with the mandated carrier response generally based upon the length of the delay. The disparity however lies in the method by which the carrier is expected to calculate the amount of compensation payable to the passenger where it falls due, which not only creates inequality for passengers but also travel service providers as between modes. By way of example, for sea and rail, the amount of compensation payable is based upon a fixed percentage sum of the ticket price (for the segment during which the delay occurred if a return ticket), according to the length of the delay. For air, the amount of compensation payable is a fixed sum based upon the length of the journey and length of the delay. As there is no correlation to the price paid, this can lead to disproportionate sums of compensation being paid out, particularly by low cost airlines, who in some cases, may face having to reimburse the cost of the tickets and pay out compensation in excess of the price paid for the ticket where the delay exceeds a certain length of time. That said, within the industry as a whole it has never been considered beneficial for airlines to compensate based on ticket price due to the different fare classes – which would mean that those who pay for business or first class for example would be compensated at a higher level because they can have purchased a premium fare. This would contradict the very principle behind the various passenger rights regimes that aims to create a fair liability/compensation regime for all passengers. It should also be noted that ‘compensation’ is in any event payable under both the sea and air regimes for delays and denied boarding and is distinct from the right to reimbursement of the ticket price – which arises in certain circumstances. Due to the very different fare structure for the various modes of transport, it is difficult to envisage a scenario where the methods for calculating compensation perhaps should or even could be aligned. Further analysis may need to be undertaken and input from key industry stakeholders and associations sought in order to analyse the potential impact on both passengers and travel service providers of bringing the methods in to line across transport modes.

4.2.2 Missed Connections Aside from the rail regulation, which requires the carrier to provide reasonable accommodation in the event of a missed connection, the regulations are silent on carrier’s liability for missed connections – which tends to be dealt with, only briefly, in the terms and conditions of carriage – which would usually stipulate that the passenger should be mindful of ‘check-in’ times for onward connections. Where the passenger books consecutive legs of a journey on separate tickets, then it is their responsibility to observe the check-in times of each carrier. In practice the majority of carriers strongly resist claims for compensation relating to missed connections for which they are not responsible, arguing that their liability is limited as per the regulations (and as set out above). This will be the case where that connection is carried out under a separate contract of carriage and not therefore an interline arrangement or carriage carried out by successive carriers under the same ticket (in which case the usual liability regimes are likely to apply).


23

Whilst this principle is presently generally understood and accepted, it does cause concern when considered in the context of developing a seamless multi-modal transport system across Europe – whereby a passenger is able to utilise multiple modes of transport on just one ticket. The EU are already looking to address this issue at least in the context of carriage by air under proposals for a new regulation to replace Regulation 261/2004, which currently deals with delay, cancellation and denied boarding. The Commission’s proposal is that the entitlement to compensation will be based on the length of the delay to final destination, rather than taking each flight as a separate ‘unit’ as is presently the case20. Parliament’s position is that compensation should be on this basis, but only if the delay at the point of transfer is over 90 minutes. In addition, the Presidency’s latest compromise suggests that the ‘length of delay’ matrix should be increased from 3, 5 and 9 hours to 5, 9 and 12 hours. Whilst the proposals are generally more favourable to carriers in terms of the permitted length of delay, the potential impact in relation to connection times cannot be underestimated and has already provided somewhat of a sticking point in discussions – with certain Member States counter-proposals being to limit any liability to the provision of care and assistance only. Low-cost carriers in particular are concerned that the proposed changes could significantly increase their liability exposure. Taking the Commission’s position by way of example: if the first in time short-haul flight arrived less than five hours late but causes the passenger to miss their onward connecting flight, meaning that they arrived or would arrive to their final destination more than 5 hours late, the first in time carrier’s liability would increase from potentially Nil EUR (the threshold for compensation being a delay of over 2 hours) to up to 550 EUR, plus the costs of providing care and assistance. It is not clear whether the first in time carrier would then also be obliged to cover the cost of reimbursing the passenger for the connecting flight in the event that they chose not to take it due to the delay. The key questions therefore are: Where will liability for a missed connection lie? Will liability comfortably rest with the prior carrier? Will it be the responsibility of the connecting carrier to ensure that its minimum check-in times are sufficient to build in a contingency for any foreseeable delays? Will minimum check-in times need to be revised in order to take into account of the various specificities each modes of transport likely to feed the connecting carrier? Is the answer simply that liability is shared between all carriers? What will be the impact of the revised Regulation 261/2004? Will the revised 261/2004 model be suitable for all modes of transport? Will there be concurrent or additional liability on the part of ground-handlers responsible for the transfer of luggage between modes? 20 See earlier references to case law dealing with missed connections.


24

What will the liability of the infrastructure managers at transport hubs? Will they have a responsibility for passenger rights?

4.3 Impact of the Package Travel Directive The current Package Travel Directive21 (the PTD), which has been transposed into the national law of EU Member States through secondary legislation, sets out common rules on the provision of package holidays. Although the definition may vary slightly between Member States, ‘package’ is currently defined under the Directive as:

“… the pre-arranged combination of not fewer than two of the following when sold or offered for sale at an inclusive price and when the service covers a period of more than twenty-four hours or includes overnight accommodation: (a) transport; (b) accommodation; (c) other tourist services not ancillary to transport or accommodation and accounting for a significant proportion of the package. The separate billing of various components of the same package shall not absolve the organiser or retailer from the obligations under this Directive.”

Whilst the significance of the PTD in the context of multi-modal travel may not be immediately apparent, it will certainly be relevant in its current and new form in a situation where a multi-modal ticket is booked in conjunction with accommodation. However, as the use of multi-modal travel increases and case law develops, the PTD may provide the courts with a mechanism to enhance consumer protection for multi-modal passengers. It is not inconceivable that a court might in the longer term find that multi-modal travel under a single ticket falls within the scope of the PTD on the basis that two or more (albeit of the same type of travel service ) are being combined and sold for an inclusive price at a single point of sale. It is therefore important to understand the nature of the liability that can arise under the PTD which operates concurrently to the various passenger rights regimes discussed above.

4.3.1 Primary Liability Pursuant to the PTD, primary liability for loss/damage resulting from the improper performance of the contract, including for the breach of contract/negligence of third party suppliers will rest with the package organiser; thus providing the consumer with a generally more accessible and centralised target for complaint if something should go wrong – rather than having to pursue the supplier who

21 Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours


25

may have a much smaller, less accessible infrastructure for dealing with such complaints or who may not have adequate financial security in place to address the consumer’s complaint in full. In addition to liability for loss/damage, the organiser is also required to provide the consumer with certain information prior to contract and additional information prior to departure. The organiser will also be primarily liable for any significant alterations to the package prior to departure and in resort – rather than the actual travel service provider. The organiser is not prevented from seeking an indemnity from its service providers in the event that they are held primarily liable to the consumer; and such a scenario is explicitly envisaged by the PTD. In order to safeguard its position, the organiser should ensure that its’ agreements with its suppliers provides sufficient protection from any claims arising under the PTD – including requiring the supplier to have adequate insurance/financial protection in place to meet any claim. The organiser should wherever possible ensure that they obtain copies of their suppliers’ insurance certificates and contact details for their insurers prior to the commencement of any contract for services.

4.3.2 What is a package? Analysis of the current definition In order for there to be a ‘package’ within the meaning of the current PTD therefore, there must be:

• A pre-arranged combination; • Of two or more travel services; • At an inclusive price.

Whilst the definition itself appears straightforward, as the PTD is a directive and does not have direct effect in Member States, it is open to the interpretation of the national courts who have sought to widen the definition of ‘package’ in line with consumer perception.

4.3.3 ‘Pre-arranged Combination’ The PTD does not expand upon what constitutes a ‘pre-arranged combination’. However, it is generally accepted that the two or more components of the package can be ‘pre-arranged’ and ‘combined’ at any point prior to conclusion of the contract with the consumer and still fulfil this element of the ‘package’ definition. In practice, this means that the definition of ‘package’ encompasses arrangements put together at the direction of the consumer22 as well as the more traditional ‘package’ type arrangements that are put together by the tour operator or travel agent prior to promotion in a brochure or on a website – the consumer typically being unable to select or de-sect any particular component of the package (save for choosing dates and flight times for example).

Some Member States’ secondary legislation goes further than the strict text of the PTD23 and explicitly states that the fact that a combination is put together at the request of the consumer, shall not of itself mean that it should not be treated as being other than pre-arranged. This has been confirmed for example in the English case of ABTA v CAA24 where it was determined that whether or not it is found that a combination is ‘pre-arranged’ will not depend exclusively on whether it is tailor-made at

22 See Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido, and Club Med Viagens Ld, (Case C- 400/00) 23 See the Package Travel regulations 1992, SI 3288/1992 of England and Wales 24 ABTA v CAA [2006] EWCA Civ 1356, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 249


26

the consumer’s request25. The point has also been more usefully confirmed at EU level in the Club-Tour case26, with the CJEU finding that holidays organised by a travel agent according to the specification of the consumer can still be caught by the PTD27.

4.3.4 Two or more travel services The qualifying travel services under the PTD are accommodation, transport and other tourist services – none of which are defined in the PTD or the Regulations. That said, what constitutes accommodation or transport for the purposes of the definition is relatively straightforward in most cases.

‘Transport’ of any type is likely to be considered a qualifying component for the purposes of the definition as there is no requirement that it form a significant proportion of the package. This means that ‘transport’ includes the modes of transport used by the consumer to reach the eventual holiday destination, i.e. flight, train, car hire etc. but also transfers to and from and airport or train station to the accommodation, and can also include car hire and city centre/beach shuttle buses.

There is no requirement that accommodation should account for a significant proportion of the package. The ECJ has held that “the duration of the accommodation is of no importance in the scheme of the directive”, save as expressly stated, that the package must be longer than 24 hours or include an overnight stay.

Accommodation in a hotel, villa or apartment is clearly ‘accommodation’ as envisaged under the PTD. However, the situation may become less clear where for example you are dealing with overnight journeys on a train, where overhead racks turn into dormitory style sleeping arrangements. Commentators have suggested that a component will only ‘qualify’ if it is severable or independent from another component28. In the example given above, the overnight accommodation is not per se severable from the mode of transport – question therefore whether the ‘two or more’ part of the definition has been fulfilled, if these are the only elements of the purported package. Commentators have also suggested however that the situation might differing the stated example if the consumer were to travel first class and be provided with a cabin, akin to a hotel room – in which case there would be a clearer distinction between the transport element of the package and the accommodation. Further limiting the type of accommodation falling under the PTD, the ECJ has held that an extended stay with a host family does not fall within the intended meaning of accommodation within the PTD.

25 However, in that same case the Court also stated that “…suppose that the agent has informed the customer that the cost of flights will be £X, the cost of accommodation will be £Y and the cost of transfers will be £Z; and has explained to the customer that he can purchase any one or more of those services, as he chooses, without any need to purchase the others. He has explained, in effect, that the customer can choose to purchase the other services elsewhere; or to make other arrangements. In that case as it seems to me there would be little doubt that the services are not offered for sale as a pre−arranged combination and at an inclusive price” 26 Club Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gencalves Garndo (Case L – 400/00) 27 Although contrast this position to the decision of the English Courts in Civil Aviation Authority v Travel Republic [2010] EWHC 1151 (Admin) where it was held that where “we are dealing with a situation where the customer chooses his or her own combination of services from a wide range of options, in circumstances where TRL [an online travel service provider] does not know whether a customer will select only a single service or a combination. The customer is putting together his own combination for himself” – in which case there is no ‘package’ – meaning that the arrangement falls outside of the scope of the PTD. 28 Saggerson on Travel Law and Litigation, Fifth Edition, Matthew Chapman, Sarah Prager and Jack Harding, Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing, Fifth Edition (2013)


27

In terms of the facilities included with the accommodation, the English courts have confirmed that despite being booked on a ‘room-only’ basis, ‘hotel accommodation’ involves “access to all the normal public areas of the hotel…” for example to the restaurant and bar. An additional legal ‘grey area’ arises where the mode of transport may also be considered accommodation; for example where a passenger on a ferry or train is allocated a cabin for an overnight journey. National guidance suggests that for accommodation to be a separate component of a package “it needs to represent more than a facility which is ancillary to other aspects of an arrangement”29. In the context of a ferry-crossing or overnight train journey, the provision of a cabin on an overnight ferry or train is therefore more likely to be considered a facility. What constitutes ‘other tourist services’ can be more difficult to determine. In order to qualify, the service must not be ancillary to the provision of accommodation or transport and must account for a significant proportion of the package. ‘Significant’ is again not defined in the PTD or the Regulations. However, commentators suggest that the ‘other tourist service’ will be a qualifying component if it is one which when taking the package as a whole and looked at from a quantitative (i.e. measure in time) and qualitative perspective, it is more than minimal, incidental or of casual importance to the consumer and their package experience. In practice what this is likely to mean is that if the service is specifically identified and promoted in the brochure or through the tour operator’s website, even if in terms of time it is of only limited duration in the context of the package as a whole, when looked at from a qualitative perspective, it is likely to be regarded as ‘significant’.

On that basis, an inclusive excursion, a health club and spa, a lecturer or guide for example may be qualifying ‘other tourist services’30. The provision of refreshments, in-transit entertainment, laundry services, room service, swimming pools, the provision of an additional luggage allowance are more likely to be considered as ancillary to either the transport or accommodation service and are unlikely to qualify as ‘other tourist services’.

4.3.5 ‘Inclusive Price’ Again, ‘inclusive price’ is not defined in the PTD. However, to add to the confusion the current PTD does state that the submission of separate accounts for different components shall not cause arrangements to be other than a package. This does not necessarily mean however that where separate accounts are submitted, a package will nevertheless be formed in all circumstances – since each case is to be looked at on its own facts.

29 See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417823/bis-06-1640-package-travel-regulations-question-and-answer-guidance-for-organisers-and-retailers.pdf 30 A pre-booked excursion is only likely to fall under the scope of the PTD if it forms part of the original all-inclusive arrangement. If it is a pre-bookable option, and charged for separately, then generally it will not form part of the pre-arranged combination. See ABTA v CAA [2006] Civ 1356. If the excursion is booked locally in resort, it will not generally fall within the scope of the PTD. However, see Moore v Hotelplan Ltd [2010] EWHC 276 (QB). In that case, the tour operator was held liable for an excursion booked in resort on the basis that the claimant had been provided with a Welcome Pack identifying the excursion and stating that the tour operator could organise. The Court refused to accept that the tour operator was acting as agent and therefore held that the terms and conditions of the package, i.e. the PTD applied.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417823/bis-06-1640-package-travel-regulations-question-and-answer-guidance-for-organisers-and-retailers.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417823/bis-06-1640-package-travel-regulations-question-and-answer-guidance-for-organisers-and-retailers.pdf


28

What constitutes an ‘inclusive price’ is even less straightforward, particularly when dealing with a tailor-made type arrangement. In English law, the definition of what is or isn’t an ‘inclusive price’ is highly fact sensitive and will very much depend on the business model adopted by the organiser. Relevant considerations include:

• How will the ‘package’ be advertised? Will the consumer be able to tailor-make their holiday? • How many contracts will be formed? Will there be one contract between the organiser and the consumer for the entire package? Will the consumer have separate contracts with each supplier? • How will the consumer be invoiced? Will all payments be processed through the organiser? Will the consumer be issued with a single invoice or will separate invoices be provided by each supplier? • How will the price of the package be calculated? Will the price be the sum of component parts or will the consumer be obtaining a ‘discount’ by purchasing all of the individual elements together?

In an attempt to provide some clarity, the English courts have indicated that the overarching question of fact that needs to be resolved (on a case by case basis) is “whether the services are being sold or offered for sale as components of a combination or whether they are being sold or offered for sale separately but at the same time” (paragraph 26 ABTA v CAA). If they are being sold separately but at the same time, then in all likelihood, a package for the purposes of the PTD will not be formed.

When answering that question the interdependency of the price of each component on the booking of the other component at the same time is relevant. In order for there to be a package, there must generally be a “relationship between the component parts of the package…such as to mean that the consumer is buying and paying for them as a whole; the sale or offer for sale of one component part is in some way connected with or dependent on the sale or offer for sale of the others”.

4.3.6 Does the PTD apply to the multi-modal transport ecosystem? Whilst at face value it appears that the PTD does not apply to multi-modal transport – prima facie there being only one travel service provided (i.e. transport), the above analysis demonstrates how the national courts have sought to expand the scope of the current definition, in order to enhance consumer protection. Moreover, it is important to note that the definition of ‘package’ continues to evolve rapidly, with a new Directive presently due to come into force in late 2017.

The new Directive has been developed in direct response to the way in which our holiday arrangements are now made – in particular, with the surge in the use of the internet and online travel agencies (OTAs) to make such arrangements. Discussions of what should and should not be caught by the PTD have been driven by ‘consumer perception’ of what is a package – rather than applying the strict legalistic definition outlined above31.

31 In the English case of CAA v ABTA the court indicated that whilst the test of what is and is not a package is not subjective; the fact that the consumer thought he was purchasing a package was not determinative, but “may be a powerful evidential pointer to the true nature of the transaction.”


29

As such, the new Directive will not only capture the more traditional package type arrangements – i.e. the pre-arranged combination for example of say a flight and accommodation for an inclusive price, under one single contract, but will also apply irrespective of whether single contracts are concluded where:

• Two or more ‘travel services’32 are purchased from a single point of sale and sold at an inclusive or

‘total’ price; and

• Where purchased from separate traders through linked online booking processes where the traveller's name, payment details and e-mail address are transmitted from the trader with whom the first contract is concluded to another trader or traders and a contract with the latter trader or traders is concluded not more than 24 hours after the confirmation of the first travel service.

Passengers making linked online travel arrangements, which do not constitute packages – for example where in a targeted manner (for example a targeted web link), the consumer goes on to book additional travel service from another trader not more than 24 hours after the confirmation of the first travel service will also receive the benefit of certain insolvency protections under the new PTD (financial protection is discussed further below). Many of the main information requirements and liability provisions of the current PTD remain unchanged. However, the level of consumer protection is enhanced. By way of example only, the consumer will be given increased opportunity to cancel the package prior to departure and at any time – upon payment of a ‘reasonable’ fee and the situations in which the consumer may transfer the booking will also be expanded. The multi-modal transport ecosystems will facilitate the purchase of a single ticket, for a single ‘inclusive’ or ‘total’ price, under a single set of terms and conditions, from a single source, which will enable seamless travel across Europe utilising multiple modes of transport provided by a number of different carriers – across modes. Whilst there is therefore only one travel service present – from all other angles, the arrangement looks like a packaged product, being a pre-arranged combination (albeit at the request of the passenger), at a single points of sale, for a total price. Will the passenger therefore perceive that he is actually buying a packaged arrangement? As the use of multi-modal travel becomes more popular amongst consumers, the need to enhance the level of protection they are afforded will only increase. Furthermore, as the model develops it will become ever more likely – no matter what platform is used to offer for sale a multi-modal ticket – that it will be combined with accommodation for a complete seamless travel experience. In that case, there is no doubt at all that the PTD will bite. In any event, from the viewpoint of securing contractual certainty and creating transparency for the consumer, when considering the fact that there are a number of different and potentially competing liability and passenger rights regimes that a single contract of carriage may be subject to if a single passenger rights regime cannot be adopted, a package travel like liability regime may be the answer.

32 ‘Travel services’ include accommodation, carriage of passengers, rental of cars and other tourist services not intrinsically part another travel service already listed.


30

The key question to consider then is who will be considered the ‘organiser’ if multi-modal travel is to fall within the scope of the PTD. Much will depend on the interface created to facilitate the ticketing of the multi-modal journey. Organiser is defined in the new PTD as one “who combines and sells or offers for sale packages…either directly…” and will remain primarily liable to the consumer for the proper performance of the contract; including for pre/post contractual alterations to the package and for any loss/damage caused by the improper performance of the contract, even where the breach/negligence is in fact on the part of a third party supplier. The new PTD also makes provision for Member States to hold the ‘retailer’ jointly and severally liable for the performance of the package. Will multi-modal tickets only be available via a consortium owned website – if so, will this online presence take the form of an online travel agency (an OTA)? OTA as the organiser? Alternatively, will the interface be made available as a ‘bolt-on’ to existing multi-modal journey planners?33 Journey planner is the organiser? Or retailer? Or both? Will the tickets be sold through travel agents? In which case, will the arrangement be akin to dynamic packaging?34 Travel agent is the organiser? Or retailer? Or both? Is bringing multi-modal travel under the remit of the new PTD the answer?

4.3.7 Financial Protection under the PTD In addition to the liability requirements outlined above, the PTD also requires the organiser to obtain security over the entirety of the package in the event of their own and/or supplier insolvency by way of either insurance, bonding or the setting up of a trust account35, in order to ensure the continuation of the package or the repatriation of the consumer to the place of departure, where applicable. The inherent interdependency between carriers in order to facilitate a seamless multi-modal ecosystem carries with it an inherent risk of the transport chain being interrupted due to the insolvency of one carrier. Whilst the financial protection model under the PTD will not of itself necessarily tackle the organisational issues that will arise in the event of insolvency of one carrier, it will provide the remaining carriers (or the organiser) with the financial means to make suitable alternative arrangements for the continuation of the passenger’s journey – ensuring that any disruption is minimal.

33 There a number of existing national multi-modal journey planners, See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/its/multimodal-planners/examples-of-existing-national-journey-planners/index_en.htm 34 ‘Dynamic packaging’: a method used to enable customers to build their own package, combining a number of different travel services. 35 The precise methods are not prescribed by the PTD but are a matter of national law. See for example the ATOL Regulations of England and Wales.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/its/multimodal-planners/examples-of-existing-national-journey-planners/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/its/multimodal-planners/examples-of-existing-national-journey-planners/index_en.htm


31

4.4 Contractual Relationships Licensing authorities of each transport provider will drive the conditions under which agents can sell; i.e. an agent requires IATA accreditation.

4.4.1 Passenger Relationships It is not just statutory legislation that governs the relationship between passenger and carrier. The terms and conditions of booking and the conditions of carriage, often standard form documents, are equally as relevant, often building upon the statutory liability and passenger rights regimes (that will apply regardless of any express reference to them), and setting out the commercial basis upon which the parties are prepared to contract (i.e. payment terms, changes to bookings etc.). The contractual provisions will usually be subject to the provisions of a particular Member State’s law – more often than not being the principal place of business of the travel provider or country where the travel service is offered for sale – i.e. the place of residence of the consumer. Some providers choose to have different terms and conditions and conditions of carriage depending on the location of the consumer to address the differing standards of consumer protection. It is notable that despite efforts by the EU Commission to harmonise consumer protection, consumer protection in relation to contract terms is largely regulated at national level36. In a typical package scenario a passenger may be subject to a number of different contractual regimes. Where a package – combining hotel accommodation and travel by air - is booked through an online tour operator for example, the passenger will be subject to the website terms of use, any privacy policy, the booking terms and conditions of the tour operator and the conditions of carriage of the airline, as well any additional terms and conditions laid down by the accommodation supplier. In order to secure equal rights for passengers, a uniform industry-wide approach and importantly to ensure compliance with the various information requirements of the numerous liability and passenger rights regimes which may apply to the travel arrangement a number of international and national transport organisations provide their members with standard form booking terms and conditions and conditions of carriage37. These standard form documents also narrow the circumstances, to the extent possible, in which a contradiction between the terms of the various travel service providers and the statutory liability regimes that have been laid down at either a European or national level may arise. In the context of creating a multi-modal transport ecosystem, the proliferation of standard form booking terms and conditions and conditions of carriage – incorporating all of the various regimes – whatever form they may eventually take - is key to ensuring contractual certainty both for the passenger and from a more commercial perspective for travel service providers. This will not be possible however without the ‘buy-in’ of key stakeholders.

36 Although note Distance Selling Regulations, Consumer Protection Directive. 37See for example: IATA Standards Conditions of Carriage: http://www.transportrecht.de/transportrecht_content/1145517747.pdf and CIT: General Conditions of Carriage for Rail Passengers: file:///D:/My%20Downloads/GCC_CIV-PRR_EN_2015-01-01.pdf

http://www.transportrecht.de/transportrecht_content/1145517747.pdf


32

Further input should be sought from key industry associations such as IATA, ECTAA, COTIF, ATOC, ETOC, ESPO, CLIA etc. regarding the likely reception of multi-modal standard form booking conditions and conditions of carriage.

4.4.2 Business to Business Relationships In the context of multi-modal travel, many of the perceived ‘gaps’ and anticipated conflicts between the liability regimes set out more fully above (for example for missed connections, embarkation/disembarkation), can of course be addressed by commercial agreements between the various interested parties – who are most likely to be the different travel service providers – either in terms of entity or mode. The extent to which travel service providers are able to reach a commercial agreement on such issues to the satisfaction of the EU from a consumer protection perspective, will ultimately dictate the level of EU regulation required to facilitate the emergence of a multi-modal transport ecosystem38. As the model for the multi-modal transport ecosystem develops, the need for standard form agreements to address such issues will become clearer. A number of standard form agreements already exist in relation to air and rail. By way of example, members of the International Rail Transport Company are able to access a standard form agreement, concerning the Relationships between Transport Undertakings in respect of International Carriage. IATA also provides a scheme for interlining between airlines as well as standard form agreements which not only govern the setting of tariffs, but also the way in which the ‘fare’ is divided as between the various carriers. A key factor in ensuring that the multi-modal system works for industry will be a harmonised approach to the division of the fare as between the various travel service providers involved. Difficulties in this area have already been experienced when looking to break down the costs of a package into its individual components, given that by its very nature it is more usually sold for an inclusive price, rather than the sum total of the component travel services. Further input from key industry associations will be useful in identifying the current options for fare division and the way in which business to business agreements may need to be developed in the context of a multi-modal transport ecosystem.

4.4.3 Licensing Authorities Linked business to business relationships is the role that the various industry licensing authorities at both an international and national level, may have to play in the way in which a multi-modal ticket is sold. By way of an example, travel agents who sell IATA airline tickets must be IATA accredited, with IATA membership primarily based on financial eligibility or the provision of a bond, by way of security. It is difficult, in the present economic climate, to envisage a situation whereby an IATA airline ticket is able

38 The EU has already experienced difficulties between airlines on the subject of liability for missed connections under proposals for a new regulation 261/2004.


33

to be sold – even as part of a multi-modal journey – by for example a TOC authorised agent, who will be subject to different eligibility criteria. This will of course be avoided if multi-modal tickets are to be sold via an online platform only. However, if the intention is that they should also be available via travel agencies, then work will need to be undertaken either to align the various eligibility criteria or to implement a regime of mutual recognition of current criteria. Further input from key industry associations will be useful in identifying the extent to which existing criteria can be aligned and what will need to be done in order to make multi-modal ticketing widely available from a regulatory perspective, if it cannot.

4.5 Consumer Protection Whilst not unique to multi-modal travel, consumer protection is an overarching legal theme that ought to be borne in mind as the EuTravel project continues. The key overarching principle of transacting with a consumer based in the EU is one of transparency, which should be maintained throughout the lifespan of the relationship between passenger and carrier. Relevant consumer protection considerations that may apply to the sale and ticketing of multi-modal travel are considered further below.

4.5.1 Pricing Transparency General provisions on pricing transparency can be found in the Directive on Consumer Rights 2011/83/EC, the Consumer Protection Directive 2011/83/EU, the Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices 2005/29/EC, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC and the Directive on Electronic Commerce 2000/31/EC39. The Consumer Protection Directive applies to the extent that it relates to protecting consumers against hidden costs in distance contracts and excessive fees for the use of a particular means of payment. A distance contract covers any situation where a sale is concluded without the simultaneous presence of the consumer and the trader; therefore all sales to EU consumers carried out via a website are highly likely to be caught by the Directive. Essentially, to ensure pricing transparency, prices must be communicated in a clear and unambiguous manner. In practice, this means that the ‘final price’ should mean the final price paid by the consumer. By way of an example, when selling a flight, the ‘final price’ must include the air fare, air taxes and charges or surcharges and any fees which are unavoidable, as well as any additional payments relating

39 The regulation of pricing on a mode specific level tends to be regulated at a national level. However, note that the Air Services Regulation 1008/2007 regulates the pricing transparency of air fares and air rates for air services from an airport located in the territory of a Member State of the EU. It applies to air fares and air rates available to the general public, published in any form, including on the internet.


34

to any extra optional services the consumer has explicitly chosen to purchase on an ‘opt-in’ basis (for example checked baggage allowance). The Package Travel Directive regulates the pricing of packaged travel arrangements.

4.5.2 Minimum Inventory Sales There are no specific EU rules on minimum inventory for sales at a promotional rate – which tend to be regulated at national level by advertising standards agencies. However, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Directive any limitations and conditions attached to an offer must be clearly displayed. In the same vein, all standard contract terms and conditions, including limitations to special offers and other conditions for the cancellation and modification of tickets must be written in a clear manner using readable characters.40

4.5.3 Availability There are no general rules on ‘availability’ of fares, other than the more general ‘transparency’ provisions set out in the various consumer protection provisions. That said, under Regulation 1008/2007, all air fares and air rates for serviced operations from an airport located within the EU must be offered to the general public without discrimination based on nationality or place of residence (article 23 Regulation 1008/2007). What this means in practice is that suppliers (air travel services departing from the EU) cannot limit the offer of air travel services to any particular market on an exclusive basis. As the EU internal market expands and the EU’s commitment to a multi-modal transport ecosystem develops, the principle of non-discrimination of fares will become more relevant and is an issue that will need to be addressed at EU level.

4.5.4 Payment Surcharges EU rules do not prevent the supplier from passing on this charge to the consumer, but the fee levied must not exceed the actual cost borne by the supplier for processing payment by that particular means41. Specifically, credit card charges should not exceed the amount charged by the credit card company to the supplier and debit card payments should not incur a charge at all.

4.5.5 Language Requirements Language requirements for websites offering commercial services to consumers in Europe are not regulated by EU legislation (except in relation to food safety, dangerous goods etc.). In order to ensure that the content of any marketing material is clear and unambiguous however, consideration should be given to advertising in the local language of the country where the advertisement is targeted. 40 See Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Consumer Protection Directive. 41 See Article 9 of the Consumer Protection Directive.


35

If a website was to be made available in a number of European languages, it must ensure that the same language is used throughout the selling process – which includes advertising and their standard terms and conditions42. The commercial benefits of potentially broadening the scope of sales through a multi-lingual website should be balanced against the cost of translating (and the associated risks regarding interpretation) and/or producing the website in different languages from source. The level of consumer protection varies between Member States therefore the interpretation of what is considered to be ‘plain intelligible language’ (or the equivalent standard) will also vary between Member States. Generally speaking, ambiguous contract terms will always be construed against the party putting it forward – in this context the supplier rather than the consumer. Whilst there may not be a language requirement enshrined in national law, it will be more straightforward for a national court (or administrative body) to assess the fairness/ambiguity (or the equivalent standard) of a contractual term, if it is available in the Member States’ national language – particularly given the difficulties that can arise out of direct translation, rather than the contractual terms having been drawn up in a particular language in the first instance.

4.6 Data Protection and Ownership 4.6.1 Protection of personal data: the current regime The current EU data protection regime is enshrined in Directive 95/46/EC, which sets out the minimum standards for ensuring the protection of personal data when it is obtained or otherwise processed. The aim of the Directive is to provide a consistent protection of personal data across Member States. In practice, however, as the Directive has been implemented into the national law of each member state through secondary legislation, this has created an inconsistent, fragmented and varying approach at a number of levels including for example for the compensation of personal data breaches.

Travel service providers (or any platform developed to provide for the ticketing of multi-modal travel) under the current regime will be subject to the EU data protection regime if customer data is processed or collected either on site, or online via a website or web platform (i.e. where cookies have been placed on the computer of a user within the EU43) in any EU member state.

In order to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime therefore, travel service providers must have processes in place to ensure that data is:

1. processed fairly and lawfully; 2. for limited purposes (i.e. for the purpose of the customer travel bookings); 3. adequate, accurate and not excessive; 4. accurate and where necessary, up to date; 5. not kept for longer than is necessary; 6. processed in line with the data subject's rights;

42 See Article 7(2) and Annex I (8) of the Unfair Practices Directive and Annex (i) of the Unfair Terms Directive. 43 See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/index_en.htm


36

7. secure; and 8. not transferred to countries outside the EEA without adequate protection.

Sensitive personal data such as information relating to a person’s health or medical condition – for example if a passenger is disabled and requires special assistance – is subject to data protection law. This usually means that a data controller/processor is likely to require the passenger’s explicit consent before it can share such sensitive data with any third parties. Obtaining and capturing this ‘consent’ process is something that will need to be considered when developing either the online platform of agent interface. In addition to the above, it should be noted that there are further specific requirements where data is transferred outside of the EEA.

In order to ensure compliance with the above, the data controller must ensure that it has the administrative capacity to notify relevant national regulators that they are processing personal data and to respond to subject access requests. Data Controller is defined in the Directive as: “…the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law”44. It should be noted that more than one data controller may be involved in respect of the same data. Data Processor is defined in the Directive as:

44 Whether or not a party acts as a data controller in respect of customer data will depend on the extent to which the party has control over the manner and purpose for which it processes the customer data. For example, a travel agent who takes the booking and then processes the data in order to make the necessary travel arrangement for the booking will normally be acting as data controller in respect of that data and will therefore be required to comply with the data protection law in the relevant member state in respect of its processing of that data. In terms of the travel service providers, it will depend on the extent to which they have any control over how they process the passenger data. If they are only using the data in order to provide the necessary travel arrangement as they are instructed by the travel agent (e.g. on the date and time and specific service determined by the travel agent), then they may be acting as the travel agent’s data processor. However, if the travel service providers have some control over the manner and purpose for which they process the passenger data then they may be acting as a data controller in their own right. This might be the case, for example, if the travel service provider will need (or wants to be able) to contact the customer direct itself in order to obtain further details or confirm details relating to the travel arrangements or to take payment, or if they want to use the data otherwise for the travel service provider’s own marketing purposes. If there is a centralised computer system, the IT contractor(s) which design/host the platform will normally be acting as data processor, but it will be a question of fact depending on how much control they have the manner and purposes for which they process personal data. See further ICP guidance on this point: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1546/data-controllers-and-data-processors-dp-guidance.pdf

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1546/data-controllers-and-data-processors-dp-guidance.pdf

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1546/data-controllers-and-data-processors-dp-guidance.pdf


37

“…a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller”. Transport service providers, and agents involved with multi-modal ticketing may well at various times be considered data controllers and data processors and should be aware of their obligations under the Directive.

Legal liability under the Directive rests with the data controller regardless of whether any personal data is processed by a third party. The use of third party processors is not new and all public and private transport service providers should already have a series of contractual arrangements in place with such third parties to ensure compliance with the regime and to ensure that they are adequately protected by way of an indemnity in the event of any data breach.

4.6.2 Protection of personal data: the new regime The existing Data Protection regime is currently under review and is set to be replaced by a new Data Protection Regulation. The Regulation is currently in draft form and is in the process of going through the European legislative procedure, and it is expected that the final version of the draft Regulation will be agreed in early 2016 and will be brought into force in 2018. As the new legislation will be a Regulation (rather than a Directive) it will be binding on all data controllers in all member states immediately upon coming into force without the need for implementation by the member states. The intention behind this is to harmonise data protection procedures and enforcement across all member states in the EU – which will enable the development of a multi-modal transport ecosystem by streamlining the data protection policies of all travel service providers, across modes and across member states. One of the key changes proposed under the new Regulation is that obligations will be placed directly on data processors and not just on data controllers. In future, under the new Regulation, data controllers and data processors will be jointly liable for any breach of the data protection laws, until it is proven which party is responsible for the breach. This is significant and means that once the new Regulations come into force, the travel service providers will be required to comply with the data protection regime (and will be liable for data breaches) whether or not they are acting as data controllers or data processors. Under the draft Regulation, data controllers will also be required to enter into a contract with their data processor which must contain specific provisions including for example an obligation on the data processor to act only on the instructions of the controller and to comply with appropriate security obligations. Whether or not it is expected that the travel service providers will be acting as data processors or data controllers in their own right, parties should consider entering into a contractual arrangement, under which the parties agree who will take what responsibilities in respect of the customer data, for example, who is responsible for updating / deleting data (along with agreed retention periods), the agreed format for any data submitted into the system, any agreed security procedures which the parties are going to be obliged to comply with, agreement as to who will be responsible for data subject to access requests, who is responsible for data breaches and appropriate indemnities, etc.


38

Whilst not an exhaustive list, other potentially significant changes which have been proposed under the draft Regulations are:

• Individual data subjects are likely to have significantly expanded rights, including a new ‘right to be forgotten’ (i.e. a right to request that a data controller delete any personal data held about them). Any platform or interface will need to enable this functionality. • New obligations on data controllers, including an obligation to carry out a formal privacy impact assessment in relation to new projects and an obligation to appoint a data protection officer.

• Both data controllers and data processor will be required to maintain documentation relating to all processing operations under their responsibility (excluding organisation employing fewer than 250 persons).

• New very detailed requirements for privacy notices which mean that data controllers will have to give detailed information to data subjects about how they will be processing personal data, including specifically how long they are going to keep the personal data. This information will need to be given to customers at the time that their data is collected.

• Data controllers will no longer be required to notify the national data protection authority that they are processing personal data. However, there will be a new mandatory requirement to notify the national authority about any data security breach without undue delay and in any event within 24 hours of becoming aware of the breach (although the timescale may change in the final version). Data processors will be required to notify the data controller immediately after becoming aware of a breach.

• National authorities are to be given significantly increased enforcement powers – including the power to issue fines up to 1 million Euros (or up to 2% of worldwide annual turnover) for compliance failures such as processing without sufficient legal basis, data security breaches, and failing to notify breaches.

Who will be the Data Controller? Will each individual travel service providers be a Data Controller regardless of the presence of a single multi-modal ticket? or Is the multi-modal platform intended to be a single Data Controller? If so, by which EU Member State will it be governed? How will compensation for Data breaches be paid? Will travel service providers involved in the scheme be required to pay into a fund and/or have appropriate insurances in place? or Will multi-modal tickets only be available via a consortium owned website platform – if so, who will own it? The travel service providers? Will each individual travel service providers or a nominated separate entity be considered the Data Controller? or Will the tickets be sold through travel agents? In which case, will the travel agent be the Data Organiser? Or retailer? Or both?


39

Will a multi-modal platform take the form of an Online Travel Agency? If so, which EU Member State will the OTA belong to? Or Will the multi-modal platform be made available as a ‘bolt-on’ to existing multi-modal journey planners? Will the Journey planner be the Data Controller? The implementation of a multi-modal transport ecosystem is likely to create further challenges in ensuring that the consumer’s personal data remains confidential. Travel service providers will already have their own individual privacy policies in place, which no doubt have derived from the applicable national secondary legislation. These policies may be consistent with the applicable national law. However, to support a truly seamless multi-modal transport ecosystem, the way in which the different travel service providers handle passenger data will need to be brought into line with one another. Consideration will need to be given as to whether such policies need to be re-drafted on a back-to-back basis – or whether a standard form document should be created.

Regardless of who the intended Data Controller(s) will be, adequate systems will need to be in place to ensure that, amongst other things:

• The Data Subject knows who will be controlling and processing their personal data; • The Data Subject is aware of what their personal data is to be used for; • Personal data is used for its intended purpose; • Any requests by Data Subjects either for Data Controllers to cease processing their personal data

or data access requests are actioned appropriately.

4.6.3 Data ownership and accuracy Regulation EC No 80/2009 sets out a Code of Conduct for Computer Reservation Systems (CRS) and aims to ensure fair and unbiased conditions for air carriers in a CRS – which in turn should protect consumer’s interest. The Code takes steps towards standardising the use of CRS by setting out criteria for primary displays and mandated contractual provisions between subscribers and system vendors. More importantly the Code also prohibits discriminatory dissemination of data between competing CRS and also deals with liability for accuracy of fare content. Whilst limited in scope, the Regulation envisages extending its remit to rail and rail-air services on CRS displays. It therefore provides a useful indication of EU model which can be further enhanced to deal with the ownership and accuracy of data likely to be fed into any platform or interface created to facilitate the multi-modal ticketing. In terms of accuracy of fare data, under the Code, liability rests with the carrier and intermediaries handling the data. This is the ‘usual’ position which is often mirrored in commercial contracts dealing with the setting up of or handling of live databases. If it is a travel agent or travel service provider inputting data, then it is expected that at the very least they should be under some sort of contractual obligation to ensure that data is accurate and making


40

them liable for any mistakes (either by way of a contract or some sort of binding protocol/policy that all parties involved are obliged to sign up to). Where the travel agent / travel service provider is reliant on the customer to provide accurate data (or where the customer inputs data themselves, for example by making the booking direct through an online booking tool, if that’s possible) then it should be made clear that the customer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of any data and liable for any mistakes (which would need to be covered in the booking terms and conditions).


41

5. Standardisation Overview

5.1 Background

5.1.1 EU Policy regarding multimodality, travel information and interoperability Multimodal travel is a key part of the European Commission’s strategy for the future of transport. With the vision of seamless door-to-door mobility, the 2011 White Paper on Transport [2] stresses the need for further integration of the different modes of transport (road, rail, air and waterborne) to make mobility more efficient and user-friendly. Initiative 22 sets the objective to achieve a framework for a European multimodal transport information, management and payment system by 2020, thus working towards removing major barriers and bottlenecks between modes. A recent study carried out for the EC on the cost of non-completion of the TEN-T45, mentions that bottlenecks at borders and resulting impacts on travel time can be caused both by missing transport links and by different standards adopted by different stakeholders (specifically transport and travel service providers). Standardisation can ensure interoperability, given the fundamental role that data plays in developing innovative products and services that contribute to a more reliable multimodal integrated transport system. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can also significantly contribute to a more sustainable, safer and efficient Single European Transport System and the ITS Directive [3] was adopted to accelerate the deployment of these innovative transport technologies across Europe. The ITS Directive provides for the adoption of functional, technical and organisational specifications in the form of a delegated act to ensure the compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of EU-wide multimodal travel information services (Priority Action "A"). This delegated act will be a binding policy measure laying down provisions containing requirements or any other relevant rules to be followed in the case of deployment. The ITS Directive includes in its Priority Area I “Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data” the priority action (a) on the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services and the priority action (b) on the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services; for both actions specifications will include the “definition of the necessary requirements to make EU-wide multimodal travel information services accurate and available across borders to ITS users. Article 8 of the ITS Directive also highlights that interoperability should strongly be supported by the provision of standards from the relevant standardization bodies. According to the Directive: “Interoperability means the capacity of systems and the underlying business processes to exchange data and to share information and knowledge”. Standards are required in order to address interoperability at different layers in ITS architectures taking into account data compatibility across ITS applications and services. Standards also ensure that local and regional systems unite into a coherent national system and allow integration of its components into European and international systems. Under the European digital agenda, the European Commission has been implementing the European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) and the European Interoperability Framework (EIF). These two documents aim at promoting the cooperation between public administrations of the EU members on interoperability issues while creating the foundations in the organizational – standardization dimension of interoperability. 45 Fraunhofer ISI 2015.


42

Apart from the above, there are several EU legislative acts addressing access to transport data, multimodal information and related standardisation initiatives: (i) The EC Directive 2007/2/EC (INSPIRE) lays down own general rules aimed at the establishment of the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community for the purposes of Community environmental policies and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. It requires inter alia that public authorities publish geographical information on the transport network, if already available in digital format. (ii) The Communication from the Commission “Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe” of 16 December 2008 in its Action Area 1 (Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data) includes a specific EU-level policy action 1.1 related to the “Definition of procedures for the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic and travel information services” as well as the action 1.5 related to the “Promotion of development of national multimodal door-to-door journey planners, taking due account of public transport alternatives, and their interconnections across Europe”. (iii) A technical specification for interoperability (TSI) for telematics applications for rail passenger services (TAP) has been adopted on 5 May 2011 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011). TAP TSI allows the harmonisation/standardisation of procedures, data and messages to be exchanged between the computer systems of the railway companies, of the infrastructure managers and of the tickets vendors in order to provide reliable information to passengers and to issue tickets for a journey on the European Union railway network, in accordance with Regulation n°1371/2007 on rail passengers rights and obligations. (iv) Within the overarching ITS objectives set by Directive 2010/40/EU, the urban dimension has its own needs envisioned in the Action Plan on ITS (2008) [4] and the Action Plan on Urban Mobility (2009) [5]. Urban areas are identified as optional "priority zones" for the implementation of the specifications for the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services. First and last miles of travellers' journeys take place within urban areas and are therefore essential for the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services contributing to seamless mobility. In 2010, the European Commission set up an Expert Group on urban ITS46, with the participation of representatives of local authorities and their main partners, from the fields of research, industry, transport authorities and operators, standardisation bodies, etc. This Expert Group developed Guidelines on the deployment of key applications of urban ITS (namely: multimodal information, smart ticketing, traffic management and urban logistics), collected a number of best practices and reflected upon the need for further standardisation in the domain of urban ITS. These Guidelines were adopted in December 2012 and were taken into account within the Urban Mobility Package that the European Commission put forward in December 201347. The Urban Mobility Package is composed of a Communication "Together towards competitive and resource efficient urban mobility" [6] and four thematic Staff Working Documents48 focusing on how to enhance the efficiency and safety of urban mobility, namely: urban logistics, urban access regulations and road user charging, coordinated deployment of urban Intelligent Transport Systems, and urban road safety. In each of these areas, the Urban Mobility Package announces the Commission's planned actions as well as recommendations for action in and by the Member States, including standardisation. The Expert Group on urban ITS also: - Recommended better integrating the urban dimension within European standardisation activities and focusing standardisation efforts on multimodal information services including new mobility

46 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2520 47 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/ump_en.htm 48 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/ump_en.htm


43

services, traffic management including access management, and urban logistics including reservation of loading bays. The standardisation efforts should cover existing gaps, upgrade and complement existing standards and ensure the establishment of the needed urban-interurban interfaces. - Stressed that developing European or other standards might be too slow for ITS fast-moving technological environment. Therefore it suggested looking for ways of supporting more flexible and less constrictive standardisation deliverable (for instance open managed specifications) in addition to standards. - Recommended involving local authorities and experts with specific urban knowledge in the ITS standardisation process. Therefore the European standardisation organisations are invited to liaise with relevant bodies representing urban mobility and interested in urban ITS, such as standardisation coordination groups and organisations, local standardisation frameworks, experts and stakeholder platforms, cities and regions associations, transport operators and service providers representatives. They can invite such stakeholders to participate to their activities and contribute to their deliverables. (v) A Notification (14.4.2015) under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 on possible future standardisation requests to the European Standardisation organisations as regards Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in urban areas in support of Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport. According to the notification, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation (CENELEC) and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), are requested to draft new European standards and European standardisation deliverables in support of the implementation of Article 8 of Directive 2010/40/EU for multimodal information, traffic management and urban logistics in the urban ITS domain. The requested European standards and European standardisation deliverables shall be developed to be consistent and compliant with the requirements of the Delegated Acts adopted by the Commission under Directive 2010/40/EU, in particular the specifications for the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services adopted on 18 December 201449, and the specifications for the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services50.

5.1.2 Current situation According to the background document of a public consultation - Access to multimodal traffic and travel data in the European Union51, three elements that need to be tackled for delivering multimodal travel information and planning services are data-related: access to transport data, improving and maximizing the availability of data, and interoperability across data formats. The current legislative framework is fragmented; even though there are several pieces of legislation in place, they do not cover all the relevant aspects for addressing the aforementioned elements. For example, TAP TSI covers only one transport mode (rail), while the INSPIRE Directive refers only to geographical information on the transport network, if already available in digital format. This fragmented framework leads to limited access to and availability of data, incompatible data formats and different conditions and terms of use and re-use of data as well as to different liability rules.

49 C(2014) 9672 final 50 Work in progress. Specifications foreseen for end 2015/early 2016. 51 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/consultations/2013-accesstraveldata_en.htm


44

Information services also remain fragmented in what they offer, both in geographical scope and coverage of modes of transport; they rarely provide cross-border travel information, let alone EU-wide or door-to-door coverage. Existing services do not offer travellers real-time information across all stages of a multimodal trip. The fragmentation and limitations of what is on the market today pose a barrier to tapping the full potential and benefits of multimodal travel information and planning services (MMTIPs). Existing services should be able to join up so that the most accurate traffic and travel data are shared and made available for all geographic areas and modes of transport. Interoperable data models and data exchange protocols which can provide suitable common abstractions of the specific data formats and low-level technical exchange mechanisms between systems and business processes are very important for building multimodal services. The last decade has seen the development of a number of standards, for example in the field of data formats and exchange protocols; these standards reached a considerable degree of maturity and also have already considerable communities of interest and development. However, attempts to create interoperability among these standards have achieved only relatively modest results; there are still countries with own national standards in the absence of a unifying common machine-readable logical abstraction of the multimodal services domain which often leads to the necessity of developing architectures able to handle different standards. However, even if data formats and protocol standards are important, the EuTravel project focuses on solving critical interoperability challenges not at that level, but at a higher level of abstraction, through semantic technology and data transformation across data formats and protocol standards. More specifically, the EuTravel Ecosystem will include a semantic infrastructure facilitating interoperability between Ecosystem participants, including ITS operators. Semantic annotation of services, semantic integration of heterogeneous API's and data formats and innovative data and semantic transformation capabilities which will be adopted to overcome current interoperability barriers, will be discussed in detail in Deliverable 1.3 - Technology Base and Knowledge Observatory. In the scope of this report industry standards in use and current standardisation initiatives are identified. The landscape of standardisation initiatives related to the Eutravel project focus areas is presented in Chapter 4.6.

5.2 Definitions 5.2.1 Standard The formal definition of a standard is a “document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized standardisation body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context”52. There are several different types of standards; they include requirements and/or recommendations in relation to products, systems, processes or services. Standards can also be a way to describe a measurement or test method or to establish a common terminology within a specific sector. A standard can be:

• An International standard when adopted by an international standardisation body;

52 EU Regulation 1025/2012 - amending Directive 98/34 (the Standardisation Regulation)


45

• A European Standard (EN) when ratified by one of the three European Standardization Organizations CEN, CENELEC or ETSI, recognized as competent in the area of voluntary technical standardization (see also section 4.3).

• A National standard when adopted by a national standardisation body, indicatively in this case:

o Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV) (DE) o The British Standards Institution (BSI) (UK) o The National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) (USA)

5.2.2 Protocol A protocol is a set of rules that govern all aspect of data communication between computers on a network. These rules include guidelines that regulate the following characteristics of a network: access method, allowed physical topologies, types of cabling, and speed of data transfer. A protocol defines what, how and when something is communicated. The key elements of a protocol are syntax, semantics and timing. Protocols are to computers what language is to humans; for two devices on a network to successfully communicate, they must both understand the same protocols.

5.2.3 Data Models Data models describe the semantics and the computational aspects of the problem domain in data structures that are used by applications. They enable the applications to interpret and process the data as representations of business concepts, processes, events and status. They apply to data that are held in store and accessed by applications, and also to data in messages passed between applications. A data model may exist as:

• An undocumented shared understanding between programmers, • A human-readable description, possibly a standard, • A machine-readable description.

While there are some standard data models, such as that defined by the ITU-T X.500 standards for directories, most data models are application-specific. There is, however, value in standardizing how these specific data models are described. This is important for data portability and for interoperability between applications and software services. Using common data models is the basis for ensuring that data can be used by different systems in the same way.

5.2.4 Data Exchange Interfaces Increasingly, applications are web-based and exchange information using web service APIs (application program interfaces). A web service API is a protocol interface with four layers: Internet, HTTP, Message Envelope and Message Content. Other means of communication, such as message queuing or shared data, are and will continue to be widely used, for performance and other reasons, particularly between distributed components of a single application. However, APIs form a commonly used approach for interoperability. The table below53 lists different types of interfaces, shows which components expose and use each interface, why standardization might be beneficial, and which standards or emerging standards might apply.

53http://www.opengroup.org/cloud/cloud/cloud_iop/interfaces.htm


46

Table 3: Types of Interfaces and ICT standards

Interface Exposed By Used By Type Reason for Standardisation

ICT Standards

Data Model Data Applications Description or Shared

Understanding

Data Portability Application

Interoperability

SQL XML RDF OWL UDEF

Application-Application Interfaces

Applications Applications Web Service API Content

Application Interoperability

N/A (but principles of

arrangement are important)

Application Management

Interfaces

Applications Management Systems

Web Service API Management Interoperability

CDMI TOSCA OCCI

Platform Management

Interfaces

Platforms Management Systems


CAMP TOSCA OCCI

Infrastructure Management

Interfaces

Infrastructure Management Systems


Platform Portability

(machine image)

CIMI-CIM VMAN

OVF TOSCA OCCI

Openstack Publication Interfaces

Marketplaces Platforms Web Service API Publication and Acquisition

ODCA SLA@SOI

TOSCA Acquisition Interfaces

Marketplaces Platforms Web Service API Publication and Acquisition

HTTP OVF

ODCA SLA@SOI

TOSCA Application-

Platform Interfaces

Platforms Applications Programmatic Application Portability

UNIX Linux

MS Windows Android

iOS Openstack

Platform-Platform

Interfaces

Platforms Platforms Web Service API Envelope, HTTP

and Internet Service Discovery

Platform Interoperability

TCP/IP HTTP SOAP WSDL WADL WS-I UDDI JSON

Platform-Infrastructure

Interfaces

Infrastructure Platforms Various Platform Portability

(platform source)

Openstack


47

5.3 European Standardisation 5.3.1 Policy and key organisations Standards are developed and defined through a transparent, open, technically coherent process of sharing knowledge and building consensus among technical experts nominated by interested parties and other stakeholders - including businesses, consumers and environmental groups, among others. European standards are developed through one of the three European Standards Organisations (ESOs) [7] which are officially recognised as providers of European standards: CEN The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) brings together the National Standardization Bodies of 33 European countries. It provides a platform for the development of European Standards and other technical documents on various types of products, materials, services, and processes. These include air and space, chemicals, construction and more. CENELEC The European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) is responsible for standardisation in the electro-technical engineering field. Voluntary standards prepared by CENELEC help facilitate trade between countries, access new markets, cut compliance costs, and support the development of the EU Single Market. CENELEC also creates market access at international level through its close collaboration with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ETSI The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) produces globally-applicable standards for information and communications technology (ICT). These standards also include fixed, mobile, radio, converged, broadcast, and internet technologies. ETSI's purpose is to produce and maintain the technical standards required by its members. In the case of ETSI, industry can get involved directly in the process of standards development. However, industry can only access CEN and CENELEC through the National Standards Bodies (NSBs). Although ESOs deal with different fields of activity, CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI cooperate in a number of areas of common interest, such as the machinery sector or information and communication technologies (ICTs). They also share common policies on issues where there is mutual agreement. Specifically, CEN and CENELEC develop standards in relation to various transport modes (road, rail and maritime), and relating to horizontal topics such as interoperability, intermodal transport and intelligent transport systems (ITS).

Standards are voluntary which means that there is no automatic legal obligation to apply them. However, laws and regulations may refer to standards and even make compliance with them compulsory. An EN (European Standard) “carries with it the obligation to be implemented at national level by being given the status of a national standard and by withdrawal of any conflicting national standard". Therefore, a European Standard (EN) automatically becomes a national standard in each of the 33 CEN-CENELEC member countries.

Proposals for the introduction of a new standard can be submitted by any interested party (i.e. as part of European projects, through trade federations, etc.) to the relevant ESO. Usually, most standardization work is proposed through the National Standards Bodies. Harmonised standards are created following a request from the European Commission to one of the ESOs for the application of Union harmonisation legislation (EC Mandates). Manufacturers, other economic operators, or


48

conformity assessment bodies can use harmonised standards to demonstrate that products, services, or processes comply with relevant EU legislation. The references of harmonised standards must be published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

5.3.2 European Standardisation for Transport Modes Standardization activities in the transport and travel industry cover both transport modes (rail, road, waterborne, air) and horizontal issues such as interoperability, intermodal transport and intelligent transport systems. The technology aiming to address multimodal travelling supported by intelligent transport systems and applications, covers activities falling outside the scope of the transport sector; though, for completion we highlight key standardisation activities below: Road transport Most standards related to road transport are defined at global (international) level, and therefore CEN coordinates its activities in this field with those of ISO. Nevertheless, a number of specific standardization activities are being carried out by CEN at European level, and some of these activities are associated with requests issued by the European Commission. Waterborne transport CEN and CENELEC develop standards in relation to both marine transport and inland navigation. They cooperate closely with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and with the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (COSS). Rail transport Most European Standards relating to the rail transport sector are developed in the CEN Technical Committee ‘Railway Applications’ (CEN/TC 256) and in the CENELEC Technical Committee ‘Electrical and electronic applications for railways’ (CLC/TC 9X). Many of these standards support the implementation of the EU Directives on the interoperability of the European rail system (2008/57/EC), in the framework of a request from the European Commission (mandate M/483). These TCs collaborate with the European Railway Agency (ERA), in order to ensure that European Standards are compatible with the latest Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI). CEN and CENELEC, together with ETSI, support and maintain the Sector Forum Rail (JPC Rail), which brings together representatives from the railway industry (supply industry and networks), relevant European and international organisations (such as UIC, UNIFE, UITP), Technical Committee Chairs and project leaders. The role of this Forum is to coordinate, plan, programme, promote and facilitate the production and use of European Standards for the benefit of the rail sector, and provide advice to the Technical Boards of CEN and CENELEC. CEN and CENELEC are currently preparing a range of standards that relate to urban rail, in response to EC Mandate 486. These standards are being developed in accordance with CENCENELEC Guide 26 ‘Preparation of standards for urban rail systems design, construction, manufacture, operations and maintenance’ (published in 2013). In 2015, CEN and CENELEC are due to publish several new and revised European Standards in relation to railway applications. These standards address various aspects including Brake blocks (EN 16452), Driver’s cab (EN 16186-1), Railway track (EN 13230-6), Measurement of wheel and axle loads (EN 15654-1), Train detection systems (EN 50617 series), Electromagnetic compatibility (EN 50121 series) and Insulation coordination (EN 50124-1).


49

Air transport In the Air sector, CEN and CENELEC are developing and publishing standards in relation to Aerospace, and Air traffic management. Standards and technical specifications for the aerospace industry are being developed by the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe – Standardization (ASD-STAN), which cooperates closely with CEN. ASD-STAN is responsible for the technical content of standards defining products, materials, test methods and procedures for the construction, maintenance and use of aircraft and space vehicles. Specifications developed by ASD-STAN may be submitted to CEN for adoption as European Standards. In the area of Air Traffic Management (ATM), CEN develops standards to ensure the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management Network (EATMN) in the context of the Single European Sky (SES). Standardization work in this area is managed by the CEN Technical Committee ‘Air Traffic Management’ (CEN/TC 377) in the framework of a formal request from the European Commission (EC M/390).

5.3.3 European Standardisation in the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Domain 5.3.3.1 CEN TC/278

European standards and technical specifications in the domain of ITS are being developed by the CEN Technical Committee ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’ (CEN/TC 278). These standards cover a variety of aspects including: Cooperative Systems, Travel and Traffic Information, Route Guidance and Navigation, Public Transport, Emergency Vehicles and Electronic Fee Collection. CEN and CENELEC cooperate closely with ETSI and ISO in order to ensure a coherent approach to standardization on this topic. The European Commission has requested the European Standardization Organizations to develop and adopt European Standards in support of this framework (EC M/453), in order to ensure interoperability across countries. Most standardisation activities in this area focus on the road, rail and public transport modes. The work of the following active WGs is related to the EuTravel project objectives: • WG 3 Public Transport • WG 7 ITS Spatial Data • WG 8 Road Traffic Data • WG 13 Architecture and Terminology Related dormant Working Groups: • WG 4 Traffic and traveller information (TTI) • WG 11 Subsystem and intersystem interfaces.

5.3.3.2 Architecture and Terminology

WG 13 covers architecture and terminology. Standards in these domains cover the creation and use of architectures for ITS and the terminology used by ITS standards. Many of the standards created and maintained by WG13 are for use by other Working Groups within CEN/TC278 but there is nothing to prevent them being used outside of the standards community. There are several examples of this including IS14813-1, which provides high-level descriptions of all the services that ITS can provide, and IS14817, which provides a methodology for setting up and managing data registries. A number of other standards have been created including one for data privacy (TR12859), plus several on the use of methodologies such as UML (TR17452 and TR24529), CORBA (TR24532), XML (IS24531) and web services (TR24097). Other standards that WG13 has developed include those for the development of ITS deployment plans from ITS architectures (TR24098), the harmonisation of data concepts


50

(TR25100), a template for Use Cases (TR25102) and the training of people to create and use ITS architectures (TR25104). WG13 has a parallel Working Group within ISO/TC204, which is WG1. All the standards created by WG13 and WG1 are published through both CEN and ISO. Although WG1 is technically the leader of the Working Group activities, it is perfectly possible for WG13 to create and maintain standards that are specifically for use within Europe. In line with CEN and ISO policies, all standards are regularly reviewed and updated when and where necessary. Examples from those listed above include IS14813, IS24531 and TR25100. WG13 is always keen to hear of new areas for which standards could usefully be created and for examples of existing standards that need to be updated.

5.3.3.3 Liaisons

CEN/TC 278 ensure co-ordination with relevant activities in ISO, CEN, CENELEC, ETSI and JTC 1. Many work items are already carried out in parallel with and ISO/TC 204 Intelligent Transport Systems, which is responsible for developing international standards and ISO/TC 22, under the Vienna Agreement. CEN/TC 278 has also established efficient liaisons with consortia and fora, while at the same time ensuring that the actual standardisation process remains open and transparent. Many standards are developed in joint working groups, so that expertise from around the globe can be used to set the best standards for Europe. Collaboration is also promoted with SAE International, IEEE (developer of industry standards) and IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) which is responsible for the production of internet standards. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) produces globally-applicable standards for ICT. In the area of ITS, these standards are complementary to the ones produced by CEN/TC 278; together they form a coherent set of ITS standards for Europe. The coordination of the work programmes is handled by the ITS Coordination Group (ITS-CG).

5.4 International Standardisation Bodies related to Travel and Transport Standardisation is supported and performed by a number of bodies and technical committees, indicatively:

Table 4: International Standardisation Bodies

Bodies / Committees IATA International Air Transport Association IEC International Electrotechnical Commission IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers ITU International Telecommunication Union ISO International Organization for Standardization JTC1 Joint Technical Committee; ISO and IEC have established JTC1 for Information

Technology Standards OASIS Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards UN United Nations WCO World Customs Organization


51

A number of other international bodies undertake work that is important for Transport and Transport Information standards:

• Traveller Information Services Association (TISA) • International Union of Railways (UIC) • European Broadcasting Union (EBU) • World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) • Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) • Object Management Group (OMG)

5.4.1 The Open Travel Alliance Inaugurated in 1999, the OpenTravel Alliance54 is a not-for-profit travel standards organisation founded on the consensus approach. With the contributions of major global players from airlines, hotel chains, car rental companies, insurance and other ancillary travel sectors, it has created de jure XML messaging standards for the major travel sectors. OpenTravel has defined its base structures for its v 2.0 core object model for more flexible object-oriented structures to improve the interoperability of its standards. Current OpenTravel messages:

• Air, Car Rental and Hotel Availability and Booking messages • Air Schedules, Flight Information, and Seat Maps • Air Pricing and Rules Retrieval, Low Fare Search and Fare Display • Air Booking Modify • Air Demand Ticketing and Check-in • Car Rate and Rules Notification • Car Rental Location Details Notification • Car Rental Location Search, Reservation Retrieve and Modify • Car Rental CheckIn/CheckOut, Exchange and Modify • Cruise Information and Itinerary • Cruise Cabin Availability Search, Hold and Unhold • Cruise Sailing, Category, Package, Dining, Shore Excursion and Fare Availability Searches • Cruise Price, Book and Fast Sell and Payment • Cruise Special Services Request • Cruise PNR Update Notification • Cruise Booking Documentation, History and Payment retrieval • Destination Activity Search and Book • Golf Tee Times Search and Booking • Hotel Rate Plan Enhancements • Hotel Reservation Retrieve and Modify • Hotel Rooming Lists and Statistics • Hotel Search and Description • Hotel Event Request • Hotel Inventory and Rate Notifications • Hotel RFP (Request For Proposal) for forward contract negotiations • Insurance Plan, Search and Book • Loyalty Account Creation and Certificate Creation/Redemption

54 www.opentravel.org


52

• Package Holiday Availability, Costing and Booking messages • Rail Enquiries and Reservations • Tour Information, Search and Availability messages • Travel Itinerary Retrieval • Generic Read, Update and Cancel messages • Generic Bank Account/Credit Card verification message • Generic Purchase Item request message

5.5 Standards and initiatives related to the EuTravel Project Research Areas In this chapter we list standards already in use, related to travel information (including data models and data exchange protocols). We also refer to initiatives working towards developing new standards in the research focus areas.

5.5.1 Air 5.5.1.1 IATA - NDC (New Distribution Capability)

NDC (New Distribution Capability) is a travel industry-supported program (NDC Program) launched by IATA for the development and market adoption of a new, XML-based data transmission standard (NDC Standard). The NDC Standard will enhance the capability of communications between airlines and travel agents. The NDC Standard will enable the travel industry to transform the way -airline products are retailed to corporations, leisure and business travelers, by addressing the industry’s current distribution limitations:

• Product differentiation and time-to-market • Access to full and rich air content • Transparent shopping experience

The NDC Standard will allow an airline to make sales offers to agents without them being prepared by a third party as an intermediary. The sales offers can be aligned to current inventories rather than based upon previously filed products (i.e. dynamic and personalized offers are possible). It also unlocks opportunities for the airline to manage other components throughout the indirect distribution process such as the opportunity to fulfill the transaction, create the booking record, issue the document(s) and respond with confirmations – should they choose to do so. The diagram below describes the high level distribution process in today’s world, and how it could evolve with the NDC standard:


53

Figure 2: New Airline Retailing Model (Source: IATA)

While intended for airlines and travel agents, the NDC Standard has implications for the entire airline distribution value chain including GDSs. NDC is an Open AXIS XML-based standard. XML is flexible and powerful allowing airlines to display content rich details about their services. In general, online travel companies, especially the intermediaries connecting with multiple suppliers, have been heavily using XML APIs for sharing data among various system. Search requests get wrapped up in XML documents –and responded to similarly with content rich offers, confirmations and bookings across the supply chain. XML technology is the facilitator for seamless connectivity and syncing between different systems in real-time. As the ‘information exchange standard’ between disparate channels, it plays a critical role in strengthening the systems of travel suppliers and connect data held in different silos. Mass adoption of XML among airlines promises similar efficiencies. Open AXIS XML ensures that NDC is an open, robust and transparent internet-based data exchange standard. Multiple other IATA standards are in use, concerning travel information include standards on Tariffs, Schedules, Ticketing & Reservations, Coding and Passenger Services.

5.5.2 Rail 5.5.2.1 TAP TSI

Unlike in the aviation sector, travel across Europe by rail is not always supported by readily available tickets and billing systems or by up-to-date travel information. While other transport modes already make use of mobile devices for travel information and electronic ticketing, this is not yet possible with rail due to the lack of interoperable systems relying on computerised and harmonised data. Only some local and national rail operators use mobile for ticketing and customer information management, but not on a transnational basis. The European Commission has adopted a regulation on standards in the field of telematics applications for rail passenger services (Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system). These standards, known to the rail sector as "technical specifications for interoperability" (TSI) relate to the subsystem "telematics applications for


54

passengers" (TAP) of the trans-European rail system and define how stakeholders must interact with travel-related data in the field of rail transport. The main objective of TAP TSI is to facilitate planning, reservations and travelling by train in Europe. It will also strengthen passengers’ protection and enhance informed consumer choice by making it possible for rail companies and ticket vendors to fulfil their obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The standards define how stakeholders must interact with rail travel data. The data exchange covers timetables, tariffs, information on conditions of carriage before and during the journey, as well as other data. Part of the standard is a definition of a standard rail data exchange architecture and definitions of key data content and but also approved standards of exchange with other modes. The TAP TSI standard is of high importance for the further development of any European multimodal services. The computerised information and reservation systems that will be developed on the basis of these standards will not necessarily supply "integrated tickets", meaning a single ticket for a trip involving more than one transport mode. However, based on these standards, suitable communication systems between rail companies and ticket vendors will be developed, while rail data will be made available to all players, such as rail companies, infrastructure managers and ticket vendors. They will have at their disposal harmonised travel data, which they can use to develop IT tools and applications. For example, the data could be used to book tickets for international rail journeys, plan a European journey crossing national borders, or display the latest information on the internet or in the train itself. Partners

• European Commission (DG MOVE) • CER: The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies • ECTAA: The European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operator Associations • EIM: The European Rail Infrastructure Managers • EPF: The European Passengers’ Federation • EPTO: The European Passenger Transport Operators • ERA: The European Railway Agency • ETTSA: The European Technology and Travel Services Association (ETTSA) • GEBTA: The Guild of European Business Travel Agents • UIC: The International Union of Railways • UITP: The international network for public transport authorities and operators, policy

decision-makers, scientific institutes and the public transport supply and service industry • UNIFE: The Association of the European Rail

TAP TSI prescribes protocols for the data exchange of Timetables, Tariffs, Reservation, Fulfillment etc. Identically, standard information content on timetables, (aside from departure and arrival time) is defined as:

• Basic principles of train variants • Representation of a train, • Different possibilities to represent days of operation, • Train category / Service mode. • Transport service relationships • Coach groups attached to trains, • Joining to, splitting from,

http://tap-tsi.uic.org/FAQ.html%23outil_sommaire_2

http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

http://www.cer.be/

http://www.ectaa.org/

http://www.eimrail.org/

http://www.epf.eu/

http://epto.net/index.html

http://www.era.europa.eu/Pages/Home.aspx

http://ettsa.eu/

http://www.gebta.org/

http://www.uic.org/

http://www.uitp.org/

http://www.unife.org/


55

• Through connections (connecting to), • Through connections (Service number change). • Details of transport services • Stops with traffic restrictions, • Overnight trains, • Time zone crossings, • Pricing regime and Reservation details, • Information Provider, • Reservation Provider, • Service Facilities, • Accessibility of the train (including scheduled existence of priority seats, wheelchair spaces,

universal sleeping compartments) • Service extras, • Connecting - Timing between transport services. • Station list. • This is a reflection of the complexity of rail travel.

Timetable data exchange is based on EDIFACT messages. The EDIFACT standard provides a set of syntax rules to structure, an interactive exchange protocol and provides a set of standard messages which allow multi-country and multi-industry exchange of electronic business documents. EDIFACT is widely used across Europe, mainly due to the fact that many companies adopted it at an early stage of development. The EDIFACT standard provides:

• a set of syntax rules to structure data, • an interactive exchange protocol (I-EDI), • standard messages which allow multi-country and multi-industry exchange.

XML-messages are also used e.g. home printed tickets.

5.5.2.2 Full Service Model

The Full Service Model55 (FSM) is an initiative by rail industry stakeholders, aiming to develop and implement technical specifications for the interoperability of telematics applications for passenger services (TAP-TSI) and to fill in potential gaps. The FSM aims to put in place an industry standard for rail data exchange, including door-to-door travel throughout Europe and promote further cooperation between railway operators and ticket vendors. FSM concentrates on the functional requirements and specifications for an open, interoperable IT framework designed to be used by a wide number of applications. More choice and information for passengers and additional business opportunities for both rail operators and ticket vendors are expected to be the main outcomes of the initiative. The following organisations have an advisory role to FSM: CER: The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies56 brings together more than 70 European railway undertakings and infrastructure companies. CER represents the interests of its

55 http://www.cer.be/press/press-releases/press-releases/taking-rail-ticket-distribution-to-the-next-level-railways-and-ticket-vendors-launch-the-full-service-model-initiative/. 56 www.cer.be

http://www.cer.be/press/press-releases/press-releases/taking-rail-ticket-distribution-to-the-next-level-railways-

http://www.cer.be/press/press-releases/press-releases/taking-rail-ticket-distribution-to-the-next-level-railways-


56

members towards the European institutions as well as other policy makers and transport actors. CER’s main focus is promoting the strengthening of rail as essential to the creation of a sustainable transport system which is efficient, effective and environmentally sound. ECTAA: The European travel agents’ and tour operators’ associations57 regroups the national associations of travel agents and tour operators of 30 European countries, of which 26 are within the European Union, and represents some 70.000 enterprises. ETTSA: The European Technology and Travel Services Association58, was established in 2009 to represent and promote the interests of global distribution systems (“GDSs”) and online travel agencies (“OTAs”) towards policy-makers, opinion formers, consumer groups and all other relevant European stakeholders. Through the involvement of ETTSA (representing GDSs), FSM’s work contributes towards the integration of rail and air travel solutions and the harmonisation of information. Implementation is carried out in parallel for all process steps including shopping, booking, fulfilment and payment (Figure 3).

Figure 3: FSM Working Groups

More specifically, due to the size and scope of the FSM, it was decided to divide the entire traveller process into several Traveller Stages: 1. Pre purchase customer information & decision support 2. Look – Timetables 3. Look – Fares and auto price 4. Purchase/Book 5. Ticket Fulfilment 6. Payment 7. Post-purchase customer support 8. Pre-journey information (delays, cancellations etc.) 57 www.ectaa.org 58 www.ettsa.eu


57

9. In-journey customer information & support 10. Post-journey Customer support 11. Set-up aspects in necessary for TVs and RUs 12. Settlement methodology 13. Back office activities 14. Supplier sales reporting

5.5.3 Waterborne (Ferry) 5.5.3.1 Overview of standards in use

Ferry Reservation Technology There is an extensive disparity of standards in the sector leading to complex trading relationships. Focus here is the use of messaging techniques for passenger ferry reservations used between the ferry operator and the reseller (B2B model). Typically the reseller is an online ferry travel agent but may be an affiliate, intermediary, distributor or network. To date the use of such messaging has been restricted to the classical credit trading partner relationships and because of this, ferry reservations utilising APIs do not include settlement, which is managed separately. However, the techniques could be extended to include payment details, thus allowing ‘cash’ agents to be resellers. In general Web Services XML APIs are used together with their protocols and prescribed transmission networks to facilitate system access by the trading partners. However, a United Nations Trade Data Interchange EDIFACT standard (Unicorn) from the 1960’s is in common use in the ferry sector. This predates Web Services technology. The de jure standard known as FerryXML Web Services, created by the TTI59 in 2006 succeeded Unicorn. Typical reservation service primitive message pairs (request / response) as covered by the TTI FerryXML message structures are:

• Sailing Request (Timetables) • Accommodation (on board) • Availability • Booking Enquiry • Booking • Recall • Amend Enquiry • Amend • Cancel

Ferry ticketing messages are rarely used. Ticketing is usually part of booking fulfilment including embarkation documentation. List of Standards and Techniques There are both de jure standards and de facto standards in use. For the purposes of this paper de facto standards are those APIs between an operator and many user partners which are not formal de jure. De facto standards are also used by intermediaries to overcome the multiple standards in use, unifying them by offering a single API to users. All standards below except Unicorn utilise Web Services XML messaging. They are listed roughly in chronological order and maturity.

59 www.tti.org


58

Table 5: List of Standards in use in the Ferry industry

# De Jure Standards 1 Unicorn – Pharos Dtatcom is contracted to maintain this standard on behalf of the TTI. 2 FerryXML – created and published by the Travel Technology Initiative (TTI); not supported. # De Facto Standards 3 Xchange Ferry - schema based, related to TTI FerryXML message structures created and

supported by Pharos. 4 Own design XML Web Services - Supported by owners. 5 Entee – created by and supported by the Travel Gateway. 6 Seatravel – utilises OpenTravel Alliance 2.0 object oriented structures, WSDL (Web Services

Description Language) based, travel industry compatible; created by Pharos. 7 FCGp – embryonic standard – based on TTI FerryXML with data element harmonisation. Standards 2, 3, 5 and 7 are derived from 1 or 2. They are intimately related to the original Unicorn message structures. This is the root of their incompatibility with mainstream travel API message structures. Use of Ferry APIs The ferry industry’s use of APIs consists of many reservation services and techniques of many designs, provenance and varying quality, resulting in incompatibility between the operator reservation services seen via their APIs by users: This causes high investment cost thresholds to potential users. The interface technology pattern has caused a split user market:

• Implementers of the APIs to date are all ferry specialists: the APIs are too complex and diverse to justify integration by users not specialised in ferries. These users specialise or are particularly dependent upon ferries.

• For mainstream travel and transport organisations, given the small size of the ferry sector, the required high investment for integration and without the necessary ‘ferry culture’, integration is uneconomic. These would-be users have not overcome the API technology gap, are not particularly dependent on ferries and represent the vast majority in number of potential users

Due in large part to this factor, a gap exists between the whole ferry sector and other travel and transport sectors. Ferry is isolated technically, and as a result commercially. This prevents the exploitation of the ferry sector by mainstream travel and transport organisations. Strategic alliances for trading are inhibited. The trend in the techniques used in APIs is moving away from Unicorn towards Web Services, but without a significant trend towards commonality or the means of distribution to the wider transport and travel sectors.

5.5.3.2 Ferrygateway

Ferrygateway is an initiative that was started by 8 major Ferry companies in North-West Europe. The purpose is to define a new standard for communication between Ferry Operators and Agents or other Leisure organizations (Figure 4). The new standard, Ferrygateway will replace all existing ones, will open new opportunities for both Ferry operators, Agents and other Travel organizations and will be beneficial both from a commercial and technical point of view. The two very most important benefits are that Ferrygateway will be one common standard and that it will embrace all important products and services that ferry operators may wish to sell online.


59

Figure 4: The Ferrygateway communication standard

The background to Ferrygateway is that many Ferry companies experienced difficulties to reach out with their offerings to customers that are using different kinds of agent channels to search for ferry travel. The existing standards like Unicorn have too many limitations and the standard has also been partly diluted throughout the years with dialects as a result. This has also ended up with many in-house built solutions that even more have increased the complexity and the cost for maintenance and development. Another important factor is that the Ferry operators want to be in control over the standard rather than leaving that responsibility to middlemen or other organisations. It is also a fact that the Ferry business needs to act more intensively as one Business thereby attracting major players in the travel market to cooperate and market the Ferry option as a true choice for leisure travel. The Ferrygateway Association (FGWA) is the legal entity that controls and owns Ferrygateway standard. It was established in October 2014 and its place of residence is Copenhagen, Denmark. The members and owners of FGWA are Brittany Ferries, Color Line, DFDS, Irish Ferries, MyFerryLink, P&O Ferries, Stena Line, Tallink and Viking Line. The Ferry CIO Group started the initiative, but the development of the standard is now driven by the members of the Ferrygateway Association and their commercial and technical resources. Ferrygateway is a commercial initiative with business objectives. It will of course have to be technically implemented in systems with Ferry operators, Gateway providers and Agents and it is an absolute target that Ferrygateway will become the overall accepted and common standard in the market place in the future. To get the business requirements right from the beginning and not to become too influenced by the existing standards, Ferrygateway has chosen to work from the commercial angle and listen to the business people. Ferrygateway is not just a project to resolve the many problems and issues with today’s solutions, but also to look at the future trends and the market development and try to cover all this into a flexible but still very workable standard.


60

5.5.4 Road 5.5.4.1 DATEX II

CEN WG 8 is responsible for the multi part DATEX II standard60. With the aim to support sustainable mobility in Europe, the European Commission has been supporting the development of information exchange mainly between the actors of the road traffic management domain for a number of years. In the road sector, DATEX II has been long in fruition, with the European Commission being fundamental to its development through an initial contract and subsequent co-funding through the Euro-Regional projects. With this standardisation of DATEX II there is a real basis for common exchange between the actors of the traffic and travel information sector. DATEX II defines a common set of data exchange specifications to support the vision of a seamless interoperable exchange of traffic and travel information across boundaries, including national, urban, interurban, road administrations, infrastructure providers and service providers. Standardisation in this context is a vital constituent to ensure interoperability. The focus of DATEX II standardisation is on the information content. Substantial work on exchange has already been performed with the ambition to take up its standardisation at the ISO level. For this there is an ongoing cooperation between CEN TC278/WG8 and ISO TC204/WG9. The DATEX II specifications are maintained by a stakeholder organisation that has been created under the EasyWay programme61.

5.5.4.2 Geographic information and spatial data

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, adopted on 14 March 2007 aims at establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) for environmental policies, or policies and activities that have an impact on the environment. INSPIRE aimed at making available relevant, harmonised and quality geographic information to support the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and activities, which have a direct or indirect impact on the environment. WP7 ITS Spatial Data of CEN TC/278 is working towards standardization of static geographic road network data. Development of standards for data exchange between public road authorities on one side and mapmakers and other users of such data on the other side. GDF (Geographic Data Files) is an international standard that is used to model, describe and transfer road networks and other geographic data. The standard was initially drawn up by CEN in co-operation with digital map providers, automotive and electronic equipment manufacturers. The outcome of these standardisation efforts (CEN GDF 3.0, or ENV14825:1996) has formed the major input to a global standard created by ISO/TC204 Sub Working group 3.

5.5.4.3 The Association of Car Rental Industry System Standards (ACRISS)

ACRISS62 was formed in 1989 by Avis, Budget, Europcar and Hertz and reconstituted as a European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG) in 1992. The key role of ACRISS is to develop standards to avoid misleading information when making a car rental booking online or via any electronic means (including GDSs when used as an interface between Travel Agents and the Car Rental Companies).

60 www.datex2.eu. 61 www.easyway-its.eu 62 http://www.acriss.org/


61

5.5.4.4 Other Open Standards

There are several other initiatives in this sector, not directly linked to the Eutravel work focus: • Open traffic systems: Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) specification in the UK.

It provides technical specifications for shared data (i.e. data communicated between applications of a UTMC system, or between a UTMC system and an external system)63.

• Open Communication Interface for Road Traffic Control Systems (OCIT) in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, which provides technical specifications for communication between systems64.

• Smartcard systems: ITSO standard owned by the UK government to avoid proprietary smartcard systems in UK cities. ITSO is a government-backed nonprofit organisation which sets a common technical standard to enable interoperable travel65. There is a similar standard called Calypso in other countries of Europe. Calypso is the international electronic ticketing standard for contactless smart cards, originally designed by a group of European transit operators. It ensures multiple sources of compatible products, and enables interoperability between operators66.

5.5.5 Urban (Public Transport) Standardisation activities of CEN TC/278, WP3 Public road transport are summarised below:

Table 6: CEN TC/278 - WP3 Public road transport activities Subject Description On Board Data Bus Transmission

Standardisation of the application rules concerning the WORLDFIP or CAN data bus transmission. Environmental and electrical conditions and limits inside the vehicle.

Reference Data Model Reference data base model allowing links between different transport application programs like scheduling, Passenger information, Fare collection, Personnel Management etc.

Interoperable Fare Management System Architecture (IFMSA)

Definitions and Requirements of a reference functional architecture for Automatic Fare Management systems to ensure interoperability between several actors in the context of the use of electronic tickets.

Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport (IFOPT)

Proposed standard defines a model and identification principles for the main fixed objects related to public access to and operation of Public Transport (e.g. stop points, stop areas, stations, entrances, etc...)

Standard Interface for Real-Time Information (SIRI)

A communication layer, which defines common procedures for requesting and exchanging of PT data. An Interface between control centres (AVMS) or AVMS with the functions.

Distributed Journey Planning System (DJPS)

Supporting action for the European Railway Agency and coordination of rail standard with urban and suburban standards like IFMSA, IFOPT and SIRI based on TRANSMODEL.

Network and Timetable Exchange (Netex)

Supporting action to complete SIRI services on Network and Time table exchanges.

63 http://www.utmc.uk.com/index.php. 64 http://www.ocit.org/indexE.htm. 65 http://www.itso.org.uk/. 66 http://www.calypsotechnology.net


62

5.5.5.1 TRANSMODEL

TRANSMODEL (EN12896) is a reference standard which provides a conceptual data model for use in information systems for public transport. TRANSMODEL is a high-level model. It includes a dictionary of general semantics. It avoids any redundancy and describes concepts regardless of the context or the users. It provides a framework for defining and agreeing the logical data structures. It covers all modes of public transport operations. TRANSMODEL is recognized and has served as a basis for all later standard developments.

5.5.5.2 IFOPT (CEN/TS 00278207)

IFOPT (CEN/TS 00278207)67 is a CEN Technical Standard defining a data model for the Identification of Fixed Objects in Public Transport (e.g. stop points, stop areas, stations, connection links, entrances, etc.). IFOPT enables unique identification of the stops. It is an answer for dealing with ambiguous identification, inaccurate description, and imprecise location in space of Public Transport stops. It aims at eliminating the need for developing and maintaining correspondence tables. IFOPT built on TRANSMODEL. IFOPT is a reference data model; for each information system (National, regional), a data model, compliant with IFOPT, should be elaborated. In the UK, this data model is represented by the two national standards, NaPTAN (National Public Transport Access Nodes) for recording the location and details of PT access nodes including bus stops, airports, rail & coach stations, ferry terminals, tram stops; and NPTG (National Public Transport Gazetteer) for recording location, names and relationships. IFOPT has initially been created form the NaPTAN data model.

5.5.5.3 General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS)

GTFS defines a common format for public transportation schedules and associated geographic information. GTFS "feeds" allow public transit agencies to publish their transit data and developers to write applications that consume that data in an interoperable way. A GTFS feed is composed of a series of text files collected in a ZIP file. Each file models a particular aspect of transit information: stops, routes, trips, and other schedule data. The details of each file are defined in the GTFS reference. A transit agency can produce a GTFS feed to share their public transit information with developers, who write tools that consume GTFS feeds to incorporate public transit information into their applications. GTFS can be used to power trip planners, time table publishers, and a variety of applications, too diverse to list here, that use public transit information in some way. Many applications are compatible with data in the GTFS format. The simplest way to make a feed public is to host it on a web server and publish an announcement that makes it available for use.

5.5.5.4 SIRI68

SIRI (CEN/TS 00278181-1 to 5) (Service Interface for Real-Time Information relating to public transport operations) is a European CEN technical standard for the exchange of real time information. It has been developed on the basis of national and international projects (Trident, VDV, AVMS, RTIG, etc.).

67 Source: CEN TC278/WG3 TS 00278207 - Road traffic and transport telematics - Public transport - Identification of fixed objects in public transport. 68 Source : CEN TC278/WG3 TS 00278181 - Road traffic and transport telematics - Public transport – Service interface for real-time information relating to public transport operations – Part 1 to 5

https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference

https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference


63

SIRI is used for the exchange of information between servers containing real-time public transport vehicle or journey time data. These include the control centres of transport operators and information systems that utilise real-time vehicle information to operate the system, and the downstream systems that deliver travel information to the public over stop and onboard displays, mobile devices, etc. SIRI uses on eXtensible Markup Language (XML) to define its messages. A careful separation is made between Transport (how the data is transported) and Payload (the domain data exchanged). SIRI comprises a general protocol for communication, supporting both direct request/response and publish/subscribe patterns of interaction, as well as a modular set of functional services as follows: Exchanges:

• planned timetables, • real-time updates to timetables, • general information messages between participants.

Provides timetable and real time information about:

• stop departures and arrivals, • feeder and distributor arrivals and departures at a connection point.

Provides real time information about:

• incidents, • facilities, • vehicle movements.

5.5.5.5 NeTEx

NeTEx is a CEN Technical Standard for exchanging Public Transport schedules and related data. It is divided into three parts, each covering a functional subset of the CEN TRANSMODEL for Public Transport Information:

• Part 1 describes the Public Transport Network topology; • Part 2 describes Scheduled Timetables; • Part 3 covers Fare information.

NeTEx is intended to be a general purpose XML format designed for the efficient, updateable exchange of complex transport data among distributed systems. This allows the data to be used in modern web services architectures and to support a wide range of passenger information and operational applications. Whilst there are a number of existing standards available for Timetables, NeTEx is the first systematically engineered standard that also covers multimodal Fares. The NeTEX schema is free to use under a GPL License and its development is managed by the CEN standards process.

5.5.5.6 Transport Protocol Experts Group (TPEG)

TPEG69 specifications offer a method for transmitting multimodal traffic and travel information, regardless of client type, location or required delivery channel (e.g. DAB, HD radio, Internet, DVB-x, DMB, GPRS, Wi-Fi …). Language independence has also been a prime principle in the design. TPEG is the first TTI application that covers all modes of transport across the entire transport landscape. It can

69 http://tisa.org/technologies/tpeg/


64

serve the motorist in the urban area as well as the bus passenger, the intercity traveller and the long distance driver. TPEG-PTI70 is an ISO standard providing a protocol for the description of real-time information on Public Transport (Data interchange standard). As with all TPEG message protocols, TPEG-PTI encodes information in a language and map independent format. TPEG-PTI messages can be coded in XML-messages (TPEG-ptiML) or in a data stream of compressed messages (TPEG-PTI). TPEG-PTI intends to cover all modes of public (i.e. collective) transport as well as interurban and intra-urban travel. SIRI has taken into account TPEG-PTI for identification and classification of real-time situations, however SIRI is based on TRANSMODEL and IFOPT for the location model elements.

5.5.5.7 Open Ticketing Institute e-ticketing Specifications (OTI)

The Open Ticketing Institute (OTI)71 supports the trend in the public transport industry to move towards interoperable e-ticketing systems of national scale with open specifications and standards. Core to OTI’s work is account –based ticketing, where ticket data or credits are stored on the cloud instead of cards or smartphones.

5.5.5.8 Open Mobile Ticketing Alliance (OMTA)

The overall objective of the OMTA72 is to define and promote an open, standards---based solution for mobile ticketing, based on an alternative and open mobile ticketing solution. The Open Mobile Ticketing Alliance builds on top of open payment systems, replacing cards with a mobile device. This device (usually a mobile phone) is used as an identifier to gain access to the public transport system. All transit system data and business logic, as well as the passenger’s payment information, is stored in the cloud, enabling a truly interoperable open payments---based ticketing system. Passengers register for the service only once and can travel in all public transport systems that support the solution without further registration or set-up.

5.5.6 Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) Global distribution systems (GDS) -often referred to as Content Aggregators- are privately held networks enabling transactions between third parties and booking agents in order to provide travel-related services to the end consumers. GDSs link services, rates and bookings consolidating products and services across all three travel sectors: i.e., airline reservations, hotel reservations, car rentals, rail services, and activities. Primary customers of GDS are travel agents (both online and office-based) to make reservation on various reservations systems run by the vendors. GDS systems have real-time link to the vendor's databases. GDS are key players when multimodal services are concerned. The description of the technology and APIs used for information exchange will be covered in D1.3 - Technology Assessment and EuTravel Knowledge Base and Observatory.

70 ISO/TS 18234-5: 2006, Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) - TTI via Transport Protocol Expert Group (TPEG) data-streams - Part 5: Public Transport Information (PTI) application. 71 http://www.openticketing.eu/ 72 http://www.open-mobile-ticketing.com


65

5.6 The EuTravel Project Scope and Approach There are many solutions including journey planners across Europe, covering one or more transport modes and one or more countries. However, today’s market availability is still a long way from providing travellers with the information needed to plan a door-to-door trip or book a ticket for a journey within Europe, regardless of the number of countries or modes of transport involved. The standardisation landscape is quite fragmented and continuously evolving, following technology advancements. The challenge is to a) establish common specifications for data formats, data exchange protocols and interconnection of existing solutions, without hampering technological innovation and b) provide mechanisms that will tap into existing systems and promote interconnection of services.

Figure 5: EuTravel Ecosystem Components (initial draft – under development)

The project’s approach has been discussed quickly in paragraph 4.1.2 - Current situation. The Connectivity Infrastructure (Figure 5), which is a general framework of the proposed project concept, comprises a semantics-based “Super Travel API” which will provide the capability to bridge both internal IT as well as external services with existing protocols and standards, regardless of the underlying APIs of the various data sources. At the moment, in the travel industry there are some key APIs for the major services underpinning systems such as GDSs. Other major APIs include the Online Travel Agents APIs. However, the main problem hampering interoperability in the industry is that access to such APIs is hardwired to the applications of travel agents and other system users. This not only makes APIs more difficult to evolve (i.e. to provide new advanced services), but also it makes it


66

harder for value added services to be provided. The proposed Connectivity Infrastructure will overcome those issues by creating an “API of APIs” which will be realised as a Semantic Engine. More specifically, the semantic engine will extract and recognize mentions of known entities such as locations modes of transport, times and dates returned by the APIs and the internal data fusion engine. The clients of the “Super Travel API” will not require semantic processing capabilities as the information after being processed by the Semantic Engine will be returned in a format (e.g. HTML) suitable for lightweight clients such as mobile devices. Several challenges and research issues arise at all three discrete -but interconnected- development levels of the proposed system and falls within the research carried out in WP2:

• Data level, • Graph level, • Optimization level.

Table 7 summarises the standards and initiatives applied or currently being developed per sector and process step, setting the research baseline for the EuTravel project as far as standardisation is concerned. The Eutravel project scope is highlighted in blue. The outcomes of this report will be combined with the outcomes of:

• D1.1 Stakeholder needs analysis - Research focus areas - EuTravel KPIs, • D1.3 Technology Assessment and EuTravel Knowledge Base and Observatory, • D1.4 EU Optimodality Framework and Impact Assessment,

and will be used as a basis for the implementation carried out in Work Packages 2 and 3. Moreover, updates and research finding from all work packages will be consolidated in D4.2 - Policy, Standardisation and Research Recommendations, delivered at the end of the project.

Table 7: Standards Overview – Research Baseline

Standards / Protocols

Modes Information (Searching)

Planning Shopping

Booking Ticketing Payment (Fulfillment & Settlement) Timetables

Schedules & other static

data

Fares Real Time information (e.g.

availability, traffic)

Air IATA Standards (including NDC) + GDSs data formats & APIs (*)73

Rail (+GDSs*) TAP-TSI

Rail + Air (GDSs*) FSM

Waterborne (Ferry) Ferrygateway, Seatravel

Road GDF DATATEX II ACRISS

Urban (Public Transportation) GTFS,

TRANSMODEL, IFOPT, NeTEx

SIRI, TPEG

OTI, OMTA

73 Described in Deliverable D 1.3 - Technology Assessment and EuTravel Knowledge Base and Observatory.

6. Recommendations: A Practical Solution

The extent to which formalised intervention is required to overcome the legal obstacles identified in this report, will largely depend upon the buy-in of key industry stakeholders; not only at EU level but on a wider, global, basis. Co-operation between the transport service providers participating in a multi-modal journey will be vital to the success of the ecosystem. A number of issues identified in this report can be addressed without regulatory intervention, either by way of contract or protocol between the subscribing parties. The extent to which any such protocols will need to be prescribed at EU level will need to be determined by reference to further research and analysis as this project develops.

6.1 Passenger Rights Whilst it is true to say that in the EU (and indeed according to international convention) liability for passenger rights rests with the carrier, the details of each mode specific passenger rights regime differ – creating a complex and largely fragmented system.

In the context of creating a multi-modal transport ecosystem, not only do the conflicting regimes create concern from a consumer protection perspective, in terms of creating certainty for the passenger, but they also give rise to questions of fairness as between the various different transport service providers who are likely to participate in a multi-modal journey.

The EU Commission is already considering whether a comprehensive passenger bill of rights, to cover all forms of transport within the EU provides a suitable solution to the issues identified above. Whether this is as a matter of fact something that can be achieved in light of the nuances of each mode of transport will require further input from key industry stakeholders – not only at EU level but on a wider global basis and should be considered in the context of further research and analysis carried out as this project develops.

6.2 The concept of ‘Package’ The package travel regime is discussed in some detail above, and demonstrates how dual systems of liability already operate within the travel industry as between the carrier and ‘organiser’ of the package. Whilst we can only speculate how the new regime is likely to be implemented the model is certainly one which goes a long way to address passenger rights issues that arise when dealing with two or more travel service provides during the course of one trip. A key consideration therefore is whether the package travel regime therefore one which can be built upon to cover multi-modal journeys or at the very least used as a model to create a new liability regime, particular to the nuances of multi-modal travel.

6.3 Financial Protection We do not yet know how the multi-modal ticketing process will work or the points at which liability will pass between each transport service provider. As a result, the potential financial exposure to both transport service providers participating in the ecosystem and the financial risk to the passenger is not easy to determine.

69

Once we have a better picture of the transport ecosystem further research and analysis will be required in order to assess where financial liability should properly lie and the level of financial security that will be required to not only protect passengers but encourage the participation of transport service providers in order to enhance connectivity across Europe.

Potential methods of obtaining security could be by way of an insurance product akin to ‘tour operators’ liability’ or in the alternative by way of bonding or the setting up of a collective trust as between the various travel service providers participating in the ecosystem.

6.4 Terms and Conditions/Conditions of Carriage As set out above, a number of the issues identified above can be addressed contractually. Either in the terms and conditions of booking and conditions of carriage as between the carrier and the passenger or by commercial arrangement between the various participating travel service providers.

Whilst travel service providers’ ability to contract as they so wish should not be disproportionately curtailed, a degree of standardisation will be required in order to develop a truly seamless multi-modal transport ecosystem that is fair to passengers and all participants.

The EU Commission should consider the extent to which standard form documentation might be appropriate using existing examples such as CIT as a guide.

Further input from existing multi-modal programmes such as Rail&Fly and Rail-Fly will also be useful in addressing the commercial realties and practical realities of such an arrangement.

6.5 Data Protection The EU Regulation on data protection which is presently due to come into force in 2018 will seek to address the disparity between the various data protection regimes across member states, creating a uniform approach to the handling of personal data. This should mean that travel service providers participating in the ecosystem will, by the time this project is complete, be required to adhere to the same standards when obtaining and processing passenger data.

In terms of data accuracy and ownership, expansion of the CRS code of conduct appears sensible. Further research and analysis should be undertaken of CRS systems in practice, the application of the code and the suitability of expansion of the code outside of the aviation and rail sectors.

70

7. Concluding Remarks – Key Points

This report highlights the fact that multimodal services and the realisation of seamless multimodal travelling, has to consider also policy and regulatory issues apart from ICT systems interoperability and cross mode business processes; the fragmented legal frameworks constitute also an obstacle. The report raises several issues that need to be addressed at an EU Policy level, as listed below: Passenger Rights

• Further harmonisation required. • Passenger bill for rights? • Standardised mode specific regulations? • Impact of international conventions? • Further input from key industry stakeholders required, as is further research and analysis on

appropriate practical response and likely industry ‘buy-in’.

The Package Travel Directive • Could a further expansion of the definition of ‘package’ address the disparities between the

various mode specific passenger rights regimes? • A new regime based on the PTD model?

Financial Protection • Booking and ticketing process to be defined prior to detailed consideration of issues surrounding

financial security. • Consider if potential liabilities will be insurable? • Other options to consider include setting up if a trust or bonding scheme. • A new regime based on the PTD model?

Terms and Conditions/Conditions of Carriage • Further input required from key industry stakeholders regarding level of expected co-operation

between transport service providers and transport service providers and other third parties. • Further research and analysis into existing models that can be exploited to provide a solution

suitable for seamless multi-modal travel. • Consider COTIF assistance as standard terms already in place as between COTIF rail carriers.

Data Protection • Protection of personal data: Implementation should address disparity between enforcement of

current data protection regime. • Access to data/liability for accuracy: Consider expansion of CRS code of conduct/development of a

new code specific to multi-modal travel platform. • Further input required from key industry stakeholders regarding level of expected co-operation

between transport service providers and transport service providers and other third parties.

This report identifies these problematic areas and at a first level makes some practical suggestions. In addition, the Advisory Board agreed (meeting held on the 29th of July 2015) on inviting a number of industry Associations, authorities and policy makers to join the EuTravel Advisory Board and participate in meetings and workshops, bringing valuable insights throughout the duration of the project. These insights along with research outcomes will be consolidated in a more thorough set of suggestions in Deliverable 4.2 - Policy, Standardisation and Research Recommendations, which will be submitted at the later stages of the project, and after being agreed with DG MOVE.

71

As far as standardisation is concerned, the landscape is also quite fragmented, leading to interoperability problems. Major challenges include:

• Establishing common specifications for data formats, data exchange protocols and interconnection of existing solutions, without hampering technological innovation and,

• Providing mechanisms that will tap into existing systems and promote interconnection of services. The project’s research baseline concerning standards has been identified (Table 7). Though, EuTravel research focuses on solving critical interoperability challenges at a higher level of abstraction, through semantic technology and data transformation across data formats and protocol standards.

72

8. References

[1] All Ways Travelling ‘To develop and validate a European passenger transport information and booking

system across transport modes’. All Ways Travelling Consortium, Final report, June 17th 2014.

[2] White Paper Roadmap to a Single Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient

transport system, COM(2011)0144 final.

[3] Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010, OJ L 207, 6.8.2010.

[4] COM/2008/0886 final

[5] COM/2009/0490 final

[6] COM/2013/913

[7] EU Regulation 1025/2012 - amending Directive 98/34 (the Standardisation Regulation)

Annex I to D1.2: Policy, Legal and Standardisation Requirements Analysis Report

73

CARRIAGE BY SEA

Athens Convention 1974 (as subsequently amended by the 1976 Protocol)

Athens Protocol 2002 *If ratified – Athens Convention 1974 denounced and subsequent Protocols denounced

EC Regulation 392/2009 (the PLR) Bringing into force the Athens Protocol 2002 in EU Member States, with some revisions.

1996 Protocol to the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (the LLCM)

Applies to: Any international carriage of passengers by sea if: (a) the ship is flying the flag of or is registered in a State Party to this Convention, or (b) the contract of carriage has been made in a State Party to this Convention, (c) the place of departure or destination, according to the contract of carriage, is in a State Party to the Convention.

Per Athens Convention 1974. In force as of 23 April 2014 for ratifying states. Party States: Albania, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Marshall Islands, the Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the United Kingdom

Per Athens Convention 1974 – except read State Party as Member State of EU. AND Extended to domestic carriage in phases, based on class of vessel. Member States may apply to all domestic sea-going voyages. By December 2016, Class A: All passenger ships engages on domestic voyages other

Whereas Athens and the PLR provide a detailed regime of recovery for passenger claims, based on individual per passenger basis, the LLCM creates global limitation.


74

74 No legislative proposal to extend to classes C and D. Class C: Passenger ships engaged on a domestic voyage during which the ship is at no time more than 15 miles from the nearest harbour or other place of refuge, nor more than 5 miles from the line of coast. In addition to fall within Class C, the probability of exceeding wave heights of more than 2.5 metres must be less than 10%. Class D: Passenger ships engaged on a domestic voyage during which the ship is at no time more than 6 miles from the nearest harbour or other place of refuge, nor more than 3 miles from the line of coast. In addition to fall within Class D, the probability of exceeding wave heights of more than 1.5 metres must be less than 10%.

than voyages covered by classes B, C or D.74 By December 2018, Class B: All passenger ships engaged on a domestic voyage during which the ship is at no time more than 20 miles from the line of coast.

Primary Liability Rest With:

The carrier on proof of fault or neglect. Burden of proof rests with claimant. Strict liability if damage arises from or in connection with shipwreck, collision, stranding, explosion or fire, or defect in the ship.

The carrier as per Athens 1974. Burden of proof rests with claimant. Strict liability for ‘shipping incidents’.

The carrier as per Athens 1974. Interest on damages and legal costs not included in prescribed limits on liability.

Loss of right to limit:

Where damage results from act or omission done with intent, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would result.

Per Athens Convention 1974. Per Athens Convention 1974. NA

Limitation Period 2 years (discretion to courts of States Parties, but no longer than 3 years from date of disembarkation).

Per Athens Convention 1974. Per Athens Convention 1974 BUT


75

Personal injury: from the date of disembarkation; Death during carriage: from the date passenger should have disembarked Death following disembarkation: from the date of death (not later than 3 years after date of disembarkation) Luggage: from date of disembarkation or date when disembarkation should have taken place – whichever is later.

No claim after the expiry of the following: (a) five years from date of disembarkation of the passenger or from the date when disembarkation should have taken place, whichever is later; or, if earlier; (b) three years from date when claimant knew or ought reasonably to have known of the injury, loss or damage caused by the incident.

Personal Injury 46,666 SDRs

400,000 SDRs Strict liability of 250,000 SDRs for ‘shipping incidents’, defined as collision, stranding, explosion or fire on the ship, or defect in the ship. UNLESS: Caused by act of war or terror or

400,000 SDRs (per Athens Protocol 2002) IMO Guidelines on compensation related to War and Terrorism binding.

175,000 SDRs per passenger ship certified to carry. *Overall limit of 25,000,000 removed by 1996 Protocol.


76

Wholly caused by act or omission done by a third party with intent to cause the incident. Further 150,000 SDRs upon proof of fault or neglect by carrier.

Cabin Luggage 833 SDRS 2,250 SDRs Strict liability if damage caused by ‘shipping incident’.

2,250 SDRs

Vehicles Including Luggage

3,333 SDRs 12,700 SDRs 12,700 SDRs

All Other Luggage NA 3,375 SDRs Liability based on fault or neglect. Burden of proof on carrier.

3,375 SDRs

Mobility Equipment

NA NA Cabin luggage: liable if fault or neglect. Strict liability for damage caused by ‘shipping incident’.


77

Cost of repair or replacement.

Advance Payments NA NA Death or personal injury caused by ‘shipping incident’. Payment to meet immediate economic needs. Within 15 days of identification of person entitled to damages. In the event of death, not less than EUR 21,000. Shall not constitute recognition of legal liability for damage.

Insurance Performing carrier must have compulsory insurance/other financial security to cover liability under Convention. Limit shall not be less than 250,000 SDRs per passenger. Claim under Convention may be brought directly against insurer.

Per Athens Protocol 2002. See technical requirements for form of certificate as laid down in Annex II to the PLR.


78

CARRIAGE BY INLAND WATERWAY

Strasbourg Convention 1988 Strasbourg Convention 2012 *NOT YET IN FORCE

1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

Applies to:

The limitation of liability of the vessel owners, salvors and insurers of liability claims subject to limitation under the Convention. Inland navigation vessels including hydrofoils, ferries and small craft but not air-cushion vehicles. Currently only applicable to navigation of the Rhine and Moselle canals.

Per 1988 Convention BUT extended to cover all inland waterways within State Party territory. States Parties may exclude certain waterways. States Parties may also defer application to certain ‘small craft’ used exclusively for internal traffic for up to 8 years after entry into force of Convention. ‘Small craft’ defined as a vessel whose hull has a length of not more than 20 metres without rudder or bowsprit. Does not include ferries, a pushed barge, a tug or craft authorised to carry more than 12 passengers.

1996 Protocol has been adopted in some Member States (i.e. the UK), applying the 175,000 SDRs per passenger limit to passengers carried under a contract of carriage but not passengers on domestic ‘sea-going’ ships.

Primary Liability Rests With: ‘A person liable…’ Per 1988 Convention.

Loss of right to limit: Where damage results from act or omission done with intent, or

Per 1988 Convention.


79

recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would result.

Limitation Period

Personal Injury

PASSENGER CLAIMS ‘Life Fund’ 60,000 SDRs per passenger * No. vessel authorised to carry. If number of passenger not prescribed: * by number of passengers actually carried at time if incident. Limits no less than 720,000 SDRs. Limits no more than: 3,000,000 SDRs for authorised capacity of not more than 100 passengers; 6,000,000 SDRs for authorised capacity of not more than 180 passengers; 12,000,000 SDRs for authorised capacity of more than 180 passengers.

PASSENGER CLAIMS ‘Life Fund’ 100,000 SDRs per passenger * No. vessel authorised to carry. If number of passenger not prescribed: * by number of passengers actually carried at time if incident. Limits no less than 2,000,000 SDRs. GENERAL LIMITS 400 SDRs per cubic metre of displacement at maximum draught. 1,400 SDRs per KW of power of the machines providing the propulsion for vessels equipped with mechanical means of propulsion. Limits no less than 400,000 SDRs.


80

GENERAL LIMITS 200 SDRs per cubic meter of displacement at maximum permitted draught. 700 SDRs per KW of power of the machines providing the propulsion for vessels equipped with mechanical means of propulsion. Limits no less than 200,000 SDRs. Fund for ‘all other claims’ also available where fund for personal injury is insufficient.

Luggage

No specific reference to luggage but: ‘All other claims’ 100 SDRs per cubic meter of displacement at maximum permitted draught. 350 SDRs per KW of power of the machines providing the propulsion for vessels equipped with mechanical means of propulsion. No less than 100,000 SDRs.

No specific reference to luggage but: ‘All other claims’ 200 SDRs per cubic meter of displacement at maximum permitted draught. 700 SDRs per KW of power of the machines providing the propulsion for vessels equipped with mechanical means of propulsion No less than 200,000 SDRs.

Mobility Equipment Silent. Assume per luggage. Silent. Assume per Luggage.


81

CARRIAGE BY RAIL

Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail 1980 (COTIF) as modified by the 1999 Protocol for the modification of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail

EC Regulation 1371/2007 (incorporating Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail 1980 (COTIF) as modified by the 1999 Protocol for the modification of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail)

Applies to:

To every contract of carriage of passengers by rail for reward or free of charge Place of departure and the place of destination are situated in two different Member States. Uniform Rules shall also apply where international carriage that is subject of a single contract includes carriage by road or inland waterway in internal traffic of a Member State and in certain circumstances where contract of carriage includes carriage by sea or transfrontier carriage by inland waterway.

All rail journeys and services within the EU carried out by licensed undertakings.75 Extending scope of COTIF to domestic passengers (i.e. where a rail passenger service does not cross a border of a Member State) BUT Member States may grant an exemption for a period of 5 years (which may be renewed twice) from the application of the provisions to domestic rail passenger services.

Primary Liability Rest With:

The carrier, defined as the contractual carrier with whom the passenger has concluded the contract of carriage, or a successive carrier on the basis of the contract of carriage (made subject to the Uniform Rules).

The carrier unless: (a) accident caused by circumstances not connected with the operation of the railway and which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances could not avoid the consequences he was unable to prevent. (b) accident due to the fault of the passenger.

75 See http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/licensing/licensing-railway-operators/current-licences for full list of ‘licensed’ undertakings that are therefore within the ‘scope’ of the Regulation.

http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/licensing/licensing-railway-operators/current-licences


82

(c) if the accident is due to the behaviour of a third party which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances of the case, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent; another undertaking using the same railway infrastructure shall not be considered as a third party; the right of recourse shall not be affected. If carriage is governed by a single contract of carriage and is performed by successive carriers the carrier bound to provide the service of carriage in the course of which the accident happened shall be liable in the case of death or personal injury. Where service provided by a substitute carrier, the two carriers are jointly and severally liable.

Loss of right to limit:

If loss/damage results from act or omissions which carrier has committed either with intent to cause such loss or damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss or damage would probably result.

Per COTIF.

Limitation Period

Death/personal injury of passenger: 3 years from the day after the accident. Death/personal injury of other persons: 3 years from the day after the death of the passenger, subject to maximum of five years after the day after the accident. Other actions: 1 year from specified date depending on course of action. 2 years where claim arise out of act or omission committed with intent or recklessly.

Per COTIF.

Personal Injury Death: Per COTIF.


83

(a) any necessary costs following the death, in particular those of transport of the body and the funeral expenses; AND (b) if death does not occur at once: - any necessary costs, in particular those of treatment and of transport; and - compensation for financial loss, due to total or partial incapacity to work, or to increased needs (lump sum or by way of annuity if permitted under national law and requested by person so entitled). AND Dependency claim by those who deceased legally bound to maintain (lump sum or by way of annuity if permitted under national law and requested by person so entitled). Personal Injury: (a) any necessary costs, in particular those of treatment and of transport; (b) compensation for financial loss, due to total or partial incapacity to work, or to increased needs (lump sum or by way of annuity if permitted under national law and requested by person so entitled). Compensation for financial loss and dependency claim shall be


84

determined in accordance with national law. However, upper limit, where national limit is less, shall be 175,000 SDRs per passenger.

Hand Luggage 1,400 SDRs per passenger (so long as passenger confirms to formalities required by customs or other administrative authorities).

Per COTIF.

Registered Luggage

Lost luggage: Where amount of loss proven: 80 SDRs per kg or 1,200 SDRs per item of luggage Where amount of loss/damage not proven: 20 SDRs per kg or 300 SDRs per item of luggage AND Refund of any charge for luggage, including customs and excise duties paid. Damaged luggage: Compensation equivalent to loss in value of the luggage.

Per COTIF.

Vehicles Calculated on the basis of the usual value of the vehicle. Shall not exceed 8,000 SDRs. Per COTIF.

Mobility Equipment No financial limit shall be applicable.


85

Advance Payments

In the event of death or personal injury, advance payments to meet immediate economic needs on basis that is proportional to damage suffered to be paid by railway undertaking not later than 15 days after identity of the natural person entitled to compensation is established. Payment must not be less than EUR 21,000 per passenger in the event of death. Shall not constitute recognition of liability.

Insurance Railway undertaking to have adequate insurance to cover liabilities arising under Regulation.


86

CARRIAGE BY ROAD

EU Regulation 181/2011

Applies to:

Passengers travelling on ‘regular services’ where boarding or alighting point within Member State and scheduled distance of service is more than 250km. Certain provisions shall apply where distance is shorter than 250km. *Not required to accept disabled or PRMs but may still be liable where have caused loss/damage to mobility equipment – equal to costs of repair/replacement as applicable. ‘Regular services’: bus or coach services provided at specified intervals, along specified routes, with passengers dropped at predetermined stopping points. Passengers travelling on ‘occasional services’ where the initial boarding point or final alighting point is situated in Member State. *General provisions relating to disabled and PRMs do not apply, save that may still be liable where have caused loss/damage to mobility equipment – equal to costs of repair/replacement as applicable. No requirement to provide temporary replacement equipment.

Primary Liability Rests with:

If the performance of the obligations under this Regulation has been entrusted to a performing carrier, ticket vendor or any other person, the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal managing body, who has entrusted such obligations, shall nevertheless be liable for the acts and omissions of that performing party. In addition, the party to whom the performance of an obligation has been entrusted by the carrier, travel agent, tour operator or terminal managing body shall be subject to the provisions of this Regulation with regard to the obligation entrusted.

Personal Injury

Subject to national limits but not less than: 220,000 SDRs per passenger AND In the event of an accident: reasonable and proportionate assistance in relation to passengers’ immediate practical needs e.g. accommodation, food, clothes, transport and first aid.


87

Accommodation costs may be limited to 80 SDRs per night for a maximum of 2 nights.

Luggage Subject to national limits but not less than: 1,200 SDRs per item of luggage

Mobility Equipment Equal to the cost of replacement or repair of the equipment.

CARRIAGE BY AIR

REGULATION (EC) 889/200276 *Incorporating Montreal Convention with some amendment.

MONTREAL CONVENTION 199977

Applies to:

Community air carriers. Liability for damage caused in event of death/personal injury of passenger. If accident which caused the damage took place on board an aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

To all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward and to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking.

Primary Liability Rests With:

Carrier. Passenger has right to claim against either contracting carrier or performing carrier.

Carrier. Liability rests with contracting carrier for the whole of the carriage and with the actual carrier for the carriage which it performs.

Limitation Period 2 years from date of arrival of aircraft or date on which aircraft ought to have arrived.

2 years from date of arrival of aircraft or date on which aircraft ought to have arrived.

Personal Injury

No financial limits to liability. Strict liability of 113,100 SDRs. Above that sum, carrier may defend by proving that it was not

Carrier liable unless caused by passenger. Strict liability of 113,100 SDRs. Above that sum, carrier may defend by proving that it was not

76 Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents 77 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air , Montreal, 28 May 1999 (Limits as amended by ICAO in June 2014)


88

negligent. negligent.

Luggage

1,131 SDRs Strict liability for checked luggage, unless baggage defective. Unchecked: carrier only liable if at fault. Higher limit if special declaration made.

1,131 SDRs Strict liability for checked luggage, unless baggage defective. Unchecked: carrier only liable if at fault. Higher limit if special declaration made.

Advance Payments

In the event of death/personal injury. Payment to cover immediate economic needs. Within 15 days from the identification of the person entitle to compensation. Not less than 16,000 SDRs. Shall not constitute a recognition of liability.

If required by national law, payment to meet immediate economic needs. Shall not constitute a recognition of liability.

Liability for delays Liable unless took all reasonable measures to avoid. Liability limited to 4,694 SDRs.

Liable unless took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. Liability limited to 4,694 SDRs.

Insurance Must be insured to a level adequate to ensure that all persons entitled to compensation receive full amount to which they are entitled under this Regulation.

States Parties to ensure carriers maintain adequate insurance to cover liabilities under Convention.

D1.2: Policy, Legal and Standardisation Requirements ... · Definitions. Interoperability: The...

Documents

Transcript of D1.2: Policy, Legal and Standardisation Requirements ... · Definitions. Interoperability: The...