Research On Legal Issues Of Air Carrier Refusal

Since private capital was allowed to invest in aviation area,the cost of air travel for citizens reduces gradually.Cheaper air travel has resulted in a record number of air passengers,which has in turn led to cramped conditions on board airplanes and poor treatment by airline employees.As a consequence,airlines are reporting dramatic increases in the number of incidents involving unruly passengers.For its own operation and navigation safety,airlines deny services to unruly passengers,which is commonly known as the civil aviation passenger blacklist.The public transport enterprise owns the duty of compulsory contracting,the freedom of which to conclude the contract and to choose the relative person is restricted by our "contract law".The discussion of that whether air carrier is a public transport carrier has always existed.No matter it is based on the consideration of the nature of the air carrier's acceptance of the obligations for the maj ority of the people,or the relevant provisions from the "civil aviation law" and the "Administrative Licensing Law",the status of the public transport carrier is beyond doubt.Therefore,the air carrier must undertake the compulsory contracting obligations under the Contract Law,moreover,the air carrier shall not reject the "normally and reasonable" request from passengers.However,on the other hand,when the carrier has a legitimate reason to exempt from that mandatory obligation,then the refuse oc curs.Carrier has the rights of refusal,on the one hand,is based on the need to protect the safety of aircraft,on the other hand,is the reasonable choice under the conflict of rights for citizens to travel,personality right,and the consumer choice.Due to the particularity of air transportation,air transportation has a higher demand for safety.Because when some evil-intentioned passengers pose a threat to the life and property safety of the crews and other passengers,or the flight safety,the narrowness of the cabin cannot provide enough shelter space.Besides,it is difficult for the crew to get outside support under this circumstance.Once the plane is out of control,the heavy price of death would be paid.Therefore,the special requirements for safety in air transportation have been a strong support for the exercise of the right of refusal by air carriers.However,this right can be abused easily by air carriers since safety is a vague concept.All these kinds of abuse reflects the lack of direct authorization on carriers' refusal problems.Meanwhile,the effectiveness of the rules issued by the CAAC is not conducive to the settlement of the actual disputes.In addition,the fuzzy standard of "potential threats" also brings a great subjective arbitrariness to the carriers when exercise the right of refusal.China's law does not give explicit provisions on the civil liability that air carriers violate the compulsory contract and refuse to take a passenger ad arbitrium.Compensation for mental damage is difficult to win in judicial practice.It is also another problem that whether to impose an administrative penalty on the carriers to help regulate improper refusal behaviors.It is self-evident that the legislation rank has a bearing on the solution of real problems.However,in civil aviation,there has been rules and regulations from the Ministry of Transport concerning the transport relations,which is less binding for the court in real-life conflicts.In that case,given alternatives,the judge wil l not follow but to refer to legal precedents.Therefore,it is especially imperative to improve the importance of legislation rank.Legislation in civil aviation shall systematically stipulate the enforcement body,principals,premises and procedures of r ejection of boarding,and shall stipulate the potentially threatening group whose evaluation also needs to be improved with collateral duty for airlines.The rejection shall be performed on condition that the airlines have enough proof that the passengers have failed all the remedy rights.Certainly,the liability by improper rejection of boarding shall be made clear and the author holds that accountability of right infringements are more realistic.The passengers' claim for compensation shall be advocated for the balance between passengers and airline companies.The administrative penalty for improper rejection in the West is very much different from us and could be learned from.Besides,to build a active,orderly and sound mechanism of emergent aid in the society is conducive to the reduction of conflicts caused by improper rejection,and the airline companies,in a more favorable position,shall shoulder more responsibilities.