|
|
ix | |
Preface |
|
xv | |
Acknowledgements |
|
xvii | |
|
|
xviii | |
|
|
1 | (28) |
|
1 The Brazilian aviation landscape until 2019 |
|
|
2 | (3) |
|
2 The two major challenges |
|
|
5 | (2) |
|
3 Liberalisation benefits for Brazil |
|
|
7 | (2) |
|
4 The role of the State in aviation |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
4.1 Legitimacy of State intervention and the Rule of Law |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
5 The thin line between regulation and competition |
|
|
11 | (6) |
|
5.1 Market failure in aviation and its liberalisation/deregulation |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
5.2 Market failure and natural monopolies |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
5.2.1 Airports: natural monopolies or not? |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
|
17 | (12) |
|
PART I European liberalisation |
|
|
29 | (66) |
|
2 Historical perspective on liberalisation of the aviation sector |
|
|
31 | (32) |
|
1 The changes in international aviation law: the road to liberalisation |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
2 The European liberalisation |
|
|
33 | (8) |
|
2.1 The first waves of liberalisation in Europe |
|
|
35 | (3) |
|
2.2 An integrated system: the single European sky (SES) |
|
|
38 | (3) |
|
3 Other models of liberalisation and their influence on the European model |
|
|
41 | (10) |
|
|
41 | (3) |
|
|
44 | (3) |
|
3.1.2 The US-EU Open Aviation Area |
|
|
47 | (1) |
|
3.2 The Asian liberalisation |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
3.2.1 The ASEAN-EU agreement |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 The influence on Australia |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
|
51 | (12) |
|
3 The repercussions of the EU liberalisation |
|
|
63 | (32) |
|
1 The repercussions of the EU liberalisation |
|
|
63 | (8) |
|
|
63 | (2) |
|
|
65 | (1) |
|
1.2.1 The case of Alitalia (AZ) |
|
|
66 | (5) |
|
2 Competition advantages and (possible) problems |
|
|
71 | (5) |
|
2.1 Overview of competition rules applying under the EU system |
|
|
71 | (3) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
2.3 More competition, yes, but not to the detriment of the security of passengers |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
3 Consumer protection: Regulation 261/2004 |
|
|
76 | (9) |
|
3.1 The problematic Regulation 261/2004 |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
3.1.1 Compensation for cancelled flights |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
3.1.2 Compensation for long delays |
|
|
78 | (2) |
|
3.1.3 `Extraordinary circumstances': the secret weapon of airlines |
|
|
80 | (3) |
|
3.2 Resolution 261 and international law |
|
|
83 | (2) |
|
|
85 | (10) |
|
PART II Brazil liberalisation |
|
|
95 | (143) |
|
4 The Brazilian legal system |
|
|
97 | (28) |
|
1 Brief overview of the legal system: hierarchy of norms |
|
|
98 | (2) |
|
2 The main organs in aviation |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
3 The Brazilian legal system on aviation |
|
|
101 | (16) |
|
3.1 Laws applicable to aviation |
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
3.2 General aviation liability regulation |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
3.3 Liability in case of collisions |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
3.4 Consumer protection: the Codigo de Protecao e Defesa do Consumidor (CDC) vs the Montreal Convention |
|
|
104 | (5) |
|
3.4.1 The promising Projeto de Lei (PL) 6960 de 2010 |
|
|
109 | (1) |
|
3.4.2 Lei 14.034/20 de 2020 |
|
|
110 | (1) |
|
3.5 Consumer protection: ANAC |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
3.5.1 Resolution 141/2010 |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
3.5.1.3 Extraordinary circumstance |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
3.5.2 Resolution 400/2016 |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
|
115 | (2) |
|
|
117 | (8) |
|
5 The Brazilian national `liberalisation' |
|
|
125 | (15) |
|
1 Why liberalisation and not deregulation? |
|
|
126 | (2) |
|
2 ANAC's perspective vs international understanding |
|
|
128 | (1) |
|
3 Why liberalise the Brazilian market? |
|
|
129 | (2) |
|
4 Bilateral agreements: an outdated concept? |
|
|
131 | (3) |
|
|
134 | (6) |
|
6 Liberalisation of the national market: possible changes |
|
|
140 | (41) |
|
1 The current aspects of the Brazilian market: brief overview |
|
|
140 | (2) |
|
|
142 | (5) |
|
|
144 | (1) |
|
|
145 | (2) |
|
|
147 | (3) |
|
|
150 | (8) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
4.3 Low-Cost Carriers (LCCs) as game changers |
|
|
152 | (3) |
|
4.4 The need for product differentiation |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
4.5 Higher risk of bankruptcy |
|
|
156 | (2) |
|
4.6 Airline privatisation |
|
|
158 | (1) |
|
|
158 | (5) |
|
|
159 | (1) |
|
5.2 Increase in competition and airport saturation |
|
|
160 | (1) |
|
5.3 Major gain for regional airports |
|
|
161 | (1) |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (3) |
|
7 Regional changes: Mercosur |
|
|
166 | (3) |
|
|
169 | (12) |
|
|
181 | (27) |
|
1 State intervention is still necessary |
|
|
182 | (3) |
|
2 State intervention after the potential liberalisation in Brazil |
|
|
185 | (11) |
|
2.1 Bilateralism and liberalisation |
|
|
186 | (1) |
|
2.2 Avianca's tragedy and the role of the judiciary |
|
|
187 | (1) |
|
2.3 Market regulation and State intervention |
|
|
188 | (1) |
|
|
189 | (1) |
|
|
190 | (1) |
|
2.3.3 Abuse of dominant position |
|
|
191 | (1) |
|
2.3.4 Codesharing and cartel formation |
|
|
192 | (1) |
|
2.4 Public interest element |
|
|
193 | (2) |
|
|
195 | (1) |
|
3 Self-regulation and private ordering |
|
|
196 | (2) |
|
|
198 | (1) |
|
|
199 | (9) |
|
|
208 | (27) |
|
|
209 | (2) |
|
2 The problems with the current system: irreconcilable judgments |
|
|
211 | (9) |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 It is always the airline's fault |
|
|
212 | (2) |
|
2.1.3 Brazil's exorbitant jurisdiction: the NYE case |
|
|
214 | (1) |
|
2.1.4 The outrageous case: Valentine's Day Lunch |
|
|
215 | (1) |
|
2.1.5 The totally irreconcilable judgments |
|
|
216 | (3) |
|
2.1.6 Two separate contracts? Make it just one |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
|
219 | (1) |
|
3 The necessity to adapt the existing system and the use of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as a way forward |
|
|
220 | (7) |
|
3.1 Why Online Dispute Resolution? |
|
|
222 | (2) |
|
3.2 Collective redress and ODR |
|
|
224 | (1) |
|
3.3 Public authority rather than private actors |
|
|
225 | (2) |
|
|
227 | (8) |
|
|
235 | (3) |
Index |
|
238 | |