華航取消航班, 雄獅不管
騎著草泥馬環游世界
我在前幾天去關島一趟, 10/22早上到, 原訂10/27回來, 卻在出門前兩個小時, 接到雄獅打電話來, 說班機取消, 要我延一天10/28回來, 但那天我有事無法配合, 而且我假期都排了, 最後只能接受10/25提早回來, 五天假期變三天.
原本雄獅還說會幫我跟華航求償, 但我回來後發現跟本沒人理,再跟雄獅跟反應, 隔天雄獅客服打電話通知, 說華航不想透過雄獅處理, 要我自己去找華航(看清楚了, 明明事情就發生了, 他們也都知道, 卻故意什麼都不做), 接下來雄獅就不管了.
而我跟雄獅反應時, 就想到他們會踢皮球, 同時也跟華航反應, 但過了三天什麼屁也沒有, 我又打電話去華航客服, 她給我的時間是從我申訴起約二個星期才會有結果, 而且其中
1.我覺得她在套我話, 一直問我是不是出發前就已經知道航班取消了, 我想她到時可以推說我自己接受改航班的
2.我問她為什麼取消, 打官腔不肯講, 還要說要等公司調查, 明明班機就你們取消的, 還調查什麼, 而且雄獅的人都直接講說就是載客量不足
3.對於他們要求雄獅, 不要雄獅幫消費者申訴, 還表現一付很驚訝的樣子
而且我想她們在故意拖, 看你二個星期後可以氣消很多了比較好處理, 所以故意把你晾著不鳥你, 真是有夠讚的客服啦
我這幾天有搜尋一下, 發現華航這樣的紀錄不少, 最後都是消費者吃虧, 以前覺得雄獅還不錯, 這次我也改觀了, 錢到手, 其他就你家的事了, 要賺錢, 事前說一套, 事後又一套, 真是夠了
難道消費者真的就那麼弱勢, 只能被雄獅與華航當皮球踢? 沒有其他自救的方式?
原本雄獅還說會幫我跟華航求償, 但我回來後發現跟本沒人理,再跟雄獅跟反應, 隔天雄獅客服打電話通知, 說華航不想透過雄獅處理, 要我自己去找華航(看清楚了, 明明事情就發生了, 他們也都知道, 卻故意什麼都不做), 接下來雄獅就不管了.
而我跟雄獅反應時, 就想到他們會踢皮球, 同時也跟華航反應, 但過了三天什麼屁也沒有, 我又打電話去華航客服, 她給我的時間是從我申訴起約二個星期才會有結果, 而且其中
1.我覺得她在套我話, 一直問我是不是出發前就已經知道航班取消了, 我想她到時可以推說我自己接受改航班的
2.我問她為什麼取消, 打官腔不肯講, 還要說要等公司調查, 明明班機就你們取消的, 還調查什麼, 而且雄獅的人都直接講說就是載客量不足
3.對於他們要求雄獅, 不要雄獅幫消費者申訴, 還表現一付很驚訝的樣子
而且我想她們在故意拖, 看你二個星期後可以氣消很多了比較好處理, 所以故意把你晾著不鳥你, 真是有夠讚的客服啦
我這幾天有搜尋一下, 發現華航這樣的紀錄不少, 最後都是消費者吃虧, 以前覺得雄獅還不錯, 這次我也改觀了, 錢到手, 其他就你家的事了, 要賺錢, 事前說一套, 事後又一套, 真是夠了
難道消費者真的就那麼弱勢, 只能被雄獅與華航當皮球踢? 沒有其他自救的方式?
落花雨紛飛
了解. 學習了. 我剛去DOT看了一下. 不過還是有提到有國際公約可執行. 另外, DOT也提到航空公司一般可以endorse機票到其他航空, 以免造成行程改變太大.但這點雖然DOT寫在網上, 但看來沒有在法條裡. 我是覺得這點華航做得太過份, DOT或許會介入.
On international itineraries, passengers may be able to recover reimbursement under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for expenses resulting from a delayed or canceled flight by filing a claim with the airline. If the claim is denied, you may pursue the matter in small claims court if you believe that the carrier did not take all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages caused by the delay. - See more at: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#sthash.iNK72FgU.dpuf
Article 19只是這樣寫:
Article 19 - Delay
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
只是一個原則上的宣示說航空公司可能要負責任。
至於賠償則是寫在Article 22
Article 22 - Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo
1. In the case of damage caused by delay as specified in Article 19 in the carriage of persons, the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights.
2. In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination.
3. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination.
4. In the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the destruction, loss, damage or delay of a part of the cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same air waybill, or the same receipt or, if they were not issued, by the same record preserved by the other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
5. The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment.
6. The limits prescribed in Article 21 and in this Article shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff, including interest. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.
所以根據article 19, 如果樓主證明航空公司沒有"took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures."，那是有可能爭取 article 22(1)裡的最多到4,150 Special Drawing Rights (目前相當於$5843美元)。或甚至如果他能證明華航是故意這樣做讓他蒙受損失的話，那還能根據22(5)要求更高。
但是賠償多少的判決不是由DOT來做仲裁的。透過DOT的網頁可以file complaint (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/file-consumer-complaint) 抱怨華航的服務，但是DOT只是會把這抱怨計入在月度報告中的華航缺失裏，不會做出華航應該要賠多少的裁決。要得到這個裁決只能上法庭。如果上美國的法庭，要跑美國出庭。上台灣的法庭，台灣不是Montreal Convention的簽約國，是否有足夠的依據去強制華航付出22(a)裡的最高賠償也是一大疑問。
所以我是覺得理論上是可行的，但實務上如果成功的話，能得到的賠償可能還不如花費的心力和金錢，最多爭得一個面子和一口氣而已。即使在美國過去發生過的某些航空公司delay處理的重大缺失，也沒怎麼聽過有乘客引用這article 19, 22(1)來控訴航空公司，我想光是要proof航空公司沒盡職這點就可能有一定的困難程度的，航空公司的律師總是會以三吋不難之舌證明自己公司並沒有不盡職。
On international itineraries, passengers may be able to recover reimbursement under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for expenses resulting from a delayed or canceled flight by filing a claim with the airline. If the claim is denied, you may pursue the matter in small claims court if you believe that the carrier did not take all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damages caused by the delay. - See more at: https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/fly-rights#sthash.iNK72FgU.dpuf
Article 19只是這樣寫:
Article 19 - Delay
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.
只是一個原則上的宣示說航空公司可能要負責任。
至於賠償則是寫在Article 22
Article 22 - Limits of liability in relation to delay, baggage and cargo
1. In the case of damage caused by delay as specified in Article 19 in the carriage of persons, the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to 4,150 Special Drawing Rights.
2. In the carriage of baggage, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to 1,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's actual interest in delivery at destination.
3. In the carriage of cargo, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is limited to a sum of 17 Special Drawing Rights per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination.
4. In the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of part of the cargo, or of any object contained therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the destruction, loss, damage or delay of a part of the cargo, or of an object contained therein, affects the value of other packages covered by the same air waybill, or the same receipt or, if they were not issued, by the same record preserved by the other means referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 4, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
5. The foregoing provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that such servant or agent was acting within the scope of its employment.
6. The limits prescribed in Article 21 and in this Article shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff, including interest. The foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded, excluding court costs and other expenses of the litigation, does not exceed the sum which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the commencement of the action, if that is later.
所以根據article 19, 如果樓主證明航空公司沒有"took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures."，那是有可能爭取 article 22(1)裡的最多到4,150 Special Drawing Rights (目前相當於$5843美元)。或甚至如果他能證明華航是故意這樣做讓他蒙受損失的話，那還能根據22(5)要求更高。
但是賠償多少的判決不是由DOT來做仲裁的。透過DOT的網頁可以file complaint (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/file-consumer-complaint) 抱怨華航的服務，但是DOT只是會把這抱怨計入在月度報告中的華航缺失裏，不會做出華航應該要賠多少的裁決。要得到這個裁決只能上法庭。如果上美國的法庭，要跑美國出庭。上台灣的法庭，台灣不是Montreal Convention的簽約國，是否有足夠的依據去強制華航付出22(a)裡的最高賠償也是一大疑問。
所以我是覺得理論上是可行的，但實務上如果成功的話，能得到的賠償可能還不如花費的心力和金錢，最多爭得一個面子和一口氣而已。即使在美國過去發生過的某些航空公司delay處理的重大缺失，也沒怎麼聽過有乘客引用這article 19, 22(1)來控訴航空公司，我想光是要proof航空公司沒盡職這點就可能有一定的困難程度的，航空公司的律師總是會以三吋不難之舌證明自己公司並沒有不盡職。
舊時模樣
但是賠償多少的判決不是由DOT來做仲裁的。透過DOT的網頁可以file complaint (https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/file-consumer-complaint) 抱怨華航的服務，但是DOT只是會把這抱怨計入在月度報告中的華航缺失裏，不會做出華航應該要賠多少的裁決。要得到這個裁決只能上法庭。如果上美國的法庭，要跑美國出庭。上台灣的法庭，台灣不是Montreal Convention的簽約國，是否有足夠的依據去強制華航付出22(a)裡的最高賠償也是一大疑問。
所以我是覺得理論上是可行的，但實務上如果成功的話，能得到的賠償可能還不如花費的心力和金錢，最多爭得一個面子和一口氣而已。即使在美國過去發生過的某些航空公司delay處理的重大缺失，也沒怎麼聽過有乘客引用這article 19, 22(1)來控訴航空公司，我想光是要proof航空公司沒盡職這點就可能有一定的困難程度的，航空公司的律師總是會以三吋不難之舌證明自己公司並沒有不盡職。
對, 我記得以前有人提過, 航空公司雖然律師很強, 但small claim court他得花大錢付律師費來我的州出庭. 以律師的價碼來說已經遠超過直接賠贘讓客人滿意的價錢了. 所以結果大都是直接賠.
所以我是覺得理論上是可行的，但實務上如果成功的話，能得到的賠償可能還不如花費的心力和金錢，最多爭得一個面子和一口氣而已。即使在美國過去發生過的某些航空公司delay處理的重大缺失，也沒怎麼聽過有乘客引用這article 19, 22(1)來控訴航空公司，我想光是要proof航空公司沒盡職這點就可能有一定的困難程度的，航空公司的律師總是會以三吋不難之舌證明自己公司並沒有不盡職。
對, 我記得以前有人提過, 航空公司雖然律師很強, 但small claim court他得花大錢付律師費來我的州出庭. 以律師的價碼來說已經遠超過直接賠贘讓客人滿意的價錢了. 所以結果大都是直接賠.
心還未成年
對, 我記得以前有人提過, 航空公司雖然律師很強, 但small claim court他得花大錢付律師費來我的州出庭. 以律師的價碼來說已經遠超過直接賠贘讓客人滿意的價錢了. 所以結果大都是直接賠.
不過file small claim court 如果自身不雇用律師代表出庭的話，自己要飛去美國一趟。有些州的small court filing甚至沒辦法直接用寄的，要親自(或律師代表)去file。file到開庭之間也會隔一段時間，所以不是住在美國的人，時間和成本大概也是不划算啦。
不過我倒是好奇美國的small court真的能接受住在國外的外國人訴訟外國公司(雖然這公司有做美國的生意)有關發生在國外的消費糾紛(雖然這消費糾紛牽涉到飛往美國)嗎? 雖然DOT那樣寫，但我覺得那比較是針對在美國的人在美國發生的糾紛。不過這我不確定。
不過file small claim court 如果自身不雇用律師代表出庭的話，自己要飛去美國一趟。有些州的small court filing甚至沒辦法直接用寄的，要親自(或律師代表)去file。file到開庭之間也會隔一段時間，所以不是住在美國的人，時間和成本大概也是不划算啦。
不過我倒是好奇美國的small court真的能接受住在國外的外國人訴訟外國公司(雖然這公司有做美國的生意)有關發生在國外的消費糾紛(雖然這消費糾紛牽涉到飛往美國)嗎? 雖然DOT那樣寫，但我覺得那比較是針對在美國的人在美國發生的糾紛。不過這我不確定。
記憶格式化
不過file small claim court 如果自身不雇用律師代表出庭的話，自己要飛去美國一趟。有些州的small court filing甚至沒辦法直接用寄的，要親自(或律師代表)去file。file到開庭之間也會隔一段時間，所以不是住在美國的人，時間和成本大概也是不划算啦。
不過我倒是好奇美國的small court真的能接受住在國外的外國人訴訟外國公司(雖然這公司有做美國的生意)有關發生在國外的消費糾紛(雖然這消費糾紛牽涉到飛往美國)嗎? 雖然DOT那樣寫，但我覺得那比較是針對在美國的人在美國發生的糾紛。不過這我不確定。
應該有, 我記得因為他的目的地是美國, 所以美國就管得到. 像denied boarding的規定我記得是含出發或終點是美國的.
歐盟那個我有點不清楚的是外籍航空. 條文提到community carriers, 然後說是在會員國有執照的公司都包括. 像華航等公司應該在歐洲也要有執照才能飛行吧?所以如果事件發生在歐洲航班，也會含括在這法規嗎？
不過我倒是好奇美國的small court真的能接受住在國外的外國人訴訟外國公司(雖然這公司有做美國的生意)有關發生在國外的消費糾紛(雖然這消費糾紛牽涉到飛往美國)嗎? 雖然DOT那樣寫，但我覺得那比較是針對在美國的人在美國發生的糾紛。不過這我不確定。
應該有, 我記得因為他的目的地是美國, 所以美國就管得到. 像denied boarding的規定我記得是含出發或終點是美國的.
歐盟那個我有點不清楚的是外籍航空. 條文提到community carriers, 然後說是在會員國有執照的公司都包括. 像華航等公司應該在歐洲也要有執照才能飛行吧?所以如果事件發生在歐洲航班，也會含括在這法規嗎？
巷尾暖陽白襯衫
應該有, 我記得因為他的目的地是美國, 所以美國就管得到. 像denied boarding的規定我記得是含出發或終點是美國的.
歐盟那個我有點不清楚的是外籍航空. 條文提到community carriers, 然後說是在會員國有執照的公司都包括. 像華航等公司應該在歐洲也要有執照才能飛行吧?所以如果事件發生在歐洲航班，也會含括在這法規嗎？
有關歐盟這個，我以前在幫一個棧友說明權益的時候有提到:
根據法條:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32004R0261&from=EN
1. This Regulation shall apply:
(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
簡單表列:
http://a1.bbkz.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1618119&d=1442621153
樓主的情況是From Outside EU to inside EU, Norwegian Airlines是EU Airlines，所以可以申請賠償。假設他搭的不是EU的航空，那就不行了。
Norwegian Airlines網上申請補償
https://www.norwegian.com/uk/customer-services/travel-information/irregularities/delays-/
最下面那段:
Making a claim
If we were unable to arrange assistance on this occasion, or you’re entitled to compensation, you can submit your claim online.
Before you submit your claim, make sure you’re aware of your passenger rights according to EU Regulation 261/2004.
Submit your claim online (https://www.norwegian.com/ssl/uk/customer-services/travel-information/irregularities/delays-/refund/)
所以華航的話，如果事件發生點是從非歐盟到歐盟的航線，那華航可以免除這個歐盟的規定。但如果是從歐盟出發的話，就會受到規範。
歐盟那個我有點不清楚的是外籍航空. 條文提到community carriers, 然後說是在會員國有執照的公司都包括. 像華航等公司應該在歐洲也要有執照才能飛行吧?所以如果事件發生在歐洲航班，也會含括在這法規嗎？
有關歐盟這個，我以前在幫一個棧友說明權益的時候有提到:
根據法條:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32004R0261&from=EN
1. This Regulation shall apply:
(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
簡單表列:
http://a1.bbkz.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1618119&d=1442621153
樓主的情況是From Outside EU to inside EU, Norwegian Airlines是EU Airlines，所以可以申請賠償。假設他搭的不是EU的航空，那就不行了。
Norwegian Airlines網上申請補償
https://www.norwegian.com/uk/customer-services/travel-information/irregularities/delays-/
最下面那段:
Making a claim
If we were unable to arrange assistance on this occasion, or you’re entitled to compensation, you can submit your claim online.
Before you submit your claim, make sure you’re aware of your passenger rights according to EU Regulation 261/2004.
Submit your claim online (https://www.norwegian.com/ssl/uk/customer-services/travel-information/irregularities/delays-/refund/)
所以華航的話，如果事件發生點是從非歐盟到歐盟的航線，那華航可以免除這個歐盟的規定。但如果是從歐盟出發的話，就會受到規範。
說忘是謊
有關歐盟這個，我以前在幫一個棧友說明權益的時候有提到:
所以華航的話，如果事件發生點是從非歐盟到歐盟的航線，那華航可以免除這個歐盟的規定。但如果是從歐盟出發的話，就會受到規範。
謝謝, 這個表很簡單, 很受用, 不過那個文字的部份和表對不大起來. 因為字裡是說只要是community carriers即使從第三地起飛都受規犯. 所以到底非EU的公司算不算community carriers呢? 或許還有其他文字吧?
所以華航的話，如果事件發生點是從非歐盟到歐盟的航線，那華航可以免除這個歐盟的規定。但如果是從歐盟出發的話，就會受到規範。
謝謝, 這個表很簡單, 很受用, 不過那個文字的部份和表對不大起來. 因為字裡是說只要是community carriers即使從第三地起飛都受規犯. 所以到底非EU的公司算不算community carriers呢? 或許還有其他文字吧?
日後再說
謝謝, 這個表很簡單, 很受用, 不過那個文字的部份和表對不大起來. 因為字裡是說只要是community carriers即使從第三地起飛都受規犯. 所以到底非EU的公司算不算community carriers呢? 或許還有其他文字吧?
這裡所謂comminity carriers指的由EU國發給operating licence的航空公司。非EU國航空公司的operating licence是由在地國發的，所以像華航，長榮，國泰等等都不是community carriers。
"Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5);
這裡所謂comminity carriers指的由EU國發給operating licence的航空公司。非EU國航空公司的operating licence是由在地國發的，所以像華航，長榮，國泰等等都不是community carriers。
"Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5);
天大地大媽咪最大
這裡所謂comminity carriers指的由EU國發給operating licence的航空公司。非EU國航空公司的operating licence是由在地國發的，所以像華航，長榮，國泰等等都不是community carriers。
"Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5);
這我有看到, 所以才好奇歐盟公司需不需要在歐盟有執照才能飛. 不過看結果來說應該是不用.
"Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5);
這我有看到, 所以才好奇歐盟公司需不需要在歐盟有執照才能飛. 不過看結果來說應該是不用.
可以讓我哭但別讓我輸
這我有看到, 所以才好奇歐盟公司需不需要在歐盟有執照才能飛. 不過看結果來說應該是不用.
你是說非歐盟公司吧。
執照是公司的經營執照和所在國發的飛行執照(AOC)。能不能飛歐盟國家首先看兩國的航權規定，然後看航空公司有沒有被歐盟禁止(EU banned air carriers)。符合規定的話，航空公司申請航線航權兩個的民航局OK即可，不用在歐盟再取得一個經營執照。
你是說非歐盟公司吧。
執照是公司的經營執照和所在國發的飛行執照(AOC)。能不能飛歐盟國家首先看兩國的航權規定，然後看航空公司有沒有被歐盟禁止(EU banned air carriers)。符合規定的話，航空公司申請航線航權兩個的民航局OK即可，不用在歐盟再取得一個經營執照。
人潮擁擠怎麼沒擠死你阿
你是說非歐盟公司吧。
執照是公司的經營執照和所在國發的飛行執照(AOC)。能不能飛歐盟國家首先看兩國的航權規定，然後看航空公司有沒有被歐盟禁止(EU banned air carriers)。符合規定的話，航空公司申請航線航權兩個的民航局OK即可，不用在歐盟再取得一個經營執照。
對. 我少打一個字. 了解了. 感謝.
執照是公司的經營執照和所在國發的飛行執照(AOC)。能不能飛歐盟國家首先看兩國的航權規定，然後看航空公司有沒有被歐盟禁止(EU banned air carriers)。符合規定的話，航空公司申請航線航權兩個的民航局OK即可，不用在歐盟再取得一個經營執照。
對. 我少打一個字. 了解了. 感謝.