The National Civil Aviation Agency (Anac) Resolution 400/2016 establishes that in cases of cancellation or service interruption, airlines must provide re-accommodation, refund, or service execution through another transport mode, according to the passenger’s choice. Additionally, Article 27 of the regulation requires material assistance, which varies according to the delay duration.
Based on this understanding, the 2nd Appeals Panel of the Paraíba Court of Justice upheld the appeal filed by a passenger, ordering TAM Airlines — now Latam — to pay R$ 207.85 for material damages and R$ 5,000 for moral damages.
According to court records, the airline unilaterally changed a flight originally bound for Caxias do Sul (RS), resulting in the passenger’s disembarkation in Porto Alegre, where she was left without any assistance or adequate accommodation options.
In the appeal, the passenger argued that the company’s conduct violated Anac Resolution 400/2016, which addresses passengers’ rights in flight delay or cancellation situations. The airline maintained that there was no service failure, as alternatives were offered to the passenger.
Analysing the case, Judge Hermance Gomes Pereira determined that TAM did not offer the required options or material assistance to the passenger, who experienced a delay exceeding 18 hours to reach her final destination.
“This conduct constitutes a service failure, violating the Consumer Protection Code (Article 14), which imposes objective responsibility on providers for defects in service execution,” noted the rapporteur in his vote.
One Night at the Airport
In another decision involving Azul Airlines, the PB Court denied a moral damages claim resulting from a flight cancellation. The action was filed by a minor who alleged service failures resulting in a delay exceeding 20 hours.
In the appeal, the passenger reported being notified of the flight change moments before boarding, forcing him to spend the night at the airport in inadequate conditions without assistance. The airline’s defence argued that the change was necessary for operational reasons and passengers were informed with due notice.
The case rapporteur in the court’s 2nd Civil Chamber, Judge José Guedes Cavalcanti Neto, determined that the documents presented by the airline proved the passenger was informed of the flight change with reasonable notice.
For the magistrate, although the case caused discomfort, it’s impossible to identify service failure since re-accommodation was provided without additional costs, and the justification presented – air network readjustment – constitutes an internal fortuitous event, which doesn’t eliminate objective responsibility but doesn’t prove abuse.
Regarding the moral damages claim, the judge explained that, according to the Superior Court of Justice’s understanding, mere flight delay or cancellation doesn’t automatically generate right to compensation.
Flight Change, Layovers and Delay
In another case involving Latam, Santa Catarina Court of Justice’s 6th Civil Chamber upheld a decision denying moral damages claimed by a passenger against the airline, resulting from an 11-hour delay on a flight from Curitiba to Los Angeles, USA.
In the action, the passenger reported that the original flight was cancelled. She was then relocated to another aircraft, which made additional stops in Chile and Peru, including an overnight stay — all, according to her, without adequate material support from the airline.
In evaluating the request, the collegiate understood that although the delay occurred, the passenger didn’t present concrete evidence of relevant harm, such as missing urgent appointments or expenses with food and accommodation.
The allegations of lack of material assistance were considered generic. For the SC Court, flight delays don’t automatically constitute moral damage, as it’s necessary to prove exceptional circumstances to justify compensation. Information from Aeroin and press offices of PB and SC Courts.
