Fez – Amsterdam: Noureddine Amrani

Air Arabia Maroc failed to convince the Dutch judiciary in its case concerning the delayed flight from Amsterdam to Fez. The court ruled that the airline could have changed aircraft to avoid the delay and deemed the company's defense unconvincing. Flight 30126, departing from Amsterdam Schiphol Airport to Fez, experienced a significant delay, prompting affected passengers to claim the legal compensation stipulated in the European Passenger Rights Regulations, which amounts to €400 per passenger for this specific route. The ruling by the North Holland Court, issued on May 27, 2026, and announced on August 10, reviewed the alternative measures the company could have taken to mitigate the impact of the delay. The court confirmed that it was established the company could have changed aircraft, i.e., allocated another plane, to avoid the delay or minimize its duration. Air Arabia Maroc claimed that all aircraft in its fleet were operational that day. However, the judge rejected this argument for lack of supporting evidence, leaving the company unable to prove it had taken all reasonable measures to avoid the delay. This clause is crucial in such lawsuits, as the rules stipulate that airlines are not obligated to pay compensation in exceptional circumstances, but only if they can prove they did their utmost to prevent the delay, which the court found was not the case here. Accordingly, the court ruled that the company was obligated to grant the passengers' claim for compensation. The ruling was bolstered by the theoretical possibility of replacing the aircraft, as the carrier cannot simply claim the entire fleet was occupied without providing concrete evidence to support this claim.