The Judiciary even if the passenger is reaccommodated on another flight and is able to board [2] . Overbooking was expressly permitted by Resolution 400/2016, upon acceptance of the unjustified rejection of passengers, as its articles 22 and 23 allow the number of passengers for the flight to exceed the availability of seats on the aircraft, and the carrier must look for volunteers to be re-accommodated on another aircraft through negotiated compensation. It is unacceptable for people to buy airline tickets and be afraid that they will not be able to board due to the excess of passengers blatantly legitimized by the regulatory authority.



The consumer's right to faithfully comply with Buy Phone Number List contractual terms and objective good faith in planning to board a specific flight and time is disrespected. Continuing the unacceptable violation of the content of Law 8,078/90, Anac considers that there will be no denial if the voluntary passenger is reaccommodated on another flight. Even if the consumer agrees to travel on another aircraft, it does not mean that they are prevented from going to court to claim the material and moral damages suffered. Culminating in the relegation of the consumerist microsystem to the background, the resolution sets values ​​for the hypotheses of neglect, literally violating the right to full compensation of air transport service users in the face of damages suffered.







How can it be admitted that the financial compensation does not amount to 250 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), for a domestic flight; or 500 DES, if there is an international flight, will it satisfy all the losses caused to the consumer? 3. Transportation of luggage for air transport users In Resolution 400/2016, three crucial problems involving passenger luggage are observed, namely: the elimination of the existing allowance; the modification of the deadline for complaints; and the attempt to limit the amount of compensation in cases of loss or violation of transported content. The norms that govern such hypotheses directly violate Law 8.078/90, which, as Cláudia Lima Marques explains, is made up of norms of public order, “recognizing the superiority of the law in relation to the autonomy of the individual’s will”.