A Bahía Blanca family separated during an involuntary flight bumping incident in October 2023 has secured a favorable appellate ruling against Aerolíneas Argentinas, with federal courts ordering compensation for moral damages while establishing strict limits on punitive claims under consumer defense statutes.
But the recent ruling by the Federal Chamber of Appeals of Bahía Blanca offers a distinct framework for how courts calculate civil indemnification in overbooking disputes.
The Bottom Line
- Judicial Precedent: The Federal Chamber of Appeals upheld an initial order from Juzgado Federal N° 2, mandating compensation for moral injury without granting punitive damages.
- Financial Scope: The court set the compensation target at an amount matching a mid-tier family recreational trip, explicitly rejecting luxury-cost benchmarks.
- Operational Defense: Aerolíneas Argentinas claimed the separation stemmed from a last-minute aircraft swap to an Airbus A330 with reduced seating capacity, though ANAC records complicated that defense.
Unpacking the October 2023 Incident and Judicial Math
On October 21, 2023, a family of four from Bahía Blanca—including children aged 1 and 3—attempted to board flight AR 1325 operated by Aerolíneas Argentinas (AR) from Punta Cana to Buenos Aires. The tickets had been purchased through the online platform Otium Internacional, with a local invoice issued by JM Viajes. Upon checking in at the Dominican airport, the family discovered only three seats were honored, leaving the adult male passenger behind for an extra two days until October 23.
The affected passenger filed suit, arguing the airline violated the Consumer Defense Law (Ley 24.240) regarding the duty of information and fair treatment, attempting to mask overbooking as an operational shift. Federal Judge María Gabriela Marrón initially ordered a payment of 2 million pesos plus interest for moral damages, citing the “disgust, discomfort, and uncertainty” inflicted on the household.
Upon appeal, the Federal Chamber of Appeals—featuring judges Roberto Amábile and Pablo Larriera—affirmed the core liability. However, the court systematically dismantled the demand for suntuary benchmarks and punitive multipliers. According to the Chamber’s written reasoning, because there was no total frustration of the itinerary or permanent physical harm, pegging damages to the cost of luxury international itineraries would distort the compensatory function of civil law.
Operational Defenses and Fleet Capacity Realities
The defense strategy deployed by Aerolíneas Argentinas relied on structural adjustments rather than malicious over-allocation. The carrier maintained that a mandatory equipment swap substituted the original aircraft for another Airbus A330 model carrying one less seat. While front-line staff used the term “overbooking” at the pre-boarding gate, the airline argued it denoted a physical capacity constraint rather than commercial over-sales.
| Metric / Event Detail | Original Flight Plan | Actual Execution |
|---|---|---|
| Date of Departure | October 21, 2023 | October 21 / 23, 2023 |
| Route | Punta Cana (PUJ) to Buenos Aires (EZE) | Punta Cana to Buenos Aires |
| Carrier | Aerolíneas Argentinas | Aerolíneas Argentinas |
| Reported Constraint | Airbus A330 assignment | Capacity shortage / 1 passenger bumped |
Yet, data pulled from the National Civil Aviation Administration (ANAC) introduced friction into the carrier’s narrative. Official reports indicated that the replacement aircraft actually possessed a higher total passenger capacity than the original unit. Despite this discrepancy, the appellate court declined to escalate the penalty into the realm of punitive damages.
Here is why the punitive claim failed: the bench noted that the carrier immediately absorbed emergency out-of-pocket costs. Aerolíneas Argentinas covered lodging, ground transfers, and itinerary rescheduling for the stranded passenger. The court ruled that while this assistance did not erase the contractual breach, it disqualified the incident from meeting the threshold of “grave indifference” required to trigger punitive financial sanctions.
