Zagreb Airport fined over jet refusal


Zagreb Airport has been fined just over 6.700 euros by the Croatian Civil Aviation Agency for denying landing rights to a diverted Croatia Airlines flight which was forced to land in Rome instead. The operator was fined as it did not adhere to the terms of the concession agreement which requires the airport to be operational 24/7. Croatia Airlines said its jet was denied touchdown since Zagreb Airport was insufficiently staffed at the time. The incident occurred last month after midnight. It has since emerged that Zagreb Airport recently downgraded its rescue and fire fighting services (RFFS) category ranking from six to four between 23.00 and 05.00 in the morning, preventing many jet-engine aircraft from landing at the airport during those hours. The move is believed to be a cost cutting measure aimed at reducing staff numbers in emergency services over night. Zagreb Airport has the right to appeal the fine.


  1. Anonymous11:00

    6.700? That's a joke.

    1. Anonymous12:39

      indeed, should have been at least €50 000.

  2. Anonymous11:03

    Hahaha oh my... what a massive fine. I am sure they are going to comply in the future.

    Or did the government forgot to add two zeros? I guess that's how much politicians value their passengers' safety

    1. Anonymous11:44

      Please let us know how passenger safety was endangered, when an aircraft had to divert from Dubrovnik to Rome instead of Zagreb.

    2. Anonymous11:51

      Because OU's SOP was to return to its base which it couldn't do.
      It's inconvenient when an airline can't return to its home but is forced to divert to a foreign airport.

    3. Anonymous12:01

      It's inconvenient, I agree. But how is it unsafe? Is every diversion by OU to airport that is not Zagreb unsafe?

    4. Anonymous17:40

      Yes because its not their base and they don't have all that they need there.

    5. I guess Rome airport doesn't have everything Zagreb airport has...

    6. Anonymous07:13

      Guys, then sign the petition for OU to stop flying to Rome in general. If it's unsafe...

    7. Anonymous13:05

      ZAG has a nicer terminal, that's for sure.

  3. Anonymous11:22

    Those are the costs OU incurred.

  4. Anonymous11:24

    This is more of a symbolic measure.

  5. Anonymous11:47

    Why didn't they land in Ljubljana, Belgrade or anywhere else?

  6. Anonymous11:51

    Balkanistan. Airport can be operational 24/7 without having high RFFS all the time. And it makes no sense to have RFFS 6 with no scheduled departures/arrivals at night.

    With the same logic they could punish Croatia Airlines for operating such large aircraft on this route. ATR 42 could have diverted to Zagreb, for example.

    1. Anonymous11:52

      They were fined because ZAG advertizes itself as a 24 h airport when it really isn't. How can SKP do it but not ZAG?

    2. Anonymous12:06

      SKP has 24/7 operations. Today, earlies departure is at 4:25 and latest landing 2:15. So there is around 2h of "no operations time", which wouldn't make any difference in planning of the RFFS (assuming usually is 3 shifts per 8 hours).

      Zagreb's first departure is 6:10 and latest arrival is 23:25. So more than 6 hours of no scheduled traffic, and RFFS can be planned with 2 shifts by 9 hours.

      See the difference?

      PS: The moment you see W6/FR at ZAG, they will have RFFS 7 throughout the night and OU will be able to use it as well.

    3. Anonymous13:53

      I wonder if Zagreb Airport is going to appeal or not. Because they are 100% right obviously, the airport was open. Otherwise why do you think they'll keep enough staff in fire fighting department to maintain Cat 4? If the airport was closed, it wouldn't have any at all.

      You have to understand that it is the airline's problem to use ZAG as an alternate airport or not. The airline may choose an airport as alternate even if it is Cat 4 (while the aircraft's recommended requirement is 6). And it seems that they did not have Zagreb as an alternate airport but Rome, that's why the flight ended there.

      Let's see if French will act or not. If they do, CCAA will be in trouble too.

    4. Anonymous13:56

      It's not about being open, it's about being operational and the airport was not operational even though it is required to be operational 24-7. But like with many aspects, the concession agreement is not being respected at all.

    5. Anonymous15:50

      Some people here have no clue how this works. Again, why was the airport not operational? It may have not been operational for the A320, but certainly a lot of other aircraft types could operate in the mean while.

      The decision to choose the level RFFS for the airport rests solely with the airport operator (well, perhaps not in exyu) and is a commercial one. Why have high fire service available if nobody is landing or departing?

      It's 2017 and companies need to turn profit in order to run. One of the way to ensure profitability is reducing the unneccesary cost, like having high RFF at night.

      Btw, to define "operational". An A380 cannot use Zagreb as an alternate airport even during the day, unless previously arranged. Who's protesting that the operator doesn't follow the concession rules in making the airport operational 24/7?

    6. Anonymous15:53

      Open means operational in this context, there's no difference. And I'm quite sure there's no clause in concession agreement referring to the RFF category. If CCAA was right, then it could fine the operator even if it is Cat 6, claiming that it must be operational for all type of aircrafts (why limit it to A320s?) including B777, which requires Cat 9! Completely nonsense.

    7. Anonymous15:57

      Anon 3:50 Interesting that we wrote similar things almost at the same time. After I read all the comments on this issue so far, I really wonder based on which knowledge people comment on this topic.

    8. Anonymous16:26

      You are right. No one should dare criticize Zagreb Airport and the French!

    9. Anonymous16:32

      No one should criticize anything/anyone without proper knowledge! This is basic rule of life, isn't it for you?

    10. Anonymous16:43

      I know much more than you what a bad deal the concession was. You might be their volounteer PR on the internet but judging from what you write you know very little what kind of deal has been made with the French. As years move on more and more of these various incidents will be appearing. The first one was the building of a terminal which is much smaller than the one they said they would build in the first phase based on which they won. Not to talk about the badly functioning apron and junk they bought for visual guidence docking. But like you say anything for profit. We should all celebrate and never question anything they do. Just cheer.

    11. Anonymous17:39

      The concession requires them to be open and fully operational throughout the night. They should have been fined much more than this.

      As someone mentioned above, if a small provincial airport like SKP can take flights at all time then a state of the art airport lika ZAG should do it too.

    12. JATBEGMEL17:46

      Its outrageous that the airport isnt capable of keeping services available for the aircraft types common to ZAG, and for which are based in ZAG.

      Sure, being 24/7 available for widebodies is a waste of resources, but not being able to handle an A320 in my opinion is scandelous.

      The new owners have already made many cost cutting measures in ZAG, fair enough, raised taxes, but where do you draw the line?

    13. Anonymous17:58

      AnonymousJuly 4, 2017 at 5:39 PM

      if SKP is a "small provincial airport", then ZAG is not better either

    14. Anonymous19:41

      "Its outrageous that the airport isnt capable of keeping services available for the aircraft types common to ZAG, and for which are based in ZAG. "

      Croatia always has the option to ask ZAG to extend the RFFS to 6 or more through the night and I am quite sure they would do it. However, I expect OU would have to pay for it.

  7. Anonymous13:24

    Bumpy start for Zagrab

  8. Anonymous14:58

    Well the fine is 50,000 kn, which is okay having in mind that this was the first time this happened and nobody was endangered. This however is to be seperated from the question whether OU has the right to demand compensation from the airport since additional costs incurred. But that is a matter of the actual agreements and contracts between the airport and the airline.

  9. Anonymous17:55

    Bravo Hrvatska !

  10. Anonymous02:50

    So let me get this straight, a Croatian airline wasn't allowed to land on a Croatian airport! Enjoy your concession!

  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

  12. Wow, such a "hefty" fine! First and foremost they are in clear breach of contract, because according to it they are required to be open and fully operational 24/7 during the toirist season, from May to the end of October.
    Secondly it is an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment for a capital city of such a tourist country.
    They should've paid 10 times as much.


Post a Comment

EX-YU Aviation News does not tolerate insults, excessive swearing, racist, homophobic or any other chauvinist remarks or provocative posts with the intention of creating further arguments. A full list of comment guidelines can be found here. Thank you for your cooperation.