EC261 and UK261 Discussion: Successes and Failures

[offshore171]

My understanding is recorded flight times are door closed / door opened.

Ok that's interesting.

So in theory at least, Airline B could "land" within the 2 hour window, but spend 30 minutes waiting for their gate because Airline A is late departing, or perhaps the airport can't find an available gate.

That would mean that Airline B is required to compensate PAX, because of Airline A or the Airport.

 

[Hunter4vr]

Ok that's interesting.

So in theory at least, Airline B could "land" within the 2 hour window, but spend 30 minutes waiting for their gate because Airline A is late departing, or perhaps the airport can't find an available gate.

That would mean that Airline B is required to compensate PAX, because of Airline A or the Airport.

I believe they are only liable for delays for reasons that the airline can control. Being delayed as a result of airport congestion is not their fault.

I'm not completely sure but if the initial delay was the airline's fault, it could be argued that not being able to find a gate is a flow on effect and therefore they would be liable?

 

[mandolino]

I've claimed this routinely a few times under UK 261. Thanks to the exchange rate having improved a bit since it was adopted into UK law, the gbp£ compensation was slightly better than the Euro compensation. Last year a delay on SAS got me a choice of the statutory UK 261 compensation in cash, or 100 pounds more in SAS flight vouchers. I took the voucher and used it for a nice break in Sweden.

 

[jb747]

I believe it is push back from the gate (off chocks) to arrival at the gate (on chocks).

It’s brakes release for the push back, to first passenger door opening.

 

[KiwiFlyer79]

My husband and I recently flew Lufthansa Premium Economy from the US to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia via Frankfurt. No issues on the way over but on our return journey after checking in at Riyadh and waiting for an hour in the gate lounge, we received a flight cancellation text just after midnight. No explanation just cancelled.

Eventually airport/Lufthansa staff came up and explained the process but in the meantime we had received automatically generated rebooking on flights two days later. We frantically looked for options to get back sooner but nothing really gained much time so we gave in to the process.

Lufthansa put us up in an airport hotel which was very pleasant and two days later we returned to the airport and made both of our flights without issue back to the US.

I contacted the airline for reimbursement of minor expenses relating to the first night getting back to the airport hotel and submitted a claim for compensation under EU261 under which we satisfied all relevant criteria. However, Lufthansa came back denying the compensation claim saying that our final destination was the US and therefore EU261 did not apply (we are talking about about 600 Euros pp). I have read and reread EU261 and nowhere does it state that the final destination of your total itinerary negates the ability to claim for compensation. The facts are our flight was operated by an EU carrier, was cancelled without reason and we were delayed for 48 hours from a destination originating outside of the EU but terminating inside the EU.

I replied to Lufthansa and stated we had met all the criteria and their interpretation was not in line with the regulations. They have told me to lodge a claim through Alternative Dispute Resolution via Schlichtungsstelle Reise & Verkehr e.V..

Has anyone had a similar situation where the EU airline denied the claim on the basis you had an onward second flight travelling to a destination outside the EU and directed you to this organisation? From what I can see it is legitimate and a government based organisation but I don't want to get involved in some third party company that tries to take a huge chunk of any final compensation granted.

I'm disappointed with Lufthansa response in equal amounts as I was with their sub-par Premium Economy offering. Never again.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Unfortunately Lufthansa has correctly applied the law as it currently stands (judgment issued in 2022).

A ‘flight’ is considered as a whole, origin to destination. Even if that includes a stop or transit in the EU. Passengers originating and ending outside the EU are therefore not covered by EU261.

You can find some more detail in this thread: EU261 refused by Lufthansa due to trip between non EU countries - FlyerTalk Forums

 

[KiwiFlyer79]

Unfortunately Lufthansa has correctly applied the law as it currently stands (judgment issued in 2022).

A ‘flight’ is considered as a whole, origin to destination. Even if that includes a stop or transit in the EU. Passengers originating and ending outside the EU are therefore not covered by EU261.

You can find some more detail in this thread: EU261 refused by Lufthansa due to trip between non EU countries - FlyerTalk Forums

Thank you. I wish that detail was included in the actual language of the regulation because it definitely does not read that way. I've read the link you included. Very informative and much appreciated. Merry Christmas!!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thank you. I wish that detail was included in the actual language of the regulation because it definitely does not read that way. I've read the link you included. Very informative and much appreciated. Merry Christmas!!

It’s like a lot of regulations… a lot was undefined and it was up to the courts to interpret. This has happened over 20 years.

The courts have ruled that connecting flights outside the EU, even if not operated by an EU carrier, can be eligible for compensation. This means a flight HEL-HKG-SYD, where the HKG-SYD is operated by Cathay pacific, will be subject to compensation if Cathay’s flight is delayed.

The court takes the whole journey into account… the origin (EU) through to the conclusion (SYD). Airlines tried to argue that the connecting flight was a separate flight… but the courts said ‘no, they have to be considered as one’.

Unfortunately… the byproduct of this approach is that the reverse is also true. If the whole journey doesn’t start or end in the EU, there’s no cover, even if the connecting flights themselves, if treated separately, would be eligible.

Of course the above doesn’t apply if you have a stopover in the EU… as in more than 24 hours. In that case flights are treated separately.

 

[Longtoo]

Hi all,

My family of 4 had a recent trip departing from Europe via Doha. The CHP-DOH leg was delayed by 3 h, Qatar rebooked us to another flight for the 2nd leg, gave us hotel and food voucher in Doha (nice of them, but we were already in Doha on the way to Europe). We reached the final destination 16 h late. There is nothing i can do about being Qatared on both legs, missing out on the Quad Q suite for the family. but i will of course pursue the delay compensation according to EU261.

Contacted Qatar, they responded quite promptly after a few days, asking for copies of our passports, tickets, authorisation to act on behalf of the family, birth cert of our child who is under 18, etc. I supplied them with necessary documents, then dead silence.

It has been about 4 weeks.

Question to my braintrust: when should i start escalate this and contact the Danish National Enforcement Body (where the flight commenced)?

 

[Longtoo]

we were using Eurostar in Europe. One of our train was 66 min late. There was a PA announcement before we disembarked that passengers may be eligible for compensation. I logged into Eurostar few days later, after few click, 25% of the ticket value went straight back to my credit card. EU261 may also be applicable to train travel in Europe.

 

[Human]

I'm surprised that this thread doesn't already exist (Mods: if it does and I'm blind, please merge this post with that thread!).

I thought that it might be useful to have a thread listing our successes and failures with claiming EC261 or UK261 compensation. Let me get the ball rolling...

I caught an Air France flight last month from CDG to MAN, which arrived three hours and 15 minutes late. After we'd boarded the captain announced that the delay was due to the crew being delayed on their incoming flight (from Biarritz, as I recall?) due to "severe thunderstorms" at the origin airport. I would have thought that thunderstorms affecting the incoming crew would qualify as "extraordinary circumstances", but even though I had very little hope of receiving EC261 compensation, I put in the claim anyway.

I have to say that AF does make it easy to claim -- very easy, in fact, with a clear (and working) link on their "Contact Us" page.

Today -- less than three weeks after putting in the claim -- I was very pleasantly surprised to receive an email stating that the flight was delayed "because of operational reasons" and that I was entitled to compensation! They asked for my bank account details and subsequently let me know that they have approved a transfer of AUD444 (=EUR250).

The moral of the story (to me, anyway): Unlike many (most?) other airlines, Air France does not play silly buggers with EC261 claims.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I would have thought that thunderstorms affecting the incoming crew would qualify as "extraordinary circumstances", but even though I had very little hope of receiving EC261 compensation, I put in the claim anyway.

No, ‘extraordinary’ really has to be ‘extraordinary’.

Severe thunderstorms are a common occurrence and airlines should plan for them accordingly. They could have a spare crew on standby at CDG for this type of situation.

The exception for weather is in circumstances where it is truly ‘extraordinary’… if there was snow covering the airport in Singapore that would be considered ‘extraordinary’.

I had a similar experience with BA… and they were proactive in helping me get compensation… even emailing me twice after the flight asking why I hadn’t submitted a claim!

 

[torks]

Ive had snow at heathrow delay my flight overnight. Applied for EU261 and was denied as it was weather outside their control. They were however prompt in paying for another night at the hotel and meals.

I think in your case a delayed incoming flight is not considered extraordinary circumstances even if it was weather related. Maybe...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Ive had snow at heathrow delay my flight overnight. Applied for EU261 and was denied as it was weather outside their control. They were however prompt in paying for another night at the hotel and meals.

I think in your case a delayed incoming flight is not considered extraordinary circumstances even if it was weather related. Maybe...

Probably a good example! Snow at Heathrow would be extraordinary. Snow at Helsinki… not so much

 

[Scarlett]

Failure

My example (and there is a thread specifically on IB) was with IB and it is the opposite to your AF experience.

- IB Regional operated by Air Nostrum (think QFLink operated by Sunstate)
- LIS-MAD-CAI
- Inbound aircraft late arriving at LIS.
- A long time on the ground during the turn.
- No reasons given.
- Missed connection at MAD.
- Given overnight accom and meals at MAD area hotel.
- Rebooked by IB for following morning MAD-FCO-CAI.
- Missed onward flights (separate ticket) from CAI.
- IB provided no info about EU261.
- IB make it difficult to find how to claim on their website.
- IB ignored multiple requests for EU261 compensation and sent generic “we’re sorry” or just didn’t respond.
- After a number of months I engaged ‘FlightRight’ to act on my behalf to get compensation. After multiple emails and them seeking compensation from IB, they too gave up after a further number of months.
- Their final message was that there were other flights delayed from LIS around the same time, so something must have been happening. (no further info)

 

[Human]

Failure

My example (and there is a thread specifically on IB) was with IB and it is the opposite to your AF experience.

- IB Regional operated by Air Nostrum (think QFLink operated by Sunstate)
- LIS-MAD-CAI
- Inbound aircraft late arriving at LIS.
- A long time on the ground during the turn.
- No reasons given.
- Missed connection at MAD.
- Given overnight accom and meals at MAD area hotel.
- Rebooked by IB for following morning MAD-FCO-CAI.
- Missed onward flights (separate ticket) from CAI.
- IB provided no info about EU261.
- IB make it difficult to find how to claim on their website.
- IB ignored multiple requests for EU261 compensation and sent generic “we’re sorry” or just didn’t respond.
- After a number of months I engaged ‘FlightRight’ to act on my behalf to get compensation. After multiple emails and them seeking compensation from IB, they too gave up after a further number of months.
- Their final message was that there were other flights delayed from LIS around the same time, so something must have been happening. (no further info)

One really does wonder how Iberia have managed to get away with ignoring EC261 for so long, and how it will end. Will there be a class action that’ll end up costing them hundreds of millions, or will they keep getting away with it in perpetuity?

 

[dajop]

Submitted a claim for Vueling, as flight was cancelled apparently due to a missing pilot (and couldn’t find a replacement, oddly at their base BCN). Was all done using online chatbot. It was advised that claim would be processed after 10 days. Then at 10 days asked for bank account details and 2 days later had 250Euros sitting in each of our Wise accounts. Was absolutely gobsmacked at the efficiency of the process.

 

[Himeno]

This was when QF was flying to LHR via DXB.

Booked on BA LHR-DXB to connect to QF.
BA refused to check through (xONEx ticket). Planned aircraft had a tech problem and they swapped for an inbound aircraft which was late.
The delay caused a misconnect. If BA had checked through (like they should have), I would barely have made it (made it to the QF gate in the later stages of boarding, but as BA hadn't checked through...). After bouncing around trying to contact BA (cause of problem) and CX (ticket issuer), EK (who was fixing the problem) finally got through to QF and I was rebooked with a 24 hour delay.

BA claimed that mechanical issues, the core reason for the delay, are extraordinary and are not a normal and expected issue in the course of operating an airline and as such are not subject to EC261.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

This was when QF was flying to LHR via DXB.

Booked on BA LHR-DXB to connect to QF.
BA refused to check through (xONEx ticket). Planned aircraft had a tech problem and they swapped for an inbound aircraft which was late.
The delay caused a misconnect. If BA had checked through (like they should have), I would barely have made it (made it to the QF gate in the later stages of boarding, but as BA hadn't checked through...). After bouncing around trying to contact BA (cause of problem) and CX (ticket issuer), EK (who was fixing the problem) finally got through to QF and I was rebooked with a 24 hour delay.

BA claimed that mechanical issues, the core reason for the delay, are extraordinary and are not a normal and expected issue in the course of operating an airline and as such are not subject to EC261.

It might have been the specific mechanical issues were in fact, ‘extraordinary’. In an of themselves mechanical issues don’t escape EU/UK261.

Your hotel and meals should have been covered for the 24 hour delay.

 

[Human]

Your hotel and meals should have been covered for the 24 hour delay.

Yes, that’s the rule: accommodation and meals need to be covered even if the delay is due to “extraordinary circumstances”.

This happened to us in early 2022 when our KEF-CPH flight was cancelled because the flight crew had COVID. We didn’t receive compensation, but SAS reimbursed us for our hotel (though I didn’t know enough back then to ask for reimbursements for meals as well).