Europe’s Surprising Flight Delay Trend

Ryanair Boeing 737 at Tallinn Airport
A Ryanair Boeing 737 at Tallinn Airport. Photo: Matt Graham.

Over many years of flying in Europe, there’s something I’ve noticed about the way European airlines handle flight delays that’s completely different to what we expect in Australia.

Delays happen to all airlines. Of course, no airline wants to run late, and most airlines will try to minimise the inconvenience for passengers when this happens. But European airlines seem to go to much more effort than others to limit the length of any flight delays. They’re also less likely to sell unrealistic schedules in the first place.

That’s because, in Europe, airlines have an added financial incentive to run a reliable operation in the form of regulations known as “EU261”. It seems very effective.

EU261 compensation for delays

Within the European Union (and the UK), airlines must pay cash compensation to passengers if they arrive at their destination more than a certain number of hours late.

The EU261 compensation thresholds for delays within the airline’s control are:

  • €250 (~AU$412) compensation for delays of 2+ hours on flights under 1,500km
  • €400 (~AU$660) compensation for delays of 3+ hours on flights between 1,500-3,500km (or above 3,500km if within Europe)
  • €600 (~AU$990) compensation for delays of 4+ hours on long-haul flights

European airlines often keep delays just under these thresholds

Earlier this year, I was flying from Amsterdam to Lisbon with TAP Air Portugal. The inbound aircraft was late. Then there was an issue with the plane. Later, some bags needed to be offloaded. By the time we were finally ready to go, we’d lost our take-off slot, pushing the delay out even further.

As we sat on the ground in Amsterdam and the delay was getting close to three hours, I was wondering if this might be the first time I might actually be eligible for EU261 compensation.

In hundreds of flights departing in the European Union, I’ve never once actually claimed EU261 compensation… which probably says a lot about how effective the whole scheme is! Sure enough, my TAP flight did eventually arrive just under three hours late.

This was a full Airbus A320, so the airline could have been up for over AUD100,000 worth of compensation had we arrived more than three hours late. You can see why the pilots did everything they could to make up time!

In reality, some passengers might not bother to claim compensation and many had onward connections, which they may or may not have made. But you get the idea.

TAP Air Portugal Airbus A321 at Lisbon Airport
A TAP Air Portugal aircraft at Lisbon Airport. Photo: Matt Graham.

This isn’t just a one-off. Next time you’re at a European airport, take a look at the arrivals board. You’ll probably find, as I have, that flights in Europe with extended delays often arrive just under the threshold where the airline would need to pay compensation. I saw this repeatedly on a recent trip to Europe, with different airlines and at different European airports.

This happens in North America as well

A similar thing happened to me a couple of years ago in Canada, where airlines also need to pay passengers compensation for long delays within their control.

I was booked on an evening flight from Calgary to Montreal, which had a rolling delay. Air Canada kept pushing back the estimated departure time, and eventually I was wondering if they would just cancel the flight. But once the delay reached 2.5 hours, things quickly swung into motion. It felt like I was flying to Sydney and our flight was at risk of missing curfew!

Suddenly, Air Canada found a flight crew and was in a hurry to board the flight as fast as possible. We ended up arriving in Montreal 2 hours and 49 minutes late – albeit, in the middle of the night.

Air Canada A321 in Star Alliance livery at Calgary Airport
Once the delay neared three hours, Air Canada had a plane and crew ready to take us to Montreal. Photo: Matt Graham.

I don’t think the length of the delay was a coincidence. Air Canada would have had to pay up if we’d arrived more than three hours late.

As of this week, the United States government also now requires airlines flying to, from or within the USA refund passengers who opt not to fly if the airline cancels or significantly changes their flight. The threshold for a delay to be significant is three hours on domestic flights, or six hours for international flights. So, we might soon see a similar trend in the USA.

It’s a shame Australia won’t get these laws

This is just one of many reasons why frequent flyers, CHOICE and even the ACCC believe Australia should consider a similar compensation scheme for airline passengers.

The Australian government had a great opportunity to get the ball rolling on this with the release of the Aviation White Paper in August. Sadly, the idea was a notable omission from the White Paper – despite many consumer groups including AFF advocating for it during the consultation process.

When asked, the Transport Minister and her department wouldn’t even say whether they discussed or considered a compensation scheme – let alone justify why the government doesn’t want it to happen.

The Qantas Chairman’s Lounge has been in the news this week, given the revelations about the Prime Minister in Joe Aston’s new book. I sincerely hope the fact that the Transport Minister, her spouse, and the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and First Assistant Secretary from her department have all been gifted Chairman’s Lounge membership did not have any impact on the government ignoring this proposal – which, you guessed it, Qantas strongly lobbied against.

The editor of Australian Frequent Flyer, Matt's passion for travel has taken him to over 90 countries… with the help of frequent flyer points, of course!
Matt's favourite destinations (so far) are Germany, Brazil & Kazakhstan. His interests include economics, aviation & foreign languages, and he has a soft spot for good food and red wine.

You can connect with Matt by posting on the Australian Frequent Flyer community forum and tagging @AFF Editor.
________________________

Related Articles

Community Comments

Loading new replies...

Yes, we had two instances of this in Europe this month. One plane arrived 1hr 56mins late and the other 1hr 57mins late. Compensation kicks in at the 2hr mark. Both were on BA.

Reply Like

The compensation for even only an A320-load of people would almost definitely push that flight's profit:loss way into the red, wouldn't it?

So while there's zero penalty before 2hrs and a huge penalty at/after 2hrs ... if you have the organisational ability to make 6 flights 1hr 55m late in order to avoid one flight being 2hr 5m late, you probably would. The cost of the staff effort required to do that would be way less than the cost of the compensation?
Although it's a negative effect in terms of sales/marketing & return customers for all 6 flights as opposed to just the one - dunno how you'd go near measuring that.

Reply Like

click to expand...

So while there's zero penalty before 2hrs and a huge penalty at/after 2hrs ... if you have the organisational ability to make 6 flights 1hr 55m late in order to avoid one flight being 2hr 5m late, you probably would.

Yep. Think this definitely happens at the major hubs. Even cross-group.

I've been on a Germanwings (now Eurowings) flight from Berlin where after a 90min delay at gate, a Lufthansa aircraft showed up to operate the flight.

Reply Like

Out of interest, does anyone know how they define the arrival time? Is it based on when PAX disembark, or is it when the plane lands, literally rubber hits the runway?

At certain times at some airports it can be a 30 minute difference.

Reply Like

Out of interest, does anyone know how they define the arrival time? Is it based on when PAX disembark, or is it when the plane lands, literally rubber hits the runway?
At certain times at some airports it can be a 30 minute difference.

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

Reply 1 Like

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.

Reply Like

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?

Reply Like

click to expand...

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.

Reply Like

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

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

Reply Like

Having travelled in Europe and Canada I tend to agree with Matt's points regarding delays: out of these ports delays do seem to be minimized as there is robust consumer protections to hold airlines accountable. Yes it is somewhat suspicious how sometimes the delay is just under the 2 hour window for compensation under EU261 or 3 hours in the case of APPR, but I'll take that any day over having to spend the better part of a day at the airport. The one point that should be mentioned is that whilst Canada does have consumer protection in the form of APPR it is not as robust as that of Europe. For instance, airlines can avoid paying out passenger entitlement due to delays if they can show it was due to unscheduled maintenance. And sometimes even carriers will flaunt the rules hoping passengers won't fight them in court or at the regulator. For instance, Air Canada cancelled my flight due to a crew shortage back in June 2022 resulting in me arriving 16 hours late. They denied my claim for $1000 CAD in delay entitlement under APPR because they claimed it was in their control but required for safety. I am presently fighting them with the regulators and the evidence they have to "support" their case is laughable. They cut back the number of reserve pilots by about a third and have provided other evidence that makes it quite clear that they made a business decision not to properly staff their flights. I have pointed that out in my reply to the airline with the regulator and await the final adjudication on this matter. But so far we're looking at over 2 years now between when the disruption occurred and (hopefully) when I receive my $1,000 entitlement from Air Canada. And in case anyone is wondering, no it isn't compensation for a delay, it is an entitlement. It is a consumer protection against getting delayed. I do not need to show what harm, if any the airline caused by making me delayed. Indeed, I have received the 600 Euro EU261 entitlement from Qantas when my Singapore to Sydney flight was delayed by 14 hours even though it meant I actually ended up ahead due to me not having two back to back red eyes from Europe. Indeed, there would be nothing in theory that would prevent me from pursuing either Air Canada or Qantas for damages caused by the delay (i.e. lost wages) as that's a totally separate matter, if I wanted to.

Last point here, some folks will say, all these consumer protections will only make airfares go up. My rebuttal for that is, show me the proof. Show me examples where consumer protections like these have raised fares in any way. Just look at Europe: RyanAir and EasyJet are still selling fares across Europe for next to nothing despite them being subjected to the same EU261 requirements as a large airline like British Airways or Qantas. If anything, consumer protections like these keep air fares low. After all, if airlines have to provide meals, accommodation, and monetary entitlements due to delays, do you think they'll be delaying a lot of flights? And if they don't delay flights their operation will run more smoothly which will make scheduling and other aspects of their operation more efficient. And efficiency does mean they will save money. One just look at RyanAir and EasyJet. The reason they can be so profitable despite them selling dirt cheap fares is they keep their planes moving. Rarely do you see a RyanAir bird parked up at an airport for more than an hour. Keep the bird moving and keep the revenue wheel turning!

-RooFlyer88

Reply 1 Like

click to expand...