Flight Compensation Regulation
The Flight Compensation Regulation (EC No 261/2004) is a regulation in EU law establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellations, or long delays of flights. It requires compensation of €250 to €600 depending on the flight distance for delays over of at least three hours, cancellations, or being denied boarding from overbooking. Delays shorter than three hours means no entitlement to any compensation of any kind even if the delay was classified as non-extraordinary. Airlines must provide refreshments and accommodation where appropriate. The Court  of Justice of the European Union has interpreted passenger rights strictly, so that there are virtually no exceptions for airlines to evade their obligations for breach of contract. It repealed Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and went into effect on 17 February 2005. Applicability. The regulation applies to any passenger: if that person: or unless It does not apply to helicopter flights, to any flight not operated by a fixed-wing aircraft, nor to flights from Gibraltar Airport. While Switzerland and Norway are not members of the EU, the regulation does apply to flights to and from these countries as if  they were member states under bilateral agreements. Denied boarding. Before denying passengers boarding involuntarily, the airline is required to first seek volunteers to give up their reservation in return for whatever benefit is negotiated between the airline and the volunteers. Irrespective of such negotiation, such volunteers are also entitled to reimbursement or rerouting. If insufficient volunteers are obtained, the airline may then proceed to involuntarily deny passengers the right to board their flight. All passengers so denied must be offered all three types of compensation and assistance. Cancellation. If a flight is cancelled, passengers are automatically entitled to their choice  of Any ticket refund is the price paid for the flight(s) not used, plus the cost of flights already flown in cases where the cancellation has made those flights of no purpose. Where applicable, passengers are also entitled to refreshments, communication and accommodation as described below. Where re-routing is to another airport serving the same destination, the airline must pay for onward transport to the original airport or to a close by destination agreed with the passenger. These choices, and the entitlement to refreshments, etc., apply to all cancellations, regardless of whether the circumstances are extraordinary or not. It  is unclear whether "the earliest opportunity" requires airlines to endorse a ticket onto another carrier. The airline is also required to pay cash compensation as described below, unless one of the following conditions applies: The airline must also provide an explanation to passengers of alternative transport. Flight types. The requirements for an entitlement to compensation and the specific amount owed depend on the length of a flight, whereas the relevant distance is determined according to the great circle method. The Flight Compensation Regulation differentiates between three types of flights: "Note: In the rest of this article, types 1, 2 and  3 are used to refer to the above thresholds." Delays. Passengers are entitled to refreshments and communication if the expected delay of the arrival exceeds: Furthermore, if the flight is expected to depart on the day after the original scheduled departure time, passengers are entitled to accommodation. If a flight is delayed by five hours, passengers are additionally entitled to abandon their journey and receive a refund for all unused tickets. They may also ask for a refund on tickets used already if the flight no longer serves any purpose in relation to their original travel plan, and, if relevant , a flight back to their original point of departure at the earliest opportunity. Finally, various court decisions (see below) have established that a passenger experiencing a loss of time equivalent to three hours or more at the final destination is entitled to compensation as though their flight had been cancelled. Flight delay is based on the scheduled arrival time. This is defined as when the doors are opened on the plane and not when it lands (as some airlines may claim). In case of an arrival delay of more than 3 hours, passengers are entitled to cash compensation, unless the  delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances. In October 2017, an EU Court of Appeal confirmed the UK CAA's interpretation that the final destination must be included in the total delay. This means that, if the passenger misses a connection outside the EU and ends up with a delay longer than the times indicated above, even if the delay on the flight leaving the EU was inferior to the aforementioned times, the total delay will be used and not only the delay on leaving the EU. Compensation and assistance. There are three broad categories where airlines may be required to  make payments or otherwise assist passengers, in cases of delays, flight changes/cancellations or denied boarding. Cash compensation. If the requirements for a compensation are met, Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 obligates the operating carrier to offer each passenger a lump-sum payment of: Where a passenger has been rerouted due to cancellation or denied boarding, the above amounts are payable if the passenger's actual arrival time is delayed beyond the scheduled arrival of their originally booked flights, by two/three/four hours for type 1/2/3 flights respectively. But if rerouting only delays the passenger by less  than these thresholds, half of the specified amounts are payable as compensation. Said cash payments merely serve to compensate a traveller's inconvenience and do not replace or form a part of any potential reimbursements for unused tickets, trips in vain, additional transport costs, meals and accommodation. Airlines are not obliged to provide cash compensation in the case of extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if the airline took all reasonable precautions, according to Article 5, Paragraph 3. Rerouting or refunding. Rerouting or refunding is, at the passenger's choice, one of the following three reimbursements: If  a passenger's destination is an airport at a city with multiple airports and rerouting results in the passenger being taken to another of those airports, the airline must also pay for transport for the passenger to the original intended airport or an agreed nearby destination. Refreshments, communication and accommodation. When passengers become entitled to assistance, they must be offered, free of charge, In the case of a delay, the airline may withdraw or abrogate these entitlements if offering them would delay the flight further. Upgrades and downgrades. If a passenger is placed in a higher class than that for  which a ticket was purchased, the airline may not request any additional payment. If a passenger is placed in a lower class than that for which a ticket was purchased, the airline must refund 30/50/75% of the cost of the ticket for type 1/2/3 flights. For the purpose of this condition, flights to the French overseas departments are not considered to be within the European Union. It is unclear whether the refund relates to the price of the entire ticket, or the segment on which the passenger was downgraded. Method of refund. Refunds and compensations payable under this regulation may  be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank draft, or cheque. With the signed agreement of a passenger, they may also be paid in travel vouchers or other services. Obligation to notify passengers. Airlines are obliged to display a notice at their check-in counters stating: Additionally, when an airline cancels a flight, denies a person boarding, or incurs a delay exceeding two hours to a flight, it is obliged to provide each passenger affected with a written notice setting out their rights under the regulation, and the contact details of the national body tasked with enforcing the regulation . Relevant court cases. In the case "Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia—Linee Aeree Italiane SpA" (Case C-549/07) of 22 December 2008, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled on the interpretation of Article 5 of the regulation relating to cancellations, specifically paragraph 3 which states: The Court agreed with Wallentin-Hermann that any technical issues during aircraft maintenance don't constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that would allow airlines to avoid paying passengers compensation for canceled flights. This case therefore closed the loophole which had allowed the airlines to abuse passengers by frivolous interpretation of "technical or extraordinary circumstances"; it further defined  the phrase and limited its exploitation. The definition of "technical and/or extraordinary circumstances" by the Court now stands firm and solid: any carrier must prove that the alleged mechanical problem leading to the cancellation was "beyond its actual control", the court affirmed in a statement. In its judgment, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice held: However, what actually lies within the concept of defining what is inside or outside of the "actual control of the air carrier" is not clear and is subject to litigation in many EU-states. Furthermore, in the joined cases of "Sturgeon v Condor , and Bock v Air France (C-402/07 and C-432/07), the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Justice held on 19 November 2009 that despite no express provision in the Regulation to compensate passengers for delay, passengers are now entitled to the compensation as set out in Article 7 for any delay in excess of three hours providing the air carrier cannot raise a defence of extraordinary circumstances". "Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation EC 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right  to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier." The fourth Chamber also ruled that under the definition of "extraordinary circumstances", technical faults within an aircraft should not be included and therefore an air carrier cannot rely on a  technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under the Regulation, "unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control". Various passenger rights groups reported the case and encouraged passengers to bring claims against airlines in the event of a delay of over three hours. The Sturgeon ruling was reconfirmed in a ruling of the European Court of Justice on 23 October 2012 in "Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG" and "R (TUI  Travel, British Airways, easyjet and IATA) v Civil Aviation Authority". In the case of "Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd" (C-12/11), the Third Chamber of the European Court of Justice ruled that natural disasters such as the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull and the subsequent cloud of volcanic ash in 2010, which shut down most European air traffic, do constitute "extraordinary circumstances" that release air carriers from the obligation to pay compensation, but that there is no such category as "super-extraordinary circumstances" that would release them from the obligation to provide care. According to the court's ruling, air  carriers continued to have an obligation of care towards passengers under Art. 5 and 8 of the regulation during the week-long shutdown of European airspace, and this obligation does not have a temporal or monetary limit. In the case of "Jet2 vs. Huzar", the English Court of Appeal ruled on 11 June 2014 that "ordinary technical problems that cause flight disruption, such as component failure and general wear and tear, should not be considered “extraordinary circumstances”". Therefore, general technical faults found during routine maintenance checks before departure will generally not be considered "extraordinary circumstances". On 4 September 2014, in  the case of "Germanwings GmbH v. Ronny Henning" (C-452/13), the Ninth Chamber of the European Court of Justice ruled that Germanwings initially refused to pay the passenger compensation, arguing the delay was 2 hours and 58 minutes when the plane touched the ground. In September 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union judged, regarding Case C-257/14: affecting the safety of flights or acts of sabotage or terrorism may exempt air carriers from their obligation to pay compensation. Intermediaries. The general difficulties claiming from airlines directly has led to the rise of online intermediaries that operate on a "no -win, no fee" basis contingency fee. All help filing claims against airlines, including going to court if necessary. In response, airlines have repeatedly criticised such intermediaries for forcing more costs on the airline industry, which then passes extra costs on to passengers in the form of increased ticket prices. For example, in response to the added pressure caused by the increase in EU 261 claims in recent years, in 2011 Ryanair put in place a €2.00 surcharge per ticket to compensate for its additional costs. In 2013 it then increased this levy to €2.50. Brexit and British consumers . In preparing for Brexit, the UK Government announced it would convert directly-applicable EU laws into UK law in its Great Repeal Bill White Paper as early as 2018. Consequently, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which took effect on 30 December 2020, retained European statutes such as Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that applied in the UK prior to its exit. As a result, the Flight Compensation Regulation was ported over to the UK's domestic law before the end of the transition period. Thus, while Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 itself no longer applies to flights departing in the UK  as of 1 January 2021, its new equivalent in British law ("UK261") subjects British carriers and other airlines not headquartered in Europe to similar provisions on those routes. However, the Repeal Bill does state that the regulation will continue to apply ‘until legislators in the UK decide otherwise’. Effectively, this allows the British parliament to amend the regulation or to drop it from UK law entirely at a later date — though flights to the EU on EU airlines will still be covered by the original regulation regardless. Likewise, while the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 has converted the ECJ's  jurisdiction up until the end of 2020 into British case law, British courts may deviate from these previous rulings under the same principles that guide their treatment of earlier decisions by domestic judges. Future developments. In 2013 the European Commission proposed a number of revisions to the regulation, which have not yet been adopted as of 2021: