Originally Posted by
Often1
This is not a particularly uncommon scenario for EC 261/2004 and has little to do with TK. The scenario here, where the delay giving rise to EC 261/2004 delay compensation is on the non-EU segment, e.g. IST-BOM, remains contentious and it there is no particular downside to the carrier in denying compensation until ordered to pay.
Some studies suggest that less than 2% of possible EC 261/2004 claims are actually made. Who knows what % are actually pursued to a judgment.
Had TK done a bank transfer to OP for EUR 600 a few days after the claim was made, that only encourages claims. Here, OP had to know enough to make a claim and to know that he could claim even though the ultimate delay ocurred for a non-EU segment. He also had to pursue a claim and presumably forego a goodly percentage of his EUR 600.
TK, on the other hand, is out the same EUR 600 it would have been out however many months earlier and none the worse for wear. At each stage, some number of people drop by the wayside and TK pockets that EUR 600.
If you were TK's CFO, which strategy would you pursue? How is it any different on other carriers?
Not exactly true. In this case, TK had to pay additional legal costs.
My experience is that many airlines will now pay EU 261/2004 claims when it is clear that liability exists. Of course, they will pay only when asked. TK stands out for its blatant stonewalling of claims and aggressive denial of liability. So much so, that I previously had a claims company tell me that they would handle any claim apart from one with TK. Maintaining a wild west strategy to paying out claims is not good corporate strategy.