Old Jan 19, 17, 10:33 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: ffay005
Please note the FlyerTalk Terms of Use: 'We are not lawyers or a law firm and we do not provide legal, business or tax advice. The accuracy, completeness, adequacy or currency of the content is not warranted or guaranteed. Our sites and services are not substitutes for the advices or services of an attorney. We recommend you consult a lawyer or other appropriate professional if you want legal, business or tax advice.'

When seeking claims from AY, use this form: https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/infor...vices/feedbackAY will not accept claims by email, phone or in person.

Past decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) relating to Regulation 261/2004 (by judgment date in chronological order):
  • Sturgeon v Condor (Case C-402/07): Passengers who reach their final destination at least 3 hours late because their flight was delayed are entitled to the amount of compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation.
  • Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (Case C-549/07): Extraordinary circumstances (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems (unless the 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). See also van der Lans v KLM below.
  • Rehder v Air Baltic (Case C-204/08): Passengers can file a legal claim either in the jurisdiction of the place of departure or the jurisdiction of the place of arrival
  • Rodrguez v Air France (Case C-83/10): The term cancellation in the Regulation includes the situation where the aircraft took off but had to return to the departure airport and passengers were transferred to other flights.
  • Eglītis v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Case C-294/10): At the stage of organising the flight, the airline is required to provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end.
  • Nelson v Lufthansa (Case C-581/10): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Sturgeon v Condor).
  • Folkerts v Air France (Case C-11/11): Passengers on directly connecting flights who arrive at their final destination at least 3 hours late are entitled to compensation.
  • McDonagh v Ryanair (Case C-12/11): Even where a flight delay/cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances, the airline continues to be under a duty to provide care (in the form of accommodation, meals, transfers between the airport/hotel, telephone calls)
  • Finnair v Lassooy (Case C22/11): The term denied boarding in the Regulation covers cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking, as well as other reasons.
  • Mor v KLM (Case C-139/11): The time limit for filing a legal claim is based on the rules governing limitation periods in the Member State where the claim is filed.
  • Rodrguez Cachafeiro v Iberia (Case C 321/11): The term denied boarding in the Regulation includes a situation where, in the context of a single contract of carriage (PNR) on immediately connecting flights and a single check-in, an airline denies boarding to some passengers because the first flight had been delayed and it mistakenly expected those passengers not to arrive in time to board the second flight.
  • Germanwings v Henning (Case C 452/13): The concept of arrival time, which is used to determine the length of the flight delay, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft was opened, as long as, at that moment, passengers were actually permitted to leave the aircraft.
  • van der Lans v KLM (Case C-257/14): Extraordinary circumstances (which release airlines from their obligation to compensate passengers) do not include aircraft technical problems which occur unexpectedly, which are not attributable to poor maintenance and which are also not detected during routine maintenance checks.
  • Mennens v Emirates (Case C 255/15): Where passengers are downgraded on a particular flight, the price of the ticket refers to the price of that particular flight, but if this information is not indicated on the ticket, the price of that particular flight out of the total fare is calculated by working out the distance of that flight divided by the total distance of the flight itinerary on the ticket. Taxes and charges are not included in the reimbursement of the ticket price/fare, unless the tax/charge is dependent on the class of travel.
  • Pekov v Travel Service (Case C‑315/15): A bird strike constitutes 'extraordinary circumstances'. However, even if a flight delay/cancellation is caused by an event constituting 'extraordinary circumstances', an airline is only released from its duty to pay compensation if it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay/cancellation. To determine this, the court will consider what measures could actually be taken by the airline, directly or indirectly, without requiring it to make intolerable sacrifices. Further, even if all of these conditions are met, it is necessary to distinguish between the length of the delay caused by extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided by all reasonable measures) and the length of the delay caused by other circumstances. For the purpose of calculating the length of the qualifying delay for compensation, the delay falling into the former category would be deducted from the total delay.
  • Krijgsman v SLM (C‑302/16): Where a passenger has booked a flight through a travel agent, and that flight has been cancelled, but notification of the cancellation was not communicated to the passenger by the travel agent or airline at least 14 days prior to departure, the passenger is entitled to compensation.
  • Bossen v Brussels Airlines (C‑559/16): On a flight itinerary involving connecting flights, the distance is calculated by using great circle method from the origin to the final destination, regardless of the distance actually flown.
  • Krsemann v TUIfly (C‑195/17): The spontaneous absence of a significant number of flight crew staff (wildcat strikes) does not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances'.
  • Wegener v Royal Air Maroc (C‑537/17): The Court reaffirmed its previous decision (Folkerts v Air France).
  • Wirth v Thomson Airways (C‑532/17): Where there is a 'wet lease' (with the lessor carrier providing an aircraft, including crew, to the lessee airline, but without the lessor bearing operational responsibility for the flight in question), the lessor carrier is not responsible under the Regulation.
  • Harms v Vueling (C‑601/17): For the purpose of calculating the ticket price, the difference between the amount paid by the passenger and the amount received by the air carrier (corresponding to the commission collected by a person acting as an intermediary between those two parties) is included in the ticket price, unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier.
  • CS v Česk aerolinie (C‑502/18): For a journey with 2 connecting flights (in a single reservation) departing from an EU member state and to a final destination outside the EU via an airport outside the EU, a passenger who is delayed by 3 hours or more in reaching the final destination because of a delay in the second flight which is operated as a codeshare flight by a non-EU carrier may bring an action for compensation against the EU air carrier that performed the first flight.

European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (note that this policy document is persuasive, but only the CJEU's interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 is authoritative and binding): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...XC0615%2801%29. National courts do not have to follow the European Commission's Interpretative Guidelines (but are obliged to follow the CJEU's case-law). For example, although the European Commission takes the view that 'missed connecting flights due to significant delays at security checks or passengers failing to respect the boarding time of their flight at their airport of transfer do not give entitlement to compensation' (para 4.4.7 of the Interpretative Guidelines), the Edinburgh Sheriff Court took a different view in Caldwell v easyJet. Sheriff T Welsh QC held that 'the facts proved can properly be characterised as denied boarding because of the operational inadequacies of Easyjet ground staffs management of the Easyjet queues on 14 September 2014 and their failure to facilitate passage through security check, customs and passport control when asked, in circumstances, where it was obvious the passengers were in danger of missing their flight'.

When AY+ Flight Reason AY Offered AY explanation Won/Lost, How, Time

Summer13 no status (HKG-)HEL-LHR Prior to landing, LHR was closed as the fire services there were unavailable, so the flight was diverted and landed in LTN, where passengers were offloaded. However, the plane then flew from LTN to LHR with luggage in the hold, so passengers had to make their own way to LHR to retrieve their luggage (as AY provided no ground transport arrangements), eventually arriving at LHR and reclaiming baggage over 6 hours later than the scheduled arrival time. Requested 600 plus transport and phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse transport and phone call costs AY claimed that 'the delay of this flight happened in extraordinary circumstances' Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY contested the claim. The Court ruled against AY. In its judgment, the Court cited CJEU's decision in Eglitis and Wallentin-Hermann and rejected AY's defence as the flight diversion only caused a small initial delay. AY failed to discharge its burden of proof that it took all reasonable measures, as evidenced by proper contingency plans and steps to assist passengers at LTN. The delay in arrival at LHR was significantly lengthened by this factor. AY eventually paid the damages and costs awarded by the Court.

Summer13 no status (LHR-)HEL-HKG Technical fault Requested 600 plus phone call costs incurred, but AY only agreed to reimburse phone call costs AY initially claimed that the technical fault was not foreseeable Filed claim through ESCP in the County Court in England. AY conceded the claim and eventually paid 600 + phone call costs + court costs.

Fall15 AYG HEL-LHR-US HEL-LHR late, miss connect 200 voucher, reroute 3,5 hours requested 600, re-offered 400 due to <4 hours -> accepted.

Nov15 AYS HEL-AMS Equip swap -> rerouting 3+ hours 400 cash (as per EC261) or 550 voucher offered in 2 days accepted

Jan16 AYP KUO-HEL ATR crew shortage, cancelled 50 voucher Claimed EU 261 + taxi + hotel. NO -> paid taxi+hotel -> escalated to KRIL -> NoRRA offered 250 voucher. Accepted

Jan16 AYS WAW-HEL "extraordinary crew shortage" 50 voucher raised to "kuluttajaoikeusneuvoja". They state that crew shortage can usually not be declared an extraordinary -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 150 -> declined -> AY offers 200 voucher -> Accepted. 8 months to resolve the matter!

Jan16 AA Platinum = OWS BKK-HEL delay, no equip combined 300 voucher (for 2 pers) extraordinary manufacturing fault of A350 declined offer -> escalated to KRIL -> AY offered 680 voucher / 400 cash (for 2 pers) -> declined -> KRIL decision Feb18 = AY should compensate 300 / pax

Q1/16 ?? JFK-HEL diverted back to JFK ?? technical fail, new equip escalated to KRIL -> 600 offered, accepted

Feb16 ?? (LHR-)HEL-PEK cancelled, re-routed, arrived at PEK with 20 hr delay and, because of this, missed seeing dying grandfather by a few hours ?? 'extraordinary circumstances' due to pilot sickness, AY refused compensation -> filed small claim in England and won (see Guardian article)

Feb16 ?? HEL-PEK 6h delay 150 voucher manufacture fail of A350 ??

Q1/16 AYG LHR-HEL A350 broke up 50 voucher ??

?? OWE HKG-HEL 6h delay (A350) 600*2pers ?? 2 weeks wait only for compensation

?? ?? BKK-HEL 13h delay 600 cash / 800 voucher ?? Just 2 days to get compensation, accepted 800 voucher

Q1/16 ?? BKK-HEL misconnect, 6h delay 400/550 misconnect raised the discance to apply 600 -> offered 600 cash / 800 voucher

Mar16 AYP PVG-HEL cancel, reroute, 12h delay 600/800 cancel&reroute 800 voucher accepted

?? ?? ?? cancelled, long delay 600/800 technical fault accepted

Mar16 ?? HEL-HKG 8h delay 200 voucher extraordinary fail A350 escalated to KRIL -> no info

Nov16 OWE (LHR-)HEL-TLL overnight delay nothing NoRRA pilot shortage Claim for EUR 400 filed in the England and Wales small claims track (not ESCP), AY admitted the whole of the claim a few days before the hearing (details)

???16 AYS PEK-HEL cancelled 100/200 sick pilot, no overtime declined -> escalated to KRIL. No info yet.

Feb17 OWE BKK-HEL-LHR 2h delay in BKK, misconnect in HEL 600 cash / 800 voucher ?? Submitted compensation request, AY responded around one week later, accepted 800 voucher (details)

Feb 2017 AYP KUO-HEL 06:00 cancelled ATR shortage HEL-LHR was missed, at LHR 6 h late 400 in cash or 550 AY voucher. Returning HEL-KUO 23:40 cancelled ATR shortage rerouted to JOE, bus to KUO, at KUO 2h 40min late 250 in cash or 350 AY voucher.

Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us" 400 claimed. Rejected. MCOL in UK. Disputed by AY. County Court civil case, Oxford (10/11/17) Judgement : AY was the operating carrier under EC2111/2005, compensation and costs and expenses awarded.

Apr 2017 OWE TLL-HEL-LHR AY118 delayed from TLL-HEL "crew rest" then later, "Try Norra, not us", then "Delayed due to weather" 400 claimed. Rejected. 2 seperate agencies tried but gave up on the case. European Small Claims Procedure started at Den Haag sub-district court, AY didn't defend. Judgement (11/6/2019): compensation, costs and interest awarded.

Dec 2017 AY Gold AY HEL-KOK operated by Norra canceled due to crew shortage, delay due to reroute >3 hours EUR 250 claimed. Accepted by AY and an alternative of a EUR 350 voucher offered.

May 28 2017 AYP, AY 380 KUO-HEL was cancelled due to lack of planes (admitted by Finnair - Flightradar 24 gold is an invaluable tool for this sherlockholmesing: one KUO flight was cancelled in the previous evening as OH-LKM had broken in HAM and it should have taken care of the next morning KUO-HEL flight 7:30, OH-LKP arrived late from GVA 23:40 and took off to KUO well after midnight being there 01:33, OH-LKP should have flown KUO-HEL flight 6:15 but crew rest prevented this, OH-LKP flew KUO-HEL 7:30 flight instead). Missed LHR connection. Arrived at LHR 5 h 54 min later than planned. EUR 400 or voucher of EUR 600 was offered without any resent.

Dec 2018. HEL-LPA delayed 4 hours because routine maintenance took longer than expected. Pax AY Plat. Compensation paid within 24 hours (offered 400 cash or 550 voucher).

Some more cases from earlier history can be read HERE (unfortunately only in Finnish)

List of National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) in EU/EEA Member States and Switzerland published by the European Commission (updated: April 2018): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...ent_bodies.pdf

European Commission's guidelines with criteria for determining which NEB is competent for handling complaints (updated: April 2017): https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites...procedures.pdf

If you decide to engage a claim agency/lawyer to pursue your claim, please first read the Information Notice published by the European Commission (updated: March 2017): http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...gencies_en.pdf

To file a court claim, the CJEU stated in Rehder (see above) the criteria for determining which Member State's court has jurisdiction. If you booked a package combining flight(s) and accommodation, Advocate General Sharpston stated in her Opinion in Flight Refund v Lufthansa (Case C‑94/14) at paras 9 and 59-60 that a consumer claiming compensation under Regulation 261/2004 can file a court claim in the jurisdiction where he/she habitually resides, as an alternative to filing a court claim in the jurisdiction of the airport of departure or arrival.

You can file a claim at a court with jurisdiction to rule on your case either through the national procedure or through the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP). The ESCP is a primarily written procedure and is available where the claimant and defendant are domiciled in different EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) for claims up to EUR 2,000 (increasing to EUR 5,000 with effect from 14 July 2017).
Print Wikipost

Finnair and EC 261 compensation

Old Jan 9, 17, 7:02 am
  #166  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Programs: BA GGL; Lifetime Gold
Posts: 251
Originally Posted by ffay005
I don't read this as a strike. They had too few pilots and apparently were not able to attract anyone to come to work on a day off.
I was on the same return flight as Victairinternational and have just received the same rejection email from Finnair.

My understanding is that NoRRA relies on its pilots working overtime in order to meet its flight schedule commitments. The pilots "worked to rule" and, whilst they were not on strike, they refused to work overtime which led to the delay in the return flight from Tallinn.

Given the negotiations with the unions took place over a period of time, would the "no overtime" stance of the pilots be regarded as an exceptional circumstance or is it a foreseeable conclusion, given NoRRA relies on the goodwill of its pilots to work overtime to run its schedules?

Any insight/thoughts would be gratefully received.
gorps1 is offline  
Old Jan 9, 17, 7:30 am
  #167  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,268
Originally Posted by ffay005
I don't read this as a strike. They had too few pilots and apparently were not able to attract anyone to come to work on a day off.
Perhaps. But, I read the specific language as that being due to the labor situation. It really is hard to tell it seems to me that AY wrote this so that it is covered in some way. Nothing to be done but test it to force a straightforward answer.

While the initial agreement in negotiations was reached on the 31st of October 2016, the collective agreement was signed on the 30th of November 2016. The employees' negotiators were confined with the negotiations between these dates to finalize the agreement. The flights were delayed, because the standby pilots were used due to the negotiation process.
Often1 is offline  
Old Jan 9, 17, 8:21 am
  #168  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum Lumo, TK Elite, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 7,934
I see it as follows: All pilots can be divided into four groups:
1. assigned to certain flights
2. stand by, ie they are at home but receive compensation for showing up at work if requested
3. free time
4. resting and thus unable to fly

In this case, groups 1 and 2 were not enough to man the flights. It seems that this is quite normal for the airline (which means poor planning from the airline's side) and the airline relies on group 3 to come and work overtime. If pilots from group 3 are not interested in working overtime, then the airline will cancel flights.

We do not know why pilots don't want to do overtime. It might be that their union asks them not to, or it might just be they don't feel like it. Of course the airline wants and tries to blame it on union action, but since union action doesn't affect groups 1 and 2, I don't see this as relevant. Groups 1 and 2 = strike, group 3 not so.

This way or that, I would not call it an exceptional circumstance if the airline employs too few pilots in the first place.
ffay005 is offline  
Old Jan 9, 17, 8:28 am
  #169  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,224
My definition of exceptional circumstances could be something like this:

It can be planned, it can be influenced, it can be avoided -> therefore not exceptional. Resourcing pilots etc is clearly an example here.

And then:
It MAY be avoided, but it can barely be influenced, or clearly not planned -> exceptional. Example here can be a sudden issue in weather out of control or whatever...
FFlash is online now  
Old Jan 9, 17, 9:09 am
  #170  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: TMP
Programs: AY+ Plat, SK Gold, BT VIP, Radisson Premium, Accor Gold, Nordic Choice Platinum
Posts: 744
Does the "strike" cover both SLL and FAPA? For some reason I thought it was SLL (Finnair) only?
aapee is offline  
Old Jan 11, 17, 3:02 pm
  #171  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum Lumo, TK Elite, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 7,934
The EU compensation must always be claimed from the operating carrier. Now, in normal cases this is easy: AY flight number, BA operated -> claim from BA.

But what about AY's wet/damp leases? Should one really claim from HiFly or IB for AY5/6/7/8 delays / cancellations?

When I claimed EU compensation from a WAW flight op. by Norra, I sent my claim to AY. They handled it initially, but when it finally reached the Consumer Disputes Board, AY stopped handling it and Norra took over. I suppose I could have sent my initial claim to Norra.
ffay005 is offline  
Old Jan 11, 17, 11:25 pm
  #172  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
The EU261 regulation states the following:

(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.
Does anyone know whether Finnair or IB/5K is considered the operating carrier in wet lease?
deissi is offline  
Old Jan 12, 17, 12:24 am
  #173  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: HEL
Programs: *G, used to be with TK but left due to their corruption and political ties
Posts: 4,334
Originally Posted by deissi
The EU261 regulation states the following:



Does anyone know whether Finnair or IB/5K is considered the operating carrier in wet lease?
From the same regulation:
operating air carrier means an air carrier that performs or
intends to perform a flight under a contract with a
passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural,
having a contract with that passenger;
Gnopps is offline  
Old Jan 12, 17, 2:50 am
  #174  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: AY Plus Silver
Posts: 17
hi,
recently I had one flight cancelled by Finnair. I was informed about it one day before my scheduled departure. My flight AY052 from PEk back to HEL was cancelled because obviously the previous flight AY051 to PEk cancelled first. In previous reply from Finnair I was told similar story to AY052 and I said I don't buy it. Then Finnair replied like this,
.....
Thank you for your message.

Flight AY051 was also cancelled due crew member sickness. Although Finnair has reserve pilot system, flight was cancelled due Finnish Pilot Union SLL declared work-to-rule industrial action. Because this is considered as an extraordinary circumstance, no compensation will be paid.

In this case we would like to offer you a 100 –euro cash compensation or alternatively a 200-euro gift voucher.

Please let us know if you would prefer the 100 -euro cash compensation or the 200 -euro gift voucher. If you prefer the cash compensation, we also need your full banking details:
......

Shall I bring this case further more to kuluttajariita? I don't speak Finnish much though.

Last edited by freeice; Jan 12, 17 at 2:59 am
freeice is offline  
Old Jan 12, 17, 4:38 am
  #175  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
Yes you should take it to kuluttajariitalautakunta. You can use this English standard form to file the complaint:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/...nt_form_en.pdf
deissi is offline  
Old Jan 12, 17, 11:39 pm
  #176  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: AY Plus Silver
Posts: 17
Thank you deissi!
freeice is offline  
Old Jan 13, 17, 1:14 am
  #177  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: AY Plus Silver
Posts: 17
I read a bit more stories about the compensation. On hs.fi there was the story mentioned earlier by ffay005,
http://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000005009809.html

can someone provide more information about those companies/website which can help to claim the compensation in Finland/against Finnair. I searched from google and tried some. For example http://www.euclaim.co.uk/, but in the end it shows it can't handle my case because it's out of its business territory.

BTW, I just filed my complaint to kril.

Thanks!
freeice is offline  
Old Jan 13, 17, 6:59 am
  #178  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Going around Russian airspace
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by freeice
can someone provide more information about those companies/website which can help to claim the compensation in Finland/against Finnair. I searched from google and tried some. For example http://www.euclaim.co.uk/, but in the end it shows it can't handle my case because it's out of its business territory.
At least Airhelp does do it. https://www.airhelp.com/en/
reflektia is offline  
Old Jan 13, 17, 8:21 am
  #179  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
There is no point using external help. Based on this thread, Finnair will give increase their offer to you incrementally as the case progresses in KRIL. If you frequently fly Finnair, a good settlement would be to get a EUR 600 voucher for Finnair flights. A voucher is obviously much better for them than cash settlement, so they may be willing to agree to it.
deissi is offline  
Old Jan 14, 17, 11:11 am
  #180  
HJP
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold
Posts: 416
Today AY906 INN-HEL was operated as MUC-HEL. Can someone access information regarding the real reason for this airport change, I will advise my friend to claim for EU261 comp.
HJP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread