Jan 19, 2017, 10:33 am
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):
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 staff’s 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).
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
- Rodríguez 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 C–22/11): The term ‘denied boarding’ in the Regulation covers cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking, as well as other reasons.
- Moré 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.
- Rodríguez 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.
- Pešková 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.
- Krüsemann 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 České 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 staff’s 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).
Finnair and EC 261 compensation
Nov 26, 2018, 3:26 am
#736
Ambassador: Finnair Plus
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Plat, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Discoverist, Priority Club Plat Amb, Miles and Smiles Elite
Posts: 5,294
Got a reply for a recent claim that my flight was cancelled due to illness situation leading to lack of air traffic controller at KEM.
"Kemin kentän lennonjohdon rajoitusten vuoksi. Lennonjohdon sairastapauksen vuoksi kentällä ei ollut lennonjohtoa. Koska kyseessä on poikkeukselliset olosuhteet, emme ikävä kyllä maksa vakiokorvausta."
I suspect this is total BS: anyone with an idea how to check if that is true or not? Or if even true, is that really "out of their control"?
I got the flight-cancelled SMS just 3,5 hours before departure and was rerouted and obviously lost my connections.
"Kemin kentän lennonjohdon rajoitusten vuoksi. Lennonjohdon sairastapauksen vuoksi kentällä ei ollut lennonjohtoa. Koska kyseessä on poikkeukselliset olosuhteet, emme ikävä kyllä maksa vakiokorvausta."
I suspect this is total BS: anyone with an idea how to check if that is true or not? Or if even true, is that really "out of their control"?
I got the flight-cancelled SMS just 3,5 hours before departure and was rerouted and obviously lost my connections.
Nov 26, 2018, 3:38 am
#737
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
I think Finnair have a reasonably strong case if it true. I find it unlikely that they would try to essentially defraud you by contending that the flight was cancelled due to ATC illness. ATC really is something beyond AY's control (whereas technical defects and shortage of own staff is not).
Nov 26, 2018, 4:52 am
#738
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Finland
Programs: BA gold, OWE
Posts: 373
Nov 26, 2018, 6:41 am
#739
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Small fields are routinely staffed by one controller worldwide. There are worldwide emergency procedures available to land in an emergency and alert other traffic. But, this clearly was not an emergency.
Nov 30, 2018, 12:42 pm
#740
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,814
Hello,
Thank you so much for this thread.
Can you please advise my entitlement to compensation.
I was booked business class Helsinki to Chicago on Finnair connecting to SFO on American.
The AY flight departed 90 minutes late ( Captain explained they had a shortage of a/c) and arrived at ORD 90 minutes late. This was early evening .
I missed the connection - ie flight was departing by the time i got thru immigration.
The local AY agent offered business class to SFO the next day arriving some 11 hours later than originally scheduled
or
coach class on another airline getting in some 150 minutes late.
I couldn't stomach 4 hours in coach so elected to take the next am flight.
Am I still entitled to claim under regn 261 for arriving 11 hours late on booked flights out of the EU even if i rejected the coach seats on an earlier flight?
many thanks
Thank you so much for this thread.
Can you please advise my entitlement to compensation.
I was booked business class Helsinki to Chicago on Finnair connecting to SFO on American.
The AY flight departed 90 minutes late ( Captain explained they had a shortage of a/c) and arrived at ORD 90 minutes late. This was early evening .
I missed the connection - ie flight was departing by the time i got thru immigration.
The local AY agent offered business class to SFO the next day arriving some 11 hours later than originally scheduled
or
coach class on another airline getting in some 150 minutes late.
I couldn't stomach 4 hours in coach so elected to take the next am flight.
Am I still entitled to claim under regn 261 for arriving 11 hours late on booked flights out of the EU even if i rejected the coach seats on an earlier flight?
many thanks
I sent off an email to Finnair requesting compensation.
In 2 weeks , 600 Euro ended up in my nominated bank account
Dec 5, 2018, 1:34 am
#743
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY, SK, TK
Posts: 7,598
@ffay005: would you share some tips how I can also be part of the improved experience?
I am so furious against Finnair, flying overpriced tickets all the time so I should be a high-earning customer for them, but their action towards me is total ***do I say from where***
I don't remember a single EC261 claim, despite being clear-cut case, that they had compensated what I am owed. Now latest is the denial of compensation due to air traffic control blaablaa, and even worse they denied compensation of rerouting flight that I took on Norwegian (the only available on short notice), and to tip over my anger, just now got email denying the original routing credit which means one segment less for my Lumo-hunt. I cääääänt belive this....................
I thought even the original routing credit is clear as a sky, but NO even to that??????????
I am so furious against Finnair, flying overpriced tickets all the time so I should be a high-earning customer for them, but their action towards me is total ***do I say from where***
I don't remember a single EC261 claim, despite being clear-cut case, that they had compensated what I am owed. Now latest is the denial of compensation due to air traffic control blaablaa, and even worse they denied compensation of rerouting flight that I took on Norwegian (the only available on short notice), and to tip over my anger, just now got email denying the original routing credit which means one segment less for my Lumo-hunt. I cääääänt belive this....................
I thought even the original routing credit is clear as a sky, but NO even to that??????????
Dec 5, 2018, 5:35 am
#744
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
@ffay005: would you share some tips how I can also be part of the improved experience?
On what grounds did they deny ORC? Should be a simple matter!
Dec 9, 2018, 5:32 am
#745
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AY Silver
Posts: 240
A little complicated claim here, it would be great if anyone could advise if it looks like it does to me!
Originally booked Helsinki-Perth, via Singapore, on one ticket with a codeshare SIN-PER on Qantas and 7 hour transit in SIN. Some months before flight, Qantas cancelled the flight and we were rebooked automatically onto a <2 hour connection. Travelling with my wife, a 5 year old, and 2x 1 year old twins, there was no way we could get everyone set in less than an hour before re boarding for another 5 hours flying after an 11 hour flight, so Finnair rebooked onto the next days Qantas flight, and we paid for a hotel (which we were happy to do).
Once in SIN, just packing to leave the hotel, and about 2 hours before boarding, we were informed of a 15 hour delay, to a time which by Finnish clock would mean waking the infants to leave hotel, queue, get seated etc in the middle of their night, with lots of screaming likely involved. Called Qantas and they only offered that with hotel paid for, or reroute via Melbourne, adding 8+ hours to flight time, all overnight, and should go to checkin desk to arrange. Went there and was offered a transfer to Singapore airlines, leaving and arriving 5 hours after original flight, which we took and all went off fine though obviously arriving 5 hours later than planned and had to make different arrangements for pickup on arrival
So some questions:.
Firstly, how do I find out what the reason given for the delay was?
Secondly, should the claim be with Finnair rather than Qantas, as that is who it was bought through?
And thirdly, does this look like a valid claim for a 5 hour, >3500km thus 600eur each for the 3 ticketed members of the party? I make it that it was a single ticketed journey, leaving the EU, and that we were 5 hours delayed, so it should fit, and a simple email to ?Finnair? to request this compensation could be sent, but I can also see lots of areas of greyness where someone could try to wiggle out, like is it Finnair or Qantas' fault, us accepting a different airline for final leg, or us requesting a 24 hour stopover instead of the 2 hours (even though they changed it in the first place from the originally purchased times!) invalidate things, etc...
Finally, Singapore airlines were great as has been our experience before, Qantas have been atrocious (our return is also already changed by 5 hours on the PER-SIN leg from what we booked) and if it's at all possible to avoid in future we will!
Thanks!
Originally booked Helsinki-Perth, via Singapore, on one ticket with a codeshare SIN-PER on Qantas and 7 hour transit in SIN. Some months before flight, Qantas cancelled the flight and we were rebooked automatically onto a <2 hour connection. Travelling with my wife, a 5 year old, and 2x 1 year old twins, there was no way we could get everyone set in less than an hour before re boarding for another 5 hours flying after an 11 hour flight, so Finnair rebooked onto the next days Qantas flight, and we paid for a hotel (which we were happy to do).
Once in SIN, just packing to leave the hotel, and about 2 hours before boarding, we were informed of a 15 hour delay, to a time which by Finnish clock would mean waking the infants to leave hotel, queue, get seated etc in the middle of their night, with lots of screaming likely involved. Called Qantas and they only offered that with hotel paid for, or reroute via Melbourne, adding 8+ hours to flight time, all overnight, and should go to checkin desk to arrange. Went there and was offered a transfer to Singapore airlines, leaving and arriving 5 hours after original flight, which we took and all went off fine though obviously arriving 5 hours later than planned and had to make different arrangements for pickup on arrival
So some questions:.
Firstly, how do I find out what the reason given for the delay was?
Secondly, should the claim be with Finnair rather than Qantas, as that is who it was bought through?
And thirdly, does this look like a valid claim for a 5 hour, >3500km thus 600eur each for the 3 ticketed members of the party? I make it that it was a single ticketed journey, leaving the EU, and that we were 5 hours delayed, so it should fit, and a simple email to ?Finnair? to request this compensation could be sent, but I can also see lots of areas of greyness where someone could try to wiggle out, like is it Finnair or Qantas' fault, us accepting a different airline for final leg, or us requesting a 24 hour stopover instead of the 2 hours (even though they changed it in the first place from the originally purchased times!) invalidate things, etc...
Finally, Singapore airlines were great as has been our experience before, Qantas have been atrocious (our return is also already changed by 5 hours on the PER-SIN leg from what we booked) and if it's at all possible to avoid in future we will!
Thanks!
Dec 9, 2018, 6:13 am
#746
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
It is always the operating carrier who is liable for compensation. In this case it would be Qantas. Good luck in trying to get them to pay you EU compensation for a flight between Singapore and Australia...
Dec 9, 2018, 6:44 am
#747
Join Date: May 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+Plat, ALL Plat, Scandic L2
Posts: 3,620
The claim should be with Qantas, and according to Singaporean or Australian laws. EC261 is out of scope, since the delayed flight neither started nor ended in the EU/EEC. Consider taking this to the Qantas forum.
It would be iffy if the same airline operated both flights, but in this case, Finnair will (rightfully) blame Qantas, and Qantas will (rightfully also) argue that their flight is not within EC261 scope.
It would be iffy if the same airline operated both flights, but in this case, Finnair will (rightfully) blame Qantas, and Qantas will (rightfully also) argue that their flight is not within EC261 scope.
Dec 9, 2018, 8:03 am
#748
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,749
I remember someone talking about a flight to the US, where the first flight on AY from Finland to the US was slightly delayed, causing a misconnect to the domestic US flight. The delay at the final destination was decisive as regards to compensation.
However, in this case it is the connecting flight that is delayed.
However, in this case it is the connecting flight that is delayed.
Dec 9, 2018, 3:14 pm
#749
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AY Silver
Posts: 240
I'm pretty sure that the recent ECJ ruling this summer says that delays only to the onwards connecting flights, even outside EU, still count if it is on a single ticket that started in EU, see here for instance:
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8388201.html
(I meant to add this to the original email but it was too long/I forgot! If this looks correct and applicable, it might help some others too...)
Unfortunately nothing available under Australian or Singapore regulations, so lets see what happens.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a8388201.html
(I meant to add this to the original email but it was too long/I forgot! If this looks correct and applicable, it might help some others too...)
Unfortunately nothing available under Australian or Singapore regulations, so lets see what happens.
Dec 9, 2018, 3:28 pm
#750
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The claim must be made to QF. However, if the voluntary changes made to the tickets so as to have more time at SIN exceeded 24 hours, that will become a stopover rather than a connection and it is highly unlikely that the recent CJEU decision would apply as it bases its logic on the principle that the change of planes at a is simply an administrative convenience.
That is not to suggest that the passengers should forego their request for compensation. However, they should expect a prolonged battle and victory is by no means assured.
That is not to suggest that the passengers should forego their request for compensation. However, they should expect a prolonged battle and victory is by no means assured.