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
Apr 23, 2019, 10:24 am
#961
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
@ffay005 I have accepted the €200 voucher from AY. My initial request from BAEC to AY was rejected by AY on the grounds that I did not fly on the segments DEL-HEL-FRA. I asked BAEC to reopen the claim and clearly state that of course i did not fly the 2 segments as i was involuntarily re-routed by AY (hours before the flight) onto *A AI DEL-CPH and LH CPH-FRA. The DEL-CPH was delayed and i missed my connection CPH-FRA. LH without asking took duty of care, booked me on mroning flight, CPH-FRA, provided Hotel, Meal and Transportation voucher.
Today I received an email from BAEC to say that my claim has now been accepted. ORC TP and Avios have already posted onto my BA Account.
Today I received an email from BAEC to say that my claim has now been accepted. ORC TP and Avios have already posted onto my BA Account.
I'm glad, and a bit surprised, that it worked out for you! I've been under the impression that ORC requires the operating carrier, the ticketed carrier and the FFP to all be the same. At least with AY this is the case (ie no ORC for an AA flight that you want to credit to AY+, for instance). But of course, different programmes have different rules. ^
Apr 23, 2019, 10:28 am
#962
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
Okay so my claim was denied already. I had a CX ticket and was supposed to fly CX HKT-HKG-BRU and then to HEL arriving at 15.10. Since the first flight was delayed, I was rerouted with MI and SQ to HKT-SIN-LHR and AY1332 to HEL, arriving around the same time at 15.15. At LHR the flight was delayed and arrived in HEL at 18.27.
AY now says that they can’t be liable to any compensation since it was CX who rerouted me onto the flight ”and therefore accepted liability”. Obviously CX has no liability here as EC261 is not enforced on non-EU airlines in this direction.
In my opinion AY’s refusal doesn’t make any sense. I held a valid ticket and booking on the AY flight that arrived in HEL over three hours late. Operating carrier should be held liable.
Any ideas on how to proceed with this?
I wonder if AY believes you're trying to get double compensation, both from CX and AY.
Apr 23, 2019, 12:46 pm
#963
Join Date: May 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat (OWE), SK EBG (*A Gold), KQ Plat (STE+), Accor Plat
Posts: 3,157
Indeed it does. Operating carrier should carry liability, even if the ticket was switched to include the flight. I’m not sure there are cases like this ruled in court earlier, but I will try my best with AY. I really doubt any agency would be willing to do much work to get the compensation.
Apr 23, 2019, 2:10 pm
#964
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
When I filed my EC261 claim with AY (ticketing airline) who re-routed me to *A they did not object to my filing the claim (they did not send me to LH or IA the operating carriers), they merely apologised for the delay and explained that Pakistan Airspace closure was extraordinary circumstances beyond their control. They did however offer me a goodwill voucher for €200 (which i have accepted) as i was OW Emerald and travelling in Business class.
The operating carrier *A took duty of care (although this could have been AI as i missed my connection), but LH (the flight that I missed) did that very well without any prompting from me to the staff. Big thumbs up to *A transit desk at CPH.
A separate claim was filed with BAEC (done on the phone with GGL line) for my ORC TP's and Avios, and after initial rejection (may have been due to lack of facts provided by BA to AY), my ORC TP and Avios were credited to my BAEC.
The operating carrier *A took duty of care (although this could have been AI as i missed my connection), but LH (the flight that I missed) did that very well without any prompting from me to the staff. Big thumbs up to *A transit desk at CPH.
A separate claim was filed with BAEC (done on the phone with GGL line) for my ORC TP's and Avios, and after initial rejection (may have been due to lack of facts provided by BA to AY), my ORC TP and Avios were credited to my BAEC.
Apr 23, 2019, 2:14 pm
#965
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
I'm glad, and a bit surprised, that it worked out for you! I've been under the impression that ORC requires the operating carrier, the ticketed carrier and the FFP to all be the same. At least with AY this is the case (ie no ORC for an AA flight that you want to credit to AY+, for instance). But of course, different programmes have different rules. ^
I do hope that OW carriers align their programs for ORC. :-)
Apr 23, 2019, 2:28 pm
#966
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattExpl.►HiltonGold►ALL Silver
Posts: 21,993
To be concise, it is the Operating airline of the delayed flight that is responsible under EU261/2004. i.e. "Metal".
Ticketing airline and marketing airline are not considerations.
If it were a QF ticket (begins 081-) for an AY codeshare (marketed by AY) on a CX operated flight, only the CX part has relevance.
Ticketing airline and marketing airline are not considerations.
If it were a QF ticket (begins 081-) for an AY codeshare (marketed by AY) on a CX operated flight, only the CX part has relevance.
Apr 23, 2019, 3:09 pm
#967
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
Deducting from BAEC's and Lkrt's cases, it starts to sound as if airlines like to interpret EC261 so that if an airline rebooks you, you're the responsibility of the original carrier even if the new carrier screws it up later on. I don't think there's anything in EC261 to support such an interpretation, though.
Say you're on HEL-JFK on AY. AY cancels and sends you HEL-LHR-JFK on BA+BA. AY now owes you €600. But if BA further screws it up and cancels their LHR-JFK, rebooking you onto AI LHR-JFK arriving more than three hours later than the BA LHR-JFK, then technically BA should owe you a second €600. However, to be compensated twice for this seems superfluous so there's a certain logic in claiming only AY needs to pay.
However, in Lkrt's case, the original route and reroute were supposed to land at roughly the same time, ie no EC261 to be paid. The reroute got screwed up and as far as I can see, the airline that screwed it up should pay.
In BAEC's case, the first reroute and subsequent delay were undoubtedly due to extraordinary circumstances. However, regardless of what's going on in Pakistan, the AI flight DEL-CPH took off with a delay, which (together with slow service at CPH transfer desk) caused pax to misconnect and arrive with a severe delay at final destination, more than three hours later than the first reroute suggested. AI is not an EU airline so EC261 does not apply and no compensation is due. However, if DEL-CPH had been on eg SK, then my logic says SK would need to pay EC261 compensation in this case (and not AY).
Very confusing.
Say you're on HEL-JFK on AY. AY cancels and sends you HEL-LHR-JFK on BA+BA. AY now owes you €600. But if BA further screws it up and cancels their LHR-JFK, rebooking you onto AI LHR-JFK arriving more than three hours later than the BA LHR-JFK, then technically BA should owe you a second €600. However, to be compensated twice for this seems superfluous so there's a certain logic in claiming only AY needs to pay.
However, in Lkrt's case, the original route and reroute were supposed to land at roughly the same time, ie no EC261 to be paid. The reroute got screwed up and as far as I can see, the airline that screwed it up should pay.
In BAEC's case, the first reroute and subsequent delay were undoubtedly due to extraordinary circumstances. However, regardless of what's going on in Pakistan, the AI flight DEL-CPH took off with a delay, which (together with slow service at CPH transfer desk) caused pax to misconnect and arrive with a severe delay at final destination, more than three hours later than the first reroute suggested. AI is not an EU airline so EC261 does not apply and no compensation is due. However, if DEL-CPH had been on eg SK, then my logic says SK would need to pay EC261 compensation in this case (and not AY).
Very confusing.
Apr 23, 2019, 3:32 pm
#968
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Platinum, TK Elite, BT VIP, AA, BA, SK, DL, NT, WB + hotels
Posts: 8,747
This is only from Wikipedia and not directly from the original text, but what it says here is pretty clear to me (bolding mine). So as long as you have a confirmed reservation and have been involuntary rerouted, EC261 applies on the rerouted flight (implying that even double compensation might be due in some cases).
The regulation applies to any passenger:
The regulation applies to any passenger:
- departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;The protection accorded to passengers departing from or to an airport located in a Member State should be extended to those leaving an airport located in a third country for one situated in a Member State, when a Community carrier operates the flight and where a community carrier is defined as any carrier licensed to operate within that community.
- departing from an EU member state, or
- travelling to an EU member state on an airline based in an EU member state
- a confirmed reservation on the flight, and
- arrived in time for check-in as indicated on the ticket or communication from the airline, or, if no time is so indicated, no less than 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight
- have been transferred from the flight for which he/she held a reservation to some other flight
Apr 23, 2019, 11:41 pm
#969
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
Deducting from BAEC's and Lkrt's cases, it starts to sound as if airlines like to interpret EC261 so that if an airline rebooks you, you're the responsibility of the original carrier even if the new carrier screws it up later on. I don't think there's anything in EC261 to support such an interpretation, though.
Say you're on HEL-JFK on AY. AY cancels and sends you HEL-LHR-JFK on BA+BA. AY now owes you €600. But if BA further screws it up and cancels their LHR-JFK, rebooking you onto AI LHR-JFK arriving more than three hours later than the BA LHR-JFK, then technically BA should owe you a second €600. However, to be compensated twice for this seems superfluous so there's a certain logic in claiming only AY needs to pay.
However, in Lkrt's case, the original route and reroute were supposed to land at roughly the same time, ie no EC261 to be paid. The reroute got screwed up and as far as I can see, the airline that screwed it up should pay.
In BAEC's case, the first reroute and subsequent delay were undoubtedly due to extraordinary circumstances. However, regardless of what's going on in Pakistan, the AI flight DEL-CPH took off with a delay, which (together with slow service at CPH transfer desk) caused pax to misconnect and arrive with a severe delay at final destination, more than three hours later than the first reroute suggested. AI is not an EU airline so EC261 does not apply and no compensation is due. However, if DEL-CPH had been on eg SK, then my logic says SK would need to pay EC261 compensation in this case (and not AY).
Very confusing.
Say you're on HEL-JFK on AY. AY cancels and sends you HEL-LHR-JFK on BA+BA. AY now owes you €600. But if BA further screws it up and cancels their LHR-JFK, rebooking you onto AI LHR-JFK arriving more than three hours later than the BA LHR-JFK, then technically BA should owe you a second €600. However, to be compensated twice for this seems superfluous so there's a certain logic in claiming only AY needs to pay.
However, in Lkrt's case, the original route and reroute were supposed to land at roughly the same time, ie no EC261 to be paid. The reroute got screwed up and as far as I can see, the airline that screwed it up should pay.
In BAEC's case, the first reroute and subsequent delay were undoubtedly due to extraordinary circumstances. However, regardless of what's going on in Pakistan, the AI flight DEL-CPH took off with a delay, which (together with slow service at CPH transfer desk) caused pax to misconnect and arrive with a severe delay at final destination, more than three hours later than the first reroute suggested. AI is not an EU airline so EC261 does not apply and no compensation is due. However, if DEL-CPH had been on eg SK, then my logic says SK would need to pay EC261 compensation in this case (and not AY).
Very confusing.
However the service at CPH transfer desk was not slow, i believe it was a computer issue with issuing me a boarding pass :-).
These things happen.
The CPH Transfer desk were very helpful and took care of things
Apr 24, 2019, 1:47 am
#970
Join Date: May 2013
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat (OWE), SK EBG (*A Gold), KQ Plat (STE+), Accor Plat
Posts: 3,157
This is only from Wikipedia and not directly from the original text, but what it says here is pretty clear to me (bolding mine). So as long as you have a confirmed reservation and have been involuntary rerouted, EC261 applies on the rerouted flight (implying that even double compensation might be due in some cases).
The regulation applies to any passenger:
The regulation applies to any passenger:
- departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;The protection accorded to passengers departing from or to an airport located in a Member State should be extended to those leaving an airport located in a third country for one situated in a Member State, when a Community carrier operates the flight and where a community carrier is defined as any carrier licensed to operate within that community.
- departing from an EU member state, or
- travelling to an EU member state on an airline based in an EU member state
- a confirmed reservation on the flight, and
- arrived in time for check-in as indicated on the ticket or communication from the airline, or, if no time is so indicated, no less than 45 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time of the flight
- have been transferred from the flight for which he/she held a reservation to some other flight
Apr 24, 2019, 1:51 am
#971
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
To be concise, it is the Operating airline of the delayed flight that is responsible under EU261/2004. i.e. "Metal".
Ticketing airline and marketing airline are not considerations.
If it were a QF ticket (begins 081-) for an AY codeshare (marketed by AY) on a CX operated flight, only the CX part has relevance.
Ticketing airline and marketing airline are not considerations.
If it were a QF ticket (begins 081-) for an AY codeshare (marketed by AY) on a CX operated flight, only the CX part has relevance.
Apr 24, 2019, 1:54 am
#972
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Somewhere in the Air
Programs: BA GGL, *A Silver, OW Emerald, HH Diamond, Karahi Express
Posts: 554
But its still not clear about being re-routed on other carriers. Let us know how you get on. Can you still calim for ORC with Finnair+ ?
Apr 24, 2019, 2:49 am
#973
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: HEL
Programs: Drawer of Cards
Posts: 423
Apr 24, 2019, 3:08 am
#974
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: C2
Programs: AY ex-Lumo, TK Elite, BT VIP, ITA Executive
Posts: 1,157
What a crappy article! Totally irrelevant to put on-time departure statistics in relation to compensations, for which arrival time is a crucial metric. How does it matter to depart 30 minutes late if you still arrive on time? Often you couldn't even arrive early due to ATC restrictions (traffic, slots, gate availability).
Apr 24, 2019, 6:09 am
#975
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: HEL
Programs: *G, used to be with TK but left due to their corruption and political ties
Posts: 4,406
While it is correct as stated above it does not matter who paid the ticket, it matters what ticket was bought. If the fare paid is not published to the public, then EU261 is not applicable at all. So if the employer bought you a ticket from say a corporate fare, then neither you nor the employer are entitled to anything as fas as EU261 goes.
I know in the regulation it says that "This Regulation shall not apply to passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public." which indeed sounds like corporate fares are excluded. Just wondering if there is anything official regarding this.