Londonlouis

I had a booking with Air France that misconnected in Paris that was directly due to a delay at departure caused by an issue (staffing) AF was responsible for.

Air France automatically rebooked me on the next service to my destination (BCN) & I ultimately arrived around 2 & a half hours late.

My question is whether my situation counts as "denied boarding"?

Is there EU case law explaining how passengers are counted in this instance?

AF's crew arrived late the night before my departure & required a mandatory rest period that delayed my flight the following morning. AF could feasibly have foreseen this problem & put a fresh crew onboard the final flight the night before flying in from Paris to ensure the flight the next morning was operable. They didn't &, thus, the delay that caused the missed connection was wholly foreseeable. As I was rebooked on the next flight to my destination - &, importantly, a entirely new flight number (entailing a different flight altogether & an involuntary rebooking/rerouting)- my interpretation would be that AF in effect denied me boarding for that second connecting flight.

I believe I am owed �250 regardless since delays of over 2 hours at the final destination for flights under 1500km (which mine was) are specifically alluded to as being eligible for compensation in EU261 (the sole instance where compensation is possible for a delay of under 3 hours).

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

guv1976

Based on this webpage, it sounds like you were only entitled to free food and drink, and two faxes, emails, or phone calls:

https://www.flightright.com/your-rig...0per%20person.

("The EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation")

MichaelA380

A simple search would have answered your question - the formal definition of "denied boarding" is in Regulation (EC) 261/2004 Article 2(j). The circumstances you describe have nothing to do with that.

SK AAR

You have been delayed and the rules concerning delay apply here. You have not been "denied boarding" (as you were not at the gate at CDG in time for boarding). To raise a claim based on denied boarding in your situation will be groundless and lead nowhere.

You were connecting in Paris/CDG. What was the origin of your first flight/the flight that departed late? It is the distance of your entire itinerary that matters; not the CDG-BCN segment alone. If the distance from origin to BCN is more than 1500 km there is no relevant delay in respect to EU Reg. 261/04 when you arrived BCN with only a 2� hour delay.

Look, you arrived 2� hour later than expected. Presumably not the end of the world; It happens every day and is one of the inherent risks of air travel. Maybe just let it go and move on? How much time are you prepared to spend on this as AF is likely to deny your claim for comp. under EU Reg. 261/04

Finally, you should have posted this in the dedicated AF forum for much bette and faster replies.

Londonlouis

Wow, an incredibly patronising & dismissive response from someone who seems not to have read the actual law themselves.

I've read the entirety of EU261 & missed connections are not mentioned once. Due to the shortcomings in EU261's original stipulations, subsequent case law has emerged clarifying questions like mine that were not initially fleshed out.

My question concerns how missed connections are categorised when an airline knowingly proceeds with circumstances that would delay a flight & thus forcing a missed connection - which is what AF did.

To address the varied points you've alluded to:

1) There is nothing in EU261 that stipulates how missed connections are classified. So to interpret it as a simple "delay" without acknowledging that my booking was rebooked/rerouted in a situation where AF was responsible for the delay & had the ability to prevent it by adequately staffing their morning flight with stand-by crew, is wide of the mark.

2) I have already clarified that the routing was under 1500km by EU261's standards. The origin airport was Frankfurt. EU261 specifically alludes to "delay" matching my situation of under 3 hours, but over 2 hours, while under 1500km.

3) I fly regularly within the EU, perhaps moreso than a vast majority of the members here. For a message board that was virtually purpose made for these type of questions, responding with some variation of "just let it go" to a specifically outlined situation that EU261 does not explicitly address seems supremely unhelpful. Since I have often been given the run-around by not just AF but other carriers that have attempted to deny claims while at the same time being legally liable to issue compensation, I think it is important to clarify one's rights.

4) The last point is nonsensical.. this instance is about the accepted interpretation of EU261 - ideally referring to subsequent case law - & AF's role is purely incidental. Are those who frequent AF's board more likely to be aware of the intricacies of EU261 regarding this little asked clarification? I would bet not & nothing in my searching through both FT & Google suggests that there is great awareness of passenger rights in this specific circumstance anywhere.

Appreciate you might be trying to be helpful - rather than purely derisive like seemingly another in this thread - but nothing in your response actually addresses the pertinent part of the OP (though you vaguely allude to it in your 2nd paragraph).

irishguy28

You were not in CDG in order to board the flight; therefore, you were not denied boarding.

Depending on the reason for the misconnect, you may be entitled to €250 given that you were travelling on a "short" journey (FRA-CDG-BCN) and arrived more than 2 hours past the scheduled arrival time.

Make a request for compensation on the AF website: https://wwws.airfrance.fr/en/contact...ion-disruption

To be fair to SK AAR, you said nothing until this post about where you actually commenced your journey, which is indeed crucial for determining the level of compensation payable; I, too, formed the same impression that SK AAR did that you were merely considering CDG-BCN incorrectly as a standalone segment falling within the 1500km category; not being able to identify a denied boarding event did seem to suggest you were not at all au-fait with the regulation, so it seemed not inconceivable that you were focussed only on the CDG-BCN leg.

And I, for one, am very surprised to hear that A5 crew on a flight to FRA which is not even the last flight of the day have to overnight in FRA. A5 crew operate the next flight back to base; only the last flight of the day should be staying overnight at the outstation.

If this is the story you were told - that the crew operating the penultimate CDG-FRA flight on the day before were the ones delaying your flight - and not the crew that actually operated the flight that arrived immediately prior to your flight - then something smells a bit fishy.

Your first post really sounds like you arrived from a "longhaul" destination.

Londonlouis

I appreciate the fact that it might be confusing that I am asking about "denied boarding" when I was never physically denied boarding at the airport in question.

I should have expanded the question in the OP to include whether the missed connection caused by preventable delay could fall under one of multiple articles ("cancellation", "denied boarding", etc.) which confer compensation that have SINCE been interpreted by the courts as such. There are cases that have expanded definitions due to the absence of clarity in EU261 itself - &, as oft repeated by me above - missed connections are one such event that EU261 didn't explicitly flesh out when initially published.

The reason for delay is not in dispute, however. I confirmed with the flight's purser as I left the plane what had been the exact cause of the delay. She confirmed the exact set of events I posted above. The crew had timed out late into the night, causing the delay at FRA. AF in rejecting my claim did not broach the reason for delay, instead pointing solely to the delay being under 3 hours, citing:"The European Regulation decided that a passenger could be entitled to compensation when arriving at their final destination with a delay of more than 3 hours.

In this case, the delay upon arrival in Barcelona was 2 hours 29 minutes and therefore this does not fall under the ruling."

Of course, this is nonsense, since EU261 specifically makes exceptions of under 3 hours on itineraries of my length in the event of rerouting - which, technically, mine was (same route, different time & flight number, so officially "rebooked"/"rerouted").

So, I have already made a claim to Air France on their website & they rejected it, whether due to ignorance or intentional hindrance. Hence, why I have tried to request help to clarify here.

Apologies for the confusion on the origin flight. I should have stated that.

Regarding the crew situation, I think we're having a misunderstanding. The purser stated that the last flight (CDG>FRA) on the day before arrived in late. She made no mention of penultimate.

guv1976

There are various companies which have made a business out of pursuing EC 261 claims on behalf of people who prefer not to do so themselves. I suspect that those companies would not leave money on the table by not taking what they believe to be a valid claim. Why not just see whether any of those companies believes that you are entitled to anything more than food, drink, and phone calls for your sub-three-hour delay on your sub-1,500-km. journey? I see that the company whose link I posted upthread has a link that lets *potential* customers check to see what compensation -- if any -- they are entitled to.

Londonlouis

Because:

1) The link provides no answer to the question I specifically asked about EU261 case law dealing with expanded definitions to interpret how avoidable missed connections are compensated.
2) The link has a dodgy cookies options selection from the get-go that would violate the law, at least here in Germany, by not offering a standard opt in/out selection. On top of that, not just the site you recommended but most others in the Airhelp vein often require you to accept their privacy policy & T&Cs when submitting a claim request - which reading through before selecting (so that I'm not formally soliciting their services) is more convoluted than just asking some hopefully nice person with potential knowledge of EU261 case law here.
3) While I appreciate that these services exist for passengers with zero idea of what EU261 constitutes & the rights it affords them, I am not one of those & am happy to take the time to do some reading to better assert my rights in future. I also think the large scale use of them makes airlines more likely to mess DIY passengers around.. whereby only the threat of legal action or regulatory body scrutiny will see airlines acquiesce. In my experience, airlines have become more resistant to paying up over the years even in very clear cases (meaning ones other than this one).

Appreciate the response but it was not what I was looking for.

guv1976

1. While these websites might not answer your question directly, presumably they do answer it indirectly, by telling you what, if any, compensation you are due in your situation. A company in business to pursue EC 261 claims presumably keeps up to date on interpretations, court rulings, etc. If they don't, they stand to turn down meritorious claims which could earn them some money.

2. If you find the cookies policy of any or all of these businesses objectionable, you are certainly within your rights not to use them.

3. I was not suggesting that you use one of these services to pursue a claim on your behalf, but rather that you merely tap into their expertise and determine whether they think you have a meritorious claim.

Best of luck.

irishguy28

The regulation does not distinguish between "avoidable missed connections" and "unavoidable missed connections". I would therefore advise you to stop looking at it through this prism. While it's certainly intriguing to consider that A5 could have decided to replace that "tired" crew at CDG with a brand new "fresh" crew to operate the previous night's delayed CDG-FRA, and thereby be ready and fresh as a daisy to operate YOUR service on time, there is absolutely no requirement in the regulation for them to do this; and I'm pretty certain you will not find any case law where an airline was found to be on the hook for compensation solely on the basis that they could have substituted a late-running crew, but didn't, and thereby impacted also the people flying on the next day.

For one thing: even though CDG is one of A5's bases/hubs, there may not have been a "fresh" crew on standby to operate the flight, and waiting for such a replacement crew to arrive could have FURTHER DELAYED the passengers awaiting their already-delayed CDG-FRA sector the night before your trip.

The regulation certainly says nothing about requiring the airline to make crew substitution decisions to save connections that otherwise might be missed.

And, for another thing, it's my understanding that a crew commencing a day's work are required to have had a certain number of hours of rest time and sleep time before commencing work; so even if a "fresh" crew had been dispatched the night before, depending on how late the flight actually operated and arrived, even that "fresh" crew may not have been able to operate the delayed service any earlier than your "tired" crew were allowed to. There are safety issues and rules in play here, too.

Instead of dealing with "(un)avoidable missed connections", the regulation only cares about the reason for the delay you experienced. Arguing that A5 could/should have substituted a fresh crew for you in this particular instance is not a promising argument.

It would be far more interesting to know the reason why that crew was running late in the first place (French ATC strike; weather; mechanical issue; medical diversions, etc); but on the face of it, being told that your crew were legally unable to perform the flight is putting you on the back foot. It would also be interesting to hear exactly how late the plane arrived in CDG; my guess is that the main cohort of passengers were doing a simple FRA-CDG and probably arrived with a negligible* delay

*in terms of the regulation, i.e. below the delay where compensation is due

FrankTalk

Denied boarding is very specifically defined in EU261.

"denied boarding� means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;"

In addition in the very first line of your very first post you wrote "misconnected in Paris that was directly due to a delay at departure". It's baffling how you can go on about being denied boarding by af and also berate other people who correctly reply to your question.

Londonlouis

Perhaps you missed my later clarification where I said the following:

Londonlouis

One of the reasons I have stressed "avoidable missed connections" is precisely as you have addressed in your last paragraph (i.e. not including the asterisk note).

If AF were to claim that my flight, the first of the morning around 7am, was delayed at departure due to arriving late the night before as a result of "extraordinary circumstances" (weather, ATC strike, etc.) & the resulting impact that had on the rest period required for that same crew, AF would have a fairly convincing case on its face.*

However, it is exactly because they departed knowing that the following morning's flight would be heavily delayed due to the crew's mandated rest period & not enough stand-by crew located at FRA, & thus, have the knock on effect of causing passengers' missed connections on that morning flight.

Now please don't misconstrue any of this, I am not arguing that AF should've bumped 5 people off the already delayed evening flight for stand-by crew members that could man that morning flight on time. Nor was my reference to case law remotely alluding to such a situation. As you stated, it likely wasn't even feasible given the awkward hours concerned &, of course, AF would be crazy to pay out compensation to all those bumped people & use a new crew when the old crew could start 90 mins later than scheduled, all to protect connections on the morning flight.

In these circumstances, the bean counters obviously make calculations about risk & the likelihood of compensation claims, & the bottom line decides. They likely saved a ton of money by getting the evening flight to FRA asap & accepting that some passengers' itineraries on the morning flight would be impacted - with little to no perceived compensation liability.

All that is to say, AF had the opportunity to adequately staff my flight & didn't (no one in their right mind would have), which means they cannot point to any potential "extraordinary circumstances" of the previous night's flight as a reason to deny a claim stemming from staffing issues.

Hope this adequately explains why I preemptively employed "avoidable missed connections" to establish there was zero way for them to claim "extraordinary circumstances" resulting from the previous flight arrival.

Perhaps of interest, though ultimately unimportant in the scheme of things: the last evening flight departed 1hr 20mins late (slated for 20:45 & left at 22:05) & arrived in FRA at 23:06.

*(edited to include fairly convincing on its face.)

FrankTalk

If your first flight was delayed, per your own admission, then why would anything fall under any other item? You were delayed, you reached your final destination with a delay, thus the articles pertaining to delays apply. Nobody cares about why the flight was delayed - it was delayed and AF can try to explain why it was delayed when dismissing your claim, then if you decide to push it they can explain why it was delayed in a court, but won't change the fact that IT. WAS. A. DELAY.