jochen_vdk

During my last cancelled KLM flight to which I had a train segment attached, I was wondering how exactly the EU261 needs to be interpreted with respect to the train segment.

Following flights:

DXB AMS departure 0155 - arrival 0615
AMS ZYR departure 0833 - arrival 1008

The DXB AMS flight was cancelled and I got rebooked on following EK flight:

DXB BRU departure 0810 - arrival 1240
I reached ZYR around 1430

Since the flight was cancelled and I arrived more than 2 hours late, I am entitled to a compensation.

Now the question is, how is the delay calculated?

A. train segment does not count, so 1240 - 0615 = 6h25 delay = 600 EUR compensation
B. train segment counts, scheduled ZYR arrival compares to BRU airport arrival, so 1240 - 1008 = 2h32 delay = 300 EUR compensation
C. train segment counts, scheduled ZYR arrival compares to my ZYR arrival, so 1430 - 1008 = 4h22 delay = 600 EUR compensation

I know that EU261 does not apply to train segments, but I do not know whether this means you can not claim anything if your train segment is late/cancelled, or this also means the train segment should not be taken into account at all when it comes to arrival time and delays.

irishguy28

Just to let you know - the 2-hours deadline only applies to flights of 1500km or less. 3 hours is the deadline for flights between 1500 and 3500km.

Dubai to Brussels is almost 5150km, so your "deadline" would be 4 hours.

Did KLM pay for your new BRU-ZYR ticket, too? Or were you rebooked on the understanding that you were happy to accept BRU as your new final destination, meaning that KLM discharged their duty to you by returning you to Brussels?

For the sake of these 22 minutes, I would not even bother...

jochen_vdk

My flight was cancelled, not delayed.

I read

Article 5 Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:

(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:

(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure
and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

Article 7 Right to compensation

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to:

(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).

2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked

c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b),

the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %.

So for me the question is, 600 EUR or 50% of 600 EUR.

They can not pay for the new BRU-ZYR ticket, the only thing they can do is reimburse the ticket I have bought myself through customer care. In DXB, the only two options I got for rebooking were DXB AMS or DXB BRU on EK.

I am talking about 4 hours and 22 minutes.

KrnGrs

I never realised there was such a differencebetween a cancelled flight and a delayed flight. This basically says that if your original flight is cancelled but somehow they would still get you there with even only a 5 minute delay, you have the right to compensation?

This means that you probably could still try to claim for compensation but I think you will have a hard time explaining why it took you almost 2 hours to get from BRU to ZYR. Almost 2 hours to get from BRU to ZYR - either you had to wait a very long time for your luggage or you took the long way around because the train ride itself is a measly 20 minutes.

jochen_vdk

No it does not say that. If you arrive within 2 hours of the originally booked arrival time, they do not owe you any compensation. Fair enough.

Yes, it took a while to deboard, go through immigration, then I had to wait a long time for my luggage, that finally did not arrive and I had to claim it. Then you need to queue to buy a train ticket, wait for the train. It all adds up quickly.

orbitmic

Sorry, but you misread article 5. What it says is that you get the compensation set up by article 7 unless you have been informed more than two weeks ahead of the flight or you have been informed at least 7 days ahead of time AND the proposed rerouting disrupts your trip by less than 2 hours.

In this case, assuming that you were not informed of the cancellation ahead of time, what happens is that article 7 kicks in and cancellation is treated just as a long delay. It means that as irishguy28 mentions, given the length of the journey, you would only be eligible for compensation if your delay was over 4 hours and the cancellation is not due to exceptional circumstances.

In this particular case, while train journeys are not normally considered by the regulation, in this case you are indeed in an odd situation because your itinerary was to ZYR. I think that a judge would consider that the criterion would be the difference between your original and actual arrival time at destination.

Either way, though, your calculations A and C, are simply mistaken. If looking at case A, you simply would not compare arrival into BRU to arrival into AMS! You mention that you were also offered a rerouting to AMS and it is unclear from your post when it would have arrived. Clearly, however, you refused that rerouting in favour of the BRU one.

When it comes to the calculation of C, if indeed your destination remained ZYR, did you ask KL to ensure that you would be taken to that particular destination rather than BRU? You would have been entitled to then arranging your transport to the Midi station and then could have compared arrival time. Failing that, if you just made your own way, I'm afraid that no judge would take that as a sensible measure of your actual arrival time as they would have no way of knowing how quickly and efficiently you made your own way to Bruxelles Midi. I know it is frustrating but it would have been better to let KL take care of that land journey and then you would have been able to hold it against them.

All in all, my sense is that regardless of the causes of the cancellation, you are almost certainly not entitled to EC261 compensation for your delayed arrival. You were clearly inconvenienced but I would recommend that you instead write to KL asking for a gesture of good will which they would have a chance to approve. In my view, asking for EC261 compensation will not only be rejected but lead to them taking a hard line on your case.

jochen_vdk

I am sorry, but no matter how many times I re-read article 5, I come to the same conclusion. Article 5 (c) you are referring to, has 3 sub-points:
(i) informed more than 2 weeks ahead
(ii) between 2 weeks and 7 days ahead
(iii) less than 7 days ahead, which was my case

Could you please let me know what I misread here? As I said I am entitled to compensation, that is the same as what you write.

Do not understand. Can you please elaborate?

To me, according to Art. 5.1 (c), I have the right to get compensation.
According to Art. 7.1 (c) this compensation is 600 EUR
According to Art. 7.2 (c) this can be reduced to 300 EUR if arrived at my final destination less than 4 hours late

Therefore, the question, how late did I arrive?

Yes, but what is the destination for the scope of EU261? If it is indeed ZYR, then I indeed arrived more than 4 hours late.

Yes I have refused the routing to AMS, because I wanted to go to Brussels, not to Amsterdam!! Why would I accept a routing to AMS if I want to go to Brussels? The AMS routing they proposed was 8.40 - 12.40, fwiw.

I was talking to a transfer desk agent at DXB that did not even know what ZYR was. She offered me 3 possibilities: AMS, BRU or shut up and go away from my counter.

How would KL have arranged my transport to the Midi station other than telling me to buy a train ticket myself and send it to customer service for reimbursement?

Furthermore, I have the proof of the time I declared my lost luggage, I have proof of the time I have bought my train ticket, and I have proof of the train I took to ZYR.

How? Please tell me how to force KL to arrange transport for me from BRU to ZYR, standing in front of a transfer desk in DXB at 4 am.

I was planning on doing that anyway. But I wanted to know the legal situation behind it. Seems that there is a lot of confusion about EU261. If I want compensation I would go through an agency.

Often1

KL will fight a compensation claim as long as it can as including railway times opens a whole new world of problems.

EC 261/2004 by its clear terms refers only to air travel. But, OP was fortunate enough to be rebooked on a flight to BRU which was his ultimate destination via train from AMS.

Thus, it is impossible to calculate his ultimate delay without taking into account the train.

But, either way, he gets EUR 0.

Thus, I support jochen_VDK with the suggestion that you file a short complaint with KL asking for a customer service gesture, not EC 261/2004 compensation. With the exception of the outlay for an airport to city center transit at BRU, OP was not particularly inconvenienced and any gesture by KL will likely make OP whole again.

NickB

These deadlines are only relevant for determining the thresholds for the Art 9 duty of care to arise in case of delay.
They have zero relevance for determining the entitlement to Art 5 compensation in case of delay, still less in case of cancellation.
In case of delay, the entitlement to Art 5 compensation arises when the delay is 3 hours or more (as per Sturgeon case). In the case of cancellation, the entitlement to Art 5 compensation is as per Art 5(3), which, if there has been no previous notice or the notice is less than 7 days, means arriving 2 hours or more after original scheduled time of arrival or leaving 1 hour or more before original scheduled time of departure. Again, the thresholds are the same regardless of the length of the flight.
Once the principle of entitlement to compensation is established, we then turn to Article 7 to determine the amount of compensation. In the case of a long-haul flight, the threshold of 4 hours is significant under Art 7, but merely for determining whether the entitlement is to €600 or can be halved to €300. Even if the delayed arrival is less than four hours, therefore, there is still entitlement to compensation, albeit for a reduced amount.

KLM does not discharge its duty by flying the passenger to an alternate airport. When the passenger is flown to an alternate airport, the carrier is still under an obligation to bear the cost of transferring the passenger to the airport for which the booking was made or another nearby destination agreed with the passenger (see Art 8(3) of the Reg).

What is not explicitly stated in the Reg is whether the delay should be based on time of arrival at airport booked on the ticket or the alternate airport actually flown to but it seems to me that the former is the most convincing one and therefore the calculation should in principle be based on time of arrival at ZYR rather than BRU

I do agree, however, that the timing sounds awfully long for a transfer between BRU and ZYR but if the OP can show that it was a reasonable time, then why not? If there are any airlines offering train+flight combination at ZYR-BRU (SN perhaps?), the MCT they use could be a useful guide of what is a reasonable connection time between ZYR and BRU.


As I stated above, I am afraid that this is incorrect. Even if it were a long delay, in any event the threshold would be 3 hours, not 4. But since it is a canx, the thresholds for eligibility are as per Art 5 and the amount as per Art 7.


I am with the OP on this one. It simply is not realistic to expect KL's agent at DXB to investigate reroutings from BRU to ZYR. I really cannot see a judge blaming the passenger for the failings of the airline in offering adequate options to the pax. Now, if the airline had told him that they would reroute him to BRU and could cover his transfer from BRU to ZYR and he should go to the KL counter at BRU to get his train ticket or taxi voucher to ZYR and the OP had declined or elected not to visit the counter, then fine. Otherwise, the onus is on the airline to offer appropriate reroutings. Let us not forget that the Reg places the onus on the airline to inform the passenger of his rights under the Reg and of the options which are open to him. I would be very surprised if KL at DXB had fully informed the pax of all his rights under the Reg and all the options available. Blaming the passenger for "making in own way" imo just does not wash if the pax has not been fully informed of all his options and entitlements.

The only issue is really what the OP asked: does it change anything that the last segment was on a train than on a plane? Clearly the Reg would not apply to a delay/cancellation on the train segment (the Train pax rights regulation would apply instead). My own hunch is that, when the incident is one covered by the Reg then the Reg should be read as covering the whole itinerary that the passenger presented at check-in as per Art 2(h). While it is true that this speaks of "connecting flights", I cannot see any convincing policy reason to adopt a restrictive reading of this and not include later segments which are part of the ticket even where they are in fact carried out by an alternative mode of transportation, such as train, coach or boat.

That said, given KLM's tendency to fight just about every claim, I would not expect them to give in easily and you would probably have to fight it all the way to court to get anywhere.

Often1

I still cannot get past the threshold fact that EC 261/2004 applies only to commercial flights. It does not apply to trains or any other mode of transport. The language appears to be quite clear even thoug KL markets what amounts to a through ticket DXB-ZYR.

In theory it is correct that KL has an obligation to get OP from DXB to AMS by air, but KL certainly cannot force OP into flying back to AMS so that he can then catch a train to ZYR. OP could, of course, insist on that if he wished.

The best conclusion is that OP chose to accept a voluntary reroute from DXB-BRU for the good reason that this is more convenient than what he was entitled to. But, KL cannot then be held to an artificial set of timings, e.g., when OP would have arrived at AMS had he flown DXB-BRU and then onward by whatever mode was most convenient to AMS.

Laws are changed all the time. This one could be changed to acommodate trains, but as it stands, it does not cover them.

NickB

That is because you struggle to think like a CJEU judge would, viz teleologically.
Is the flight that was delayed or cancelled one which is covered by the Reg? Clearly yes: so we are within the scope of the Reg and the OP should be rerouted at the earliest opportunity to his "final destination".
What is the OP's "final destination"?
Art 2(h) tells us that the final destination is "the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter" and ticket is defined in 2(f) as "a valid document giving entitlement to transport." So far, there is nothing that necessarily implies we should discount segments which are on a train or other mode of transport. Now, it is true that 2(h) also says "in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight." Does this imply that train segments should be ignored? 2(h) does not expressly say that so we need to look as to what the purpose of the Reg is to see what would make most sense.

The Reg does not apply to trains because it is not mean to cover the liability of train operators for delays and cancellations (there is another reg for that). But this is not what we are talking about here anyway. Moreover, as you rightly note, it would not make much sense of rerouting the OP to AMS when the final destination on his ticket is ZYR. Therefore, the most sensible reading of the Reg is that it is meant to cover rerouting to final destination on the ticket whenever a flight is delayed/cancelled regardless of whether some of the later segments are on planes, trains or automobiles.

IMO, this is by far the most likely interpretation that the CJEU would give to the Reg: limiting the liability of the airline to exclude train segments is not necessarily dictated by the wording of the Reg and it would not be consonant with its purpose. It seems to me that the CJEU would not have the slightest difficulty in finding that the passenger must be rerouted to the final destination on the ticket in such a case, regardless of whether some segments are supposed to be undertaken by alternative modes of transport.

jochen_vdk

Thanks everybody!

I see some very different opinions here, both for compensation in case of a cancellation as for the effect of the train segment on this.

I guess I will have to take them to court if I really want to know. It could be interesting to see how a court rules, since I often take these rail segments.

For the people that think I was not particularly inconvenienced, I still arrived 4,5 late at my destination, without luggage, and had to reschedule 2 meetings. So I don't know what their definition of inconvenienced is, but I will just ask KLM for a gesture.

I have already received their "you were delayed and we did everything right" email afterwards, where they say they rerouted me, offered drinks and so on. Well, they did not offer anything and without lounge access the waiting time was not that interesting either. So I guess they are going to give me some lousy FB miles afterall.