EU 261 Confusion. Airline Admits delay and fault
Jan 22, 2020, 6:41 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Star Alliance, One World, Qatar Airways Priveledge Club
Posts: 34
EU 261 Confusion. Airline Admits delay and fault
Hey everyone! I was wondering if a few of you could shed some light and/or help me with the understanding of the rules with specificity to my case.
My partner and I had flights booked to Mumbai. YVR-AMS-BOM. On the day of travel I received an email around 6 hours prior to departure that I've been rebooked on alternate flights. This was due to a technical fault on the inbound flight which would result in a delay that would result in me missing my connection in AMS to Mumbai. The issue here is this has happened to me once before and I was just rebooked in Amsterdam on Emirates to Bombay. In fact I was given numerous options. This time however, without my consent, I was rebooked. I was also put on the two airlines that I chose not to fly and paid upwards of $500 to stick with KLM and the routing via AMS. I was put on AC154 (YVR-LHR) and AI 190 (LHR-BOM).
This put us at a scheduled arrival of 3 hours and 20 minutes from our originally scheduled arrival time. Unfortunately both these flights left with delays and I only landed in Mumbai at 4 hours and 12 minutes. Delta agents are telling me that it does not matter what the actual landing time was, but rather what the scheduled landing time of the flights that they rebooked us on. I don't see how that makes sense since I missed an integral part of my purpose of travel at the airline's fault. My argument here is that the agents claim it depends on the scheduled arrival time and not the actual arrival time of the rebooked routing. Because of this I have been offered only 50% of the full 600 Euros both my partner and I are entitled to. Can anyone elaborate on the regulation or tell me if the airline is trying to pull. fast one on me?
My partner and I had flights booked to Mumbai. YVR-AMS-BOM. On the day of travel I received an email around 6 hours prior to departure that I've been rebooked on alternate flights. This was due to a technical fault on the inbound flight which would result in a delay that would result in me missing my connection in AMS to Mumbai. The issue here is this has happened to me once before and I was just rebooked in Amsterdam on Emirates to Bombay. In fact I was given numerous options. This time however, without my consent, I was rebooked. I was also put on the two airlines that I chose not to fly and paid upwards of $500 to stick with KLM and the routing via AMS. I was put on AC154 (YVR-LHR) and AI 190 (LHR-BOM).
This put us at a scheduled arrival of 3 hours and 20 minutes from our originally scheduled arrival time. Unfortunately both these flights left with delays and I only landed in Mumbai at 4 hours and 12 minutes. Delta agents are telling me that it does not matter what the actual landing time was, but rather what the scheduled landing time of the flights that they rebooked us on. I don't see how that makes sense since I missed an integral part of my purpose of travel at the airline's fault. My argument here is that the agents claim it depends on the scheduled arrival time and not the actual arrival time of the rebooked routing. Because of this I have been offered only 50% of the full 600 Euros both my partner and I are entitled to. Can anyone elaborate on the regulation or tell me if the airline is trying to pull. fast one on me?
Jan 22, 2020, 11:51 pm
#2
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
This sounds like utter nonsense, the important thing is the time the aircraft doors were opened, if that's more than 4 hours of your original arrival time then you should receive the full compensation.
Of course Delta/KLM would have no control over either the AC or AI flight but nonetheless the scheduled arrival time of those flights is meaningless.
Of course Delta/KLM would have no control over either the AC or AI flight but nonetheless the scheduled arrival time of those flights is meaningless.
Jan 23, 2020, 12:05 am
#3
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
I‘m not an expert but I’m surprised they’re offering you anything with respect to EC261 as this was a flight from outside EU to outside EU and my understanding is that the regulation doesn’t apply in that circumstance, even if the carrier is an EU one
Jan 23, 2020, 12:52 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
The regulation applies in case of either an EU carrier OR a flight leaving from the EU.
Jan 23, 2020, 12:58 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
like I say, happy to be corrected but my understanding was that doesn’t score anything
similarly being an EU carrier alone isn’t enough eg flying BA SYD-SIN isn’t covered
i’m not saying this isn’t covered, I’d just be seeking clarification about whether the exact situation is covered, and guarding my expectations until then
Jan 23, 2020, 1:24 am
#7
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: FR
Programs: FB Plat
Posts: 299
Interpretative guidelines, point 4.4.7
In accordance with Article 3(1)(a), passengers who missed a connection within the EU, or outside the EU with a flight coming from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, should be entitled to compensation, if they arrived at final destination with a delay of more than three hours. Whether the carrier operating the connecting flights is an EU carrier or a non-EU carrier is not relevant.
Jan 23, 2020, 1:28 am
#8
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
Good to know BA are illegitimately declining compo on that 5th freedom route then 🙄
I know that helps us for eg LHR-DXB-SIN or PRG-LHR-SIN but are we absolutely certain that counts for [non-EU]-[EU]-[non-EU]? Does that count as a connection “within the EU”? As I say I have heard a lot of people being refused and there doesn’t seem to be any concrete guidance or case law around this
Jan 23, 2020, 1:46 am
#9
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: NT Australia
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 4,160
Post 6
EC261 and more complex ticketing
Q2: I am flying from DEL to IAH via LHR on BA. Am I covered by the Regulation if either of my flight is delayed or cancelled?
A2: BA is an EU carrier. If the operating carrier is an EU carrier, the Regulation states that it applies to passengers departing from or landing in the EU. One can reads this in two possible ways: a): the passenger origin or final destination for the overall journey must be in the EU or b): the origin or destination of the delayed or cancelled flight segment must be in the EU.
There does not appear to be any judicial precedent to clarify the matter for good. However, it seems probable that the Regulation should apply when the flight segment starts or finishes in the EU. Thus, in this example of a flight from DEL to IAH via LHR on BA, the Regulation would probably apply.
Q3: I am flying on BA to SYD, connecting to a domestic QF service to MEL. Am I covered by the Regulation if the QF flight from SYD to MEL is delayed or cancelled?
A3: The Regulation only applies to flights which start or finish in the EU. For the reasons mentioned in A16b, it probably means individual flight segments rather than overall itinerary and, therefore, the Regulation probably does not apply here. The same would also probably be true in the other direction, viz. delay to a QF flight from MEL to SYD connecting to a BA flight to LHR.
Q4: My BA flight from SIN to SYD,has been delayed or cancelled. Am I covered by the Regulation?
A4: This is a tricky one to which there is no definitive answer to date. If you are flying from LHR to SYD via SIN on BA on a single flight number, it is strongly arguable that you are covered by the Regulation, as you are departing from the EU on an EU carrier.
If, on the other hand, you are just flying from SIN to SYD, you are in all likelihood not covered by the Regulation.
If you are flying from the EU to SYD, connecting to BA in SIN from a different flight, the situation is especially unclear. On balance, the odds are that the Regulation may not apply here.
EC261 and more complex ticketing
Q2: I am flying from DEL to IAH via LHR on BA. Am I covered by the Regulation if either of my flight is delayed or cancelled?
A2: BA is an EU carrier. If the operating carrier is an EU carrier, the Regulation states that it applies to passengers departing from or landing in the EU. One can reads this in two possible ways: a): the passenger origin or final destination for the overall journey must be in the EU or b): the origin or destination of the delayed or cancelled flight segment must be in the EU.
There does not appear to be any judicial precedent to clarify the matter for good. However, it seems probable that the Regulation should apply when the flight segment starts or finishes in the EU. Thus, in this example of a flight from DEL to IAH via LHR on BA, the Regulation would probably apply.
Q3: I am flying on BA to SYD, connecting to a domestic QF service to MEL. Am I covered by the Regulation if the QF flight from SYD to MEL is delayed or cancelled?
A3: The Regulation only applies to flights which start or finish in the EU. For the reasons mentioned in A16b, it probably means individual flight segments rather than overall itinerary and, therefore, the Regulation probably does not apply here. The same would also probably be true in the other direction, viz. delay to a QF flight from MEL to SYD connecting to a BA flight to LHR.
Q4: My BA flight from SIN to SYD,has been delayed or cancelled. Am I covered by the Regulation?
A4: This is a tricky one to which there is no definitive answer to date. If you are flying from LHR to SYD via SIN on BA on a single flight number, it is strongly arguable that you are covered by the Regulation, as you are departing from the EU on an EU carrier.
If, on the other hand, you are just flying from SIN to SYD, you are in all likelihood not covered by the Regulation.
If you are flying from the EU to SYD, connecting to BA in SIN from a different flight, the situation is especially unclear. On balance, the odds are that the Regulation may not apply here.
The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
of course someone has to be the first to litigate these things and get a definitive answer so.....
Jan 23, 2020, 2:17 am
#10
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
I apologise that this is a quote from the BA forum but I’m glad to see I’m not imagining that it might not be a cut and dried case
The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
of course someone has to be the first to litigate these things and get a definitive answer so.....
The 2020 BA compensation thread: Your guide to Regulation EC261/2004
of course someone has to be the first to litigate these things and get a definitive answer so.....
1. This Regulation shall apply:
...
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
...
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
OP here was scheduled to fly on KL (Community carrier) to The Netherlands (Member State), I don't see how 5th freedom flights are relevant here.
Jan 23, 2020, 2:19 am
#11
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,804
In this case the operating airline - the one that caused the problem - is KLM. I have no doubt about that. So they are on the hook for EC261, assuming no extraordinary circumstances. After 3 hours the half payment is due, 300€ per person. The "scheduled versus actual" time argument is probably legitimate, the Regulation does talk about scheduled timing, moreover the responsibility for being late passes to airlines that are not in scope for EC261. So that one is arguable, in that I'm sure at a senior court level they will take into account that the impact on the passenger was the same. On the other hand, leaving aside the 3 versus 4 hour issue, KLM actually did the right thing by the Regulation - doing their best to get the customer to their destination as quickly as possible. This may be further arguable if there was an alternative connection which would have worked with better timings - the "all reasonable steps" issue. In other words the OP's is right to challenge, but it is well into the grey area and would need quite a lot of arguing to resolve for 4 hours.
Taking that all into account, I would say the best and fairest outcome would be to go for the 300€ payment due from KLM for being more than 3 hours, less than 4 hours late.
Taking that all into account, I would say the best and fairest outcome would be to go for the 300€ payment due from KLM for being more than 3 hours, less than 4 hours late.
Jan 23, 2020, 2:27 am
#12
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: GOT
Programs: KL Plat
Posts: 484
From the sounds of it, the original ticket was on KLM? Then due to KLM having tech issues creating the initial problem, the OP failed to arrive at their destination within 4 hours of their original arrival time.
Edit - corporate-wage-slave beat me to it....
Edit - corporate-wage-slave beat me to it....
Jan 23, 2020, 11:04 am
#13
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
Why bother with some agents from Delta Air Lines? Canada->Netherlands -> it has nothing to do with the USA or DL.
KLM is the culprit here. The actual arrival time at BOM (opening the doors counts - nothing else).
I would still hire a bottom feeder collection agency. Its a straight forward case.
KLM is the culprit here. The actual arrival time at BOM (opening the doors counts - nothing else).
I would still hire a bottom feeder collection agency. Its a straight forward case.
Jan 23, 2020, 11:07 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
Why bother with some agents from Delta Air Lines? Canada->Netherlands -> it has nothing to do with the USA or DL.
KLM is the culprit here. The actual arrival time at BOM (opening the doors counts - nothing else).
I would still hire a bottom feeder collection agency. Its a straight forward case.
KLM is the culprit here. The actual arrival time at BOM (opening the doors counts - nothing else).
I would still hire a bottom feeder collection agency. Its a straight forward case.
Jan 24, 2020, 2:15 am
#15
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Star Alliance, One World, Qatar Airways Priveledge Club
Posts: 34
This sounds like utter nonsense, the important thing is the time the aircraft doors were opened, if that's more than 4 hours of your original arrival time then you should receive the full compensation.
Of course Delta/KLM would have no control over either the AC or AI flight but nonetheless the scheduled arrival time of those flights is meaningless.
Of course Delta/KLM would have no control over either the AC or AI flight but nonetheless the scheduled arrival time of those flights is meaningless.