There is a nice saying that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers... please stick to the topic and leave your opinions of the various posters to yourself. Everything else is contrary to the FT TOS and will be acted upon accordingly.

Regards Oliver2002
Mod M&M forum

With respect, you seemed to have missed the very basic points that 1) you had no need to incur any out of pocket expenses and 2) Lufthansa put your safety ahead of the fact they incurred significant additional cost by erring on the side of caution.

The compensation culture (another great US export I believe) grates with a lot of people and I'm one of them. Had Lufthansa cancelled a flight to combine loads or left you high and dry after the diversion I'd be saying something else but from what you say this incident was handled as well as could have been expected. If you can say where the shortcoming was, I'd love to know about it.

If you can't face the prospect of people taking the counter-argument then an internet forum probably isn't where you want to be...

PS I was on a Lufthansa flight last month that was 1hr late taking off and it took an unacceptable 45mins to deliver priority tagged bags at Munich. My pre-booked taxi driver did charge extra for the wait, but I didn't go seeking compensation from Lufthansa. You travel, stuff happens. Deal with it.

You should be entitled to compensation as a technical failure can no longer be interpreted as 'extraordinary circumstances'. It's a bit tricky, though, since your original flight was aborted (is this a cancellation?), you were then rerouted and much delayed...

I had a delay in LIM on AC LIM-YYZ (J class) , although we didn't actually take off, the flight was cancelled when they were unable to fix the problem. This was a 30 hr delay from the departure city.

I was offered $250 EMCO for future travel as compensation / inconvenience (along with all the other passengers)

I certainly wasn't opposed to it since I missed a day of work - but I was happy that the carrier was treating safety as a priority.

It is. Courts have ruled that a flight is only operated in the sense of EU261/2004 if it departs from the airport it is scheduled to depart from and arrives at the airport it is scheduled to arrive at.

This seems uncharacteristically snotty and rude, Rambuster. Had a bad day?

I find it hard to follow this "holier than thou" attitude to those who seek statutory compensation.

In its wisdom, Brussels set out the circumstances in which airlines are required to offer additional services, and/or pay fixed sums, in compensation for the inconvenience caused to passengers by flight irregularities.

If you don't like the legislation, feel it places an unfair burden on the airlines, then take it up with your MEP, rather than stigmatise passengers who ask for compensation they are due.

+1. The legislation is designed to keep airlines on their toes. Technical problems are covered so I don't see why someone who has to wait at the airport should get compensation but someone on a plane which is turning back wouldn't.

And given the fact that airlines used the "technical problem" excuse so many times in the past when in fact commercial reason were responsible for a cancelleation, they brought the strict enforcement of EU261/04 upon themselves. If I would be in the same situation, I'd claim the appropriate compensation in a heartbeat. The OP is owed 600€ by Lufthansa - getting that money might be quite a challenge, however.

Greetings - Dirk

I had a similar incident with LH last week at MUC. Due to technical problems the flight to India could not take off and was delayed by 15 hours. LH said they had no other spare plane available. So, they are postponing the flight to next day. Of course LH provided hotel and meal vouchers.

Do you think I should ask for compensation under EU rules ?

During x-mas time, my flight to GRU was delayed to next morning at FRA due to weather, then the a/c went technical and they had to get another a/c which meant a 13 hour delay. I got hotel paid by LH and apologies from the captain, nothing more (I asked for nothing either).
A few years ago, my UA flight SFO-ICN turned back after 3 hours mid flight because the pilots discovered that there were more animals than allowed in the hold and they may not have enough oxygen for the duration of the flight. The flight left next morning, I was delayed by almost 20 hours and missed my connection to ULN which goes only three times a week so ended up spending two extra nights in ICN. All I got was a USD 100 voucher from UA when I complained as this was a goof up on part on their ground handling. My travel insurance paid for my hotel in ICN and SFO.

But there is a difference if you cancel a flight with the excuse "technical problem" on the ground or if the pilot decides that the risk is too high to continue an already departed flight due to technical problem.

In my opinion there shouldn't be an additional cash compensation in that cases (only hotel and meal vouchers) - would you prefer that the pilot maybe continues a flight with technical problems due to pressure from the airline which want to avoid that cash compensation? Could be your last flight ;)

How about asking for the MUC-MUC miles? 2x2 hours is some 1600-2000 miles, plus class of service bonus.

Looking at flightradar24 on that day, the aircraft returned to MUC short before reaching London and the total flying time was only a little bit more than 2 hours... :D
In any case a domestic flight will bring you 1500 miles independent of the actual miles flown :D

Of course there should be additional compensation. The contract was to fly you at a certain time -- they weren't able to do so, and there is legislation covering this situation.

I look at it this way: if my car breaks down on the way to the airport, it's my problem. If the airplaine breaks down, it shouldn't be my problem.

HTB.