ajl1239

First, I hope this is the right place to ask.

My friend is on a Lufthansa codeshare flight (operated by United) from ORD to CDG. Due to a mechanical problem encountered during boarding, the flight will be delayed by over three hours.

I understand that EU261 doesn't apply to U.S. carriers for flights from the U.S. to the EU (although it does in the opposite direction). That said, it does apply to EU carriers for flights from the U.S. to the EU.

Given this is a Lufthansa ticketed flight -- but operated by United -- do you think the friend might still be able to claim EU261 on the basis of the codeshare arrangement?

Thanks for any responses. (My hunch is no, but thought I would check.)

obscure2k

Moving this over to the Lufthansa Forum. Please follow there.
Thanks..
Obscure2k
TravelBuzz Moderator

ajl1239

Thanks!

vbroucek

No, AFAIK everything is based on metal.

TheBOSman

I believe the same.

Of note, even if it wasn't, it would be absurdly hard to claim this was an error caused (directly or indirectly) by LH. LH has no responsibility for UA's flight operations in this instance. So, can't claim against LH (not their fault), and can't claim against UA (responsible but not subject to the rule in this situation). Anyone else, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

SK AAR

I concur. Despite the LH codeshare No. this flight has nothing to do with LH in terms of EC Reg. 261/04.

As you state UA is not liable under Reg. 261/04 for flights TO Europe. Sorry.

Pyros

While I agree that EC261 most probably would be inapplicable in this situation, don't you guys find it ridiculous that EC261 doesn't take into account the fact that the three major alliances operate transatlantic JVs?

In effect, every flight to/from Europe is half European/half American on virtually any JV carrier. The European Comission may need to update its legislation...

oliver2002

So the 261/04 becomes even more complex? That part of the regulation is atleast somewhat clear: you approach the airline operating that flight. If JVs are part of it, the pax will be asked to look up various alliances and JV before making a claim

Often1

EC 261/2004 could not be more clear.

It applies only to the operating carrier. The operating carrier is UA which is not a Community (EU) carrier and thus the Regulation does not apply to departures from the US.

There are all manner of reasons why any given jurisdictions law ought to apply elsewhere, but there are limits to sovereignty and this one has pretty much reached its limits.

MSPeconomist

Stuff like this is partly why the operating carrier is required to be disclosed during booking.

ajl1239

I would love for U.S. carriers to the EU to be covered, because I think EU261 has done a fantastic job of disciplining EU carriers without causing fares to rise, but understand there are limits to sovereignty.

That said, it's still pretty great that U.S. carriers leaving the EU have to comply with these rules.

Often1

The only reason that there has been a relatively negligible effect on EU carrier fares is that the most recent study concludes that only approximately 2% of all eligible EC 261/2004 claims are even made by passengers (not paid, but filed). Additionally, because the NEB's have not imposed penalties on the carriers for compliance failures, there is no motivation for carriers to make it easier.

If the 98% of the viable claims (we have to presume that the study's authors were fair & neutral int heir assessment of what is a viable claim) were made and paid, there would be quite an impact on fares.

Especially in light of ECJ expansions of the Regulation, e.g. interpreting delays as cancellations (although the Regulation does not provide compensation for delays) and treating delays post-connection rather than at the final arrival of the xEU segment (despite the jurisdictional language of the Regulation).

Bear in mind that when the Regulation was first issued, it was thought to be forward-looking and that the other major commercial air jurisdictions, especially the US and Canada, would jump onboard with similar schemes. None did. Except Israel.

The solution for the rest of the world has worked quite well. Those who need it, purchase trip interruption insurance. Those who do not, manage quite well.

ajl1239

Why shouldn't airlines be held accountable when their own negligence leads to passenger plans being interrupted?

600 euros seems fair, given that arriving 6-7 hours late on an international flight could mean: missed hotel room, missed business meeting, missed ground transport connections, missed onward flight connection, missed tour/package.

If airlines can charge hundreds of dollars to change a flight at the last minute, I think airlines can also pay hundreds of dollars (euros) for changing my plans at the last minute.

The reason the U.S. hasn't bought into the EU's regulatory framework is the same reason the U.S. leaves its citizens to private health insurance vultures: the U.S. Government is an arm of powerful corporations, while European leaders -- not entirely, but still to some degree -- prefer to represent the interests of their citizens.

Often1

It's not just the US. It is every other nation (except Israel). And the one economic zone. e.g. the EU, which has the scheme, doesn't enforce through government penalties for carrier inaction and only 2% of potential claims are made. It's a big nothing. Except on FT.

The one place where I will say that EC 261/2004 does work is the "duty of care". While it is not significant for the average business traveler, I feel for the individual (or family) who gets stranded. The carriers typically contract for hotel rooms for next to nothing while it can cost the individual a great deal.