Roka

I was ticket by UA on LH metal from CAI-MUC-BRU to UA from BRU-EWR on one ticket all on one day. The inbound MUC-CAI flight was delayed such that it was clear CAI-MUC would be late enough that I would miss my connecting flight (which in fact ended up to be true). UA reticketed me to CAI-FRA but with an overnight to FRA-EWR arriving 26 hours later than original scheduled arrival time. Do I qualify for EC261 compensation? The ticketed origin and destination are both outside of Europe. But the delayed flight was on LH to Europe. I thought I did not qualify but several FT posts suggest an expectation by people with similar activities to receive compensation for that.

SK AAR

As this is a LH flight, i.e. a community carrier, there is no issue about origin outside EU. LH is liable for delay unless caused by extraordinary circumstances.

Fabo.sk

Technically, the regulation says for all carriers out of Community and for Community carriers into Community.
This flight is neither into nor out of Community in its whole.

fereke

I also wonder how having the flight reticketed by UA (at OP's request, I guess?) would play out, in contrast to taking the delayed flight to MUC and letting LH handle the IRROP.
​​​​​​

demue

The new strategy seems to be to accept clear cut cases (good), but present it as a voluntary goodwill action by LH and not in recognition of EU261/04 claim and then low ball the offer by being less than entitled under the regulation, e.g. offer 250€ vs. 600€ or so. YMMV

SK AAR

No, I doubt it will have any impact that UA rebooked/reissued the ticket due to IRROPS (in fact LH would much prefer UA to do the rebooking when on an UA award). LH will be able to see the delayed CAI-MUC flight and the original onward LH flight to BRU in the reservation.

fereke

It made life easier to LH, that is for sure. Even though I had no problem having LH rebook me in case of IRROP on the day of departure, even on awards (MM, LM or UA) but YMMV.

My point is that UA rebooked OP (due to IRROP but probably at OP's request) leading to quite a late arrival (26h) whereas LH could argue they would have offered alternatives from MUC, leading to a smaller delay.

OP does not mention their itinerary, but for the sake of arguing, I assume it was the one below, quite sensitive to a delayed CAI-MUC to connect to BRU
LH587 CAI-MUC 3:10-6:15
LH2282 MUC-BRU 7:00-8:20
UA998 BRU-EWR 10:10-12:35

History of LH587 for the last 2 months (courtesy of flightaware) shows the most delayed LH587 flight arrived in MUC at 7:01. Too late for the flight to BRU, but it would need to be quite a busy day not to be able to connect between hubs such as MUC and EWR on the same day rather than with a 26-hour delay.
Those flights would have brought OP to destination with less than a 3-hour delay: direct from MUC (UA31 9:20-12:50), via FRA (LH99 / UA961 9:00-14:05) or via LHR (LH2472 / UA17 9:20-15:15). Adding later flights or flights to JFK, quite some alternatives to a 26-hour delay IMO.



Anyway, nothing to lose filling out the form on LH.com and waiting for LH's response Good luck to the OP!

SK AAR

Thank you very much for the comprehensive comments and research.

I agree that LH may very well argue that LH would have been able to rebook to the direct UA flight arriving EWR with hardly any delay. It is beyond me why UA rebooked to UA FRA-EWR and not the direct same day UA MUC-EWR flight; maybe it was sold out?

Roka

Thanks. You are right on the original itinerary. But the other options were not available:
- UA31 MUC-EWR would have worked but was not available for 6 people. [It was available for 2 — any thoughts on whether LH can say they’ll offer comp only for 4 rather than the full party of 6?]
- There was no flight from CAI to FRA or LHR, whether direct or via MUC, that would have permitted me to make the UA961 FRA-EWR or UA17 LHR-EWR the same day. I took the next flight from CAI to FRA, which wasn’t until 16:45. Same with Paris, which I also looked into. I did not check JFK, and UA preferred to stick with UA on the transatlantic. EWR is where our car was.
- For what it matters, I was also in contact with LH simultaneously. UA responded first. LH then cancelled my check-ins to allow UA to reticket. I informed LH that UA was reticketing this for me due to the inability to make my connection, and LH did not say they wanted to handle. I was in fact in touch with multiple representatives. Couldn’t reach anyone by phone. And the LH chat is very difficult to use — someone joined relatively promptly, but it kept disconnecting me and then I’d have to start over with the new representative.

SK AAR

When was it determined that only 2 seats available for UA MUC-EWR? At CAI or MUC? My point is that if at CAI the situation could have been different upon arrival at MUC several hours later (often availability change significantly on the day of departure and a flight that have been sold out/close to sold out for long time, suddenly have availability on the day of departure due to several factors.

fereke

Indeed, more difficult to rebook a party of 6 - I did not think about that.

I would simply contact Lufthansa using the form on their website and see what they respond to your EC261 claim. That's easy and free and if you disagree with their decision, you could still push the matter further.

Roka

Hi. I submitted two claims with LH since my 6 tickets were originally purchased together but split into two record locators due to earlier flight issues. LH agreed to 600 euros per person on on record locator. But it rejected the other claim saying the LH587 departure was delayed due to ATC delays outside its control. I sent LH back the preflight message i got from LH making clear the missed connection was due to the delay in inbound aircraft. Two hours before the inbound craft’s arrival in Cairo, I got a message from LH saying that I could not make my connecting flight in Munich to Brussels. I asked LHA to reconsider the denial. If they do not, should I pursue their SOP option? Or other suggestions on how to pursue? Thanks in
advance.

Roka

Does anyone have any recent experience or other informed views about whether to proceed with the SOP arbitration board process? I have a claim against LH. We were a family of 6 ticketed together but eventually split into two record locators due to an outbound flight delay issue. Due to a delayed inbound flight causing a missing connection, we were delayed over 6 hours. I put in two claims, one for each record locator. LH accepted one claim and paid the full 600 euros per person. It rejected the other saying that my missed connection was due to ATC holding my CAI-MUC flight. I then sent them the communication I got from LH 3 hours before my flight warning that because of the delayed inbound plane, I wouldn’t be able to make my MUC connection and to reschedule. LH said this information didn’t change their position and they were closing my case.

Next logical step seems to be to go to SOP. Is this a good idea? For anyone who recommends skipping this and going straight to court in Germany, has any non-German resident actually done that? What was the cost and outcome? I’m in the US, so it’s doable but not easy.

I saw an old thread on this subject from 2018, which wasn’t particularly informative, but nothing more recent.

Thanks in advance.

Roka

On my LH CAI-MUC delay that was supposed to connect to MUC-BRU-EWR, LH paid the full 600 euros on 2 tickets and rejected the claim on 4 tickets. I assume the differential treatment was due to the happenstance of which claims handler I was assigned, as my tickets were split into 2 record locators in the course of flight delay rescheduling.