SK AAR

Yes, if LA operated the flight ex. MAD/EU. If flight ex. MAD is not operated by LA, EU Reg. 261/04 doesn't apply for a LA segment outside EU. Good luck in pursuing a claim against LA in this situation.

tr3k

Ouch. That'd be pretty insidious

palmanfr

Correct, I remember that the jurisprudence was following a complaint against CZA Czech Airlines and a missed/delayed onward connection on Etihad. The judges had ruled that if two airlines can agree on things like codesharing, pricing and interlining, they should also respect the obligations and compensation rules such as EC 261/2004 and therefore when the passenger arrived late (At the destination in BKK) due to a late connection, the airline needed to respect the obligations of EC 261/2004. In that case, the ECJ stated that the contractual carrier was CZA, and that any compensation or assistance should be paid for by CZA, but even if the contractual carrier would have been an out-of-EU airline such as Etihad (or LATAM), since the trip departed from the EU, the outcome would have been the same for the passenger.
So here, if there is denied boarding or downgrade in GRU and that the MAD-GRU and GRU-SCL are on the same ticket, EU 261/2004 should kick in per my understanding. That being said, I appreciate that it is easier to write this on a forum in the comfort of my office compared to explaining this concept to a Brazilian LATAM employee during the boarding process of an international flight in Sao Paolo...
On the contrary, I assume that if you are booked on a LA marketed and operated flight SCL-GRU and then GRU-MAD (whoever the operator would be) and get downgraded (or worse, a denied boarding) in SCL, the recourse(s) you have may be very different...

Edit : Here is a link for more details.

megaloman

I respectfully disagree. Get familiar with the ECJ rulings regarding EC261/2004 and you'll find out that it has clarified that in case of connecting flights starting from the EU, regulation applies till the final destination.

SK AAR

But given your example the claim would be against IB, not against LA.

As you state, good luck in trying to get the point through to LATAM staff at GRU by arguing that you have a claim under EU Reg. against IB....

becks1

Wow, don’t give them any ideas!

My ticket is still live on both Iberia and LATAM sites for next weekend.

Shl

The 14-day rule is relevant for the compensation of 600 Euro per pax.
Airline has also to take care of re-imbursement for all costs related to the cancelation (hotels, connection flights etc)
Only thing in court might be the discussion about extraordinary circumstances. However, since this fare was created by the airline itself without any influence from outside, this will probably not be relevant.

Our flights are next week. That's the reason we are quite familiar with the rules.

Please see the exact wording also below.If your flight is cancelled you have the right to choose between reimbursement, re-routing or return.

You are also entitled to assistance at the airport.

If you were informed of the cancellation less than 14 days prior to the scheduled departure date, you have a right to compensation. The airline has the obligation to prove if and when you were personally informed that the flight was cancelled. If this is not the case you can contact your national authority for further assistance.

However, compensation is not due if the carrier can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The airline has to prove this by providing, for example, extracts from logbooks or incident reports. The air carrier should give this evidence to the relevant national enforcement body as well as to the passengers concerned in line with national provisions on access to documents.

Addition:
For everyone being sceptical if LATAM will pay this - that's the reason why there is a national enforcement body. EU court has decided 2 months ago, that a traveler can bring the airline to court in the departure country (in this case Spain(. This also means that Spanish law is relevant and the national enforcement body in Spain.

Some people mentioned, that EU261 would not count for connections This is wrong. The entire trip is covered as soon as it starts from a European airport or is carried out by a European airline. Relevant is, that all segments are on one ticket. Carrier decision is based on who issued the ticket.

In our case: Ticket issued by LATAM but starts from a European airport. All segments on same ticket -> entire trip is covered by EU261

SK AAR

In that situation it is very clear that you don't have a claim under EU Reg. The flights are not ex EU and LA is not a community carrier.

patvd

All correct, BUT: if it was a genuine and honest mistake on their part that you should’ve noticed the airline can cancel the sale without any compensation.

Dralexus

I would like to just share this from the flash sale.

Smiley90

This doesn't mean that much. I routinely see PE or J priced below economy, all depends on inventory, route and dates.

SK AAR

Correct, Applicaplity of EU Reg. requires that there is a valid ticket/agreement. If the carrier argues that there is no binding agreement/contract/ticket because of a fare mistake and pax knew/ought to have known this (and carrier is successful on this point) you can forget about invoking EU Reg. 261/ 04 rights.

Shl

Absolutely correct. That's why I stated "discussion could be around extraordinary circumstances"
However, there is also EU ruling which states that in such case the buyer has to be notified IMMEDIATELY after such error has been found.
If this is not the case the seller has no right to contest the contract. Also then it would be quite clear that it was not an OBVIOUS mistake as it took very long for the airline to see it. Such then the buyer can not be made responsible to have known about the mistake (without stating it is a mistake)

With regards to EU261 I am not aware of any such case, where extraordinary circumstances can come in place for a question on pricing. Circumstances in EU261 are quite clearly described as ATC, Weather, Terror, Authroitive decisions etc. It might well be that EU261 and what you are describing are totally separate cases.

Shl

We have a ticket with ticket numbers

palmanfr

You're right - but only if your return is operated (not sure if needs to be marketed too) by a European carrier (such as IB). If your return flight(s) is/are on LA, not all your trip will be covered by EU 261/2004, but only the part departing the EU (+ connections on the same ticket, even if outside EU). Chilean consumer protection laws would apply for instance on a denied boarding for a LATAM flight SCL-MAD - and I am not sure if this protects you much...