CPH-Flyer

I don't know about a good way to verify that to be honest.

SK2751

If they have a valid reason to cancel one flight, they had the right to choose which one. This is a business decision. If they were asked by ATC to limit departures, perhaps they figured that AAR is the least impactful one to cancel.

Often1

The mistake is thinking of this as "should have gone to XXX". While carriers certainly assign aircraft to a given frequency, this is not a proprietary right of the customer. If ATC or other outside factors such as weather, debris on a runway or somesuch require that flow be reduced, it is the carrier which must make a commercial decision. This does not render an "extraordinary circumstance" as "unextraordinary" just because OP and not someone on some other flight was delayed. The simple question is whether a passenger on a delayed flight is entitled to compensation. If so, in this case, it is OP. If on another frequency, some passenger on that frequency.

tobiashenry

I had a problem with the ARN airport 2 days ago. Was in ARN and the plane was stuck on taxiway because there is no gate, before going towards the gate, the light at the taxiway disappeared. Not sure whether it is weather issue or any other issue.

THD

Do you wish to claim EU261?

jamar

Not the OP, but also have a EC261 claim question with different circmstances.

Itinerary HEL-ARN-LHR, ARN-LHR was the affected leg. Initially booked on SK533 on 1-March, found out prior to departure that SK533 was canceled that day. Rebooked on SK1527, then after boarding, was told that something was wrong with the engine and that that flight would be canceled too. Problem is, this was time-critical; not getting to LHR on 1-Mar means there's no reason to go to LHR anymore. Would appreciate compensation for hotel, dinner at ARN, and the ticket I had to separately buy to return to HEL in the morning. This should be grounds to file a claim, right? Also, would I also be able to claim a refund of the original ticket price on top of that or is it an either/or?

Often1

Let's take this step-by-step:

EC 261/2004 and SK's contract of carriage combine to help you, but you may not get everything you want.

When your second flight was cancelled, you were entitled under the Regulation to cancel for a full refund. In addition, the trip became a trip in vain and it became SK's duty to return you to HEL, your point of origin. If you purchased your own separate ticket, it is unlikely that SK will refund that ticket (although I would ask).

You were entitled to a duty of care to cover your hotel and food. Did SK refuse vouchers? If it did, you could certainly submit a reasonable hotel bill for reimbursement.

Finally, had you continued on to LHR, by the time you arrived, you would have been due EC 261/2004 delay compensation. But, with the decision to return to HEL, you won't be able to collect that as you made a voluntary, albeit reasonable, decision not to continue your journey and thus were not delayed at your final ticketed destination, e.g. LHR.

So -
1. YES: Hotel & food (if vouchers denied)
2. YES - Refund of ticket.
3. NO - Reimbursement for new ticket.
4 NO - Delay compensation

jamar

That seems reasonable.

To answer questions:

First off, the use of "I" was a bit misleading. I'm writing this on behalf of my sister, who doesn't use FlyerTalk. My role was only purchasing the ticket for her and her travel companion. All of this is written with the assumption that what she's told me has happened is true (no documented proof, but since getting out a camera can be seen as escalation by some...).

THD

Ryathe

Hello everybody,

I had a similar situation - I was flying Warsaw - Copenhagen, Copenhagen - Toronto, Toronto - Montreal. The first flight took off 30 min late so I missed the other 2 flights. They re-booked me in Copenhagen and, in the end, I landed in Montreal 5 hours later than originally planned. When I asked the flight attendant on the first flight the reason of the delay, she told me that because of the weather the first flight that day (coming from Copenhagen) arrived to Warsaw late so now they (second flight) were late as well. But when we landed in Copenhagen the weather wasn't bad at all, some flurries, almost no snow on the ground, quite warm.

I filed a claim with SAS and just got a reply:

"The reason for the delay was due to restrictions at Copenhagen airport which means the aircraft arrived late from Copenhagen to Warsaw.
Delays due to airport restrictions are considered ‘extra ordinary circumstances’ and therefore I am not able to compensate you according to EU261 Regulations."

Is that explanation enough? is the reason that the first flight was late enough to deny compensation? i want to pursue my claims further, cna you advise how I should reply to this email?

Often1

Yes, if you have facts which demonstrate that the inbound aircraft was not delayed due to restrictions at CPH, respond with that. Otherwise, the explanation seems quite reasonable and the fact that the restrictions only caused a 30-minute delay seems to be a job quite well done. Even if there were a spare aircraft and crew sitting at WAW to deal with this eventuality, it likely would have caused more than a 30-minute delay to fetch the aircraft and bring the crew over.

SK AAR

First of all welcome to FF.

I agree that you will get nowhere with this. Despite that all appeared OK to you weatherwise when you landed from WAW the situation could have been different when the CPH-WAW flight took off. Did you check if there were other flights cancelled/delayed ex CPH around the time when the CPH-WAW flight took off? The knock-on effects of incoming flight arriving late due to adverse weather will also exempt the carrier from liability for the subsequent flights effected by this. The explanation provided to you seems very reasonable and it will be difficult for you to prove that the information give by SAS is wrong. Let it go!