EC261/2004 Claim Denied and new information
 

SAS denied my EC261 claim last year. The principal reason was that of weather and the delay was under 3 hours from LHR/ARN. After one year, upon hearing a successful claim from my friend of a similar situation, I am thinking to relodge the claim. After 3 weeks, I still have yet from them, and I sent them a reminder last week. Is there any way to force them to reply to me.

How long was your actual delay on arrival, what where the weather specifics?

How long was your friend's actual delay on arrival, what were the weather specifics on your friend's flight?

Similar circumstances are not same circumstances, and there may be good reason in the difference of the outcomes. If you can provide some more specifics, people can chip in with a view of whether you have a case. Though SK are generally pretty good at paying when compensation is due.

That being said, you can contact the Danish authorities and raise the case, or you can contact one of the agencies that (for a fee) can handle your case. Though admittedly I would advise to try to let the forum comment on your specifics, there are a lot of people with good understanding of the current status of EU261 interpretation if you can provide sufficient detail.

I was delayed for 2 hours 10 minutes last February 2018 from LHR to ARN. The flight has been delayed from inbound already, making it a 1.25-hour late departure in Heathrow. Once landed in ARN, the airport was functioning, but we were told there was no staff at the gate so the plane cannot deplane and there was quite a bit of snow in the taxiway. Finally, we were allowed to be deplaned after 2 hours 10 minutes. SAS first told me that you have to be at least 3 hours to claim under EC261/2004. I subsequently told them LHR-ARN is under 1500 km. Then they told me that this is a weather problem, it's none of their business

My friend had a situation where there's a weather delay (less severe, delay for 1 hour, leading missing his connecting flight) He was able to recover under EC261/2004.

I sent an email 3 weeks ago that this case should not have a weather problem. First their flights were delay outbound and secondly, unmanned gate shouldn't be an excuse.

Assuming your friend was on one ticket, it is his arrival time at the final destination that counts, though weather could still be deemed a extraordinary circumstance for this occasion. Though it was not, seemingly, based on the details it is difficult to say why. Though I may be because the weather was at an earlier flight on the day, not directly affecting the flight he was on.

SK seems to blame the snow. It is always a bit suspicious when they first use one reason, and then switch to another once it is shown that the first argument was wrong. However, the lack of staff to handle the plane could indeed be caused by all operations taking much longer due to the snow conditions at the airport.

SK is right. The flight has to be at least three hours late before you get any money. After two hours, you get food and two phone calls.

Unless your friend was on the same flight as you and SK paid out, it is not the same set of circumstances. It is entirely possible that SK mistakenly paid out to your friend. That does not make your claim valid.

I would move on with your life unless you have new facts about your flight, not someone else's circumstances.

No. For flights below 1500KM, it's only 2 hours and the compensation is 250 EUR.

If the flight taking you LHR-ARN was delayed arriving LHR due to weather, this reason does apply to your flight too as LHR is an outstation and SK can't be expected to have reserve planes ready there.

Weather can't always be used as an excuse. It depends on the severity of the weather. The weather conditions you describe for your flight sounds like ARN has been running of 50% capacity or maybe even closed for a while, while the weather for your friends flight sounds like a normal bad weather where the airports are still running 100% capacity but slower and more distance between the planes at landing and takeoff.
I would still try to get the compensation. You can't get anything less than no, and you can always try to send it through one of the leeches if you get no where with SK. They will take a percentage, but if you still get no, you don't have to pay anything.

I think it is worth trying to use any flight claim company service if airlines refuse to payout compensation, because it might be that they are lying about the reasons of flight disruption.

Since you can't get anything less than sorry but no luck, I agree. That said. SK is one of the airlines who hasn't been caught lying about the course of the delay so far. But for the weather reason it might be up for interpretation when it's sever enough to void the compensation.

That's wrong. See European Court of Justice, joined cases C‑402/07 and C‑432/07. If a flight is delayed for more than three hours, then the flight is treated as 'cancelled' and compensation is due according to the rate for cancelled flights. On the other hand, if the delay is less than three hours, then it isn't treated as a cancellation and so there is no money due unless the flight really is cancelled.

Normal snowing at ARN in the winter time is not an extraordinary circumstance.

A misapprehension of the nature of weather. Fortunately one, not shared by most sensible jjudges.

With few exceptions, most major airports in the world are in locations prone to some form of weather which may affect operations. Thus, the fact that weather occurs at some point is forgone. But, what nobody knows is when those adverse conditions will occur and what they will mean on any given day.

Accordingly, the delays cannot be built into the schedule, there are no backup plans worth considering, and the simple fact is that in the moment they occur they are "extraordinary."

Some may believe otherwise, but it would be most helpful to point to precedential authority.

Sorry, you are right. I misread the rules on the SK website.

No, but snow to the extend they have to reduce capacity is.