I was reading an article on what whould constitute a meal for regulation 261/2004 see http://www.flightmole.com/delay_meal.htm

The regulation apparently does not give guidance of what constitutes a "meal" and I was wondering how this should be interpreted.

It may be that airlines simply give a ridiculously low amount-say 5 Euro meal voucher for a "meal" hoping that this will appease passengers. Other airlines might be more generous.

Does this vary between countries and cultures?

Are some airlines more generous than others. Do airlines make a greater catering effort for First than Economy?

Should the passenger be given at least the same cuisine as the flight crew when there is delay? Have passengers made their own catering arrangements and then sought reimbursement from the airline concerned?

I would be interested to know of different experience for when this next happens to me. Perhaps this has been considered before if so perhaps someone could point me to the correct thread.

"Meals and refreshments in reasonable relation to waiting time" is not specifically defined as an objective standard.

That said, the level that has consistently accepted as appropriate by various regulatory authorities in delay situations has been the equivalent of EUR 5.00 (or GBP 5.00 in the UK). Passenger complaints where the airline has provided at least that level of care are rarely upheld unless there are other mitigating circumstances.

The closest official resource available on this specific matter can be found at :

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?ca...eid=6547#three

I was intrigued because British Airways apparently stipulated that they would apply a limit of �100 per room for hotel rooms required for delayed passengers caught up with cancellations at Heathrow Terminal 5.

Stranded passengers at Heathrow were pointing out that hotel rooms were costing upwards of �150.


BA later retracted this "limit" as it was pointed out that the Regulation did not specify a limit. BA conceded that they would pay for "reasonable" room costs

I reviewed the AUC Q and A on meals-reproduced below

"My flight has been delayed for 8 hours and all I have been given is a �5 voucher to buy a sandwich. Am I entitled to more?

The Regulation states that meals and refreshments should be offered in �reasonable relation to waiting time�. We think it would be reasonable to expect food and drink in line with normal mealtimes. For example, for a delay from mid morning until late at night, we think that something at lunch time and something at dinner time would be in �reasonable relation to waiting time�. But that �something� might only be a sandwich and a bottle of water."


This doesn't answer the question, indeed it confuses two issues-the frequency/regularity of meal delivery (which is bounded by human biology) and the cost of the meal.

It then effectively suggests that you take what you are given but doesnt answer the question -are you entitled to more than �5/5?

What if a "meal" at an airport does cost 15 Euros not 5 Euros-isnt this the same as offering �100 towards a �200 hotel room?

I was also wondering where you find out what a specific regulatory body does decide that 5 Euros/�5 is appropriate. Do these regulatory bodies benefit from subsidised canteens and hence they regard this as a realistic cost of a "meal"?

Firstly, I should disclose that I am the EU261/2004 compliance official for my airline and hence I spend most of my time figuring out the loopholes to benefit the other side of the coin.

The few times that one of our passengers has complained to the AUC (Air Transport Users Council - the body responsible for enforcement in the UK) about the inadequacy of the �5 voucher, we have invariably received a letter asking us to justify how it constitutes "meals and refreshments in reasonable relation to waiting time". What we do is respond with a sample list of possible meal and refreshment options that fit within that budget, and the AUC has always been satisfied.

You'd be surprised how far �5 can get you at Gatwick actually. Most passengers use the vouchers at McDonald's or Burger King and it will buy you virtually any Combo meal there, plus a dessert item in some cases too. For the more finnicky eaters, you can get a salad or personal pizza from Pizza Express, a premium sandwich at M&S Just Food or a Healthy Meal Combo from Boots - all easily within the budget. It isn't Michelin star dining, but it's not intended to be - it's usually better quality than the stuff we serve you on board though!

Most of the complaints received however deal with the issue of what constitutes an "overnight" delay that requires hotel rooms to be provided. For example, a flight delayed from an originally scheduled 2300 departure to a 0500 departure would seem to meet the definition of "overnight" to a normal person. Unfortunately, in reality an 0500 departure means that passengers have to start checking in for the flight around 0200 and hence have to leave hotels around 0100. There is very little point sending passengers to a hotel then for what is essentially no more than an hour there - especially as some will invariably fall asleep and miss the check-in deadline and either be left behind or wind up delaying the flight further. Our unpublished rule-of-thumb is "a delay of more than 9 hours, of which at least one-third or 6 hours (whichever is greater) falls between the period of 2200 to 0600". We have always been able to justify this on the basis of the proviso that "provision of the care would itself cause further delay", but it is a no-win situation for the passenger in cases like that as they feel rightly aggrieved.

Hey B747-437B,
It was never clear to me, if an airline fare is from non-eu country to non-eu country with one stop at EU airport and operated by EU carrier (like KLM or air france) does it fall under EC261 regulations?

Yes, it would.

The first sector would be non-EU to EU, operated by EU carrier.

The second sector would originate in EU.

The only time transportation on an EU carrier would not fall under EU261/2004 would be when the transportation is entirely non-EU (eg. SIN-SYD on BA).

Hmm, so in a more specific example that accured a little less than a year ago: KLM flight YYZ > AMS > ALA. Flight AMS > ALA was delayed for 24 hours. So if I understand correctly there should be a cash compensation in place as per EU261 regulation? I have tried to reason with customer service but what I got in reply was "As stated in my email, this was an overnight delay not a cancellation. Per EU guidelines you do not qualify for EU compensation. " And thats by supervisor in customer service.

Who is right and who is wrong?

Samalet,

I'm not sure if I follow the B747's analysis on the definition of a "flight" for the purposes of EC 261/2004. This may be rather too optimistic in your own favour rather than the airline.

I suspect that this may be a more complex issue.

I have been reading more regarding a case before the ECJ on flightmole.com -see
http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71

I think there are two separate arguments here.

KLM appear to be denying compensation basing the repudiation upon there being a delay rather than a cancellation. There is a long running and unresolved debate as to when a delay becomes cancellation-if at all-after simply a period of time.

However the original question of the flight routing also appears most relevant.

The factor here, I believe, is the definition of a "flight". EC 261/2004 makes no reference to the concept "sector" and the term "flight" is undefined.

It may be necessary to delve into the caselaw generated by 70+ years of litigation over the Warsaw and now Montreal Conventions.

The ECJ ( European Court of Justice) is considering a case at the moment ( the case against Emirates as linked above)-not directly analogous- but the same concept of a "flight" is reviewed for that purpose.

For the purpose of the Warsaw/Montreal system of air law-it is basically the journey that is considered -and a change or aircraft or a simple technical stop is not considered relevant. Therefore it may be possible for KLM to argue that YYZ-ALA is the relevant "flight".

YYZ-ALA is non-eu to non-eu and therefore not governed by EC 261/2004 on this reasoning.

I wonder if KLM have the potential to argue the case on this basis?
You may be able to argue the "B 747" routing. My feeling is that the same Advocate General might just fall in line with my viewpoint.

In summary KLM might be able to argue the 24 hour delay is still a delay and not cancellation-but there may be arguments against this.

However it is possible, if my analysis is correct, that KLM might also be able to take up the "routing " argument.

Maybe others disagree

There is no compensation due for a flight delay under EU261/2004.

You would not be entitled to anything beyond basic care (meals and hotel accomodation) for the period of the delay.

It is my understanding that EC261/2004 covers all flights operated by EU carriers regardless of origin and destination.

Non-EU carriers are only covered when the point of origin is in the EU.

I guess it all comes down to the defenition of cancelation vs delay.

There is a daily flight from AMS to ALA and that day it was canceled, but we were booked on the same flight (with the same number) on the next day. So i guess it can be interpreted both ways - as cancelation and as delay.

Recital 6 from the Regulation would not then make much sense

(6) The protection accorded to passengers departing from an airport located in a Member State should be extended to those leaving an airport located in a third country for one situated in a Member State, when a Community carrier operates the flight.

Article 3 Scope

Scope

1. This Regulation shall apply:

(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;

(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.

The flight appears therefore to need to arrive in an EU state not just depart from a non-EU state

Check this recent publication from EU-it may assist in the unravelling of the delay/cancellation debate-or may just complicate it further!

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_po...q_and_a_en.pdf

The term "flight" may be undefined as a specific term, but its usage is consistent as a synonym for "sector" in these cases. The term used in the regulation to define the entire itinerary (as in the case of the YYZ-AMS-ALA incident) would be "journey".

You can see evidence of this in definitions section 2(h) where reference is made to "final destination" and to "connecting flights". If a "connecting flight" should be considered to exist, it stands to reason that a "flight" must exist as a unit component of a larger "journey".

There is a circular argument that airlines often use with NEBs on the cancellation versus delay issue. If you rebook all passengers from a "delayed" flight to alternate flights using the "rerouting under comparable transport conditions" provision, then the flight no longer has any passengers booked on it and hence its eventual non-operation would no longer be considered a cancellation (as a cancellation is specifically defined as a flight "on which at least one place was reserved").

Again, I stress that this is not an argument I have ever seen advanced to a passenger but rather on an airline to NEB level. The airline line to a passenger would simply be that the flight was "delayed not cancelled".