My flight from FCO to EWR on 3/8 was delayed by a little over 4 hours. I received a compensation offer by e-mail with three choices: 10,000 miles, $250 e-cert (good only on domestic flights) or 10% off a future ticket. My understanding is passengers whose flights from the EU are delayed over four hours are due �600 in compensation. Am I reading the regulations incorrectly?

Here is United's stated policy: http://pss.united.com/web/en-US/cont...v.20120303.pdf

Here's the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_261/2004

Nope.

Good luck trying to collect.

I sent an e-mail to 1KVoice on the morning of 3/11. I received an automated response immediately warning me of longer-than-usual wait times due to the high volume of mail they are currently receiving. Let's see how long it takes to get a real response.

Had a six hour delay out of lhr on feb. co/ua refused compensation so sent to the uk civil aviation authorities who will do nothing

Update: After waiting in vain for more than two weeks for a reply from 1KVoice, I called Customer Support. After I explained the situation and requested the compensation that was due by law, he at first stated that the compensation was due only to European citizens. Then he backed off, said he would have to look into the situation, and promised me an e-mailed response by the end of the day. That was four days ago, and I still have had no reply.

Next stop: ENAC -- the Italian agency charged with enforcing aviation laws.

It's impossible to tell whever or not you are due compensation without knowing the reason for the delay.

The aircraft that was supposed to fly to FCO had mechanical problems and had to be substituted (went from a 767 to a 757, as well).

I'd love to see the outcome of going through the enforcement process. The CSRmtactic is probably going to be "don't give the guy an answer and he'll probably go away.". Always fight for what should be yours...

I was delayed more than 24 hours on a MXP-EWR due to technical problems, they sent me a 500 $ voucher, however I sent them another message pointing out the regulations and they gave me no answer, this was 3 weeks ago! All of this as a 1K... Now waiting on the "Premier" line for more then 30 minutes with no answer...

I see no changes I like!

Finally, eight weeks after my initial request for compensation, I received an official denial by snail mail (the letter was dated April 13, but I received it on May 4). Here is the reason they gave:
In other words, it's God's fault that they had a faulty aircraft. Perhaps I should apply to the Vatican for compensation!

With this kind of reasoning, it is difficult to imagine a probable scenario in which an airline would ever be required to provide compensation. Let's see if ENAC agrees that this falls under force majeure.

Wow. So the only way to collect such compensation is if the airline knowingly flys a defective aircraft???

Wow. Good luck with your follow-through. Please post the results. This really does look like a new low.

Perhaps you could also demand that UA provide the specific regulations that allow them to try to wiggle out of their responsibilities this way. Not that I think it will get you anything but more obfuscation, but it still might come in handy as you follow through with the relevant authorities.

Or if the delay could have been reasonably predicted or avoided, whatever that means.

Of course, UA responded as it did. If the EU nanny rules are ultimately interpreted so as to require compensation for MX where all required maintenance was done, that is, the MX was unforseen and unforseeable and therefore not subject to compensation, TATL fares will rise by a good 20%.

You can expect the carriers, esp. the USA-based carriers, to fight this to the end of time.

OP has two choices: 1) take what's been offered and enjoy it; or 2) fight to the end of time and maybe see a few Eur which by then won't by a cup of coffee or lose and buy OP's own coffee.

The EU rules are a prime example of the law of unintended consequences.

An even better example is the new carbon emission tax on all flights to/from EU.

It seems that United is taking the easy way out saying we did all the routine maintenance but "stuff happens" and we couldn't know that it would (i.e. "extraordinary circumstances") but it is not technically supported by case law, ECJ case C-549/07. From what I understand enforcement of EC261 by EU community regulating bodies is kind of lax and individuals who have been denied compensation have to go to court. Here is some information that may help the OP with his/her appeal to the ENAC (Italian Civil Aviation Authority)

-all bolding is mine

http://passagerrettigheder.dk/EU_COU..._December_2008

The above link provides some rulings by the European Court Justice (ECJ) judgments on regulation no. 261/2004.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 contains the Concept of "extraordinary circumstances" which tends to give airlines a "Get Out of Jail Free card"; however ECJ court rulings tend to requires airlines to show more than "adhering to maintenance schedule" as a demonstration that the mechanical cause was an "extraordinary circumstance".

From Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia � Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (22. December 2008 case C-549/07)http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/
Air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier�s activity.

Operative part of the judgment
Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken 'all reasonable measures' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

In this judgement the court provided the following discussion:
23 Although the Community legislature included in that list �unexpected flight safety shortcomings� and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as �extraordinary� within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin.

24 In the light of the specific conditions in which carriage by air takes place and the degree of technological sophistication of aircraft, it must be stated that air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise. It is moreover in order to avoid such problems and to take precautions against incidents compromising flight safety that those aircraft are subject to regular checks which are particularly strict, and which are part and parcel of the standard operating conditions of air transport undertakings. The resolution of a technical problem caused by failure to maintain an aircraft must therefore be regarded as inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier�s activity.

25 Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, �extraordinary circumstances� under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

26 However, it cannot be ruled out that technical problems are covered by those exceptional circumstances to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or terrorism.

27 It is therefore for the referring court to ascertain whether the technical problems cited by the air carrier involved in the case in the main proceedings stemmed from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and were beyond its actual control.