rixdorf

Thank you very much for clearly laying out the options!

The order of doing things should I guess be 1, 2 and then 4.

Number 3 doesn't really seem realistic for only 600 euros and I also do not speak fluent German.

jsloan

I hadn't seen that before; that seems much more pro-airline than anything else in EC.261.

That said, it still wouldn't matter, because there haven't been any extraordinary weather events in the US this summer. Evening thunderstorms in Newark don't count.

Silver Fox

This is what United certainly banks on, and I assume other airlines too. I have an ongoing one in the UK courts but we have a limit as to how much it costs us, the most it will be is £50. Which is refundable if United lose/don't turn up/cave in on the steps of the court. It's really, really frustrating I have to say.

threeoh

Yeah, sorry I can't find the PDF again. It was publicly available but it was an internal document meant for CAA staff to help decide whether an event was extraordinary.

The CAA also says that "Weather conditions incompatible with the safe operation of the flight" count as extraordinary circumstances. What's your court case that says otherwise?

https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Res...compensation-/

jsloan

Actually, there's surprisingly little case law on the subject -- or, at least, I haven't been able to find it. All I can find is that volcanic plumes, bird strikes, and loose screws on the runway are all extraordinary (but the duty of care is still called for even so -- just not the compensation). I believe it was generally agreed that Sandy and Harvey were both extraordinary.

I suspect a FAA-mandated ground stop would be considered uncontrollable, albeit perhaps not extraordinary. However, I would guess that a UA-requested ground delay would not pass muster. (This likely only matters for connecting flights under Wegener; UA's not going to issue a ground delay without prioritizing EU traffic).

The most relevant case for the OP would be Eglītis and Ratnieks, where the court ruled that airBaltic was responsible for having a spare crew available at CPH to operate a flight to Riga within a reasonable amount of time after the extraordinary event ended. (Malmö sector had a power outage at 20:30; it was restored at 22:45, whereupon the crew timed out). This is the basis for the advice that delayed inbounds o not qualify under the exception "where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken," because by failing to get a backup plane / crew to the EU to operate the flight, UA did not take advantage of a reasonable measure. (Note: your definition of 'reasonable' may differ from the CJEU's).

This seems to fly in the face of the one level of knock-on effects language you mentioned in the CAA's document, given that CPH isn't a hub for airBaltic.

Germanfflyer

That is what they count on!
No need to speak German.... your lawyer will handle it all! Easy process have done it many time - you do not get involved much...

Flying Machine

Aussienarelle

I too have been successful with my claims and taken both checks and ETCs.

I think the thread is showing that United is attempting to not pay some claims.

I was astounded for the pax in July (2019) on the CDG-IAD flight who was denied as I was checked in on the same flight and saw the arriving flight was delayed so proactively did a SDC by calling the 1K desk. That was an example where that pax should have received the compensation and when denied by United for "legal" reasons needed to know options.

Yes, this thread should be assisting folks looking to understand when and how to make a claim, but just as importantly understand what to do when United denied a valid claim including the information/name of the relevant court case. FT is very much about sharing our knowledge, experience and expertise.

mmthomps

Do you think the status of the person making the request makes a difference? I'm Gold this year, not 1K; daughter has no status at the moment. Would it make the smallest difference if I sent in a follow up on her behalf?

Flying Machine

IADdelayed

Recently returned from Europe FRA-EWR-RIC (same itinerary, booked through UA). Both flights were delayed, so out of curiosity I plugged the info into the AirHelp app. To my surprise, AirHelp says I'm entitled to 600 Euro.

Flight details:

UA 961 FRA-EWR

Scheduled departure: 11:20 am / Actual departure: 12:24 pm
Scheduled arrival: 1:50 pm / Actual arrival: 3:15 pm

Reason for delay: delayed incoming aircraft

UA 4994 EWR-RIC

Scheduled departure: 5:00 pm / Actual departure: 6:59 pm
Scheduled arrival: 6:44 pm / Actual arrival: 9:16 pm

Reason for delay: delayed incoming aircraft, and then maintenance issue

I'm confused as to why the app is saying EC 261 comp is due, as everything I've read here suggests delays to final destination under 3 hours are not eligible. Have there been recent changes to the regulation? Is the app not reliable?

I received some very helpful responses when I posted about issues with the outbound flight, so I'm hoping that once again those with more knowledge / experience on this subject can enlighten me. I'd rather not look like an arse by writing UA to request EC 261 comp if not eligible.

TIA!

Aussienarelle

I don't know the app but do you think somehow it has confused your second leg as being on an EU carrier or within the EU.

My thinking would be in line with yours but there was one claim I made that UA paid me Euro 300 instead of Euro 600 as the time delay was shorter. Did not really follow the logic and just took the money.

You could always make a claim and see what they say - a couple of hundred euros is better than nothing.

IADdelayed

mmthomps

This is what my daughter got back from United, regarding her request (ATH-EWR, 2:52 late; EWR-LAX, next day, so ultimately 12 hours late).

threeoh

It's a European Union regulation interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Saying that it doesn't apply in EU-member Greece is a pretty jerk move.