Two major delays. Which airline owes 600 EUR per EC261?
 

Booked LIS-EWR-ATL on one through ticket.

Original booking:
LIS-EWR TP201 scheduled 11:20-14:30
EWR-ATL UA1245 scheduled 17:11-19:45

Minimum connecting time for TP-UA at EWR is 1h25m, and this was booked with 2h41m connecting time.

TP delayed, arriving EWR at 15:53. As a result, MCT was blown, and indeed pax arrived at the UA1245 gate at 17:07 just as they had closed the doors. UA1245 departed on time. Pax rebooked onto the next UA flight, UA607, scheduled 21:10 to arrive 23:44. Interestingly, per the schedule this would result in a 3h59m late arrival, just one minute short of any compensation due.

However, UA607 delayed, a little bit at a time. 22:40, 23:00, 00:12, 01:00, 01:20, 03:00, 06:00, currently estimating departure 06:15 next day, and who knows if there will be further delays.

It would appear that pax is due 600 EUR compensation due to arriving > 4 hours late. Question is: which airline is liable? TP was to blame for missing the original EWR-ATL flight, which started the whole thing. But UA was the one that caused the delay to exceed four hours. I can just see that both would deny the claim: TP saying that their delay would cause a delay of 3h59m, which does not get compensation; and UA saying the delay is a domestic US one, not covered by EC261, and it was not the originally ticketed flight that delayed.

Any advise on who to claim against? Or is this so complicated that it is best handled by one of the EU-based EC261 claims specialists companies? Or no hope of collecting from either airline?

Delays of 3-4 hrs are due 300 Euros, so definitely entitled to some compensation. I would file a claim with TAP stating the facts as you stated but very plainly. State you arrived at your FINAL destination x hours late due to delay on your TP flight. You will be getting some compensation, expect 300 but 600 would be a nice surprise. Also, UA should be giving ETC compensation if the subsequent delays are mechanical or operational.

Only for a flight of less than 3500km. LIS-EWR is 5,447km, so compensation isn't due unless the delay is more than 4 hours.

Realistically, UA isn't going to readily pay a cent of EU261 compensation in a case like this. Non-EU airline, for a US domestic flight, with a passenger arriving late from a different airlines flight. They will almost certainly offer compensation in the form of vouchers due to the extended delay of the connecting flight (which their website is claiming is due to "operational difficulties", not weather).

Having said that, there is a precedence that compensation is potentially due. European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Passengers on connecting flights must be compensated when their flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours late If both flights were on United, then per that ruling compensation would be due - it's the switch of airlines that is going to cause difficulty...

Starting with TAP would certainly be the best option, but I wouldn't expect it to be an easy fight...

First a couple of questions to determine if it is worth filing a claim.

- Was the booking all ticketed on one ticket? If it is on separate tickets then no compensation would be due. If on one through ticket as other posters have suggested I'd go with TAP first.

- Do you know the reason for either of the delays? If for instance the flight was late for weather then compensation would not be due

Yes, one 016 ticket.

No reason given by TP. Flight departed 27 minutes late from LIS for no reason given (it is SOP for TP to depart a few minutes late anyway, and they usually make up time during the crossing), and a longer than normal crossing probably due to a very southerly and long route that dipped down to latitude 34N (the latitude of Atlanta) and took a long 9h06m for the crossing. Unusual routing, but does not appear to be weather related, possibly just whatever Atlantic track they could get at that hour.
UA initially delayed due to "late arrival of inbound aircraft", then crew timed out, then they tried but could not find another crew, and it became "operational difficulties"

If it is due to longer flight times then they will probably fob it off as ATC restrictions on route or something like that. I had it once from AUH with BA and we had to take a longer route and then I missed my overnight connection and they fobbed it off as ATC restrictions. (ie outside their control what track they were allowed on that day as an example) Its worth a try to claim as always but I'd just manage the expectations of actually getting a decent result.

My understanding is that for type 3 flights, 3-4 hours delay is due 300 euros and 4+ hours is 600 euros. Air Canada went along with that and gave me 300 euros for a 190 minute delay.

This is correct based on a EU court ruling that 3 hour delays are the same to a passenger as a cancellation in many cases.

You can try to claim from UA but I wouldn't hold your breath.

I think you would file with TP in this case. But good luck hearing back from them. I’m still waiting about a flight cancellation back in November, and I even called last week and was told I’d be emailed in a few days...

The EC 261 will apply to the final destination arrival time.. and the airline responsible will be the one you purchase the ticket from. TP will say is UA fault and viceversa but for the EC261 TP will be the liable party. I will suggest get a lawyer

In a similar situation with Aer LIngus, my wife and I each got 600 EUR. Ours was a mechanical delay and replacement airplane.

"the one you purchase the ticket from"? You mean United, who issued the 016 ticket? I always thought the compensation would come from the operating carrier, not the issuing carrier nor the marketing carrier.

United proactively sent the "Customer Appreciation" email, apologizing for the major delay, and offering 7500 miles or $150 ETC.

the EC 261 is clear the carrier that issued the tickets is responsible for the delays, that is why the OP should get a lawyer

Completely false and wrong.

EC 261/2004 imposes the duty on the operating carrier causing the delay. The operating carrier causing the delay was TP and if there is any compensation due, it is payable by TP. UA's gesture is just that.

The delay is then measured at the final ticketed destination, e.g. ATL and the Type of flight is determined by the distance from origin to final, e.g. ATL (although EWR would be Type 3 too).

Thus, OP arrived at ATL more than 4 hours late on a Type 3 ticket and would thus be due EUR 600 (If 3+ hours, it would have been EUR 300).

Whether compensation is payable at all will depend on the reason for the delay. If indeed the routing was lengthened by ATC, e.g. running the TATL tracks a bit to the south, TP will have a valid defense to a claim and will likely fight any attempt to collect. The claims agencies typically don't take on cases they can't win because they don't get paid, so that is a good test.

No matter what, TP owes OP a duty of care for the time he was on the ground at EWR. If he was not issued a hotel voucher and paid on his own, he could submit that receipt and reasonable meal receipts to TP.

If this has anything to do with the recent "bomb cyclone" and its effects on EWR and North Atlantic tracks, this is an open and shut no comepnsation case.

The European Commission's website says otherwise:
In some cases the airline operating the flight may not be the same as the one from which you bought your ticket. In case of any difficulties only the airline which operates the flight can be held responsible.

Has there been a EU judicial decision shifting the responsibility from the operating carrier to the ticketing carrier?