Common Airline Tactics to Deny EU261 Claims

Airlines have developed sophisticated strategies to minimize EU261 payouts while technically complying with regulatory requirements. These tactics range from legitimate policy interpretations to questionable practices that may violate passenger protection principles.

Tactic 1: Overuse of Extraordinary Circumstances Defense

Airlines frequently claim that disruptions resulted from extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, even when circumstances clearly fall within normal operational risks. Common misapplications include claiming technical problems are extraordinary (they're explicitly excluded), attributing crew scheduling problems to external factors, and blaming routine maintenance on "unforeseen circumstances."

Airlines also sometimes claim weather exemptions for delays that occurred days after weather events, when other airlines resumed normal operations. Security-related claims often involve routine procedures rather than genuine security threats that would qualify for exemptions.

Counter-Strategy: Challenge extraordinary circumstances claims by demanding specific evidence and documentation. Research weather conditions, air traffic situations, and other airlines' performance during the same timeframe. Most technical, crew, and maintenance problems are operational issues within airline control that don't qualify for exemptions.

Tactic 2: The "14-Day Notice" Cancellation Loophole

EU261 allows airlines to avoid compensation for cancellations when they provide at least 14 days advance notice to passengers. Airlines sometimes game this provision by cancelling flights exactly 14 days before departure, or by claiming they provided notice when passengers never received communications.

Some airlines also reschedule flights (which legally constitutes cancellation and rebooking) just over the 14-day threshold, then claim the schedule changes don't trigger compensation obligations.

Counter-Strategy: Keep detailed records of all airline communications and booking confirmations. Challenge claims of advance notice with evidence of when you actually received cancellation information. Remember that schedule changes exceeding specific thresholds may constitute cancellations regardless of advance notice.

Tactic 3: Complex Claims Processing Systems

Many airlines create unnecessarily complex online claims systems that discourage passengers from completing compensation requests. These systems might require excessive documentation, use confusing terminology, or provide inadequate explanation of passenger rights and entitlements.

Some airlines also use automated denial systems that reject claims for minor technicalities, hoping passengers won't appeal obviously incorrect decisions. Response times often exceed regulatory requirements, and customer service representatives may provide incorrect information about compensation entitlements.

Counter-Strategy: Submit claims in writing outside of online systems when possible to ensure proper documentation. Appeal obviously incorrect denials with reference to specific EU261 provisions. Escalate to regulatory authorities when airlines exceed response timeframes or provide demonstrably incorrect information.

Tactic 4: Settlement Offers Below Regulatory Requirements

Airlines often offer vouchers, miles, or cash payments below EU261 entitlements, presenting these as generous goodwill gestures rather than legal obligations. These offers might arrive quickly after disruptions, creating pressure to accept before passengers understand their full rights.

Common settlement offers include €100-200 vouchers for disruptions that should trigger €600 compensation, or travel credits with restrictive terms and expiration dates that provide less value than cash payments.

Counter-Strategy: Calculate your full EU261 entitlement before considering any airline offers. Politely decline settlements below legal requirements and pursue full compensation through formal claims processes. Remember that accepting vouchers doesn't waive your rights to cash compensation under EU261.

Tactic 5: Jurisdiction and Coverage Challenges

Airlines sometimes claim that EU261 doesn't apply to specific flights due to technicalities about departure/arrival locations, airline nationalities, or codeshare arrangements. These challenges often involve misinterpretation of coverage rules or attempts to exploit passenger confusion about complex international itineraries.

Some airlines also claim that non-EU passengers aren't covered by EU261, when the regulation actually applies based on flight routes rather than passenger nationality.

Counter-Strategy: Research EU261 coverage rules independently and verify the operating airline for each flight segment. The regulation applies based on departure/arrival locations and operating airline nationality, not passenger residence or marketing airline. Challenge incorrect coverage determinations with specific regulatory citations.