What Airlines Don’t Tell Passengers About Flight Compensation

When a flight is delayed, airlines routinely dismiss compensation claims with two words: “extraordinary circumstances.” Yet under EU law, this phrase is narrowly defined, and the burden of proof rests with the carrier. On Africa‑Europe routes, thousands of passengers accept refusals that wouldn’t withstand scrutiny, often forfeiting up to €600 per person. In this article, Saint‑Yves Kodjo* explains what compensation EU law grants passengers and how they can successfully claim it.

It is the phrase almost every passenger receives after asking an airline for compensation following a flight delay. It sounds like the end of the conversation. Legally, it is the beginning of one, because “extraordinary circumstances” is one of the most narrowly defined notions in European air passenger rights law, and many refusals based on it would not survive serious scrutiny.

A passenger writes to an airline after a flight lands five hours late. The reply comes back, polite and brief: the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances, so no compensation is owed. In the vast majority of cases, the matter ends there.

It deserves to be reopened, because the phrase covers far fewer situations than its constant use suggests, and because on West and Central Africa routes, where connections through European hubs are frequent and delays common, thousands of passengers accept a refusal that a closer reading of the rules would not support.

What EU Regulation 261/2004 actually says

EU Regulation 261/2004 sets fixed compensation for qualifying flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding: €250, €400 or €600 depending on distance. It applies to flights departing an EU airport, regardless of the airline, and to certain flights arriving in the EU from a non EU country when operated by an EU carrier, under the conditions set out in the regulation.

The regulation gives airlines a specific exemption: the disruption must result from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Two questions therefore matter. It is not enough for an event to be unusual. The airline must also prove that the disruption could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Evidence of what the airline actually did is therefore central to any refusal based on extraordinary circumstances.

The Court of Justice of the European Union set the standard as early as 2008: the event must be external to the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and beyond its actual control. Abstract wording, with very concrete consequences. Because this is an exception to a passenger’s right to compensation, the Court has repeatedly required it to be interpreted strictly, with the burden of proof resting on the airline that invokes it.

Technical failure: rarely extraordinary

This is one of the most common reasons given for refusing flight compensation, and usually one of the weakest.

A plane develops a fault. To the passenger waiting at the gate, it may look unforeseeable. To European judges, a technical failure is normally part of running an airline. Maintaining a fleet, replacing parts and dealing with aircraft defects are part of the carrier’s ordinary activity.

The Court has recognised narrow exceptions, among them a hidden manufacturing defect disclosed by the manufacturer or a competent authority, or damage resulting from sabotage or an act of terrorism. But these remain exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself.

In the ordinary run of cases, “technical problem” is not an answer. It is the start of a discussion.

Weather, but not as a blanket excuse

A weather event can genuinely amount to an extraordinary circumstance. Nobody controls fog, severe storms or dangerous winds.

But the airline still has to explain how the weather affected the flight in question and what reasonable measures it took in response.

A general reference to deteriorating conditions in a region is not enough. The relevant question is what happened to that particular flight. The fact that other aircraft were operating from the same airport may be relevant, but it does not by itself settle the issue.

The same logic applies to bird strikes, which courts have recognised as external to the carrier’s activity, without exempting the airline from showing what it actually did in response.

Strikes: it depends on the circumstances

One of the more revealing categories is industrial action.

A strike by air traffic controllers or airport staff may be external to the airline, which suffers the consequences. A strike involving the airline’s own employees sits closer to its own management, although the case law does not treat every staff strike as automatically excluded from the category of extraordinary circumstances.

In the TUIfly case, joined cases C 195/17 and others, ruling of 17 April 2018, the Court found that a mass, spontaneous sick leave movement among cabin crew, following a surprise restructuring announcement, did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. The announcement had come from management, and the social risks arising from such a measure were considered inherent to the normal exercise of the airline’s activity.

It is a strong precedent, not a blanket rule, and each case still turns on its own facts.

What this means for passengers

None of this requires legal training. Three steps matter.

Ask for the exact reason, in writing. A letter that only repeats the standard formula, without naming the actual event or explaining why it qualifies, gives the passenger very little to assess or challenge.

Check whether the reason fits the category. Technical failure, schedule reorganisation, crew shortage or an aircraft being positioned elsewhere generally require closer examination because these situations can fall within the normal operation of an airline.

Remember that extraordinary circumstances do not cancel every passenger right. Depending on the circumstances, rights to care, including meals, refreshments, hotel accommodation and transport, can remain applicable. So can the right to reimbursement or rerouting.

A question of burden, more than of law

What makes the phrase “extraordinary circumstances” so effective in practice is not its legal scope, which is narrow, but its deterrent effect. It closes a conversation that most passengers never open.

Yet the burden of proof rests with the airline, not the traveller. It is for the carrier to establish the event, its external nature and why the disruption could not have been avoided despite reasonable measures. Until it has done so, a standard reference to “extraordinary circumstances” is not the end of the analysis.

It is also worth noting that the rules themselves are now being revised. In June 2026, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on a revision of EU air passenger rights, including clearer rules on extraordinary circumstances and claims procedures. The new rules have not yet replaced Regulation 261/2004, which remains the applicable law today.

The current compensation levels remain €250, €400 and €600 depending on distance. But the debate over how strictly airlines should be held to account is now live in Brussels as well as in the small print of airline refusal letters.

On routes where compensation can reach €600 per passenger, and where families rarely travel alone, that gap can amount to thousands of euros on a single disrupted journey.

It deserves to be challenged, not simply accepted.

_________

* The author, Saint‑Yves Kodjo, is the founder of Robin des Airs, a service specialised in recovering compensation for air passengers on Europe‑Africa routes. He spent fifteen years working in the cabin, including several years as a purser. Visit Robin des Airs at https://robindesairs.eu/