How to answer an airline refusal

Unforeseen technical issue / unexpected flight safety shortcoming

The airline claims the flight was delayed by a sudden technical defect and treats it as an extraordinary circumstance.

This is the most common refusal and legally the weakest. In Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) the Court of Justice held that technical problems found during maintenance, or caused by a lack of it, are inherent in the normal activity of a carrier and are not extraordinary circumstances. Van der Lans (C-257/14) confirmed this even for the sudden failure of a previously sound component.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-549/07 · Wallentin-Hermann · C-257/14 · van der Lans

Industrial action by our staff / wildcat strike

The flight was delayed or cancelled because of a strike by the airline's own employees — pilots, cabin crew or ground staff.

A strike by the carrier's own staff does not release it from payment. In Krüsemann (C-195/17) the Court examined a "wildcat strike" — Lufthansa staff calling in sick en masse after a restructuring announcement — and held that such events are inherent in the normal activity of the carrier and within its control. The key distinction: a strike by air traffic controllers or airport staff is external; a strike by your own employees is not.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-195/17 · Krüsemann

Your flight was delayed, not cancelled

The airline acknowledges the delay but argues that compensation is due only for cancellations, not delays.

This directly contradicts the case law. Regulation 261/2004 indeed does not spell out compensation for delays, but the Sturgeon ruling (C-402/07) equated an arrival delay of three hours or more with a cancellation in terms of consequences for the passenger. It has applied since 2009 and is the basis for the vast majority of delay payouts.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-402/07 · Sturgeon

The flight departed on time

The airline measures the delay at departure rather than arrival and refuses on that basis.

What counts is the arrival delay, not the departure. Germanwings (C-452/13) also fixed the exact moment of arrival: not touchdown, not arriving at the gate, but the moment at least one aircraft door is opened and passengers are permitted to leave. The gap is often 15–30 minutes and can decide whether you cross the three-hour threshold.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-452/13 · Germanwings

The delay on the first leg was under three hours

On a connecting itinerary the airline measures each leg separately and refuses if none exceeded three hours.

On a single booking what counts is the total delay at the final destination. Folkerts (C-11/11) held that if a delay on the first leg caused a missed connection and the passenger reached the final destination three or more hours late, compensation is due — even where the first flight's own delay was modest. The one condition: the legs must be on the same booking.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-11/11 · Folkerts

Rotational delay / knock-on delay

The flight was delayed because the aircraft returned late from a previous rotation.

On its own this does not release the carrier. Planning aircraft rotations and buffer time between flights is the airline's responsibility and part of its normal activity. An exception applies only if the original delay on the earlier leg was caused by a genuine extraordinary circumstance — and proving that chain is the airline's job.

Relevant Court of Justice rulings: C-549/07 · Wallentin-Hermann

We have credited your account with a travel voucher

Instead of a cash payment the airline credits a voucher or internal account balance usable only for its own tickets.

Compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 is paid in money. A voucher is possible only with your written agreement — Article 7(3) requires the passenger's signed consent. Silent acceptance or a simple account credit is not consent. A useful signal: if a voucher is offered, the airline itself accepts the delay is compensable, so it is worth insisting on cash.

Your fare was non-refundable or discounted

The refusal is based on a low ticket price, a non-refundable fare or a promotional purchase.

The amount under Article 7 depends solely on flight distance and has nothing to do with the ticket price. The only exception in the regulation covers tickets not available to the public: staff travel, loyalty awards, free tickets. An ordinary promotional fare does not fall within it. Low-cost passengers get the best ratio of all: a €25 ticket and €400 compensation is routine.

No reply at all

The claim was sent but the airline stays silent for weeks or months.

Silence is a common tactic: a significant share of passengers simply give up after a month of nothing. The regulation sets no single response deadline, but most national enforcement bodies require you to give the carrier a reasonable period — usually 6–8 weeks — before they accept a complaint. So silence is not a dead end, it is the precondition for the next step.

Adverse weather conditions / weather at destination

The airline cites weather at the departure airport, the destination or en route.

Weather genuinely is an extraordinary circumstance, but this is the most abused wording of all: AirHelp data suggests around 52% of refusals are unjustified, and weather is the most common cover for a technical fault or scheduling problem. It is easy to check. First, through the open METAR archive for the date and time of the flight. Second, indirectly: if other flights left the same airport in the same hour on schedule, the weather argument looks weak.

ATC restrictions / air traffic control

The delay is attributed to air traffic management: slots, capacity restrictions or a controllers' strike.

A controllers' strike and genuine ATC restrictions are valid grounds — they are external and outside the carrier's control. But the wording often covers the airline's own problems: schedules so tight that any small delay compounds through the day, or the late arrival of the aircraft from a previous rotation. Check it the same way as weather: were there real restrictions that day, and how did other carriers fare?

Airport congestion / capacity constraints

The delay is attributed to terminal overload, a shortage of security staff or airport slot restrictions.

A contested wording. A shortage of airport staff and terminal overload are operational infrastructure problems, not extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3). Case law on this tends to favour the passenger more often than not. It is worth checking separately whether the restriction was formally imposed and applied to all carriers.

Bird strike

The flight was delayed by a bird strike and the subsequent inspection.

This is a valid ground. The Court of Justice has recognised a bird strike as an extraordinary circumstance: it is not inherent in the normal activity of the carrier and is outside its control. But there is a caveat: the carrier must show it took all reasonable measures to minimise the delay after the incident. If the aircraft then sat for extra hours without explanation, that part of the delay can be challenged.

Security risk

The delay was caused by a security threat, terminal evacuation or a check on a suspicious item.

A valid ground, named directly in the recitals of Regulation 261/2004 among examples of extraordinary circumstances. It is only worth challenging the duration: if the threat was cleared within an hour but the flight left five hours late, the carrier must explain the difference.

Airspace closure

The flight was cancelled or delayed by an airspace closure: military action, a volcanic eruption, an emergency.

A valid ground and the classic example of an extraordinary circumstance. But remember: even where cash compensation is not due, the right to care under Article 9 remains in full and has no time cap. Meals, drinks, communication and, if needed, a hotel and transfers must be provided regardless of the cause.