We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.
We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

Gothenburg, Sweden
Destination Expert
for Gothenburg
posts: 512
reviews: 15
How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

Background:

We were booked on LH ticket, purchased direct from LH; the return part of our ticket had the following legs:

LHR-MUC and MUC-GOT; departing LHR 15.25 arrive in MUC 18:20. Depart MUC 19.25 to GOT.

Our flight out of LHR was delayed and did not depart until around 18.00 because that a tire needed to be changed at the aircraft. We missed our connection in MUC since we landed around 19.45. Lufthansa rebooked to the next day and we were given a hotel/meal and transportation voucher.

Because of the delay and rebooking both me and my wife missed 2/3 day of work since we were schedule to return one day earlier.

I understand that I can claim the missed income to LH, but are we also entitled to the € 250 stated in the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

EK

33 replies to this topic
Edinburgh, United...
posts: 7,524
reviews: 15
1. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

If the delay was caused by non-extraordinary circumstances, then yes, you are entitled to compensation under EU261. It's hard for anyone here to say for sure whether that's the case, but I'll stick my neck out and say it's likely. You are not entitled to any loss of income.

Leyland, United...
Destination Expert
for Playa Blanca
posts: 19,896
reviews: 34
2. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

I doubt very much that LH will pay for your lost income.

UK
posts: 40,490
reviews: 84
3. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

I understand that I can claim the missed income to LH

=======

I have no idea at all why you believe that, you absolutely cannot.

( well, you can *claim* it if you want but you have zero chance of getting it )

Manchester, United...
posts: 338
reviews: 8
4. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

A tyre needing to be replaced is hardly extraordinary under the Reg so I would say that you are entitled to compensation. You would not be entitled to recover any losses due to non attendance at work under 261/2004. You may have a claim for these under the Montreal Convention but the defence available under MC is less strict for the airline to prove it's defence so you may have a hard time to prove loss under this convention.

Yorkshire
posts: 262
reviews: 6
5. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

I understand that you cannot claim loss of income to LH, because no airline is liable for consequential damages. As to 250 euros per person under EU261, most likely you are eligible. A tyre is a technical problem, which is indeed hardly extraordinary.

Seattle, Washington
posts: 6,844
reviews: 85
6. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

I wish there was a separate forum for EU261 discussions.

tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k5946007…

tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k5942224…

tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k5941426…

And so on. Might make it easier for people to find info they need.

Edited: 4:25 pm, December 05, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Destination Expert
for Air Travel
posts: 15,895
reviews: 5
7. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

Travelomancity,

A couple of weeks ago you mentioned the "Folkerts" case, which is supposed to rule on whether the greater than 3 hour delay can apply to the whole itinerary and not just connecting flights. That would be the precedent case that would apply here (as neither flight had a 3 hour delay).

Did the ECJ rule on that? I've Googled, but can't find any news on it, just the inital docket - eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do…

Portland, Oregon
Destination Expert
for Air Travel
posts: 15,895
reviews: 5
8. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

>> I wish there was a separate forum for EU261 discussions.<<

There is, kind of. It's a top question too -

tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g1-i10702-k5922133…

Salisbury, United...
posts: 2,482
reviews: 62
9. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

Surely a tyre change, presumably because it burst, must be an extraordinary case. No airline can prevent this, it's not a maintenance issue. And if the airline is away from it's hub replacement may take longer. I presume there is no list of extraordinary circumstances.

Some of this legislation seems to be bonkers and how much time and money is wasted with test cases.

It was most probably needed to protect passengers from needless cancelations especially by LCC but will we all end up paying more as a result?

Am I missing something?

Seattle, Washington
posts: 6,844
reviews: 85
10. Re: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?

but will we all end up paying more as a result?

>>>>>>>>

Well, someone is going to have to pay for all of this. Am guessing those that complain the most about delays, etc. and are the first to file claims, will next be posting here complaining about increases in air fare.

Reply to: How to interpret the EC Regulation 261/2004/EC?
Get notified by e-mail when a reply is posted