How Airlines Try to Avoid Paying EU261 Compensation
Airlines have developed a playbook of tactics to avoid paying EU261 compensation. From false extraordinary circumstances claims to slow-rolling responses, these strategies are predictable and beatable. Here is how to recognize and counter each one.
Tactic 1: False Extraordinary Circumstances
The most common avoidance tactic is claiming "extraordinary circumstances" for disruptions that do not actually qualify. Airlines cite vague "technical issues," minor weather events at other airports, or operational problems as extraordinary when they are not.
Counter: Request written documentation of the specific circumstance and why it could not have been avoided. Under EU261, the burden of proof is on the airline. If they cannot provide specifics, the claim stands. See our extraordinary circumstances guide.
Tactic 2: Offering Vouchers Instead of Cash
Airlines sometimes offer vouchers, flight credits, or miles instead of the cash compensation required by EU261. They may present this as a generous gesture, downplaying the fact that cash is your legal right.
Counter: EU261 requires compensation in cash (bank transfer or check). You can accept a voucher if you prefer, but only with your written consent. Simply respond that you are requesting cash compensation as required by the regulation. See our EU261 guide for the claims process.
Tactic 3: Slow-Rolling the Response
Some airlines simply do not respond to claims, hoping passengers will give up. There is no specific response deadline in EU261 itself, but National Enforcement Bodies typically expect responses within 6 to 8 weeks.
Counter: Send a follow-up at the 6-week mark citing the original claim reference. If no response by 8 weeks, escalate to the NEB in the departure country. Document every communication attempt.
Tactic 4: Incorrect Rejection Letters
Airlines sometimes send official-looking rejection letters citing reasons that are legally incorrect, such as claiming EU261 does not apply to the route (when it does) or citing the wrong delay threshold.
Counter: Do not accept a rejection at face value. Verify the airline's claims against the actual regulation. If the rejection cites incorrect law, respond with the correct legal basis. A factually incorrect rejection often succeeds on appeal to the NEB.
Tactic 5: Blaming Third Parties
Airlines may blame airport authorities, ground handlers, or other third parties for the disruption. However, EU261 holds the operating carrier responsible, regardless of which third party caused the problem. The airline's relationship with its ground handler or airport operator is the airline's responsibility, not the passenger's.
Counter: Cite EU261 Article 5(3), which places the burden on the operating carrier. Third-party operational failures are not extraordinary circumstances unless they were genuinely unforeseeable and unavoidable. For help with your claim, check your flight with TravelStacks. For writing effective responses, see our claim template guide.