The European Union has the most consumer friendly policies in the world when it comes to what passengers are entitled to in the event that their flight is significantly delayed or canceled. This policy is known as EC261 (often referred to as EU261), and it entitles consumers to compensation in the range of €250-600 in the event of operational disruptions, in addition to clearly defined rebooking practices, reimbursement for expenses, etc.
Since 2014, we’ve seen no changes to these regulations, which has been great for consumers. However, since last year, government leaders in Europe have been debating making some major changes. All signs pointed toward these changes being overwhelmingly negative, much to the delight of airlines.
Well, there’s now a major update, as these reforms are reportedly very close to becoming a reality. Rather than making regulations less consumer friendly, the opposite appears to be the case, and they’ll become even more consumer friendly… wow! Separately, I’ve covered how we’re going to see new carry-on bag rules, which also has major implications for airlines.
In this post:
EC261 compensation policies remain largely unchanged
In 2025, we saw transport ministers of various European Union member states discuss reforming EC261. As you’d expect, actually creating consensus among member states is no easy task, and these processes tend to be pretty drawn out, and often nothing comes of them.
Initially, the idea was that these changes would be overwhelmingly negative, including reducing the compensation amounts, increasing the length of delay required to trigger compensation, and even limiting whether missing a connecting flight would trigger compensation payments.
Well… as it turns out… never mind! Not only are the compensation amounts remaining in place, but there are some positive changes.
POLITICO reports on how country member ambassadors are now in agreement over a new policy. They’re expected to shortly approve the draft, and then the final deal needs to be adopted by the conciliation committee by June 15, 2026 (so that’s just over a week from now).
The cash compensation structure is expected to remain unchanged, as follows:
- If your flight covers a distance of under 1,500km (930 miles), you’re entitled to €250 compensation if you’re delayed by at least two hours
- If your flight covers a distance of 1,500-3,500km (930-2,200 miles), you’re entitled to €400 compensation if you’re delayed by at least three hours
- If your flight covers a distance of over 3,500km (2,200 miles), you’re entitled to €300 compensation if you’re delayed by three to four hours, and €600 compensation if you’re delayed by at least four hours
However, beyond that, there are some really positive changes. Rather than seeing consumer rights stripped away, we’d actually see them strengthened:
- In the event a passenger is eligible for compensation, airlines would need to send that person a link to the compensation claim form within 48 hours of the scheduled arrival time of the flight, to make it easier to file a claim (currently, there’s no requirement to actually inform passengers of what they’re entitled to, aside from having a section on the website addressing this)
- Airlines would be required to provide the reason for the disruption, including specifying any extraordinary circumstances, assuming they don’t want to provide compensation payments
- Once a passenger submits a compensation request, the airline would have 30 days to pay or justify a refusal
Consumers should be happy, while airlines are unhappy
It goes without saying that most passengers will probably be happy about these changes, while airlines are decidedly unhappy.
The European Regions Airline Association has published a paper about these potential changes, arguing that these updates will increase the cost of EC261 from €8.1 billion to over €15 billion annually. The paper argues that consumers will ultimately pay higher fares because of this, and some small communities will lose service:
The proposed Parliament revisions to EU261 risk imposing substantial additional costs on airlines—costs that would ultimately be borne by passengers and, in many cases, by regional communities that could lose the air services on which they depend. The existing regime already costs the sector an estimated €8.1 billion annually, and the Parliament’s proposals are estimated to nearly double that burden—pushing total annual costs to over €15 billion.
Now, why would they suggest that these reforms will essentially double the cost of paying out compensation? Well, perhaps the biggest change here is that airlines will have to inform passengers they’re eligible for compensation, while currently they don’t have to do that.
I would assume a majority of passengers have no clue about these regulations, and don’t even know to request compensation. So that’s a major change that can’t be overstated.
As a consumer, I of course love the European Union’s generous compensation scheme. It’s the only part of the world where I almost hope for a flight delay, since it pays big time.
On the other hand, some people would argue that in reality, airlines aren’t completely off base when they say that consumers pay indirectly for this generous compensation. I think that’s sort of true, but also not. I mean, airlines like EasyJet and Ryanair manage to operate and offer very low fares, despite having to abide by these policies (which isn’t to say that they don’t try to deny compensation whenever possible, but…). My point is simply that it’s not like reducing compensation will lead to lower fares in any sort of a noticeable way.
Bottom line
For quite some time now, the European Union has been considering making major changes to the EC261 flight delay and cancelation scheme. Initially, the plan was to majorly reform this in a way that would be bad for consumers.
Well, as it turns out, that’s no longer the plan. Under the most recent draft, which has widespread support and is expected to be voted on soon, the compensation amounts would remain the same. Not only that, but airlines would actually be forced to proactively inform customers they’re entitled to compensation.
As you’d expect, consumers should be delighted by this, while airlines aren’t, with one paper suggesting that this will roughly double the cost of the EC261 scheme for airlines.
What do you make of these EC261 flight compensation changes?
The only change is to make things transparent for Customers and better enforcement of existing regulations.
So the airlines are complaining that they can't evade their responsibilities (which was illegal) anymore ?
To be honest this is nothing groundbreaking, just clarifying some of the gotchas airlines used for years trying to get around laws.
On the other hand, the 2013 proposal (see 261/2004 EC wiki) has some very reasonable points which should be addressed, e.g. having to rebook onto non-partner airlines, correction of misspelt names or using only the return portion of a round-trip without having flown the outbound!
This is indeed a change for better although not as much as I'd hope (most notably, I think the proposal lacks negative consequences for airlines that deny valid claims, for example by having to pay more).
Another thing I don't like is that the compensation amounts remain the same - this is a massive downgrade of compensations considering the inflation since the regulation was first put in place.
But still, a move in the...
This is indeed a change for better although not as much as I'd hope (most notably, I think the proposal lacks negative consequences for airlines that deny valid claims, for example by having to pay more).
Another thing I don't like is that the compensation amounts remain the same - this is a massive downgrade of compensations considering the inflation since the regulation was first put in place.
But still, a move in the right direction. I'm glad that the fearmongering about protections being lowered didn't prove to be true. People were a bit too quick to jump on Council's first proposal as something definitive.
Note to Ben: There's some bug on the website, it keeps capitalising my Is at the beggining of sentences here in comments (despite no such input on my side - and having tried it on other websites, the issue doesn't exist elsewhere, so clearly there's some bug in the form input).
I wish there was some punitive mechanism for airlines who improperly deny or delay compensation hoping people just go away. Airlines know the more times they say you're not eligible, a certain percent just give up and go away. Hopefully some of these new rules will help with that, but I'm not hopeful.
I think this goes into the right direction. If there is a compensation, claiming and paying the compensation needs to be streamlined. And I think the picture is the right one, because LH group was particulary obstructive in the past.
The way to do this is like the UK does train delay compensation where it is tied to ticket price paid, you can register for an automated delay repay scheme, they send you a link, you submit, you get your money. Reason for delay is irrelevant - train delayed by 15 minutes you get 25% back, 60 minutes 100% back.
Can set different thresholds for aviation of course, maybe 1 hour 10%, 2 hours 20%,...
The way to do this is like the UK does train delay compensation where it is tied to ticket price paid, you can register for an automated delay repay scheme, they send you a link, you submit, you get your money. Reason for delay is irrelevant - train delayed by 15 minutes you get 25% back, 60 minutes 100% back.
Can set different thresholds for aviation of course, maybe 1 hour 10%, 2 hours 20%, up to a maximum of maybe 6 hours 60%, with caps (can't get more than 1000 euro total or whatever). Cancelled can get full refund or if within 14 days and you accept alternate booking you still get delay comp depending on how delayed your alternate booking ends up to be.
Once there are carve-outs for weather, political unrest, ATC, etc., it's a back and forth that will take forever and requires a cottage industry of middlemen to actually get paid.
I mean, EU 261 comp is great, don't get me wrong, but intellectually not sure why an airline should have to pay you more than you paid them in the first place - if you want travel insurance, can buy travel insurance.
We are so long-over due for an EU261 equivalent in the US. And, to bring back Rule 240!
These changes are completely fair. Airlines - some more than others - have very often tried to weasel out of paying just, legally required compensation. This forces them to treat more fairly with passengers. Good.
Well said. EU261 is not perfect, and should be improved. Well done on the EU for actually trying.
So you're saying that consumers should be 'delighted' that the authorities are choosing to ignore the effects of two decades of inflation? That's an interesting take!
@ Throwawayname -- Correct, when the alternative proposed legislation was a significant reduction in compensation.
These look like positive changes but I would make three alterations:
1) The claim form should lead to payments being automatically paid for every passenger that is due compensation
2) The decision to classify if a delay will lead to compensation can't be done by individual airlines as they WILL push the boundaries. It should automatically go to an independent arbitrator
3) I would reduce the level of compensation in return for this (half of the current levels)
I like 1). Payments should be streamlined, more efficient.
New 48-hour notice requirement, and 30-days limit seems to be heading a better direction.
But 3) is a bad idea. Do not give up anything.
These changes should not harm any airline that do their job right.
Exactly. And, if even ULCC airlines like Ryanair can continue to be profitable while offering dirt-cheap fares, paying union wages, and complying with such regulations, it can be done.
Not surprinsingly, Wille Walsh was of a diametrical different opinion in his speech at IATA GA a few hours ago...
https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/2026-speeches/willie-walsh-speech-iata-82nd-agm-report-state-global-air-transport-industry/
Willy doesn't have to 'like' it... they just have to comply.
Raises the cost of airfare.
Punishes the informed consumer.
Nope. Even ULCC airlines like Ryanair can continue to be profitable while offering dirt-cheap fares, paying union wages, and complying with such regulations.
RYAAY runs a very reliable operation in part because of serving secondary airports where there is less congestion.
Legacies can learn from them but there is a big difference between the types of operations the Euro legacies and ULCCs.
You post “Legacies can learn from them but there is a big difference between the types of operations the Euro legacies and ULCCs”.
Please explain?
I would argue that airlines will charge whatever they are getting away with anyway. This way, however, they are strongly incentivized to have a good on-time performance. The single most important point though, is that missed connections still count.
Airlines are already incentivized to have good "on-time" performance. More delays and cancellations = fewer flights. Planes don't make money parked at the gate.
Would be nice if "being on time" was fully in control of the airlines to hold them to this high a standard. But ATC and weather play the biggest part of being "on time" or not, which they obviously cannot control.
Sarah M., stop shilling for big-airline. OMAAT is for the users, not corporate cucks. Airlines have been abusing the defense of extraordinary circumstances, blaming everything on weather, even when it is clearly not (say, a staffing issue or maintenance problem). EU is at least trying to improve this. I applaud their attempt.