The European Union is known for its consumer protections for airline passengers, thanks to its EC261 scheme. The reality is that while rules are written a certain way, their enforcement is often determined through court decisions (like alcohol not being considered a “refreshment” for the purposes of reimbursement from airlines during a delay). So here’s another fun court case, which ended up working out well for a traveler…
In this post:
Traveler takes taxi for 425-mile journey after flight cancels
German website PNP reports on a fascinating court decision about EC261 compensation (thanks to Klaus for flagging this). The origin of this dates back to late 2024, when a 32-year-old living in Munich was scheduled to fly on KLM from Munich (MUC) to Amsterdam (AMS) to Paris (CDG).
The backstory here is fun. His plan was to spend one night in Paris, and then to fly the following morning on a separately booked ticket on Air Europa from Paris to Madrid (MAD). He was taking these flights on SkyTeam airlines because he was participating the SAS EuroBonus million mile challenge.
Unfortunately his travel plans quickly fell apart. First his flight to Amsterdam was canceled, so he was rebooked to Paris via Berlin (BER), but then that was canceled as well. Then he was rebooked via Vienna (VIE), but the second flight ended up being canceled. So it became increasingly unlikely that he’d be able to make it to Paris in time for his flight the next day.
He researched options, but they were limited. There were no more flights to Munich, and trains and buses weren’t options either, because it was too late in the day. So as he saw it, the only option was to drive. He tried to find the most economical option by reaching out to multiple car services, but ultimately the cheapest cost he could find was a staggering €3,300 (around $3,900), via a taxi.
So he ended up in the back of a car for around nine hours overnight, only to make it to Paris just 90 minutes before the Air Europa flight to Madrid. So that doesn’t sound like a very restful night!
This situation resulted in a drawn out reimbursement travel
After the trip, the traveler reached out to Air France (that’s what the story claims — perhaps it’s referring to Air France-KLM more broadly, since KLM flies between Munich and Amsterdam). He requested the €250 cash compensation that’s due with EC261 when you arrive at your destination hours late, and he also requested reimbursement for the cost of the taxi ride. The airline denied both claims.
So his response was to take the airline to court. He argues he did nothing wrong, he left a buffer, and ultimately he pursued the only option that would get him to his destination in time.
EC261 requires airlines to rebook you on the next available flight, or reimburse you for alternative transportation. This is where courts ultimately decide what’s considered reasonable, since it’s not spelled out in regulations otherwise.
A lower court initially ruled that the airline wasn’t responsible for reimbursing the traveler for these costs, while a higher court did not share the lower court’s view, and sided with the traveler. It’s worth noting that this traveler used attorney Dr. Böse, who is known for litigating EC261 cases.
As Böse explained, “the airline did not offer a suitable alternative in terms of timing,” and “especially with such high potential losses, that’s simply unacceptable.” He also said that “given the high costs of replacement transportation, this is, in a sense, a precedent,” and “this is therefore a good and important decision for all consumers.”
While the airline reportedly tried to appeal the decision, months later, the traveler finally received what he was expecting, and the airline also had to cover the legal and court costs.
I’m not sure I have a terribly strong take here, other than finding this to be fascinating:
- On the one hand, this guy didn’t do anything wrong, he just wanted to get to his destination within a reasonable timeframe, and I can’t imagine an overnight taxi ride was enjoyable; it does seem like he tried to look at all other options, and this was one of the only ways for him to get there (it’s interesting rental cars are never mentioned)
- On the other hand, this is obviously an absurdly expensive way to get somewhere, and one wonders what the limits would be here; if your transatlantic flight cancels and there are no other options, should you be able to charter a private jet and have that reimbursed?
Ultimately this is what happens when you have an open-ended policy with no stated limits, and it’s up to courts to decide what’s a reasonable method to get to a destination with as little delay as possible. Does the fact that he had non-refundable tickets booked for the next day then justify the urgency, even at such a high cost?
Bottom line
EC261 regulations provide great passenger protections in the European Union. There are often court cases that explore the limits of this scheme, and we recently saw what I think is one of the most interesting such cases in a long time.
A traveler had a flight from Munich to Paris canceled, and he needed to be there by the next morning to catch another flight. With no alternatives, he spent around $3,900 on an overnight taxi ride, which I can’t imagine was pleasant.
He requested reimbursement from the airline, but was initially denied. After going through a legal process and a lower court ruling being overturned, the airline was ultimately forced to reimburse him for the expenses, as well as for court costs and legal fees.
What do you make of this court case?
Flixbus has buses that leave Munich for Paris at 8 PM, 10:05 PM, 10:55 PM, and 11:35 PM every night. I highly doubt taxi was the only way to get to Paris.
If the airline loses my luggage, I am concerned about buying a $20 t-shirt and getting reimbursed, and this guy is spending $3000 out of pocket. Insane.
"Böse" is a German adjective meaning evil, wicked, malicious, bad, angry, or nasty.
They should probably add a new meaning for Böse: WINNER!
just curious how much they received after Dr Bose's cut. Asking from a Morgan & Morgan state. Sure things are different in EU, but still...
fees were reimbursed also
There has been discussion about changing EU261 and I suspect that cases like this will help to make that case. He spent 3300 euros to make a flight from Paris to Madrid that probably cost less than 200 euros and the court thought that was reasonable.
I find the final court decision to be valid. Airlines should not be able to treat passengers like dirt. At least in the EU passengers have options.
lol what a tool. Burning fossil fuels so he can be an extreme couponer. He didn’t “need” to go anywhere. Additionally, he never gave them an option to just fly him to Madrid because of his silly games. He couldn’t rent a car or just not go? Why didn’t KLM argue they had cheaper Madrid flights or even that Iberia did? Does EU261 guarantee routing?
And also, regarding the biggest tool, 1990, the Railway Labor Act is a much stronger consumer protection than EU261.
@ Sel, D. -- The flight to Madrid was a separate ticket. His contract with the airline was between Munich and Paris, and not between Munich and Madrid. Also, good luck getting a frontline agent to just book you to a completely different destination that you're not ticketed to travel to with that airline.
Thanks for the reply. Not for frontline to rebook him. For him to book himself. $4k so he can taxi and fly his preferred flight when his attorney’s argument was he “needed” to get to Madrid. Also, I suspect he already knew Böse - do you really think he would have risked the $4k otherwise? Maybe if this was the last flight of his promo conquest.
The more interesting thing here though is Railway vs....
Thanks for the reply. Not for frontline to rebook him. For him to book himself. $4k so he can taxi and fly his preferred flight when his attorney’s argument was he “needed” to get to Madrid. Also, I suspect he already knew Böse - do you really think he would have risked the $4k otherwise? Maybe if this was the last flight of his promo conquest.
The more interesting thing here though is Railway vs. EU261 re: consumer protections. No thoughts? I’d pick the former. I’m not a compensation clinic type.
@ Sel, D. -- I of course hear you, but then again, if we get to a system where airlines decide on a case-by-case basis who "needs" to be somewhere, well... that gets tricky too.
Also, I'd be willing to bet the airline would squarely reject the compensation request if you just booked a ticket to another destination and requested reimbursement. After all, they'll try to find any excuse to avoid paying out.
It's possible...
@ Sel, D. -- I of course hear you, but then again, if we get to a system where airlines decide on a case-by-case basis who "needs" to be somewhere, well... that gets tricky too.
Also, I'd be willing to bet the airline would squarely reject the compensation request if you just booked a ticket to another destination and requested reimbursement. After all, they'll try to find any excuse to avoid paying out.
It's possible he knew Böse, as he's kind of a known figure in the EC261 world. I agree it was quite a risk to pay that out of pocket and hope for reimbursement.
As far as EC261 vs. the Railway Labor Act goes, those are two different areas, as I see it. Broadly on the topic of unionization, I prefer a system between what we see in the US (where it's virtually impossible to go on strike) and what we see in Europe (where it's very easy to go on strike).
The other side of the coin here is interesting as well. Despite the fact that airline employees in the US can't really go on strike, they're among the highest paid in the world, and of course consumers are on the hook paying for that. So there's a certain irony to those not being able to go on strike being the highest paid.
"Also, good luck getting a frontline agent to just book you to a completely different destination that you're not ticketed to travel to with that airline." Last century, I had a business round trip Home-PHX on (not Delta). I added a PHX-LAS r/t on Delta. On the day I was to fly LAS-PHX-Home, the flight to PHX was cancelled. DL took the two flight coupons and issued me one for their n/s home. Best flight cancellation ever. But, I'd not expect this to happen today.
@Lucky thanks for the insights. Interesting case study here.
@Sel, when was the last time you did an one-way cross-border car rental?
There may have been a better solution, such as nipping across the border to Switzerland, buying a ticket on Air Europa straight out of MUC (not sure about the schedule at the time but they currently do have UX1518 at 19:00/19:05 most evenings, continuing after the end of the summer schedule), but, even if he does have a driving license, getting a...
@Sel, when was the last time you did an one-way cross-border car rental?
There may have been a better solution, such as nipping across the border to Switzerland, buying a ticket on Air Europa straight out of MUC (not sure about the schedule at the time but they currently do have UX1518 at 19:00/19:05 most evenings, continuing after the end of the summer schedule), but, even if he does have a driving license, getting a rental car would've been rather difficult and expensive- deep into the four figures and probably not much cheaper than what he ended up paying.
Friends in the US, do you see this? THIS is why we need better consumer protections in the US. EU261 is a great start. Bring back Rule 240. We’re leaving money on the table.