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.
For over a decade now, since 2014, this policy has remained unchanged, which has been great for consumers. However, discussions are currently taking place to reform this policy. It seems inevitable that changes are coming, the question is just how drastic they’ll be.
In this post:
EC261 reform closer to becoming a reality
For quite some time, there has been talk in the European Union about reforming EC261 policies. Recently, we’ve seen transport ministers of various member states meet in Luxembourg, to discuss reform. The changes we could see largely reflect the length of a delay that could trigger compensation, as well as how much compensation will be offered.
Under current policies:
- 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 €600 compensation if you’re delayed by at least four hours
According to a proposal supported by a majority of transport ministers, the policy could be updated as follows:
- If your flight covers a distance of up to 3,500km, you’d be entitled to €300 compensation if you’re delayed by at least four hours
- If your flight covers a distance of over 3,500km, you’d be entitled to €500 compensation if you’re delayed by at least six hours
As you can see, we’re potentially looking at a significant increase in the length of a delay triggering compensation, plus in some cases, a reduction in the amount offered.
It’s worth noting that there’s not unanimous support for this concept, though. For example, Germany is advocating for similar timelines to the current policies, but wants to update the amounts. Specifically, Germany wants compensation to be a flat €300, which would mean compensation for long haul flights would be cut in half.
Some other changes have been floated as well. For example, currently a missed connection would lead to compensation, assuming you arrive at your final destination with a significant delay. This is often the easiest way to trigger EC261 compensation, given the very shorty minimum connection times at many airports, where even a minor delay could trigger a missed connection. Under one proposal, a missed connection would only trigger compensation if the first flight is delayed by at least 90 minutes.
It remains to be seen in what way the policy will be changed, exactly, though it does seem quite likely that we’ll see some changes. The only thing that would likely prevent any reform is various parties not agreeing on what needs to be changed. The European Parliament also has a say in this, and seems a bit more pro-consumer.
My take on the concept of EC261 reform
As a consumer, of course I 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. So of course I don’t like to see this reformed the worse.
On the other hand, some people would argue that in reality, us consumers are paying 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.
Is some reform unreasonable? While I don’t like to see it, perhaps it’s not unreasonable either. I mean, if you’re on a long haul journey and misconnect with a planned 35-minute layover at an airport like Helsinki (HEL), should you automatically receive €600? As much as I don’t like to see these changes, I can understand the logic…
Bottom line
The European Union is considering making changes to the region’s compensation scheme for flight delays and cancelations, which is the most generous that you’ll find anywhere in the world. There are various proposals being considered, but they all increase the length of delay required to trigger compensation, and/or reduce the amount of compensation offered. So we’ll mark this as “developing” for now, and I’m sure we’ll learn more soon…
What do you make of this potential EC261 reform?
This is definitely a bad thing, especially the case mentioned by Ben which he Kind of approved of: if short connections lead to missed flights Airlines need to pay to discourage unrealistic connection times. The same for unrealistic turnaround times. If there is no penalty for this behavior the consumer will pay for this with his time. I gladly pay a bit more for my ticket when I’m sure to get to my destination on time!
No way. Free market. Allow the consumer to risk a tight connection. Shared liability. I do 25 minutes at PHX and I’m glad I have that choice, knowing even a 5-10 minute delay can force me to a backup plan.
You’re giving big victim energy.
Why are you calling this "reform", Ben? Reform means change with the implication of improvement. There's hardly any improvement here!
Sorry. That’s not really what reform means, plus - these seem to be great improvments to one side lol
On May 27, after waiting while United was working on a mechanical almost hitting the 3 hour mark, the flight from Venice to EWR was cancelled. Engine trouble. An announcement was made that there would be 2 flights the next day. Total chaos erupted as the pilot explained the issue. Everyone had to claim their bag, but there was no organized place to get transportation, rooms, and vouchers. I chose to take a water taxi...
On May 27, after waiting while United was working on a mechanical almost hitting the 3 hour mark, the flight from Venice to EWR was cancelled. Engine trouble. An announcement was made that there would be 2 flights the next day. Total chaos erupted as the pilot explained the issue. Everyone had to claim their bag, but there was no organized place to get transportation, rooms, and vouchers. I chose to take a water taxi back to my 5 star hotel in Venice. Once I got home, I contacted United who told me to submit my expenses and they would reimburse me what it would have cost them. I got $600 total for the 2 of us which was about $1800 less than my actual cash out. I also asked for my 600 euro each. They gave me choice of the 600 euro each or $1000 each in a travel certificate, which I took. I immediately cancelled flights for September, and rebooked the same flights using the travel certificate. Ironically, the flight for the next day was also cancelled as the plane was not fixed. As a Premier 1K flier ( currently on a status match from AA EXP ) I called United, and was able to secure the last 2 seats to IAD for the next day. At that point, I did not want to get to EWR as an appointment in NYC would be missed, and they worked with me to get me back to ORF at no additional charge. My guess is had I not been 1K, this may not have happened. I did the status match thinking I could get 1 K til Dec, 2026, but afterwards realized that I will not fly enough segments to make that. I have mixed feelings on the rules. In my case, we were definitely entitled to payment, but had we taken off after 3 hours, I think that 600 euros is pretty rich. But then again, my original flight was to end in EWR so a connection would not be an issue to contend with.
This is huge.
We should all hope that there will be no "negative" reform .
The other side of the European generous rules is that airlines make big effort avoiding delayed/cancelations etc.
Airlines now-days seriously factor in backups for equipment and crue in order to minimize vents that require paying compensation to consumers.
Changing EC261 may introduce more delays and a large impact on the service given to U.S. consumers.
The airlines often don't pay out under the current rules claiming 'exceptional circumstances'. I would be happy for a reduced amount if the airlines couldn't wriggle out of it.
If enforcement is the issue now, why would enforcement not be the issue after reducing the owed amount? Because unless I missed something, Ben didn't say anything about reducing the scenarios where an airline wouldn't have to pay up.
Whether they reform this or not, one thing they should add is a penalty for denying legitimate compensation claims. If your compensation claim is denied but later to be found valid, you should be awarded an additional 50%. Stop with the BS of denying and denying knowing people will eventually give up.
Misleading headline , actually the changes make sense and for some reason you missed the good news : on a return ticket if you missed the outbound segment and be denied boarding for the return , you are entitled to compensation!
And how much compensation would you be entitled to Stan? The cost of arrangements to get you home? What will you get?
I wonder whether they are going to make any change to involuntary downgrade compensation. I was downgraded on an SAS flight some years ago. I had a business class seat. I had a boarding pass in hand. The only thing I needed to do is give them my checked baggage. At that point, I was told I was being downgraded to economy. There was no explanation. It took me eight months of back-and-forth to get...
I wonder whether they are going to make any change to involuntary downgrade compensation. I was downgraded on an SAS flight some years ago. I had a business class seat. I had a boarding pass in hand. The only thing I needed to do is give them my checked baggage. At that point, I was told I was being downgraded to economy. There was no explanation. It took me eight months of back-and-forth to get compensation. It’s not an easy process. And I was dealing with one of the better countries to deal with, Sweden. I’ve heard the UK is even worse.
I think the most important thing is the policy should incentivize getting passengers who are delayed to their destination as soon as possible. As it stands 1 minute over and 24 hours over the delay thresholds leads to the same compensation, which is why we see a lack of urgency during irrops to minimise cost as much as possible after EC261 instead of putting passenger's interest first. Canada's model is better in this regard because...
I think the most important thing is the policy should incentivize getting passengers who are delayed to their destination as soon as possible. As it stands 1 minute over and 24 hours over the delay thresholds leads to the same compensation, which is why we see a lack of urgency during irrops to minimise cost as much as possible after EC261 instead of putting passenger's interest first. Canada's model is better in this regard because it's not based on fisrance, but on delay (though it's worse in nearly every other element).
Regardless, let's not forget while this is movement in EC261 reforms, the idea of reforming it has been around for over a decade. The 2013 proposed reforms have still not been adopted. I doubt there will be substantial changes in the next few years.
Make sure this new policy covers EU airlines flying non-EU to non-EU via EU.
Be explicitly clear on exactly what is a delay. How to count delay time.
Separate ticket under same PNR.
Denied boarding / downgrades.
RTW tickets
End this loophole for airlines.
Not just the airlines. Try the unions which in the EU have more power than the government or the airines for that fact. Case in point, delayed because of the air control union walk-out/delay whatever Zurich to Paris. Because of this, delayed meeting our connection in Paris non-stop to DFW. Thankfully because we're flying business got rebooked, but through JFK then Delta to DFW. Compensation $0. Tried two times. So don't think there's not loopholes or whatever.
Air traffic control is not within the airlines control. It’s not a loophole
It won’t change non eu to non eu. That is clear. Separate tickets too. Completely separate contracts, especially when two different airlines booked by an agent in the same record.
They will never make the regulation applicable to non-EU to non-EU flights. It's not relevant to the EU market and would just hurt European businesses in competition with other carriers.
If the stupid argument for denying non-EU to non-EU is to protect EU market. Then why not limit the claims to just EU residents.
So much for being progressive hypocrite and still discriminate.
Wouldn't the EU lack any legal jurisdiction to enforce claims for flights that don't touch the EU? I'm not a lawyer, but I'd guess that's the reason.
This is a double-whammy because inflation from 2014 til now means that the 600€ compensation should be increased to ~780€ just to match the original. 300€ today is equivalent to ~230€ in 2014 when the legislation started.
2004
>> If you’re on a long haul journey and misconnect with a planned 35-minute layover at an airport like Helsinki (HEL), should you automatically receive €600?
ABSOLUTELY. The airline sold a 35 minute connection, and they MUST stand by it. Nobody forces them to sell connections that are so short; the easy fix is for the airline to sell realistic connection times, not yet again make customers pay for airlines' faults.
Exactly. There are airports where MCT is 90 minutes (LHR), but if Finnair or Austrian are confident they can do 30/35 minutes at HEL/VIE and want to gamble, that's on them.
Also, let's bear in mind that often if you miss your "35 minute connection", you'll just end up on the next flight which leaves 2 hours later, therefore no comp due as you still arrive at your final destination with a delay that's below the EU 261 threshold.
Totally agree. In fact, some airlines see short connection times as a marketing advantage — by being able to show a shorter total journey time compared to their competitors. If the airline advertise it they must stand behind it, it shouldn’t be the traveler’s job to know what is realistic or not.
(Which, unless you are a frequent traveler it’s not easy to know. 35 mins might be an extreme example but there are plenty...
Totally agree. In fact, some airlines see short connection times as a marketing advantage — by being able to show a shorter total journey time compared to their competitors. If the airline advertise it they must stand behind it, it shouldn’t be the traveler’s job to know what is realistic or not.
(Which, unless you are a frequent traveler it’s not easy to know. 35 mins might be an extreme example but there are plenty of airlines that are happy to sell you a say, 50 or 70 min connection that is unrealistic at their hub).
I had flight delayed in SIN causing delay overnight on Lufthansa flight to FRA. Is it best to use an agent to seek compensation? And who recommended?
Don’t as there are many scammers out there. Always go to the airline directly. If the airline declines then go to the enforcement body or dispute resolution.
I was fighting with TAP for almost a year and they are known for ignoring all the request. I was looking at 3 x 600 euros. I hired one of the online companies and it took about 3 months. They took 30%. I dont think I would get anything if I continued to wait for TAP
What incentive does the airline have to rebook you to other airlines, if they can refuse and all you will get into 4x the “ticket price” (however that is calculated?)? With no protection agreement in the majority of cases for schedule changes it’s far cheaper to tell the passenger to go away.
It’s the law of unintended consequences.
Only the Poles could manage to have the main achievements of their EU Presidency undermining consumer...
What incentive does the airline have to rebook you to other airlines, if they can refuse and all you will get into 4x the “ticket price” (however that is calculated?)? With no protection agreement in the majority of cases for schedule changes it’s far cheaper to tell the passenger to go away.
It’s the law of unintended consequences.
Only the Poles could manage to have the main achievements of their EU Presidency undermining consumer rights to protect their tiny airline.
The Polish Press Agency (PAP) proudly declared the Minister said there is higher compensation for all those who encountered a delayed or cancelled flight. An outright lie. https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/minister-klimczak-chcemy-zadbac-od-do-z-o-pasazera-linii-lotniczych
And there is a lot of irony that they want to enhance NEB when the Polish NEB is literally the most useless in the EU and that’s entirely under the remit of Herr Tusk.
There is probably no need for anyone to get there knickers in a twist over this proposal. The EU gravy-train talking shop will take years to come to a decision and then some bright spark will take legal action just to delay implementation.
Only something entirely within the airline's control triggers a claim, so this dilution only benefits airlines giving them a free pass for incompetence.
Well said.
Agree with previous comments that this won't reduce pricing. There's never (or rarely) been a situation in which "tax" breaks have been passed onto the consumer at least in corporate america. On top of that, there's the component that the amount has not been changed since 2014, since which inflation has occurred.
My real question is why are governmental bodies even initiating this anti-consumer legislation? Is it lobbying by airlines? Surely the wool isn't pulled...
Agree with previous comments that this won't reduce pricing. There's never (or rarely) been a situation in which "tax" breaks have been passed onto the consumer at least in corporate america. On top of that, there's the component that the amount has not been changed since 2014, since which inflation has occurred.
My real question is why are governmental bodies even initiating this anti-consumer legislation? Is it lobbying by airlines? Surely the wool isn't pulled so much over their eyes that they genuinely think this could benefit consumers..?
I’m surprised no one has made a full time job out of misconnecting at Helsinki.
I see it’s not only me who has misconnected every time I fly through HEL(L)
Are they also discussing the unified rule for the carry on bag size? It's been there forever and the court rules vaguely that the handbag should be free but didn't say anything about the size and Spain has been chasing many cases in the court, largely been successful, yet we don't see any changes
Considering the compensation amounts have not been adjusted for inflation in ages, it would amount to a double whammy from the passenger standpoint.
The airlines surely take in consideration MCT for each airport when selling connecting flights. They should not be off the hook for missed connections
I think Tim Dunn is strange but entertaining and in some cases quite knowledgeable about the industry. I think the obsession some of you guys have with him is downright disturbing
Putting some of this risk of a tight connection on the consumer is reasonable - you know what you’re doing. Nobody is forcing you to buy the ticket. When I play the 25 minute game at PHX I know very well what I’m doing, always have a back up plan, and don’t expect zilch from AA if I misconnect (other than an alternate flight).
The airline is selling you the tight connection, if they miss that connection 20, 30, 40% of the time they should be on the hook for it. If they can't consistently make that connection, they shouldn't be selling it. If they do anyways, they should be on the hook for wasting YOUR time when they can't meet the schedule they advertised.
No customer (except the 1%, including those who comment here) knows what a good connection is. If the airline shows it on its website, then any consumer would conclude that it's feasible (otherwise why would it be there)?
The company is taking a commercial benefit by setting that schedule. If it's not feasible, that's on them.
In related news, my organization just announced a new travel policy, where any destination within nine hours by rail must be booked by rail. Fair enough, but there's a big difference in nine scheduled hours through Italy and Germany. In isn't, the long distance trains run on time, and if they don't, you get half your...
The company is taking a commercial benefit by setting that schedule. If it's not feasible, that's on them.
In related news, my organization just announced a new travel policy, where any destination within nine hours by rail must be booked by rail. Fair enough, but there's a big difference in nine scheduled hours through Italy and Germany. In isn't, the long distance trains run on time, and if they don't, you get half your ticket reimbursed often before you arrive. In Germany, less than 50% of Long Distance trains are on time, so if you have to change trains, you're going to spend several extra hours of misery somewhere. But, by their advertising the schedule, my organization decides that we should travel with them.
So, yes I love me some 261/04. The rail equivalent needs some teeth.
While the regulation hasn't changed in years in terms of the legal text, the judiciary practice and precedents took it a different way than originally intended. Therefore I can see why legislators may want to change some things including perhaps reducing certain compensations. However the proposal mentioned in the article are outright ridiculous, and personally I don't see them ever getting through, it would be a political suicide. Besides that, the actual value of compensation...
While the regulation hasn't changed in years in terms of the legal text, the judiciary practice and precedents took it a different way than originally intended. Therefore I can see why legislators may want to change some things including perhaps reducing certain compensations. However the proposal mentioned in the article are outright ridiculous, and personally I don't see them ever getting through, it would be a political suicide. Besides that, the actual value of compensation is already dropping via inflation.
In any case, any reduction in passenger rights must be accompanied with some kind of a tradeoff, e.g. better enforceability, clearer rules on duty of care, etc.
"I mean, if you’re on a long haul journey and misconnect with a planned 35-minute layover at an airport like Helsinki (HEL), should you automatically receive €600?"
I guess the question is: "should Finnair be selling this if they can't honour it?"
I understand the idea of the proposal. But the proposal of the misconnections is just nuts. Why making a difference between direct and connecting itineraries? The airline promised you to bring you at...
"I mean, if you’re on a long haul journey and misconnect with a planned 35-minute layover at an airport like Helsinki (HEL), should you automatically receive €600?"
I guess the question is: "should Finnair be selling this if they can't honour it?"
I understand the idea of the proposal. But the proposal of the misconnections is just nuts. Why making a difference between direct and connecting itineraries? The airline promised you to bring you at a certain destination at a certain time. If it doesn't, it shouldn't matter whether this is because of a delay on the last leg, or a misconnect, right?
@GRkennedy I was just thinking about that haha which I agree with you about airlines like Finnair should update its connection times to be more reasonable and realistic. If airlines want to do that for whatever reason then yes they should pay the full allotted compensation as set forth by EU261.
My apologies. I meant EC261.
Exactly. These rules force airlines to fly under a level playing field. Finnair should only be selling this if they think passengers will make it.. or else face EU261 compensation rates.
It should encourage airlines to invest in more reliable operations so that they will never have to pay these compensation levels. If an airline is able to reliably connect in 35 mins, then then they will be more competitively attractive to consumers and the money will follow
The UK kept the EU261 rules following Brexit with some minor changes. Wondering if they will also adopt any new reforms passed by the EU.
The current Labour government will say one thing and then do a U-turn if public opinion is against them.
They have more ‘swing’ than the Glenn Miller Band ever had …. :-)
But when they put you 'in the mood' it's not a good one.
That’s one thing to consider that UK261 will remain the same since they don’t follow any judgments by the ECJ since Brexit. It has to be reformed via parliament.
In that sense if you fly to/from the U.K. and the delay is within the airline’s control you will be better off in terms of remuneration.
Other countries such as Canada and Israel have regulations that almost mirror EC261 so if you fly to...
That’s one thing to consider that UK261 will remain the same since they don’t follow any judgments by the ECJ since Brexit. It has to be reformed via parliament.
In that sense if you fly to/from the U.K. and the delay is within the airline’s control you will be better off in terms of remuneration.
Other countries such as Canada and Israel have regulations that almost mirror EC261 so if you fly to or from tel aviv to from say Frankfurt and are delayed 8 hrs due to a technical failure the comp set by Israel is greater than ec261 so airlines have to check both regulations.
Some airlines are going to use AI and simplify things, so when it’s a controllable delay the systems will read a claim and pay. They are even sophisticated enough to read receipts for expenses.
Ryanair already does that as they are a point to point carrier. Connections need human interaction.
I’ve made 2 claims with Ryanair recently and received €250 x 2 within 10 days. I made another claim after I was delayed flying to Mexico City. To be honest it wasn’t a big deal and I wasn’t bothered too much about the comp as I really believed it was a weather delay. The airline offered a voucher for a greater amount.
Within 2 days, to my surprise, I received a very polite email with a voucher as I had requested that if it was possible.
So that’s going to cover my next longhaul trip!
Good. This policy is regulatory overreach to begin with.
How is a consumer friendly rule in a sea of consumer unfriendly regulations and bad customer service departments an overreach?
Won't somebody think of the poor airlines raking in record profits?!
EC261 is currently "priced in". Repealing or making the compensation worse is not going to magically make ticket prices cheaper, it's going to result in more profit for the airline C-suite. End of. Without government regulation forcing good behavior on the part of massive corporations, there is no incentive for massive corporations to treat you decently.