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. Initially, all signs pointed toward these changes being overwhelmingly negative, much to the delight of airlines.
However, in recent times, things started to look better for consumers. Rather than making regulations less consumer friendly, the opposite was in the process of being finalized, and they’ll become even more consumer friendly… wow!
I’d like to now provide an update, as an agreement has been reached, so we now know all the details of what will be changing. 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, and they’ve been agreed upon as of June 15, 2026, and are expected to be implemented as of some point in 2027. Here’s how Alexis Vafeades, Minister of Transport, Communications and Works of the Republic of Cyprus, describes this:
“I’m proud that, after 13 years of negotiations, we reached a landmark agreement to strengthen EU air passenger rights. This modernized framework will deliver certainty, fairness and stronger protection for millions of European air passengers. The agreement strikes a fair balance for our airlines, helping preserve connectivity that is vital to the EU’s internal market and its citizens.”
With these updates, the cash compensation structure is remaining 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’re actually seeing them strengthened, for the most part. Here are some of the additional updates:
- In the event a passenger is eligible for compensation, airlines will need to send that person a link to the compensation claim form within 96 hours of the scheduled arrival time of the flight, to make it easier to file a claim
- Airlines will 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 has 30 days to pay or justify a refusal
- If passengers need to be rerouted due to a delay or cancelation, they must be offered an alternative route within three hours, though if passengers rebook on their own and claim reimbursement, that is capped at 400% of the original ticket price (which is obviously more limiting for a short haul flight on an ultra low cost carrier than a long haul flight in a premium cabin)
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.
Back before they were even finalized, the European Regions Airline Association published a paper about these 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 the extent to which airlines have to inform passengers that they’re eligible for compensation, which requires a higher standard than before. I would assume a majority of passengers have no clue about these regulations, and don’t even know to request compensation.
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
The European Union has just approved updates 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. But as it turns out, that’s not what happened.
Under the agreed upon updates, the compensation amounts will remain the same. Not only that, but airlines will actually be forced to more directly 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?
Hi Ben,
I think due to the 400% rule this is not a win. This incentives airlines like Ryanair to give zero fucks.
"If passengers need to be rerouted due to a delay or cancelation, they must be offered an alternative route within three hours, though if passengers rebook on their own and claim reimbursement, that is capped at 400% of the original ticket price (which is obviously more limiting for a short haul flight...
Hi Ben,
I think due to the 400% rule this is not a win. This incentives airlines like Ryanair to give zero fucks.
"If passengers need to be rerouted due to a delay or cancelation, they must be offered an alternative route within three hours, though if passengers rebook on their own and claim reimbursement, that is capped at 400% of the original ticket price (which is obviously more limiting for a short haul flight on an ultra low cost carrier than a long haul flight in a premium cabin)"
David, if Ryanair strands a passenger on a €30 short-haul ticket, they still owe that passenger the flat €250 cash compensation for the delay. The 400% rule just means if the passenger abandons Ryanair after 3 hours and buys a train ticket, Ryanair has to pay up to €120 for that train ticket on top of the €250 penalty. It is a net win for the consumer.
Previously, if you chose re-routing, airlines like Ryanair...
David, if Ryanair strands a passenger on a €30 short-haul ticket, they still owe that passenger the flat €250 cash compensation for the delay. The 400% rule just means if the passenger abandons Ryanair after 3 hours and buys a train ticket, Ryanair has to pay up to €120 for that train ticket on top of the €250 penalty. It is a net win for the consumer.
Previously, if you chose re-routing, airlines like Ryanair would say, "Sure, we'll re-route you... on our next available flight in 4 days." If you got fed up, booked your own ticket on Lufthansa for €500, and sued for the cost, the airline would tie you up in court for months arguing your last-minute ticket wasn't a "reasonable expense."
This reform closes that loophole by creating a statutory right to self-reroute after 3 hours with a predictable financial cap. It’s never going to be perfect, but it is a massive improvement. (And way ahead of the lack of accountability we tolerate in the U.S.)
1990, having done several EU261 lawsuits, often over several thousands of EUR, I think this is a net loss.
David, if you prefer to engage in litigation, which is often far more time consuming and costly, then, yes, perhaps, you will be disappointed by the 400% cap, because in rare circumstances, you could argue 5-10x is “reasonable” instead of merely 4x, but for most, this is a fair limit, for now. Sure, I wish they increased the flat €250-600 to account for inflation; no, the reforms are not perfect, but they are better, in...
David, if you prefer to engage in litigation, which is often far more time consuming and costly, then, yes, perhaps, you will be disappointed by the 400% cap, because in rare circumstances, you could argue 5-10x is “reasonable” instead of merely 4x, but for most, this is a fair limit, for now. Sure, I wish they increased the flat €250-600 to account for inflation; no, the reforms are not perfect, but they are better, in my opinion. Recall that the lobby for the airlines wanted to eliminate EU261 altogether. You can’t honestly believe that would have been better for most people?
No compensation for mechanical repairs .
Wrong. Still covered.
The 400% Cap is a huge Problem. Last minutes tickets are way more expensive and 400% of what? Imagine you have s multi stop ticket
That's like arguing the top-tier €600 compensation is a 'Problem.' Well, yes, if you want more than that, but, no, if you're comparing to jurisdictions with no similar air passenger rights (like the US).
Here's how the new rules go: Within 3 hours, receive the re-routing the airline offers; if you don't want it, don't accept it; seek alternatives on your own; you would be reimbursed up to 4x what you originally paid (in addition...
That's like arguing the top-tier €600 compensation is a 'Problem.' Well, yes, if you want more than that, but, no, if you're comparing to jurisdictions with no similar air passenger rights (like the US).
Here's how the new rules go: Within 3 hours, receive the re-routing the airline offers; if you don't want it, don't accept it; seek alternatives on your own; you would be reimbursed up to 4x what you originally paid (in addition to the compensation tiers).
Old rules: Wait indefinitely for the 'next available flight' that the airlines come up with (which could be days from then). No reimbursement (not 4x), if you cancel then book on your own (just refund + compensation). The new rules are an improvement, even with the 400% cap.
Given that booking confirmations don't always include the separate cost of the inbound and outbound legs (sometimes it's only visible when choosing the individual legs at booking), how will airlines justify the paid price of an individual leg and how can customers know they're not being screwed up? 50% of the ticket price in all instances?
Also, regarding the 400% refund cap, are there any mentions to limitations regarding the ticket booked? Let's say I...
Given that booking confirmations don't always include the separate cost of the inbound and outbound legs (sometimes it's only visible when choosing the individual legs at booking), how will airlines justify the paid price of an individual leg and how can customers know they're not being screwed up? 50% of the ticket price in all instances?
Also, regarding the 400% refund cap, are there any mentions to limitations regarding the ticket booked? Let's say I paid 400€ for a Lufthansa flight and am not rebooked within the 3h limit: Then I am entitled to a refund of up to 1200€ of the ticket I book- is it covered anywhere within EU261 that the rebooked flight must take place in the original travel class?
Good news: The new EU261 revisions provide a major upgrade in passenger leverage.
The Old Loophole: Previously, airlines could stall you for days under the vague guise of rerouting "at the earliest opportunity."
The 3-Hour Clock: Now, if an airline fails to provide a viable alternative within 3 hours of your disruption, you have an explicit statutory right to book your own way home.
The 400% Cap: You can claim reimbursement up to 4x the...
Good news: The new EU261 revisions provide a major upgrade in passenger leverage.
The Old Loophole: Previously, airlines could stall you for days under the vague guise of rerouting "at the earliest opportunity."
The 3-Hour Clock: Now, if an airline fails to provide a viable alternative within 3 hours of your disruption, you have an explicit statutory right to book your own way home.
The 400% Cap: You can claim reimbursement up to 4x the cost of your original ticket sector (includes base fare, fuel surcharges, and mandatory taxes; excludes optional ancillaries like paid seats, baggage fees, or Wi-Fi).
The Catch on Transport: You can choose the mode of transport (plane, high-speed train, or bus) to reach your destination, but you must match your original class of service. If you flew Economy, you cannot buy a last-minute Business Class ticket on a competitor and expect reimbursement, even if it falls under the 400% cap.
The 400% cap will prove to be a problem for consumers.... especially when a consumer has no way of knowing what part of his total ticket costs were allocated to what segment at the original time of purchasing... good luck.
And great lobbying success from the airlines.
Recall the context: “If passengers need to be rerouted due to a delay or cancelation, they must be offered an alternative route within three hours, though if passengers rebook on their own and claim reimbursement, that is capped at 400% of the original ticket price (which is obviously more limiting for a short haul flight on an ultra low cost carrier than a long haul flight in a premium cabin)” …that’s a narrow subset of...
Recall the context: “If passengers need to be rerouted due to a delay or cancelation, they must be offered an alternative route within three hours, though if passengers rebook on their own and claim reimbursement, that is capped at 400% of the original ticket price (which is obviously more limiting for a short haul flight on an ultra low cost carrier than a long haul flight in a premium cabin)” …that’s a narrow subset of outcomes, but keep in mind, before these updates, if you booked your own rebooking, airlines often would not reimburse at all. (I’ve dealt with this, personally.)
Agree to disagree, always got reimbursed to the full amount.
All you needed was a good lawyer.
I maintain, the new rule is bad for consumers.
“Full amount” minus at least 25% for a “good” lawyer…right?
Nope, the other side aka the airline pays for your lawyer when you win.
Whilst EC261 may change, note UK261 will not since the UK is no longer covered by ECJ rulings. The other problem is sending a link for compensation for connecting flights. That might be quite a challenge if say London to Frankfurt was delayed 10 minutes and it left 45 minutes to transfer to an onward flight. Easier to put in place for direct flights.
Yes, UK261 remains the same for now. However, the UK, like the EU, has far superior air passenger rights protections (as does Canada's APPR), compared to the near-nothing we have in the US. So, rest assured, UK261 is still alive and well, and ideally can and will be further improved soon, too.
Nominal delays of 10 or 45 minutes were never covered by either EU or UK regulations. The compensation rules are meant for significant...
Yes, UK261 remains the same for now. However, the UK, like the EU, has far superior air passenger rights protections (as does Canada's APPR), compared to the near-nothing we have in the US. So, rest assured, UK261 is still alive and well, and ideally can and will be further improved soon, too.
Nominal delays of 10 or 45 minutes were never covered by either EU or UK regulations. The compensation rules are meant for significant delays (think 2+ hours) under the airlines' control.
Only applicable for EU based airlines? What with Middle East carriers?
Generally, EU261 applies to EU carriers (to/from EU), and all carriers originating in the EU.
However, there are some loopholes, which I wish the EU would resolve, such as when your total itinerary starts and ends outside of the EU, on paper, such as DEL-AMS-JFK, technically, they ignore AMS and KL (Case C-451/20, AirHelp v. Austrian Airlines), so then only route for damages may be Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (international flights).
Interestingly,...
Generally, EU261 applies to EU carriers (to/from EU), and all carriers originating in the EU.
However, there are some loopholes, which I wish the EU would resolve, such as when your total itinerary starts and ends outside of the EU, on paper, such as DEL-AMS-JFK, technically, they ignore AMS and KL (Case C-451/20, AirHelp v. Austrian Airlines), so then only route for damages may be Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (international flights).
Interestingly, UK261 (similar regulation), sometimes includes itineraries that merely transited the UK on British carriers.
Comparatively, Canada's APPR is another similar regulation, but not as robust as UK or EU. Airlines can abuse the 'safety exemption' even more so than EU/UK claim 'extraordinary circumstance.'
Meanwhile, in the US, we got next to nothing. Refund or rebooking. Get your money back in 7 business days if you paid with a credit card. No compensation. Whether through the DOT, or actual legislation, we really should implement something similar here. See the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act introduced in the Senate in 2025. Not perfect, but a decent start.
All airlines departing the EU and all EU carriers to the EU.
It also applies to codeshares. So if it’s an American Airlines operated flight with a BA code LAX LHR it can still be enforced. Or SFO ORD FRA United with a Lufthansa code and SFO ORD is delayed.
However that will be extremely difficult to send a link in case the AA UA flight were to be delayed. I assume it will only be eg BA LH operated.
I do this EC261 Claims Management for a living and notifying passengers of their rights and providing reason of disruption for FREE is already a requirement under the current Regulation. Not all airlines abide by all regulations as it is.
Most airlines would send an email of your rights following any flight disruption inc. RYANAIR.
"I would assume a majority of passengers have no clue about these regulations". Really?? I couldn't disagree more! I've yet to meet anybody who has not heard of EU/UK 261.
bottom line is, of course it's the consumer that pay's, who else is going to ?
How about actually getting what we pay for?
If ULCCs like Ryainair can comply while still being profitable, paying union wages, and offering dirt cheap fares, no, the consumer doesn’t ‘pay’ extra; they pay their fair share, as does the airline, if they fail to deliver.
You paid, often many months in-advance, for specific flights, on particular dates and times, in a certain class of service.
Stop giving airlines a get-out-of-jail-free card for excessive...
How about actually getting what we pay for?
If ULCCs like Ryainair can comply while still being profitable, paying union wages, and offering dirt cheap fares, no, the consumer doesn’t ‘pay’ extra; they pay their fair share, as does the airline, if they fail to deliver.
You paid, often many months in-advance, for specific flights, on particular dates and times, in a certain class of service.
Stop giving airlines a get-out-of-jail-free card for excessive delays under their control.
When all they have to do is give you a partial refund for their own failure, you’ve in essence given them a zero interest loan.
The incentives are off in places like the US, where we lack an EU261-style consumer protection.
I'm happy to pay a bit more in exchange for this
I don’t agree that consumers pay for this - EC261 has been in play for years, yet flights in Europe are significantly cheaper than in the US. And how about Delta being consistently the most profitable airline in the world? Consumers pay for this one, for sure.
Yes, Voian. If consumer protections automatically drove up ticket prices, US domestic flights would be cheaper than European ones, but they aren't. Europe has those rigorous protections alongside some of the cheapest airfares in the world because its market is genuinely competitive. The real problem in the US is that we have a highly consolidated market, where the oligopoly (AA, DL, UA) can charge premium fares with little accountability. Pushing the cost of their operational...
Yes, Voian. If consumer protections automatically drove up ticket prices, US domestic flights would be cheaper than European ones, but they aren't. Europe has those rigorous protections alongside some of the cheapest airfares in the world because its market is genuinely competitive. The real problem in the US is that we have a highly consolidated market, where the oligopoly (AA, DL, UA) can charge premium fares with little accountability. Pushing the cost of their operational failures onto stranded passengers is cruel. I look forward to a day when the US finally joins the EU, UK, and Canada in implementing better consumer protections.
I had a recent cancelation by a US carrier and completely forgot about the EU261 rules...thankfully I was able to submit my claim and am awaiting my check. We luckily got on the same flight the next day from Europe to US, sadly most of the other pax were stuck for 2 addittional nights in Europe waiting for seats and/or fixed aircraft. I would already have my EU261 payment if the airline had been required to notify me (remind me). Positive changes.
Anything that levels the relationship between airlines and consumers these days is to be welcomed. They have proven time and again that without a consumer representative, through regulatory application, they will utterly abuse the consumer. More needs to be done.
@Ben
The specified threshols (2,3 and 4 hours) refer to the duty of care not the compensation.
I believe you had this wrong in another article where I commented a long time ago.
Compensation applies for delays above 3 hours independent from the distance between origin and destination airport.
Please double check this info and helpt to not spread misinformation.
I find it is, in this day of super amounts of information about EU261 being available on the web, that so many people have no clue about this subject. On the other hand, it is a government's obligation to inform its citizens about EU261.
Because my wife and I have always had a good understanding of this consumer safeguard, we have made two claims, within the past two years. All totaled up, we have...
I find it is, in this day of super amounts of information about EU261 being available on the web, that so many people have no clue about this subject. On the other hand, it is a government's obligation to inform its citizens about EU261.
Because my wife and I have always had a good understanding of this consumer safeguard, we have made two claims, within the past two years. All totaled up, we have received deposits worth $2,200.
Not to steal @1990's thunder, but living, as he does, in the States, but he is 100% correct. And I am not sure why U.S. consumers are more concerned with the airline's' profitability over proper treatment to their customers.
Thank you, Alan. You're very fortunate to be based in beautiful Malta these days, and to be able to travel regularly within/across/from/to the EU. Safe travels, and may there be only on-schedule flights, and if not, quick, easy EU261 claims, in your future!
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).
@Samo, I agree with you, especially on the negative consequences when denying valid claims. I am currently appealing Iberia's decision to deny my claim after a 4+ hour delay due to "disruption to fuel supply due to circumstances beyond the airline's control". This after in reality there was an aircraft change (A330-300 to A330-200) two hours after schedule departure as per Flightstats plus EU guidelines released a month ago stating "no jet fuel shortages have...
@Samo, I agree with you, especially on the negative consequences when denying valid claims. I am currently appealing Iberia's decision to deny my claim after a 4+ hour delay due to "disruption to fuel supply due to circumstances beyond the airline's control". This after in reality there was an aircraft change (A330-300 to A330-200) two hours after schedule departure as per Flightstats plus EU guidelines released a month ago stating "no jet fuel shortages have been reported across the EU." Anyway, we shall see.
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.
Definitely. I'm still trying to get Lufthansa to pay up for a canceled flight during their strikes back in April. It seems they feel if they take too long to respond most passengers will just forget about their claim.
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.
Well, I won't let that post go unchallenged. I just received E1,400 one week ago from LH. Because of their recent spate of labor actions, the numbers of people making claims ran into the hundreds of thousands of people posting claims. And yet, it took me only three weeks to process my claim and deposit funds in my bank account.
Happy for you alanZ. In my case they always only paid after referring the case to civil aviation regulator in the respective country.
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.
I’ve never had a successful claim for EU261 or the UK equivalent. The airline has refused to pay out every single time I’ve filed a claim.
With UK rail Delay Repay, I’ve never had a claim denied. In fact, the only dispute I ever had was where the train company said I was entitled to more money than I had claimed. Claims are always handled in a couple of days as well.
It might be possible to get more from an airline for short haul flights €250 compensation, but for €600 long haul flights, it's quite unlikely to get return flights below that amount even in economy class (maybe with a few exceptions, Norse Atlantic, Wizz Air to the Middle East, or off-peak LHR-NYC); if someone is unfortunate (or fortunate) enough to experience severe disruptions in both outbound and return legs hence claiming 2x€600 on e.g. a...
It might be possible to get more from an airline for short haul flights €250 compensation, but for €600 long haul flights, it's quite unlikely to get return flights below that amount even in economy class (maybe with a few exceptions, Norse Atlantic, Wizz Air to the Middle East, or off-peak LHR-NYC); if someone is unfortunate (or fortunate) enough to experience severe disruptions in both outbound and return legs hence claiming 2x€600 on e.g. a €1000 round trip TATL itinerary, i think they deserved to be compensated extra by the airline
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.
I would still frame this as more of a relief than delight.
Better question - what is the average price of a ticket today compared to 2013? Yes, there has been inflation, but have ticket prices kept up with it? If tickets today are roughly the same as they were in 2013 then there is no reason to change the amount of compensation. We can even toss out the outliers, such as Ryan Air's super cheap nothing included fairs, and Air France la Premiere.
@jallan , that's a difficult question considering that a lot of Y tickets no longer include luggage, catering, seat assignments, mileage earnings etc
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?
Seriously dude. It hasn't raised the price of airfare, and as others have said, impacts ULCC's too. And they are still profitable. So, you as an informed passenger, decide to give infrequent flyers the finger because you know more than they do.
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.
ATC and weather delays will not trigger EC261 compensation anyway, regardless of the rule changes.
(Yying, we’re not talkin’ weather… and, either way, whether it’s weather is up to the airline, not the passengers, to prove. It is presumed airlines’ fault, until they prove otherwise. Burden on airline.)