Eurowings accidentally loaded a bag into the cargo hold of a plane that wasn’t supposed to be on there, leading to a diversion… and then another diversion. The rules are the rules, but talk about a major pain for all involved…
Eurowings flight diverts to Toulouse, then Cologne
aeroTELEGRAPH reports on an incident that happened on Wednesday, September 9, 2026, involving Eurowings flight EW9503, scheduled to operate the 896-mile flight from Ibiza (IBZ) to Dusseldorf (DUS). The Airbus A320 with the registration code D-ABZN was scheduled to depart at 6:10PM and arrive at 8:35PM.
The plane took off a bit behind schedule, at 7:35PM, and then started its journey north. However, shortly after takeoff, it was somehow discovered that a piece of luggage had been loaded onto the plane that didn’t actually belong to a passenger. As a Lufthansa Group spokesperson described this, it was “due to a loading error.”
Ever since the Pan Am Lockerbie crash in 1988, it has been a common practice that luggage has to match passengers onboard. Under EU regulations, “if the passenger concerned is not on board the aircraft, the checked baggage assigned to their boarding pass shall be considered unaccompanied,” and can’t be transported.
So the airline then “immediately arranged for a landing at the nearest airport for safety reasons,” which was Toulouse (TLS), in this case. The plane landed there 1hr2min after it departed, at 8:37PM local time.
At that point, a safety inspection had to be carried out on the aircraft, which took a long time. Finally at 11:20PM, nearly three hours later, the plane was once again able to take off for Germany.
However, at this point there was another problem — Dusseldorf’s airport has a curfew, and that had been missed at this point. As a result, the plane instead flew to Cologne (CGN), which has 24/7 operations. The plane landed there 1hr33min later, at 12:53AM.
The airline then arranged ground transportation to Dusseldorf for all 156 passengers, so I imagine they finally arrived at their intended destination somewhere around 3-4AM. Ouch.
The rules are the rules, what are you gonna do?
There’s no indication that there was any ill intent with the extra bag being loaded, and it seems like this was truly an error. Mistakes happen, especially when you consider the volume of flights that operate around the globe on a daily basis.
On the surface, it seems sort of ridiculous to divert once you’re already airborne, given what a logistical pain this ended up being. At the same time, the rules are the rules, so it’s not like anyone had much of a choice here. A bag being carried without a matching passenger violates regulations, and if it’s discovered, a diversion to the nearest practical airport is the only option.
What exacerbated the issues here was that this was an already delayed evening flight, so the curfew in Dusseldorf turned this from a pretty big inconvenience to a huge inconvenience. Obviously I feel bad for the passengers, though I also feel bad for the crew, since this was outside their control, and I imagine they probably had to deal with some pretty frustrated passengers.
Bottom line
A Eurowings flight diverted twice after an extra bag was accidentally loaded onto the plane. Regulations require that bags match passengers, so this was discovered once airborne, and prompted a diversion to the nearest airport. A security check was then carried out on the aircraft, before it could continue its journey.
However, at this point it was too late at night, so Dusseldorf’s curfew had kicked in, meaning the flight had to divert to Cologne, with passengers then being sent on buses to their destination. Passengers landed in Cologne over four hours after they were supposed to land in Dusseldorf, so when all was said and done, I imagine they were delayed by well over six hours in reaching their intended destination.
What do you make of this Eurowings double diversion?
2 days after the door plug incident on AS we were booked YLW SEA SJC.
Our 195 arrived 2 hours late so we arrived in SEA with our bags and terrible immigration. Our bags made it on the SJC flight but we watched as the tug sent our SJC 195 on it's merry way = with our bags onboard.
AS overnighted us and next morning sent us to SFO. Bags in SJC. They...
2 days after the door plug incident on AS we were booked YLW SEA SJC.
Our 195 arrived 2 hours late so we arrived in SEA with our bags and terrible immigration. Our bags made it on the SJC flight but we watched as the tug sent our SJC 195 on it's merry way = with our bags onboard.
AS overnighted us and next morning sent us to SFO. Bags in SJC. They eventually sent us by taxi to get the bags. (Took months to get paid).
If they had followed procedure they would have realized we were minutes away since our bags were loaded and they could have waited. Our bags could have contained anything\ Linking bags to passengers is a level of security that should be followed.
Speaking of rules:
Two weeks ago I flew KLM AMS–BCN, completely full, and two passengers had been issued boarding passes for the same seat somewhere mid-cabin. Nobody noticed until the doors were closed.
I was in row 2 with my wife. Intra-European business class, so the middle seat between us was blocked and empty. We offered to take him – better than offloading a passenger and delaying the whole aircraft.
The crew thanked us...
Speaking of rules:
Two weeks ago I flew KLM AMS–BCN, completely full, and two passengers had been issued boarding passes for the same seat somewhere mid-cabin. Nobody noticed until the doors were closed.
I was in row 2 with my wife. Intra-European business class, so the middle seat between us was blocked and empty. We offered to take him – better than offloading a passenger and delaying the whole aircraft.
The crew thanked us and said they're not allowed to seat anyone in a blocked business class seat. The seat is blocked to give the business class passenger more space. I was the business class passenger, and I was the one offering to give it up.
They checked with someone, declined the offer, and offloaded the poor guy.
Looks like they changed course about 35 minutes into the flight -- which would have put them closer to Barcelona than Toulouse. But what difference does 100km make, when it's not a real emergency?
This doesn't make any sense at all. Bags fly without their pax all the time (any RUSH bag does). The only rule that exists is that a bag/pax split can't happen intentionally (i.e. passenger checks a bag but no shows), which didn't seem to be the case here. No idea what they were doing there, especially since the plane already took off, so it's not like they eliminated any sort of a threat even if...
This doesn't make any sense at all. Bags fly without their pax all the time (any RUSH bag does). The only rule that exists is that a bag/pax split can't happen intentionally (i.e. passenger checks a bag but no shows), which didn't seem to be the case here. No idea what they were doing there, especially since the plane already took off, so it's not like they eliminated any sort of a threat even if there was a bomb in that bag.
It should also be noted that no such rule exists on the EU level anymore as claimed in the article (not sure about Germany though). Since recently, it is permissible to dispatch a flight without unloading the bag even with a pax no-showing, provided certain criteria are met. PRG is one example of an airport where this definitely has been implemented.
Imagine you are the poor sop whos baggage is now in Toulouse, and EW will be like "We never heard of the Montreal agreement, here is 8€ per day the baggage is delayed"
Under the Montreal Convention: “The airline's liability for lost or delayed baggage is capped at roughly €1,300 to €1,860 (1,519 Special Drawing Rights).” After 21 days, considered ‘lost.’ Willfully ignoring the law is not a defense. I take it that was a glib hypothetical, but if a mere 8€ isn’t enough (it isn’t), affected passengers can/should sue; claim the maximum allowed/within reason. The only way some companies will ever respect any rules is when you...
Under the Montreal Convention: “The airline's liability for lost or delayed baggage is capped at roughly €1,300 to €1,860 (1,519 Special Drawing Rights).” After 21 days, considered ‘lost.’ Willfully ignoring the law is not a defense. I take it that was a glib hypothetical, but if a mere 8€ isn’t enough (it isn’t), affected passengers can/should sue; claim the maximum allowed/within reason. The only way some companies will ever respect any rules is when you try to hold them accountable. If we all did this in the aggregate, we’d be treated better because they wouldn’t get away with it.
Sucks for all passengers on the flight for sure, hopefully they get their 250€. Also, really sucks for the person whose bag will probably be significantly delayed. Hope they get compensated as well.
We can't have unaccompanied bags on flights... except that bag will now travel unaccompanied back to IBZ and then to its original destination, so it seems like a fairly pointless diversion if you ask me
@Paul - there are different screening protocols for bags that are designated as unaccompanied, versus standard baggage that is accompanying the passenger. The bag would be screened to the unaccompanied protocol before it departs from Toulouse.
Bad actors have evolved so much from PA103.
You still assume these people are not suicidal.
Plus scanner technology has come a long way since.
Sounds like the airline messed up on this one. So... EU261 compensation for everyone? Mhm.
I would assume so but EW would assume it’s safety and deny it.
They can try, but the burden is on the airline to prove that defense to claims. I'd say the root cause here was operational mistakes (on the airline, not 'extraordinary circumstance.') Maybe they'll try to blame it on the weather, too... (shouldn't work either.) Under that distance and delay, probably €250 owed per passenger (IBZ-DUS is under 1,500 km, and 3+ hours late).
Not probably but definitely 250€!
Even if the mistake was done by a third party, e.g. baggage habdling service provider, it falls within the carriers control.
If EW denies the claim, don‘t waste time and contact a specialised German lawyer charging the regulated fees and giving a first take on the case free of charge, e.g. the popular Dr. Boese
I love your confidence, Felix! Let's hope those affected passengers are each aware! Wishing them all a quick recovery!
I wonder how come EU261 doesn't include the ability for the airlines to pass on these additional costs to the airports, or ATC provider? Anyone knows?
This is classic German being German.