I’ve written many times about EU261, whereby passenger are entitled to cash compensation in the event of travel disruptions that meet certain thresholds. While this policy is from the European Union, Switzerland has adopted the legislation as well, and the United Kingdom also has its own version of this (referred to as UK261).
I recently wrote about how SWISS denied a compensation claim for someone, by arguing that a mechanical issue doesn’t qualify for EU261. This directly contradicts what courts have found in the European Union. Well, a SWISS spokesperson has reached out to correct my story, so let me share what I’ve learned.
In this post:
SWISS says technical issues don’t qualify for compensation
The EU261 structure for flight delay compensation requires airlines to compensate passengers in the event of travel disruptions, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” When these regulations were first published, the text didn’t in detail address every possible scenario of what may qualify as an extraordinary circumstance.
However, over the years, court cases in the European Union have firmed up these policies, and have set the precedent for what qualifies for EU261 compensation, and what doesn’t. In the case of the European Union, the rules are clear — a delay or cancelation from a mechanical or technical issue on an aircraft does qualify for compensation, as it isn’t classified as an extraordinary circumstance.
However, SWISS argues that this isn’t the law in Switzerland. According to the airline, in Switzerland, technical irregularities with an aircraft do count as extraordinary circumstances. The reason is because technical problems don’t arise due to inadequate maintenance, and therefore, couldn’t be avoided even with all reasonable measures.
Here’s how the airline explains this to me:
The European Court of Justice’s case law, according to which technical problems only very rarely constitute extraordinary circumstances, is not binding for civil courts in Switzerland. There are even rulings in Switzerland that do not consider the Passenger Rights Regulation applicable at all in a case like this, due to the journey originating from the US (as a non-EU country) to Switzerland.
The European Court of Justice’s case law often deviates significantly from the actual wording of the Passenger Rights Regulation. This practice is not binding in Switzerland. We adhere to the text of the regulation and comply with the applicable law when processing compensation claims.
Now, it’s worth emphasizing that SWISS’ claim would only potentially hold up for an itinerary not originating in the European Union. That’s because if an itinerary does originate in the Europe Union, then the European Union’s version of EU261 would apply, regardless of Switzerland’s interpretation. At least that’s my understanding, because Switzerland adding its own version of EU261 wouldn’t be relevant.
SWISS responds to EU261 compensation stance
The whole reason all of this came up is because last week I wrote about how someone shared that SWISS denied their EU261 compensation claim, with an airline representative claiming the following (and this was after the person followed up, pointing out the explanation didn’t make much sense):
Your flight has been reviewed and as advised previously, your flight was cancelled due to a result of Rudder Servo Fault due to vulnerability of the 737 main rudder servo valve to causing uncommanded reversals was indeed a significant concern. I hope you can understand we have no control over such circumstances.
Let me emphasize that:
- The explanation borders on being incoherent (to put it politely)
- SWISS doesn’t operate Boeing 737s
- Rudder servo valve issues on the Boeing 737 did cause some fatal accidents back in the 1990s
Anyway, in my post I suggested that SWISS representatives were making up lies to avoid paying out compensation claims. The airline isn’t happy with me making that claim. As a SWISS spokesperson states:
In the original response from our customer service, there was a typographical error. The technical details regarding the ‘main rudder servo valve’ were correct and can be verified in our maintenance protocols. However, the aircraft type should have been ‘Airbus A330-343′ or abbreviated ‘333‘, and not ‘737‘.
So, in reality, no one “made up bizarre lies”, but simply swapped two digits by mistake – this is the entire story here.
We of course regret that this inaccuracy caused confusion and would like to apologize for it. However: Your allegations that our employees systematically ‘lie’ and ‘make up excuses’ are just plain wrong. That there were apparently problems with a certain rudder on some aircraft of the type ‘B737’ decades ago is purely coincidental and has of course no connection with the actual case of an A333 from May 2024 at all.
Accusing our employees of deliberately using this as an excuse seems, quite frankly, rather absurd.
Anyway, I’ll respectfully apologize to SWISS here. I wasn’t aware of SWISS’ stance that it doesn’t have to pay compensation for mechanical issues, unlike all other airlines where EU261 applies. I was surprised to learn this, and I’m not enough of an expert on any law (let alone international law) to tell them that they’re wrong.
Now, I do think most people could understand how one could arrive at the conclusion that airlines do sometimes lie to consumers. I mean, I’ve personally encountered this more often than I can count, and that doesn’t even reflect the data points I hear from others…
I’m not going to sit here and claim that “lie” was a typographical error, and what I really meant to write was “SWISS loves to help its customers.” 😉
Bottom line
EU261 offers some of the most consumer friendly aviation regulations you’ll find anywhere in the world. While Switzerland does follow EU261 rules, the country reportedly has a different interpretation regarding what constitutes extraordinary circumstances.
Most significantly, as Star Alliance carrier SWISS interprets it, EU261 cash compensation doesn’t apply if an issue is caused by a mechanical or technical fault. I’m not making any judgment call here, but am just passing on the claim that I learned…
Were you aware of this distinction with EU261 compensation in Switzerland?
Same again. Athens Zurich “ We have come to this result as the flight in question was disrupted due to leak, which could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken, as clarified by the European courts.
We consider the described flight delay as necessary and this irregularity to be an extraordinary circumstance. This could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Therefore, I must deny your...
Same again. Athens Zurich “ We have come to this result as the flight in question was disrupted due to leak, which could not have been avoided if all reasonable measures had been taken, as clarified by the European courts.
We consider the described flight delay as necessary and this irregularity to be an extraordinary circumstance. This could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Therefore, I must deny your claim for compensation in application of regulation EC261/2004.”
This what I got as an explanation, if someone could translate that would be helpful hah
« The flight was cancelled as there was an electrical wiring interconnect system evident burn marks for the electrical power«
And then corrected to: « was cancelled due to navigation system being down »
If that spokesperson from Swiss can reach out to me to discuss why they are refusing to cover my hotel stay even though airline rebooked me to...
This what I got as an explanation, if someone could translate that would be helpful hah
« The flight was cancelled as there was an electrical wiring interconnect system evident burn marks for the electrical power«
And then corrected to: « was cancelled due to navigation system being down »
If that spokesperson from Swiss can reach out to me to discuss why they are refusing to cover my hotel stay even though airline rebooked me to travel 2 days later. Really disgusted by all this.
As an aside:
This begs the question of whether Swiss's faulty interpretation of EU 261/2004 is driving them to fly aircraft in need of maintenance to the US, where pulling them out of service and cancelling return flights will, in their view, protect them from the liabilities to passengers for flights cancelled in Switzerland.
This kind of evidence would of course only be produced in discovery under litigation.
If true, Swiss is taking a very, very steep risk.
I believe I was on that same flight (from JFK to Geneva 16 May) which was cancelled 90 minutes after scheduled departure with absolutely no useful information provided by staff. After finding my own way to the Swiss counter at departures and waiting inline for another 90 minutes I was rebooked 24-hours later.
I have on multiple occasions received the same explanation from Swiss "The aircraft... had a rudder servo fault... [and] had to...
I believe I was on that same flight (from JFK to Geneva 16 May) which was cancelled 90 minutes after scheduled departure with absolutely no useful information provided by staff. After finding my own way to the Swiss counter at departures and waiting inline for another 90 minutes I was rebooked 24-hours later.
I have on multiple occasions received the same explanation from Swiss "The aircraft... had a rudder servo fault... [and] had to be removed from further operations... We consider the described flight cancellation necessary and the irregularity to be extraordinary circumstance... Therefore [we] must deny your claim... [under] regulation EC261/2004."
As you've noted, the text of the EU regulation states "Situations which are not considered extraordinary circumstances include: most mechanical problems..."
AS I primarily reside in the EU in Belgium I will pursue legal action for recovery of 600 Euros PLUS damages and legal costs.
I take multiple international trips each year and have for decades. I refuse to fly with Swiss air or any member of Lufthansa group going forward.
I had a flight originating in an EU member state that was canceled. I filed for compensation, but they responded that they could not pay because "there was high pressure in valve 2." Nothing else. When I asked for clarification, they replied that they had said enough.
@Ben, love the way you handled that. You shared their side of the story and apologized but made clear that their credibility is questionable.
As per ChatGPT they are not correct in their interpretation
**Summary:** Under the EU261 regulation, cash compensation generally applies to delays and cancellations caused by mechanical or technical faults, even for Swiss carriers like SWISS.
**Details:**
**EU261 Regulation Overview:**
The EU261/2004 regulation stipulates compensation for passengers in cases of flight cancellations, delays, or denied boarding. Compensation amounts depend on the distance of the flight and the length of the delay.
**Mechanical or Technical...
As per ChatGPT they are not correct in their interpretation
**Summary:** Under the EU261 regulation, cash compensation generally applies to delays and cancellations caused by mechanical or technical faults, even for Swiss carriers like SWISS.
**Details:**
**EU261 Regulation Overview:**
The EU261/2004 regulation stipulates compensation for passengers in cases of flight cancellations, delays, or denied boarding. Compensation amounts depend on the distance of the flight and the length of the delay.
**Mechanical or Technical Faults:**
Mechanical or technical faults are generally considered as within the airline's control. Therefore, the airline is usually obligated to provide compensation in such cases unless the fault arises from extraordinary circumstances.
**Extraordinary Circumstances:**
The regulation specifies that compensation is not due if the delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. These include severe weather conditions, security risks, political instability, or unexpected flight safety shortcomings that are beyond the airline's control.
**Application to Swiss Carriers (SWISS):**
Since SWISS, a Swiss carrier, operates flights to and from EU countries, the EU261 regulation applies to its operations as per the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and the EU. This means:
- Passengers on flights operated by SWISS from an EU country to Switzerland or from Switzerland to an EU country are entitled to compensation under EU261.
- Mechanical or technical faults do not typically qualify as extraordinary circumstances, so passengers are entitled to compensation in such scenarios.
**Compensation Amounts:**
Compensation varies based on the flight distance:
- **€250** for flights up to 1,500 km.
- **€400** for flights within the EU over 1,500 km and for all other flights between 1,500 km and 3,500 km.
- **€600** for flights over 3,500 km.
**Conclusion:**
Passengers on SWISS flights affected by cancellations or delays due to mechanical or technical faults are generally entitled to cash compensation under the EU261 regulation.
**Certainty Level:** S=1 (This conclusion is based on the clear stipulations of the EU261 regulation and its consistent application to flights involving EU countries and Switzerland.)
I had the same kind of issue with LH a couple of years ago. They cancelled a flight, and I was entitled to compensation under the EU flight cancellation policy. After three emails to LH, they refused to allow me compensation under Regulation 261/2004 and were still not clear about the reason for the cancellation. However, I knew that it wasn't due to "extraordinary circumstances, that are "air traffic management decisions, political instability, adverse weather...
I had the same kind of issue with LH a couple of years ago. They cancelled a flight, and I was entitled to compensation under the EU flight cancellation policy. After three emails to LH, they refused to allow me compensation under Regulation 261/2004 and were still not clear about the reason for the cancellation. However, I knew that it wasn't due to "extraordinary circumstances, that are "air traffic management decisions, political instability, adverse weather conditions, or security risks." That meant I was entitled to receive that compensation.
I finally filed a case with OFAC (as the flight was departing from BSL). I received a bank transfer a few weeks later, along with a response from OFAC a month after getting the money, mentioning that they were not able to address these kinds of cases. I still don't know who made the decision in the end, but I got the money.
I know Lucky that you love LH, but LH has always been bad these last 5 to 7 years for me. On everything, hard product, soft product, csutomer service and pricing. Have you seen the price increase between BSL - FRA or BSL - MUC even in economy? Insane.
However, I had a fantastic experience with Austrian. A few months ago, a plane was cancelled by Austrian because of a (massive) strike ( on Easter week-end!). Their client service was AMAZING. After one email and personalised contact, I received compensation, phone calls, and meal reimbursements—all within a week's time.
And knowing that Austrian is part of the LH Group leaves me a bit perplexed with such a difference of treatment.
Ben, as I mentioned last week, I am not surprised at all by their (Swiss) response.
Its like when kids are counting out candies, one for you, two for me, everything is fine and cosy.
They've got an excellent thing going.
Yet more proof that the Swiss are simply nothing more than an opportunistic, Impressionist art-thieving pack of shunts. The only culture they have is bacteria.
I have had Ryanair pay EU261 compensation about four times. Recently within a few days. Usually after 4-5 emails.
LHG avoid paying claims as a matter of policy unfortunately.
My experience as HC member, LX is worse than LH ….. and LH systematically refuses compensation the first two rounds.
If you can provide information that shows the airline is failing to provide the correct information and/or is unreasonably denying claims if would be extremely helpful to post it in rebuttal to Swiss's claim that this was a one off mistake.
Wait, Swiss didn't apologize and just said oh hey we made a typo, twice! But we didn't lie. Doesn't sound very sincere. I mean I still don't buy them and I certainly won't be dealing with them in the future. Among all the options we have why suffer by taking swiss. But I like your humor and maturity to apologize in this case. Swiss didn't...
Hi Ben,
I recently had a similar experience in February 2024 while flying back from Cape Town to Zurich with Edelweiss Air, the sister company of Swiss. The flight encountered a technical issue in Cape Town before departure, which led to us having to sit on the ground for five hours in the plane without the option to deboard. The plane finally took off about five and a half hours later than the scheduled departure...
Hi Ben,
I recently had a similar experience in February 2024 while flying back from Cape Town to Zurich with Edelweiss Air, the sister company of Swiss. The flight encountered a technical issue in Cape Town before departure, which led to us having to sit on the ground for five hours in the plane without the option to deboard. The plane finally took off about five and a half hours later than the scheduled departure time.
I filed a complaint with Edelweiss, but they refused my compensation claim, stating that mechanical malfunctions do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Bizarrely enough, in their responses, they made up things that did not even happen. They kept replying to my messages, saying that the flight was cancelled when it was actually delayed for five hours on the tarmac. Despite my attempts to correct them in the email chain, they consistently reverted to this incorrect storyline.
I found this very strange and frustrating. I am now in the process of claiming my compensation through one of these flight rights companies and hope to get some feedback from them soon. If you're interested in my story, the circumstances, as well as the communication between me and them, please write me an email, and I'll be glad to share it with you.
If it turns out that Swiss is consistently giving false information to passengers then not only would that make the indignation in their letter to Lucky misplaced but would be grounds for a case of action against Swiss by passengers.
It could also form the basis for a criminal complaint against the airline since a patterns of providing misinformation to avoid paying claims would justify an assertion of fraud.
Do it once, it's a...
If it turns out that Swiss is consistently giving false information to passengers then not only would that make the indignation in their letter to Lucky misplaced but would be grounds for a case of action against Swiss by passengers.
It could also form the basis for a criminal complaint against the airline since a patterns of providing misinformation to avoid paying claims would justify an assertion of fraud.
Do it once, it's a civil action. Do it consistently and it criminal.
Thanks for the clarification, Ben. And also the integrity to apologize in the circumstances noting that your blog posts (as well as other well-respected voices in travel, miles and points) carries weight and is persuasive.
This was clearly written by somebody at SWISS trying to save face.
It’s very clear that SWISS is being disingenuous here.
Switzerland has voluntarily adhered to the E261 regulation. Consequently, what is clearly described therein, without requiring interpretation by the ECJ, is applicable.
On the other hand, ECJ rulings which "interpret and extend" the provisions of the text are NOT directly applicable in Swiss law, and are left to the discretion of the Swiss courts.
Exceptional circumstances" fall under this point: they are not defined in the text, and mechanical incidents that have been...
Switzerland has voluntarily adhered to the E261 regulation. Consequently, what is clearly described therein, without requiring interpretation by the ECJ, is applicable.
On the other hand, ECJ rulings which "interpret and extend" the provisions of the text are NOT directly applicable in Swiss law, and are left to the discretion of the Swiss courts.
Exceptional circumstances" fall under this point: they are not defined in the text, and mechanical incidents that have been excluded by ECJ rulings and interpretative rules are therefore not automatically covered.
https://www.bazl.admin.ch/bazl/en/home/passagiere/air-passenger-rights.html
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://nobel.law/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-08-27-BLR-CH-Risks-and-Opportunities.pdf (page 5)
Correct. However if Swiss provides false information in order to escape an obligation to pay under Swiss law that is a separate and distinct matter.
The letter from Swiss asserts that the misinformation provided in the current situation was a mistake and that the company is not systematically untruthful. If other passengers come forward with verifiable stories of being lied to that would undermine their position. Providing conflicting or non sensical justification would raise questions...
Correct. However if Swiss provides false information in order to escape an obligation to pay under Swiss law that is a separate and distinct matter.
The letter from Swiss asserts that the misinformation provided in the current situation was a mistake and that the company is not systematically untruthful. If other passengers come forward with verifiable stories of being lied to that would undermine their position. Providing conflicting or non sensical justification would raise questions regarding their truthfulness.
It's important to distinguish between deliberate lying (knowing the information is false) and deliberately failing to provide truthful information. The effect is the same in that the passenger is potentially being denied compensation to which they might be entitled, but it is important for passenger to only assert what they know to be true. It's provable that the information in this case that the information is false. It's not provable that Swiss deliberately lied.
Willfully providing false information is actionable if the airline is failing to take reasonable measures to provide truthful information. Once we hear from other passengers I'll bet that this is a part of what is going on. The airline's customer service people have little incentive to provide the correct information. They, or others in the company, may even have an incentive to be vague, misleading or untruthful.
If that is the case then what they did, but not why they did it, is knowable and Swiss should be called to task not only for the behavior but having denied it in their letter to Lucky.
Thanks. Good to know. We have changed our plans for an upcoming trip from Vienna to Lux to go via Frankfurt on LH instead. Best to avoid Swiss if this is their stance.
Flying from VIE you're under Austrian jurisdiction and may therefore challenge Swiss at Austrian courts where ECJ rulings apply.
Switzerland is not part of the EEA, but has various bilateral treaties with the EU. Membership in the EEA was declined in a referendum in 1992. One of the reasons cited against joining EU or EEA is being bound to "foreign court" decisions.
So Swiss ultimately profits from this, which is ironic, because its predecessor, Swissair, was very vocal pro joining in the 1992 vote. Swissair consequently tried to buy smaller EU-based airlines, which...
Switzerland is not part of the EEA, but has various bilateral treaties with the EU. Membership in the EEA was declined in a referendum in 1992. One of the reasons cited against joining EU or EEA is being bound to "foreign court" decisions.
So Swiss ultimately profits from this, which is ironic, because its predecessor, Swissair, was very vocal pro joining in the 1992 vote. Swissair consequently tried to buy smaller EU-based airlines, which ultimately lead to its demise and rebirth as Swiss.
I haven't read the cases that established under Swiss law that mechanical delays don't qualify as exceptional circumstances but assume they were the result a decision by a Swiss court in which the airline disputed a passenger's claim. Swiss may come to regret having done this. While it may save them from having to pay claims that other airlines would have been forced to pay it also makes Swiss an outlier and high value passengers...
I haven't read the cases that established under Swiss law that mechanical delays don't qualify as exceptional circumstances but assume they were the result a decision by a Swiss court in which the airline disputed a passenger's claim. Swiss may come to regret having done this. While it may save them from having to pay claims that other airlines would have been forced to pay it also makes Swiss an outlier and high value passengers might decide to take their business elsewhere.
As they say, be careful what you wish for. Swiss won the right to avoid paying compensation mechanical delays for some of their flights but not doing so may prove to be a bad business decision.
The Swiss PR response is so typically Swiss, focusing on the exact letter of the law as opposed to recognizing that jousting with a popular travel blogger garners more negative attention than I’m sure they would like. The lesser of two evils is to accept the EU version of the law and be done with it as difficult as that may seem. Instead, having just read this, why would I ever want to fly Swiss...
The Swiss PR response is so typically Swiss, focusing on the exact letter of the law as opposed to recognizing that jousting with a popular travel blogger garners more negative attention than I’m sure they would like. The lesser of two evils is to accept the EU version of the law and be done with it as difficult as that may seem. Instead, having just read this, why would I ever want to fly Swiss to Europe, when Lufthansa or Air France will compensate me if something goes wrong mechanically, while Swiss won’t?! Swiss should look to SQ for better ways to deal with their inconvenienced passengers as recently noted with SQ’s proactive compensation response to their recent inflight incident.
It's worse than that. They opened the door to passengers coming forward with stories that show Swiss does widely provide misinformation to passengers regarding the cause of delays.
There's no reason to believe whoever wrote the letter for Swiss actually investigated to determine whether the airline might have an issue regarding providing false or conflicting information before asserting they don't. If in fact it turns out they do then asserting they don't without having...
It's worse than that. They opened the door to passengers coming forward with stories that show Swiss does widely provide misinformation to passengers regarding the cause of delays.
There's no reason to believe whoever wrote the letter for Swiss actually investigated to determine whether the airline might have an issue regarding providing false or conflicting information before asserting they don't. If in fact it turns out they do then asserting they don't without having bothered to check compounds the airlines negligence.
It's wise never to assert anything other than what you know for sure. Lucky should have said that the justification Swiss provided for denying compensation was clearly false. That was supportable by the facts. To his credit he apologized for going beyond that to the airlines intent.
It strikes me as very risky for Swiss to assert they don't have a systematic problem without first making sure they really don't.
There are two completely separate things going on here.
We don't know if Swiss genuinely made a one off mistake here due to careless or if they make a habit of failing to give the correct information because it allows them to reject legitimate claims. The only way to find out is to get a lot more data points.
As explained by other posters (thank you!) while Switzerland is obligated to and has adopted...
There are two completely separate things going on here.
We don't know if Swiss genuinely made a one off mistake here due to careless or if they make a habit of failing to give the correct information because it allows them to reject legitimate claims. The only way to find out is to get a lot more data points.
As explained by other posters (thank you!) while Switzerland is obligated to and has adopted the equivalent of EU261 that statute doesn't explicitly define what constitutes extraordinary circumstances are so it was up to the courts decide. But Swiss courts aren't required to guided by EU court decisions (case law) so they can, and in this case have, come to a different conclusion regarding mechanical delays. So even though the law is the same in the EU as in Switzerland the outcomes are different.
Passenger therefore are now on notice that at least for now unless they are able to sue in an EU court for their itinerary mechanical delays will not eligible for compensation.
However Swiss cannot escape liability by falsely claiming a delay was due to a circumstance excluded by Swiss case law.
Well Incan only confirm that Swiss systematically reject claims arguing as you said that mecanical issues are not covered by EU compensation… just had a CPH-GVA thta was cancelled last minute for that reason big fiasco and ended up in GVA 10h later than the original flight and they arebtrying to reject any compensation. I will just persue …
There is a requirement for the airline to act in good faith. If a flight is subject to both EU and Swiss regulations then a case could be made that by rejecting all claims for mechanical delays, including those for which an EU court would have jurisdiction (such as Paris Zurich) they were failing to do so.
But someone has to care enough to make an issue of the matter by suing them. In the...
There is a requirement for the airline to act in good faith. If a flight is subject to both EU and Swiss regulations then a case could be made that by rejecting all claims for mechanical delays, including those for which an EU court would have jurisdiction (such as Paris Zurich) they were failing to do so.
But someone has to care enough to make an issue of the matter by suing them. In the US the way we force companies to change their behavior is the class action lawsuit. The damages of thousands or tens of thousands of passengers who were unlawfully denied compensation could be hundreds of millions of dollars. The attention from such a lawsuit could draw the attention of authorities and cause them to file criminal charges.
But it's essential to know what the law really says and to differentiate between those flights for which Swiss is obligated to pay compensation for mechanical delays and those they are not. This matter may not have been litigated sufficiently to provide a clear answer.
Hi Ben,
we were supposed to fly from LAX to ZRH (LX41) on 16th April 2024 with Swiss but did not due to a technical issue (problem with the fuel level or something like that). Boeing 777 by the way.
They booked a new flight for the next day, paid the hotel, gave vouchers for food and ... now comes the important part ... accepted our EU261 claim and transferred the compensation within a few...
Hi Ben,
we were supposed to fly from LAX to ZRH (LX41) on 16th April 2024 with Swiss but did not due to a technical issue (problem with the fuel level or something like that). Boeing 777 by the way.
They booked a new flight for the next day, paid the hotel, gave vouchers for food and ... now comes the important part ... accepted our EU261 claim and transferred the compensation within a few days.
I'm not trying to defend them but let you know that they might not be consistend in their compensation process. Maybe we have just been lucky with the agent who handled our claim.
SWISS CEO Dieter Vrancx should feel embarrassed to see this type of amateurish , unprofessional behavior from his employees. The right thing to do would be for him to reach out to the wronged customer, make things right, and then apologize publicly before this turns into an even larger PR debacle, as I suspect it will.
This story is going to continue to haunt them for a long time… people will NEVER forget how...
SWISS CEO Dieter Vrancx should feel embarrassed to see this type of amateurish , unprofessional behavior from his employees. The right thing to do would be for him to reach out to the wronged customer, make things right, and then apologize publicly before this turns into an even larger PR debacle, as I suspect it will.
This story is going to continue to haunt them for a long time… people will NEVER forget how SWISS lied to a customer and told them they fly 737s. United breaks guitars, and SWISS pretends to fly 737s!
There is no conceivable situation which would result in “333” being mistyped as “737”. That, combined with the VERY 737-specific language, makes it obvious that this customer service person just copy/pasted right out of ChatGPT. A middle schooler could do better!
And let’s not forget the rest of the customer service rep’s response, which was a grammatical dumpster fire and barely legible!
The fact that SWISS is doubling down here is frankly quite embarrassing; they shouldn’t be let off the hook for this and I hope to see updates on this. I assume the wronged customer filed complaints with the relevant aviation regulators.
I think you are confusing what the airline is legally required to do and what might make good business sense.
The airline demonstrated that that they don't want to be obligated to pay compensation for mechanical delays if they opposed a claim or claims for such compensation in Swiss courts. But they won so for at least some itineraries they aren't obligated to pay (but not necessarily all). That doesn't make this a good business...
I think you are confusing what the airline is legally required to do and what might make good business sense.
The airline demonstrated that that they don't want to be obligated to pay compensation for mechanical delays if they opposed a claim or claims for such compensation in Swiss courts. But they won so for at least some itineraries they aren't obligated to pay (but not necessarily all). That doesn't make this a good business decision but so long as they aren't routinely denying claims for which they have an obligation to pay they aren't operating in bad faith.
Whether they should voluntarily pay all claims is a different matter
Finally case law is fluid. Subsequent cases might result in Swiss courts deciding that mechanical delays are subject to compensation.
But Swiss's biggest risk is that they have been routinely as a matter of policy either denying claims that were subject to compensation or failing to provide the correct information to passengers leading them to believe they weren't entitled to compensation when in fact they were.
The only way to know is to either file a lawsuit or get regulators to take an interest in the matter.
Dear Ben, I would like to reply once more to add some substantial culture aspects.
Swiss is owned by Lufthansa, so a Swiss company owned by a German company. Sadly, LX is often the cash cow for LH, so it has to be strict in these cases, that dilute the bottom line, since I presume there are no corporate insurances and if they existed, the premiums themselves would be a hit to the bottom...
Dear Ben, I would like to reply once more to add some substantial culture aspects.
Swiss is owned by Lufthansa, so a Swiss company owned by a German company. Sadly, LX is often the cash cow for LH, so it has to be strict in these cases, that dilute the bottom line, since I presume there are no corporate insurances and if they existed, the premiums themselves would be a hit to the bottom line.
Swiss culture is very different from German culture, the way that dark blue is very different from black. If you look at them separately they might look similar, nearly identical, but overlap two pieces of fabric with said colours and it stings badly.
Swiss corporate culture is prone to being accommodating, German culture a bit less so. I recall only very good experiences with the SEN hotline based in Basel, whilst calls to LH could be wonderful but also a disaster.
My point here is that I sense the LX staff frustration comes from having to implement LH directives which they do not appreciate. I think the LX staff that wrote have to come up with refusals ideas and thus create a mess, perhaps even resorting to ChatGPT as a way to externalise/distribute the blame they create.
As a case in point I once recall a request for EU delay regulations and another matter relating to ID documents. I had to fight toes and nails for a small 3 digit EUR reimbursement, but whilst mentioning the ID situation in passing in one of the many calls for the first matter, I nearly got a 4 digit reimbursement for the other. This makes no business sense whatsoever, since I was really only mentioning the second issue and not demanding anything. If at all, I would have been much happier with getting my low 3 digit reimbursement for the first matter and say only an apology for the second matter.
To conclude, my suggestion when dealing with LX is to show understanding and perhaps propose other solutions, like an upgrade, voucher or else, so that they can accomodate the generosity of Swiss culture with their German headquarters restrictions on said generosity from a purely financial standpoint being LH.
NOTE: I do not generalise Swiss vs Germans here, I myself lived in both countries and love both culture, I am more specific on LX vs LH corporate culture.
I'd like to nominate this post as the most helpful of the month, if not the year.
It's clear, concise and extremely useful. We now know Swiss needs to pay up if a passenger has a basis for filing in the EU.
Question. If the flight were US to Switzerland without a stop in the EU can you think of any reason why filing in an EU court might be supported? Here in the...
I'd like to nominate this post as the most helpful of the month, if not the year.
It's clear, concise and extremely useful. We now know Swiss needs to pay up if a passenger has a basis for filing in the EU.
Question. If the flight were US to Switzerland without a stop in the EU can you think of any reason why filing in an EU court might be supported? Here in the US you a sue where either party has a presence or where the transaction occurred. Since Swiss has a presence in the EU is that sufficient for a passenger to defend jurisdiction if Swiss contested that?
My mistake this was supposed to be in reply to Lucas. Oops.
Who'd have thought they'd try to cover up one obviously dodgy excuse... with another even more dodgy excuse?!
It's far easier to type 333 if that was what was intended - than to somehow randomly move the other end of the keypad/keyboard and mistakenly enter 7 - not even once but twice! - and then have that even more coincidentally happen to match another legitimate, frequent plane type!
The chance of that happening as...
Who'd have thought they'd try to cover up one obviously dodgy excuse... with another even more dodgy excuse?!
It's far easier to type 333 if that was what was intended - than to somehow randomly move the other end of the keypad/keyboard and mistakenly enter 7 - not even once but twice! - and then have that even more coincidentally happen to match another legitimate, frequent plane type!
The chance of that happening as described would appear to be 0. Not buying what they're selling.
I had Air Canada delay and then cancel a flight from DCA to Toronto causing me to miss a connection to Curaçao. They could not reaccommodate me for 3 days. They denied my request for compensation by claiming that my flight 3 days later had no delays. My first and last time flying Air Canada.
I had Air Canada delay and then cancel a flight from DCA to Toronto causing me to miss my connection to Curacao. They could not rebook me for 3 days causing me to miss 3 days of my vacation. They refused compensation of any kind with the bizarre excuse that the flight I was rebooked on 3 days later arrived on schedule.
If they wont pay out, take these scumbags to court. Most countries have a low cost way of doing it.
I wish you'd stuck with the "lie" angle, because in all likelihood that story you got was indeed a lie. I've literally never heard of any rudder reversal issues (also not caused by vulnerabilities in the actuators) in the A330's of any sort, and a bit of a search of incidents didn't turn up anything. Of course, the issue on the 737 is well known (just like the DC9 jackscrew issue, etc.). In short, I do think someone sucked that out of their thumb. Sad!
I definitely got compensated for a ZRH-MXP flight with technical issues, I however was a SEN (Senator) back then, however we are talking several years back.
People tend to forget that 261 isn't the only way to get compensation for flight issues. I recently sued an airline which asserted that the provisions of 261 wouldn't allow UK courts to award compensation on a ticket bought through UK sales channels with miles from a UK-registered account but for a journey which didn't involve any UK airports. I accepted their argument and pointed out that my claim had also been made on the...
People tend to forget that 261 isn't the only way to get compensation for flight issues. I recently sued an airline which asserted that the provisions of 261 wouldn't allow UK courts to award compensation on a ticket bought through UK sales channels with miles from a UK-registered account but for a journey which didn't involve any UK airports. I accepted their argument and pointed out that my claim had also been made on the basis of a failure to meet their obligation under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to deliver the contracted service 'with reasonable care and skill'. They paid up without even attempting to file a defence.
Don’t like an airline’s service or reputation?
Easy.
Don’t book a flight.
Swiss and I are so over each other!
My life is fine. Swiss keeps getting bad reviews.
Does anyone reading this BLOG know if there's recourse if an airline [in this case ITA Airways] paid out 50% of EU261 compensation [EU300 vs EU600] and no additional expenses for a missed Rome tour, meals and taxis which I understand are claimable expenses under EU261. ITA Airways just sent us 3 checks from their New York office and this claim did not seem to go through EU261 at all and was just completely arbitrary....
Does anyone reading this BLOG know if there's recourse if an airline [in this case ITA Airways] paid out 50% of EU261 compensation [EU300 vs EU600] and no additional expenses for a missed Rome tour, meals and taxis which I understand are claimable expenses under EU261. ITA Airways just sent us 3 checks from their New York office and this claim did not seem to go through EU261 at all and was just completely arbitrary. I have written back to ITA but I am unsure if there's anything further I can do to collect the additional compensation per EU261. That said we did better than some of the SWISS stories noted below!!
I have been flying SWISS regularly from the UK for more than a decade. In that time I've submitted roughly six complaints about delays, etc; each and every time SWISS have been courteous, apologetic AND generous in compensating me. Their Customer Service staff are the kindest and most helpful compared to the other airlines I use, and I use quite a few.
Trust me, like you guys I abhor airline ignorance and crushing dismissal of...
I have been flying SWISS regularly from the UK for more than a decade. In that time I've submitted roughly six complaints about delays, etc; each and every time SWISS have been courteous, apologetic AND generous in compensating me. Their Customer Service staff are the kindest and most helpful compared to the other airlines I use, and I use quite a few.
Trust me, like you guys I abhor airline ignorance and crushing dismissal of the innocent paying/suffering customer. But sincerely SWISS - for me - is certainly one of the better companies.
This wouldn't happen on Delta.
I’ve been fighting for over a year with British Airways (flight originated in the EU) to get compensation for what they say was out of their control when it was a sick crew member that caused us to not get out of Croatia missing our connection in Gatwick and getting stranded. They to do this day maintain not having a crew for that plane was not in their control (sick crew member). However, it’s because...
I’ve been fighting for over a year with British Airways (flight originated in the EU) to get compensation for what they say was out of their control when it was a sick crew member that caused us to not get out of Croatia missing our connection in Gatwick and getting stranded. They to do this day maintain not having a crew for that plane was not in their control (sick crew member). However, it’s because they don’t keep backup crews at Gatwick and only at Heathrow. Not my problem. I’ve been fighting it under EU and UK law and most say I have A case but one year later I havent seen a dime. Lucky, I’d really appreciate you taking all the details from me on this and looking into it. Apparently it was the UK courts too when I hired one of the collection companies and everyone just pushes me off.
So much empathy for the sick crew member. I hope you’re not sick and we all walk over you in the rush to claim comp. The epitome of today’s society.
Has nothing to do with the sick crew member. If you’re sick please stay home. It has to do with a company that has no plan B for someone being sick. Employees get sick, that’s a fact of business. If your business doesn’t function because of one sick person that’s on the company, not the sick employee. As such that is an avoidable event per European regulations (or at least it should be. IANAL)
Actually, never saw empathy from an airline for sickness.
Ohh don't even get me started on british Airways. Their excuses to not provide what was promised is pathetic. An airline far from the days when they were "the world's favourite airline". And in one day this week they lost my luggage twice.
How are you "fighting it" ?
Why don't you just file with Aviation ADR ? There is no need to use a collection company - this is all they will do anyway.
If what you say is correct this is a classic example of what EU261 will provide recourse for. You'll win.
I have twice in the past year had a EU261 claim denied with Swiss. In both cases, we were 2 passengers traveling together, filling a claim separately, and each receiving a different denial reason. I was told "ground services". He got "traffic control restrictions".
Are those also not lies, and just "typos"?
@ FlyF — Would you be willing to forward me this correspondence, as I’d love to hear what a SWISS spokesperson has to say. Totally understand if you’d prefer not to, but if you’re open to it, email is [email protected].
Are you running a no win no fee company now?
Yes. I tried 2 different ones. But they've had the case since September 2023, so my hopes are quite low by now.
As a Swiss Citizen I am ashamed about the Airline which calls itself Swiss. There is nothing Swiss like. To be clear. Swiss is fully owned by Lufthansa. Swiss is the main provider of net profits for Lufthansa by a) charging horrendous prices for flights ex Switzerland and b) having the worst customer service in the world.
Same as you, I am Swiss citizen ashamed by LH/LX group behaviour.
I am fighting them for lost luggage (17 days) and compensation, they sent me a ridiculous amount before
I even acknowledge and gave me no details on the calculation, not responding anymore.
Now I will use SOP in Germany, if no success next will be court in Switzerland.
Since Swiss PR does read OMAAT, I would say to you that your reply to Ben is not exactly a good look and any reasonable person would avoid booking Swiss if there are other consumer friendly option.
SWISS really needs a new AI bot provider, this isn't a good look from such a k-lassy airline.
Just one more reason to avoid Swiss. Though, one shouldn’t expect much more from a country that runs its economy by helping drug dealers, dictators, corrupt politicians, Russian oligarchs and other such distinguished individuals hide their money.
Better not expect better from England either, Rob.
SWISS is a garbage airline. They sold me a ticket on a mid-haul flight on a 332 with lie-flat seats, post-sale changed it to a A321, and now will not refund.
Shady as hell, and I'll simply file complaints against them in three countries and sue them in EU small claims. It'll be much cheaper for them to simply do the right thing and refund.
Speaking to one of their agents, she also...
SWISS is a garbage airline. They sold me a ticket on a mid-haul flight on a 332 with lie-flat seats, post-sale changed it to a A321, and now will not refund.
Shady as hell, and I'll simply file complaints against them in three countries and sue them in EU small claims. It'll be much cheaper for them to simply do the right thing and refund.
Speaking to one of their agents, she also put me on hold to get a supervisor, failed to mute the line, and then said "hey do you want to pretend to be a supervisor." Dumb and terrible service.
If they continue to behave unethically, I'm not sure they'd want to me drop to the same level. I imagine it could be disruptive to check in for the flight, check-in bags of newspapers and no-show. Or simply refuse to board at the connection point and force them to retrieve my checked bags.
Hello, Swiss doesn't operate 332, they operate 333. I'm guessing the flight was for tel aviv as that's often changed from 330 to 321.
@Lucas
Excellent post.
What if just Zurich-US? Can you file in an EU court or is it only if the flight itinerary includes another EU country?
Ben, see if one of the services will take your claim.
There needs to be some connection to the member state where you're suing. Polish court has no jurisdiction over a case involving Zurich to NYC flight for example.
Next time I'm booking a ticket with them, I'll start a charge back claiming their price is a typo.
My First class ticket isn't $7370 It should be $333. SWISS loves typos.
Hi Ben!
Private international lawyer here (and one that is taking Condor Prime on Sunday due to your reviews - thank you).
Swiss is both right and not right at the same time - which is a special feature of private international law. Here’s how it works:
1. Let’s take a US-ZRH-EU itinerary to keep things simple. Let us also assume that all EU law is identical in this respect, which it mostly is....
Hi Ben!
Private international lawyer here (and one that is taking Condor Prime on Sunday due to your reviews - thank you).
Swiss is both right and not right at the same time - which is a special feature of private international law. Here’s how it works:
1. Let’s take a US-ZRH-EU itinerary to keep things simple. Let us also assume that all EU law is identical in this respect, which it mostly is. Let’s also say US law is identical between the states to keep things simple.
2. There are a number of instruments legally covering such an itinerary:
A. International common ones: the Warsaw Convention for damages in civil aviation. That does not cover delays, only major damage to the person or property.
B. EU-wide Regulation, covering delays.
C. Swiss law, also covering delays in its own way;
D. US law, same.
B, C and D are *not* mutually exclusive. In legal thought, they apply concurrently at the same time.
But of course they’re not identical, so which one actually wins (the subject is also called “conflict of laws” for this reason)?
3. The answer is: the court seized determines which law wins.
Which moves the needle to the issue of Jurisdiction (aka Competence). That is also regulated independently by all the laws in question, with no over-arching regulator inbetween them.
But as it happens all three laws provide that the customer (traveler) can sue at any of the point of departure, connection or arrival!
4. Therefore, ultimately, it is the customer that determines the jurisdiction by filing suit in one of these three places. Of course a wise customer will file where they are in the best legal position based on the way the law is written and interpreted.
But maybe they’re not wise. In which case:
- if they file in the US they will not have guaranteed delay compensation;
- if they file in Switzerland, mechanical issues will not be considered for compensation;
- if they file in the EU, they will have guaranteed compensation.
So, bottom line, Swiss is technically correct: under Swiss law, the law of their jurisdiction of HQ, mechanical issues do not qualify for compensation. But the customer and you are also correct that, provided they apply in the EU in such an itinerary, the courts will put mechanical issues within the Regulation’s purview.
As always, this is a high-level overview of the law and not legal advice.
Lucas, I'm dealing with this issue as well and trying to do some additional research before writing about it.
Would a passenger, say a US citizen traveling exclusively from JFK-ZRH have any standing to sue over EU261/2004 in, say, a German or French court?
Sorry my reply was supposed to be to this post.
I'd like to nominate this post as the most helpful of the month, if not the year.
It's clear, concise and extremely useful. We now know Swiss needs to pay up if a passenger has a basis for filing in the EU.
Question. If the flight were US to Switzerland without a stop in the EU can you think of any reason why filing in...
Sorry my reply was supposed to be to this post.
I'd like to nominate this post as the most helpful of the month, if not the year.
It's clear, concise and extremely useful. We now know Swiss needs to pay up if a passenger has a basis for filing in the EU.
Question. If the flight were US to Switzerland without a stop in the EU can you think of any reason why filing in an EU court might be supported? Here in the US you a sue where either party has a presence or where the transaction occurred. Since Swiss has a presence in the EU is that sufficient for a passenger to defend jurisdiction if Swiss contested that?
They have a really silly PR team clearly - their asinine response is just as much of a story as their EU261 avoidance
At least they responded to him proactively
It was a bot-assisted response. Can bots lie? The clear lie here is the human who said it was a typo to type 737 instead of 333 and a coincidence that there was a rudder issue decades ago.
I am glad that airlines actually read these articles, hopefully also people`s comments, wishes etc.
Because I live in CH, short-haul I fly them quite a lot, however long-haul only when there is no better option. Customer service (ground staff and helplines included) is not consistent, it can be very good, or it can be bad, as any other airline. Which, if Swiss really want to differentiate itself, is not enough.
Dear Swiss,...
I am glad that airlines actually read these articles, hopefully also people`s comments, wishes etc.
Because I live in CH, short-haul I fly them quite a lot, however long-haul only when there is no better option. Customer service (ground staff and helplines included) is not consistent, it can be very good, or it can be bad, as any other airline. Which, if Swiss really want to differentiate itself, is not enough.
Dear Swiss, good service is not about written declarations and intentions, it is about people doing the right thing.
You should go buy a lottery ticket given that LX - being SWISS - haven't yet sued you for defamation.
We should really get Biglaw V10 Partner's take on this.
Just kidding! He's not a lawyer, he's a child in his mom's basement.
Anyhoo, libel isn't particularly easy to prove here, and LX has (or should have) better things to do than shine a brighter spotlight on their customer unfriendly policies.
ECJ rulings DO NOT apply in Switzerland. Only the regulations adopted by the Swiss Parliament apply in Switzerland.
The Swiss Parliament adopted as Swiss law Regulation 261. It has not, nor has it been asked to, adopt amendments to the Regulation reflecting decisions by a foreign court.
That’s it. Switzerland is not subject to ECJ rulings regardless of what you think m
If you had me guess the airline, I would have said Ryanair, not Swiss.
Thanks for covering! Swiss is now in the same list as Air Canada, shady customer service practices.
Swiss (not the Swissair of old) has always been a low-cost carrier masquerading as a flag carrier, but it got much worse under Lufthansa, which treats Swiss as a test bed for whatever new cost-saving malarkey they want to roll out. I guess the thinking is that if the people of Switzerland will put up with it, anyone will. So I’m not even remotely surprised by this. It’s not a popular opinion in Switzerland, where...
Swiss (not the Swissair of old) has always been a low-cost carrier masquerading as a flag carrier, but it got much worse under Lufthansa, which treats Swiss as a test bed for whatever new cost-saving malarkey they want to roll out. I guess the thinking is that if the people of Switzerland will put up with it, anyone will. So I’m not even remotely surprised by this. It’s not a popular opinion in Switzerland, where I live, but I think Swiss is an unpleasant airline to use. Sure, they are meticulous about maintenance and pretty good about cleanliness. But service on short-haul flights is terrible, and operationally, it’s a low-cost sardine can operator. While the flight crews on their long-haul flights are great, the food is subpar, and the economy seats are a true imposition, if not an outright insult.
I guess this makes sense - neither the US nor Switzerland are in the EU, so there is no reason that EU regulations like this should apply in that situation.
Switzerland is not a member of the EU but it is a member of the EEA. The EEA have an agreement to be part of the EU’s common aviation market which requires them to adopt EU laws and regulations in regards to aviation.
Because EU261 doesn’t define what is “extraordinary” it’s been left to EU courts to decide on the interpretation. The loophole for Swiss is that Switzerland is not obligated to recognize EU case...
Switzerland is not a member of the EU but it is a member of the EEA. The EEA have an agreement to be part of the EU’s common aviation market which requires them to adopt EU laws and regulations in regards to aviation.
Because EU261 doesn’t define what is “extraordinary” it’s been left to EU courts to decide on the interpretation. The loophole for Swiss is that Switzerland is not obligated to recognize EU case law so can ignore the EU court’s case law and go by Swiss court’s case law instead. Swiss courts have made decisions on what is and isn’t “extraordinary” that are at variance with the EU court’s decisions.
Switzerland doesn't belong to the EEA (European Economic Area). They do belong to the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), but that has no relevance whatsoever in them abiding to EC261 if it's an itinerary from US/non-EEA to Switzerland or vice-versa. Switzerland's civil aviation authority (FOCA) technically has air passenger rights in place which follow EC261's guidelines, but Switzerland not belonging to the EEA gives both FOCA and Swiss courts that extra flexibility in determining the...
Switzerland doesn't belong to the EEA (European Economic Area). They do belong to the EFTA (European Free Trade Agreement), but that has no relevance whatsoever in them abiding to EC261 if it's an itinerary from US/non-EEA to Switzerland or vice-versa. Switzerland's civil aviation authority (FOCA) technically has air passenger rights in place which follow EC261's guidelines, but Switzerland not belonging to the EEA gives both FOCA and Swiss courts that extra flexibility in determining the implementation cases.
Good answer. So nice when posters know what they are talking about and take the time to clearly explain.
Unfortunately I doubt most readers are going to take the time to understand what you are saying. But between your post and the one from Lucas anyone who does want to understand has everything they need to do so.
Hi Ben,
nothing to excuse. I have a similar experience due a travel von Hamburg via Zurich to Dubai
Inbound flight for Swiss flight ZRH to DXB got a technical. They canceled and refused EU261 compensation
So. I das to use the court and … of course they have to pay as EU261 said (they ignored EU rights even with flights ex EU)
So. I would say, it’s not a mistake. It’s a feature ;-)
Family of 4 flew to Venice, Italy last summer on Swiss. Our inbound flight into ZRH was delayed causing us to miss our connection to VCE. Their next flight got us to VCE 6 hours later than originally scheduled. Got the usual BS response from their CS agent, so I handed the case off to a 3rd party intermediary, who is still pursuing the matter with Swiss a year later.
it will be better and better
Sent the enforcement order to swiss, they owe me total of 1400 EUR by law. They answered after weeks
"Thank you for your inquiry regarding your booking ____. We apologize for the delay in getting back to you.
Please note that your booking is a Lufthansa booking, and we kindly ask you to contact us directly at Lufthansa."
and they lie over and over again
All the airlines do it. They essentially DO lie to us to try to blow you off to avoid paying compensation. Many take theire lies at face value and go away.
Just file a claim with Aviation ADR and them decide. It's easy, takes a few minutes.
I'm 3 for 3 when having to use Aviation ADR.
"We didn't lie, we said something that was factually incorrect and you were supposed to know that it was a typo and not a lie".
Uh, great argument there Swiss...
Well I’ll just avoid flying SWISS and then I won’t need to worry about such confusion.
Absolute horseshit from their spox, if you ask me.
That's precious: "we just made an error with two numbers." Honestly, it would have been more believable if they'd just blamed the computer: "our agent typed 333, but it was autocorrected to 737." I'm curious as to the details regarding when/how ECJ EU261 decisions are binding on Swiss courts, but for now let's assume Swiss is correct. Have they not considered the PR damage from openly espousing the opinion that the rules simply do not apply to them?
Easy to be addressed. Just do not fly Swiss. There are so many options and if consumers use their right to choose other airlines Swiss might have to revisit its policy once it hits their pockets.
I wonder what one of the companies that pursue EU261 claims on behalf of passengers (for a fee) would say.
If they agreed, then I would believe them. Maybe they would be happy to comment in exchange for a mention in your blog.
I think the work you do calling these things out is among your best; keep it up!
They send letters but don’t bother going to court and ultimately drop the case.
This is a good outline of the current situation.
In essence, the relevant ECJ case law does apply in Switzerland unless it was made before Switzerland adopted the EU261 regulation.
As the ECJ has largely determined the scope of the regulation since then, this gives Swiss courts a lot of leeway to determine how they interpret the regulation. They have used this leeway to limit the scope of the regulation in Switzerland, much...
This is a good outline of the current situation.
In essence, the relevant ECJ case law does apply in Switzerland unless it was made before Switzerland adopted the EU261 regulation.
As the ECJ has largely determined the scope of the regulation since then, this gives Swiss courts a lot of leeway to determine how they interpret the regulation. They have used this leeway to limit the scope of the regulation in Switzerland, much like Swiss have stated.
https://lexcellence.swiss/en/news/rights-passengers-flying-or-out-switzerland-case-cancelations-or-delays
Just to edit, I meant to write "Does NOT apply unless it was made before Switzerland adopted the regulation".
Always a good look to bring in legal documentation to explain why your customer service sucks
Wow, I was under the impression that EU261 applied not only on flights from and to EU member states, but also involving EFTA members... turns out it's only EU and EEA, which essentially means that it applies to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein (not relevant since they have no airports), but not Switzerland.
This is factually wrong.
The Swiss law is exactly the same as the EU one.
The difference is that BAZL/OFAC (Swiss aviation regulator) doesn’t enforce it. Why you might ask? Because many of the civil servants are ex-LX/SR and most move on/back to LX after working at the regulator.
There’s a nice gentleman’s agreement between LX, EZS and BAZL that arranges everyone except the consumer.
Read the article attached to my post. The regulation might be the same but the case law is not, so the law itself is not, or at least is no longer, the same.
The case law has become that way precisely because BAZL has always sided with the airlines.
If you take one step back, consumer protection in Switzerland is pretty much non existant compared to EU countries.
When EC261 was first established there were a lot of government ties with Swiss and the regulator is still pretty much an extension of LX. The result is what it is.
Thanks for the clarification.
I would actually agree that mechanical issues should not automatically be considered to be within the airline’s control. On the other hand I am happy for the compensation.
The response SWISS gave to the customer felt like it was typed by ChatGPT or Copilot ngl
It's a lot of EU airlines.. TAP does even worse things..
LOL at this article. Did SWISS threaten to sue you for libel, or threaten to ban you for life from Lufthansa group as a customer if you didn't offer an apology? We all know SWISS's dirty tricks, and there is no covering up their games with award seats. SWISS, since you apparently read Ben's blog, many customers, both award and business travelers, actively avoid booking with you because of your known BS with customer service....
LOL at this article. Did SWISS threaten to sue you for libel, or threaten to ban you for life from Lufthansa group as a customer if you didn't offer an apology? We all know SWISS's dirty tricks, and there is no covering up their games with award seats. SWISS, since you apparently read Ben's blog, many customers, both award and business travelers, actively avoid booking with you because of your known BS with customer service. We can't risk being subject to your whimsical regulatory regime, so Air France it is!
We know that the reason for denying compensation in this case was wrong. We don't know whether it was deliberate or if Swiss routinely provides incorrect information when denying compensation.
Ben was wrong to assert the latter and kudos to him for admitting to that. However if passengers come forward with numerous examples of where Swiss did in fact provide false information as part of denying claims then their indignation will have been misplaced.
Meanwhile, Singapore airlines pays out $10,000 per passenger due to the weather (which is genuinely out of their control)… makes me feel glad that I never fly Swiss
And Swissair (the predecessor airline which went bankrupt) did an excellent job in the circumstances of supporting relatives after SR111. The pilots were not at fault in that crash.
Swiss is a different animal - a subsidiary of Lufthansa.
Ironic that they are exploiting Swiss case-law being different from EU case-law, when Lufthansa is headquartered in an EU country.
This is just flat out gross and greedy. I feel like Swiss is the kind of airline that gives stranded passengers cheese and cheese only, and then blames the passenger when the passenger turns out to be lactose intolerant. Pretty unbecoming of an airline that wants to be perceived as offering a “luxury” product.
I desperately hope we have a Swiss lawyer to fact-check this. I will chip 10 Francs to hire one. :-)