Flight compensation EU 261 regulation

The Phantom Jipper · 17-10-2024 8:25pm #1

I was thinking of chasing up compensation from a delayed flight a few months ago and was interested in getting people's thoughts as the circumstances are a bit different to the usual.

The flight was delayed past the point where it made sense to go as it was a short trip so I received a refund on the fare and went back home. The delay was over the duration required for compensation but would I physically have needed to board and complete the journey to get compensation or is it enough to have been inconvenienced by a 5+ hour delay at Dublin airport only? The regulation seems to suggest that it is sufficient to have checked in and gone to the airport but there doesn't seem to be anything concrete on Google of people who've actually been successful or not with a claim.

endofrainbow · 18-10-2024 12:07pm

You cancelled and got a refund but you're looking for compensation for something that might have affected you had you taken the flight?

Am I missing something here?

beachhead · 18-10-2024 12:24pm

You summed it up perfectly,endofrainbow.Refunded accepted.Contract ended.No further compo or claim due after refund accepted.

The Phantom Jipper · 18-10-2024 1:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122733134#Comment_122733134

Perhaps more detail was required. Refund and compensation aren't mutually exclusive under the regulation. The refund was requested because I wasn't able to take the flight whereas compensation may be due for the inconvenience of the delay - they are two separate things under the regulation. In my situation I was delayed past the point where I could even go on the trip.

Have you heard of EU 261/2004 before? I'm a layman myself so was hoping for a bit of informed input from others.

L1011 · 18-10-2024 1:23pm

Once you accept a refund for non travel in this situation; the compensatory element is gone. The flight was still there, it hadn't taken off, you could have taken it and got the compensation.

It would be different if you'd taken the flight and been refunded, cause the refund could be a fraction of the compensation rate and it isn't a get-out for the airline. But you didn't travel.

The Phantom Jipper · 18-10-2024 1:38pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122733640#Comment_122733640

Thanks for the response. Doing some amateur sleuthing online, I'm not 100% sure that's the case to be honest. The scoping section of the regulation seems to say that completing the journey isn't a requirement to be eligible for compensation, the passenger needs to have just checked in for the flight.

This would seem to make sense in my opinion. Imagine a scenario where you're flying to the UK to see a match and the hours keep ticking by with flight delays up to the point where if you take the flight, you'll have missed the match. In that scenario it makes complete sense to get a refund as the journey is no longer worth doing, but you've also had your trip blown up and time wasted. The scoping piece of the regulation that I mentioned seems designed to accommodate this, by mentioning check in as the trigger rather than wheels on the ground at the destination.

L1011 · 18-10-2024 1:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122733779#Comment_122733779

You're almost inevitably going to have to take that one to court to argue if you think there's a basis for it.

endofrainbow · 18-10-2024 3:14pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122733625#Comment_122733625

Of course I've heard of EU 261. The fact remains you chose not to fly (this is known as disinclination to fly). To try and claim compensation for a flight YOU chose to cancel would be double dipping if the airline even entertained your request. Once you cancelled and got refund , your contact ended.

What did your travel insurance say?

The Phantom Jipper · 18-10-2024 3:51pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122734185#Comment_122734185

Receiving some form of redress like either a refund or rerouting doesn't appear to preclude somebody from getting compensation. As in the example above with the football match, it would be hard to argue that scenario hadn't imposed some inconvenience on the passenger. It wouldn't seem to make sense, to me at least, that compensation would only be payable if the passenger endures the inconvenience to the point of setting foot in the destination country.

Maybe I'm selectively googling but Airhelp's website seems to agree;

According to EC 261, you have the right to a flight cancellation refund if your flight has been cancelled. You will be offered an alternative flight, and you can request a different alternative if you prefer. But if none of the available flights suit your travel plans, you can request a full refund.

The same goes for a flight delay refund – if your flight was delayed by more than 5 hours, you have the right to decide not to take your flight, and ask for a refund. This is because a five-hour delay is just as inconvenient as a total cancellation.

Regardless of the refund, you are entitled to flight compensation if:

Your flight was delayed for 3 hours or more.

Victor · 19-10-2024 2:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122734185#Comment_122734185

Hey, gobshite. If the airline unilaterally cancels a flight for whatever reason, then they broke the contract, not the passenger. If it was cancelled due to weather, the legal position is that the airline still has to pay compensation.

---------------------------------

Warned: Personal abuse

L1011 · 19-10-2024 2:13pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122737176#Comment_122737176

Personal attack and you're still wrong - weather is an absolute get out. 261 compensation covers things within the airlines control, only duty of care and refunds apply for weather delays.

Maybe do five seconds of fact checking before showing yourself to be ignorant and abusive next time eh?