Flight Compensation Deadlines: Hidden Legal Traps Under EU261, UK261, Turkish SHY Passenger & Israeli Tibi Law

Flight compensation claims are often rejected not because passengers are not entitled to money — but because deadlines are misunderstood, incorrectly calculated, or strategically used by airlines to avoid payouts.

Many travellers believe they simply need to submit a claim “within a few years.” In reality, flight compensation deadlines depend on multiple overlapping legal rules, and mistakes about timing are one of the most common reasons valid claims fail.

Understanding how time limits work under EU261, UK261, Turkish SHY Passenger Regulation, and Israel’s Tibi Law is essential — because in cross-border aviation disputes, deadlines rarely operate in a simple or predictable way.

Why Compensation Deadlines Are Legally Complex

Passengers usually expect one universal rule. Aviation law works differently.

Several layers of deadlines can apply to the same flight disruption:

• National limitation periods

• Airline internal claim windows

• Court filing deadlines

• Jurisdiction-specific legal procedures

• Evidence preservation requirements

Airlines frequently rely on these overlapping rules to argue that a claim was filed too late — even when passengers believed they acted within the allowed timeframe.

Quick Overview: Typical Compensation Time Limits by Regulation

The following table provides a simplified overview of common limitation periods used in compensation cases. These are general legal reference ranges, and the applicable deadline may vary depending on jurisdiction, airline strategy, and procedural rules.

While these ranges appear straightforward, real-world cases frequently involve conflicting interpretations of which deadline applies.

The First Hidden Legal Trap: Different Countries Apply Different Limitation Rules

EU261 and UK261 do not define a single universal deadline. Instead, they rely on national limitation laws.

This creates significant variation across jurisdictions. For example:

• Germany often applies a 3-year limitation period

• France generally applies 5 years

• Spain can allow longer periods in some circumstances

• The United Kingdom typically applies a 6-year period

Airlines may attempt to apply the shortest possible limitation period available under jurisdictional rules.

Passengers often assume the limitation period of their residence applies — but aviation law typically depends on:

• departure airport

• arrival airport

• airline nationality

• contractual jurisdiction clauses

• court where the claim is filed

Misunderstanding jurisdiction is one of the most common causes of rejected compensation claims.

The Second Hidden Trap: Airline Claim Deadlines vs Legal Deadlines

Many airlines publish internal complaint deadlines — sometimes requiring claims within months after the flight.

These deadlines are frequently misunderstood.

Airline internal complaint policies are not always legally binding limitation periods. However, airlines may still use missed internal deadlines as a procedural argument to reject claims or delay responses.

Passengers who rely solely on airline customer service communication may unknowingly weaken their legal position.

The Third Hidden Trap: The “Clock” Does Not Always Start When Passengers Think

Most travellers assume deadlines start on the flight date. Legally, this is not always correct.

Depending on jurisdiction, the limitation period may begin:

• on the date of the disrupted flight

• when the passenger first became aware of the disruption

• when the airline formally rejected the claim

• when damages were fully realised

Determining the correct starting point often requires legal interpretation, especially in cases involving delayed baggage, missed connections, or multi-segment itineraries.

How Airlines Use Deadline Confusion to Reject Claims

Airlines frequently rely on several defensive strategies:

Applying Shorter Jurisdictional Deadlines

Airlines may argue that a claim falls under a country with a shorter limitation period, even when multiple jurisdictions are possible.

Delaying Communication

Extended response times can push claims closer to limitation expiration, increasing pressure on passengers.

Challenging Evidence Timing

Airlines may claim that supporting evidence was submitted too late or outside procedural deadlines.

Arguing Incorrect Legal Framework Application

Carriers sometimes argue that EU261 or similar fixed-compensation regulations do not apply — shifting cases into more complex legal frameworks.

Regulation-Specific Deadline Risks

EU261 and UK261

These regulations provide strong passenger protection and fixed compensation amounts. However, they rely heavily on national limitation laws, which creates jurisdictional complexity.

Cross-border flights — such as those involving connecting itineraries or airlines registered in different countries — often raise disputes over which national deadline applies.

Turkish SHY Passenger Regulation

SHY Passenger rules provide fixed compensation similar to EU261 but operate under Turkish civil aviation law.

One of the most significant complexities is determining whether the regulation applies when disruptions occur outside Turkish territory or involve multi-segment international journeys.

Airlines frequently dispute SHY applicability in connecting flight scenarios.

Israeli Tibi Law

Israel’s aviation compensation framework provides fixed compensation and, in some cases, additional damages. However, its application may depend on:

• whether the disruption occurred on flights to or from Israel

• interaction with international aviation treaties

• court jurisdiction rules

These cases often involve complex evidentiary and procedural considerations.

When Fixed Compensation Laws Do Not Apply

Not all flight disruptions fall under EU261, UK261, SHY Passenger, or Tibi Law.

In these situations, international aviation liability frameworks — including the Montreal Convention — may apply. Unlike fixed-compensation regimes, such frameworks focus on proving actual financial loss and require significantly more complex legal analysis.

Airlines frequently rely on these distinctions when rejecting claims submitted under the wrong legal framework.

Why Filing “Within the Deadline” Does Not Guarantee Success

Even when passengers submit claims before limitation periods expire, cases may still fail due to:

• incorrect jurisdiction selection

• incomplete documentation

• misclassification of disruption type

• failure to preserve evidence

• procedural filing errors

• airline disputes over legal applicability

Successful compensation cases often depend on accurately identifying the correct legal framework before filing.

Why Cross-Border Flights Create the Highest Risk of Deadline Errors

Modern airline travel frequently involves:

• connecting flights operated by different airlines

• codeshare agreements

• multi-country itineraries

• disruptions affecting multiple jurisdictions

Each of these factors can change which compensation law applies and which deadline governs the claim.

Passengers rarely receive clear guidance about these jurisdictional conflicts from airlines.

The Role of Evidence in Compensation Deadlines

Deadline disputes are closely linked to evidence preservation.

Critical evidence in compensation cases may include:

• boarding passes

• booking confirmations

• disruption notices

• airline communication records

• delay verification reports

• rebooking documentation

Airlines may challenge claims if supporting documentation is submitted outside procedural windows or if evidence is incomplete.

Why Many Valid Compensation Claims Expire Without Passengers Realising

The most common reasons include:

• relying on airline customer service responses instead of legal deadlines

• misunderstanding jurisdiction rules

• filing claims under incorrect regulations

• assuming all European flights follow identical limitation periods

• waiting for airline responses until limitation periods approach expiration

These issues occur frequently in international flight disputes, where legal frameworks overlap.

Why Professional Case Assessment Often Changes Deadline Outcomes

Determining the correct limitation period in aviation compensation cases typically requires analysing:

• route structure

• airline registration

• governing passenger protection laws

• international aviation treaties

• jurisdictional procedural rules

Small legal differences can significantly affect claim validity.

Final Thoughts: Deadlines Are One of the Most Powerful Airline Defense Strategies

Flight compensation deadlines are not simple countdown periods. They are part of a broader legal framework involving jurisdiction, procedural law, and international aviation liability rules.

Passengers who misunderstand these rules may lose valid compensation rights even when disruption eligibility exists.

Understanding how deadlines interact with multiple aviation regulations is essential in determining whether compensation claims remain legally enforceable.