Missed Connection Compensation: Who Is Liable and Why These Claims Are So Hard to Win Without Legal Support

Missing a connecting flight is one of the most complex and misunderstood disruption scenarios in air passenger rights. Unlike straightforward flight delays or cancellations, missed connection compensation cases often involve multiple flights, different airlines, separate booking references, and overlapping legal frameworks.

This complexity is precisely why airlines regularly deny responsibility — and why most missed connection claims fail without professional legal support.

This article explains who may be legally liable, why airlines shift responsibility, and why passengers rarely succeed on their own when claiming compensation for a missed connection.

What Is Considered a Missed Connection?

A missed connection occurs when a passenger fails to board a subsequent flight because an earlier flight arrived late, was disrupted, or was mishandled by the airline.

From a legal perspective, missed connection cases typically involve:

• Two or more flight segments

• Tight minimum connection times (MCT)

• Different operating or marketing carriers

• Disputes over responsibility for delay propagation

These factors immediately make liability determination far more complex than standard delay compensation cases.

Who Is Liable for a Missed Connection?

1. Single Booking vs Separate Tickets

Liability heavily depends on whether flights were booked under one single booking reference (PNR) or as separate tickets.

• Single booking:
  Airlines may bear responsibility for ensuring the passenger reaches the final destination.

• Separate tickets:
  Airlines often deny any obligation, even when delays are operationally related.

Airlines frequently exploit this distinction to reject claims — even when the disruption originated entirely within their control.

2. Multiple Airlines and Interline Flights

Missed connections often involve:

• Code-share agreements

• Interline itineraries

• One operating carrier and another marketing carrier

Airlines regularly argue that:

• The first carrier is responsible for delay

• The second carrier is responsible for denied boarding

• Neither carrier is responsible for the missed connection itself

This legal grey zone is where most passenger claims collapse without expert handling.

Does EU261 Apply to Missed Connections?

EU Regulation 261/2004 (EU261) can apply — but only if very specific conditions are met.

EU261 may cover a missed connection if:

• The journey was booked as a single itinerary

• The departure airport was within the EU, or the operating carrier was EU-based

• The passenger arrived at the final destination 3 hours or more late

However, airlines frequently argue that:

• The disruption occurred outside EU jurisdiction

• The missed connection was caused by “extraordinary circumstances”

• The final delay cannot be legally attributed to the first flight

These arguments are often technically incorrect — but highly effective against unrepresented passengers.

When EU261 Does NOT Apply

Many missed connection cases fall outside EU261 entirely, especially when:

• The journey starts outside the EU

• A non-EU carrier operates the first or critical segment

• The delay occurs after an international transfer

In these cases, the Montreal Convention (Article 19) becomes the applicable legal framework.

Montreal Convention Article 19: Delay Damages

Under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, airlines are liable for damage caused by delay, unless they prove they took all reasonable measures to avoid it.

Key points passengers often misunderstand:

• There is no fixed compensation amount

• Claims must be based on provable damages

• Airlines routinely reject claims with fixed-sum demands

This is why experienced legal strategy is critical. Incorrect framing almost guarantees rejection.

Why Airlines Systematically Reject Missed Connection Claims

Airlines rely on several recurring denial tactics:

• Shifting liability between carriers

• Claiming minimum connection times were “sufficient”

• Arguing passenger fault or late arrival at gate

• Misapplying extraordinary circumstances

• Ignoring Montreal Convention standards entirely

Without legal pressure and correct jurisdictional framing, these refusals usually stand.

Why Missed Connection Claims Are So Hard to Win Without Legal Support

Missed connection compensation cases require:

• Accurate legal qualification (EU261 vs Montreal Convention)

• Proof of causal link between flights

• Evidence preservation (boarding passes, timestamps, rebooking records)

• Strategic escalation when airlines stonewall

Most passengers:

• Demand the wrong type of compensation

• Address the wrong airline

• Use incorrect legal references

• Trigger automated refusals by airlines’ claim systems

As a result, valid claims are rejected — not because they lack merit, but because they are legally mishandled.

Why Professional Handling Makes the Difference

Proper legal support means:

• Identifying the correct liable carrier

• Applying the correct legal framework from the start

• Avoiding fixed-sum demands when they are legally unsafe

• Escalating claims with documented legal reasoning

• Applying pressure only when it strengthens the case

This approach significantly increases the likelihood of settlement — especially in complex, multi-carrier missed connection cases.

Final Thoughts

Missed connection compensation is not about filling out a form — it is about legal responsibility, jurisdiction, and strategy. Airlines know this, and they rely on passengers not knowing it.

If your journey involved multiple flights, different airlines, or international connections, the difficulty is not accidental. It is structural.

Check compensation

If you missed a connecting flight and the airline denied responsibility, your case may still be valid — but only if handled correctly from a legal standpoint.
Professional analysis is often the decisive factor between rejection and successful compensation.