SHY Passenger Rights Explained: Why Flights Involving Turkey Are Often Misclassified

Why SHY Passenger Rights Cause More Confusion Than Protection

When a flight involves Turkey, many passengers — and airlines — immediately refer to SHY Passenger Rights as the governing regulation. This assumption feels logical: Turkish Airlines, Turkish airports, Turkey as a destination or departure point.

But in practice, SHY is one of the most misunderstood aviation regulations, and its incorrect application is a leading reason why valid compensation claims are rejected.

This article explains:

• what SHY Passenger Rights actually regulate,

• when SHY does not apply at all,

• how SHY differs fundamentally from EU261,

• when international law (Montreal Convention, Article 19) replaces SHY,

• and the most common errors passengers make when claiming compensation for flights involving Turkey.

Understanding these distinctions is critical. In many cases, choosing the wrong legal framework guarantees an automatic airline rejection, even when the passenger’s losses are real and provable.

What Are SHY Passenger Rights?

SHY Passenger Rights (often referred to as SHY-PASSENGER) are Turkey’s national air passenger protection rules. They are sometimes incorrectly described as “Turkey’s version of EU261,” but this comparison is misleading.

SHY is:

• a domestic regulatory framework,

• issued by the Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA),

• and territorially limited.

Unlike EU261, SHY does not follow the passenger, the airline’s nationality, or the destination.

When SHY Passenger Rights Apply — and When They Don’t

SHY applies only when:

• the flight departs from an airport located in Turkey,

• regardless of airline nationality,

• regardless of passenger nationality,

• regardless of destination.

That is the single decisive criterion.

SHY does not apply when:

• the flight departs outside Turkey, even if:

  • the airline is Turkish Airlines,

  • the destination is Turkey,

  • the ticket was purchased in Turkey,

  • the passenger is a Turkish citizen.

This point is frequently ignored — sometimes unintentionally, sometimes strategically.

Why SHY Is Often Used Incorrectly by Airlines

Airlines often respond to claims involving Turkey by:

• referencing SHY Passenger Rights,

• stating that compensation is “not provided under SHY,”

• or citing “extraordinary circumstances” without deeper legal analysis.

For flights departing outside Turkey, this approach is legally incorrect — but effective.
Why? Because most passengers do not escalate beyond customer service, and many claims collapse at this stage.

SHY Passenger Rights vs EU261: A Fundamental Difference

Although SHY and EU261 are often mentioned together, they are structurally different regulations.

EU261:

• applies to departures from the EU, and

• to arrivals into the EU operated by EU carriers,

• provides fixed compensation amounts (250–600 EUR),

• creates strong, standardized passenger rights.

SHY Passenger Rights:

• apply only to departures from Turkey,

• do not mirror EU261 compensation logic,

• offer weaker enforcement mechanisms,

• allow broader airline discretion in practice.

Crucially, EU261 has extraterritorial reach; SHY does not.

Flights Involving Turkey Where Neither EU261 Nor SHY Apply

This is where most passengers lose valid claims.

Examples:

• Turkish Airlines flight departing from Asia, Middle East, or Africa to Turkey,

• Turkish Airlines long-haul flight originating outside both the EU and Turkey,

• Non-EU carrier flight from Turkey’s neighboring regions.

In these cases:

• EU261 often does not apply,

• SHY does not apply,

• but passenger rights do not disappear.

They simply move into a different legal framework.

The Role of International Law: Montreal Convention Article 19

When neither EU261 nor SHY applies, international law takes over.

The Montreal Convention (1999) governs international carriage by air and applies to:

• international flights between signatory states,

• including Turkey and the vast majority of aviation markets.

Article 19 covers:

• delay-related damages,

• financial losses caused by disruption,

• missed connections,

• additional expenses.

Unlike EU261 or SHY:

• there is no fixed compensation amount,

• the claim must be documented and quantified,

• causation must be clearly established.

This is precisely why airlines prefer passengers to rely on SHY — Montreal-based claims are harder to dismiss when properly presented.

Common Passenger Errors That Kill Valid Claims

Error 1: Assuming SHY Applies Because the Airline Is Turkish

Airline nationality is legally irrelevant for SHY applicability.

Error 2: Demanding Fixed Compensation Under the Wrong Law

Montreal Convention claims fail instantly if framed as fixed-sum demands.

Error 3: Ignoring Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

Claims sent to the wrong legal framework are often rejected automatically.

Error 4: Treating All “Extraordinary Circumstances” as Absolute

Under Montreal Convention, airlines must still prove all reasonable measures were taken.

Error 5: Staying at Customer Service Level

Most airlines will not voluntarily reclassify a claim into the correct legal regime.

Why DIY Claims Fail Disproportionately on Turkey-Related Flights

Flights involving Turkey are legally complex because:

• multiple regulatory systems overlap,

• airlines selectively reference the weakest applicable framework,

• passengers rely on simplified online advice.

As a result:

• legitimate losses go uncompensated,

• passengers receive misleading legal explanations,

• and claims are abandoned prematurely.

This complexity is not accidental — it benefits carriers operationally and financially.

Final Thoughts: SHY Is Not the Enemy — Misapplication Is

SHY Passenger Rights are not inherently flawed.
They simply have a narrow legal scope that is routinely misunderstood.

The real issue is misclassification:

• applying SHY where it does not belong,

• ignoring international law where it clearly applies,

• and failing to adapt legal strategy to the actual flight structure.

For flights involving Turkey, the applicable law matters more than the airline, destination, or ticket price.
Understanding that distinction is the difference between a rejected claim and a legally enforceable one.