Why Airlines Reject Flight Compensation Claims

(And How to Overturn the Refusal)

Air passengers across the world increasingly know that flight delays, cancellations, missed connections, and denied boarding may entitle them to compensation. Regulations such as EU Regulation 261/2004, the Montreal Convention (Article 19), and national passenger rights laws provide legal grounds to claim monetary compensation, reimbursement, or damages.

Yet in practice, the majority of flight compensation claims are rejected by airlines.

Passengers often receive short, generic refusal emails citing extraordinary circumstances, safety issues, air traffic control restrictions, or non-applicability of the regulation. Many give up at this stage — even when the airline’s refusal is legally incorrect.

This article explains why airlines reject compensation claims, which arguments are legitimate and which are misleading, and — most importantly — how refusals can be overturned using the correct legal strategy.

1. The Real Reason Airlines Reject So Many Claims

Airlines do not reject claims by accident.

Flight compensation systems are designed to:

• minimize payouts,

• discourage escalation,

• filter out passengers without legal knowledge,

• and rely on the fact that most people will not challenge a refusal.

Even when compensation is clearly due, airlines often issue automatic denials based on internal templates rather than a detailed legal assessment of the flight disruption.

From the airline’s perspective, rejecting first and settling later (only if challenged properly) is a rational cost-saving strategy.

2. The Most Common Reasons Airlines Reject Compensation Claims

2.1 “Extraordinary Circumstances”

This is by far the most frequently used refusal argument.

Airlines claim that the disruption was caused by:

• adverse weather conditions,

• air traffic control decisions,

• airport restrictions,

• security risks,

• strikes,

• technical defects allegedly linked to safety.

Under EU261, airlines are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the delay or cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond their actual control, even if all reasonable measures were taken.

However, airlines often misapply or overextend this concept.

Examples of frequently misused arguments:

• routine technical faults presented as safety issues,

• crew shortages labeled as operational disruptions,

• knock-on delays from earlier flights,

• weather issues affecting other airports but not the departure airport,

• ATC restrictions that were predictable and manageable.

In court practice and CJEU case law, many of these situations do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances.

2.2 “The Delay Was Less Than 3 Hours”

Another common rejection ground is the claim that the arrival delay was under three hours.

Airlines may:

• calculate delay at gate opening instead of aircraft door opening,

• use scheduled arrival instead of actual arrival time,

• rely on outdated or incomplete flight data,

• ignore re-routing consequences.

Under EU261 jurisprudence, arrival time is defined as the moment at least one aircraft door opens, allowing passengers to disembark.

Even a few minutes can make the difference between rejection and full compensation of €250, €400, or €600.

2.3 “EU261 Does Not Apply to This Flight”

This argument is often partially true, partially misleading.

EU261 applies when:

• the flight departs from an EU/EEA airport (regardless of airline nationality), or

• the flight arrives in the EU and is operated by an EU carrier.

Airlines frequently reject claims involving:

• non-EU departures,

• connecting flights with mixed carriers,

• codeshare flights,

• flights operated by non-EU airlines,

• rerouted itineraries.

What they often fail to mention is that when EU261 does not apply, the Montreal Convention may still apply, particularly Article 19, which covers delay-related damages.

A rejection under EU261 does not automatically mean no compensation is possible.

2.4 “The Passenger Accepted a Voucher or Alternative”

Some airlines argue that compensation is no longer due because:

• a voucher was accepted,

• a refund was processed,

• a rebooking was used,

• assistance (meals, hotel) was provided.

In most cases, care and assistance do not replace compensation.

Unless the passenger explicitly waived their compensation rights in a legally valid manner, the airline remains liable.

2.5 “The Claim Was Submitted Too Late”

Airlines often apply incorrect limitation periods.

While internal airline policies may mention short deadlines, the actual statute of limitations depends on applicable law, such as:

• national limitation rules under EU261 enforcement,

• the Montreal Convention’s two-year limitation period,

• domestic civil law provisions.

Many claims rejected as “time-barred” are still legally enforceable.

3. Why Airline Refusals Are Often Legally Weak

Airline refusal letters are usually:

• standardized,

• non-specific,

• unsupported by evidence,

• silent on burden of proof.

Under EU law, the burden of proof lies with the airline, not the passenger.

To rely on extraordinary circumstances, the airline must prove:

1. the exact cause of disruption,

2. that the cause was extraordinary,

3. that it was beyond their control,

4. that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid the delay or cancellation.

Most refusal letters do not meet this legal threshold.

4. Typical Airline Tactics That Lead to Unjustified Rejections

Airlines commonly use the following tactics:

• selective disclosure of operational data,

• vague references to “operational reasons”,

• conflating safety with routine maintenance,

• ignoring established court precedents,

• discouraging escalation through legal jargon,

• delaying responses until passengers give up.

Understanding these tactics is essential to overturning a refusal.

5. How to Overturn a Flight Compensation Refusal

5.1 Step One: Verify the Applicable Legal Framework

Before challenging a refusal, the correct legal basis must be identified.

Possible frameworks include:

• EU Regulation 261/2004,

• Montreal Convention (Article 19),

• national passenger rights regulations,

• consumer protection law,

• contractual liability.

Using the wrong framework often results in automatic rejection — even when compensation is justified.

5.2 Step Two: Analyze the Airline’s Stated Reason

Each refusal reason requires a specific counter-strategy.

For example:

• extraordinary circumstances require factual and legal rebuttal,

• delay calculation errors require independent flight data,

• non-applicability arguments require route and carrier analysis,

• limitation claims require statutory interpretation.

Generic responses almost never succeed.

5.3 Step Three: Demand Evidence, Not Statements

Airlines must provide:

• incident reports,

• technical logs,

• NOTAMs,

• METAR weather data,

• ATC restriction notices.

A refusal without documentary proof has little legal weight.

5.4 Step Four: Escalate Strategically

Escalation options include:

• re-submission with legal arguments,

• alternative dispute resolution (ADR),

• national enforcement bodies,

• civil court proceedings,

• amicable settlement negotiations.

The optimal strategy depends on:

• jurisdiction,

• carrier behavior,

• evidentiary strength,

• cost-benefit analysis.

Check compensation

If your flight was delayed, cancelled, or disrupted — claim your compensation with professionals.

6. Why DIY Claims Often Fail After a Rejection

Passengers who continue alone after a refusal often encounter:

• repeated template denials,

• ignored follow-ups,

• procedural obstacles,

• jurisdictional complexity,

• legal deadlines.

Airlines recognize unrepresented claims and adjust their response strategy accordingly.

Professional handling significantly increases the probability of success.

7. The Role of the Montreal Convention When EU261 Fails

Article 19 of the Montreal Convention allows passengers to claim provable damages caused by delay, including:

• accommodation costs,

• missed connections,

• lost income,

• additional transport expenses.

While compensation is not fixed-sum, airline liability remains real and enforceable.

Airlines frequently reject Montreal-based claims simply because passengers do not structure them correctly.

8. Case Patterns Where Refusals Are Most Often Overturned

Refusals are commonly overturned in cases involving:

• technical faults misclassified as extraordinary,

• crew rotation issues,

• cascading delays,

• airport congestion,

• late aircraft arrival,

• operational mismanagement,

• improper rerouting.

Each of these has substantial supporting case law.

9. Why Airlines Settle After Legal Pressure

Once airlines face:

• formal legal reasoning,

• clear regulatory applicability,

• evidence requests,

• risk of enforcement or litigation,

their position often changes.

What was initially “not eligible” becomes a payable claim.

10. Final Thoughts: A Rejection Is Not the End

An airline’s refusal is not a final decision — it is often just the first move.

Understanding:

• why claims are rejected,

• which arguments are valid,

• which legal tools apply,

is the key to overturning unjust denials and enforcing passenger rights effectively.

If your compensation claim was rejected, it does not mean you are not entitled — it often means the airline expects you to give up.

Professionally challenged refusals tell a different story.