Your flight was cancelled, you claimed, and the airline replied with two words: extraordinary circumstances. That phrase kills more valid claims than any other sentence in aviation. It is not a magic word. It is a legal test with two halves, the airline has to prove both, and the courts have spent eighteen years cutting down what qualifies.
The short answer
Most refusals citing extraordinary circumstances are wrong, because the excuse airlines reach for most often, a technical fault, was ruled out by the Court of Justice in 2008 and again in 2015. Here is where the common causes sit.
| Reason the airline gave | Extraordinary? | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Technical or mechanical fault | No | Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) |
| Component failed without warning | No | van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14) |
| Strike by the airline’s own staff | No | Airhelp v SAS (C-28/20) |
| Wildcat sickness after a restructuring | No | Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17) |
| Pilot or crew reported sick | No | Lipton v BA Cityflyer [2024] UKSC 24 |
| Crew ran out of legal duty hours | No, on its own | Eglītis and Ratnieks (C-294/10) |
| Weather that makes the flight unsafe | Yes | Recital 14, CAA guidance |
| Air traffic control restriction | Yes | Recital 15 |
| Strike by ATC, airport or border staff | Yes | CAA guidance |
| Bird strike | Yes | Pešková v Travel Service (C-315/15) |
| Debris on the runway damaged a tyre | Yes | Germanwings v Pauels (C-501/17) |
| Fuel spill closing the runway | Yes | Moens v Ryanair (C-159/18) |
| Violent passenger forced a diversion | Yes | LE v TAP (C-74/19) |
| Manufacturer defect grounding the fleet | Yes | CAA guidance |
A yes in that middle column does not end your claim. It ends the first half of the test, and the reasonable measures section below is the half airlines rarely address.
What does the law actually say?
Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 is one sentence. An operating air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation “if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”.
- The burden sits on the airline. The words are “if it can prove”. You do not have to disprove their story. An unexplained assertion is not proof.
- There are two conditions. The cause must be extraordinary and unavoidable through all reasonable measures. Fail either and they owe you.
- The regulation never defines the phrase. Recitals 14 and 15 give examples, and the UK Civil Aviation Authority states plainly that the courts have had to fill the gap.
The amounts at stake and the full eligibility test are in our guide to what you are owed for a delayed or cancelled flight in Europe.
Why does a technical fault almost never qualify?
Because keeping aircraft airworthy is the job, not an act of God. In Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07, 22 December 2008) the Court of Justice held that technical problems found during maintenance, or arising because maintenance was lacking, are inherent in a carrier’s normal activity, and so not extraordinary.
Airlines then argued that a part failing suddenly, with a clean maintenance record, must be different. In van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14, 17 September 2015) the Court said no: premature failure of a component is still part of running an airline. The Court of Appeal agreed in Jet2.com v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791, and the CAA now says outright that technical problems are not extraordinary circumstances.
Two narrow exits survive: a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the maker and grounding the fleet, and damage from sabotage. If the airline is not claiming one of those, “technical issue” is not a defence.
Does a strike get them off?
It depends whose staff walked out, and the line is clean. A strike by people the airline does not employ is external and extraordinary. Air traffic controllers, ground handlers, security screeners and border force sit on that side, and the CAA lists them.
Its own staff do not. In Airhelp v SAS (C-28/20, 23 March 2021) a lawful union strike by SAS pilots over pay was held not extraordinary, because striking is a right under Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and is therefore foreseeable for any employer given notice. The unofficial version fails too: after TUIfly announced a restructuring in 2016 its flight staff went sick en masse, and Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17, 17 April 2018) held that a wildcat strike triggered by a management decision is inherent in normal operations.
What about a sick pilot?
Not extraordinary, and this one is recent. In Lipton v BA Cityflyer [2024] UKSC 24 the captain of a Milan to London City flight called in unwell an hour before departure and no replacement was found. The UK Supreme Court held unanimously that staff illness is inherent in the airline’s activity, comparable to wear on the aircraft itself, and awarded €250 each. Rostering is the airline’s problem.
The half of the test airlines skip
Say the cause genuinely was extraordinary. The airline still has to show it took all reasonable measures to avoid the consequence, and rejection letters rarely try.
In Eglītis and Ratnieks (C-294/10, 12 May 2011), where a power failure shut Malmö airspace and the crew then timed out, the Court held that a carrier must build in a reserve of time so it can still operate the flight once the disruption ends. There is no fixed minimum, but “we ran out of crew hours waiting” is not automatically a defence. It can be evidence of thin planning.
In LE v TAP (C-74/19, 11 June 2020) the Court went further. A carrier relying on an extraordinary circumstance must consider rebooking you onto other airlines, including indirect routings, not only onto its own next seat. TAP put its passenger on its own flight the following day, almost 24 hours late. “Our next flight was tomorrow” is not the same as “no seat existed on any carrier”.
The knock-on delay trap
LE v TAP cuts the other way too, and this is the part most claim guides get wrong. The disruption there hit an earlier flight of the same aircraft, and the Court accepted that an extraordinary circumstance on a previous rotation can exempt the carrier for your later flight. A delay reaching you second hand is not automatically claimable.
What the airline still owes is the chain of proof: which aircraft, which earlier sector, what happened, and why no swap and no rebooking on another carrier was possible. If they will not identify the earlier flight, they have proved nothing. If your connection was the casualty, the rules on who pays are in our breakdown of missed connections.
How do you rebut the refusal?
- Ask in writing for the specific cause, not the category. The CAA says an airline claiming extraordinary circumstances must clearly set out why.
- Check the weather at the actual times. Airport METAR archives are public, and a rejection blaming weather on a calm, clear day collapses on its own.
- Check whether other carriers left within the hour. If they did, the disruption was not the airport.
- Ask what rerouting was considered on other airlines, naming LE v TAP. Rejection templates have no answer for that question.
- Escalate rather than argue twice. In the UK that is the airline’s approved ADR body, AviationADR or CEDR, or the CAA if it uses neither. In the EU it is the national enforcement body of the departure country.
Deadlines vary by country, from one year in Poland to six in the UK, so check the limit where you are claiming. If the airline goes silent, a card claim is a parallel route, covered in our guide to chargebacks and Section 75.
Where these claims fail
- Accepting the first rejection. It is a template, and the airline is playing the odds that you stop.
- Arguing the wrong half. If the cause really was a storm, attack the reasonable measures instead.
- Signing away compensation. Vouchers are sometimes offered in full and final settlement, but compensation, a refund and the right to care are separate entitlements.
- Paying a claims firm 25 to 40 per cent for a letter you can send yourself.
What changes in 2027?
The reform agreed on 15 June 2026 and approved by the European Parliament on 7 July 2026 by 646 votes to 12 adds a standardised list of extraordinary circumstances, with a mechanism to update it. It changes nothing for a claim today. The new rules apply twelve months after the final text reaches the Official Journal, putting them in the second half of 2027 at the earliest, and the three hour threshold and the €250, €400 and €600 amounts survive unchanged. The UK is on its own track at £220, £350 and £520, explained in our note on what Brexit changed for UK claims.
Frequently asked questions
Do I still get food and a hotel if it was extraordinary circumstances?
Yes. The exemption in Article 5(3) covers compensation only. The right to care and the right to a refund or rerouting are unaffected by the cause.
The airline said “operational reasons”. Is that extraordinary circumstances?
No, usually the opposite. Operational reasons is an internal category covering crew, rostering, aircraft swaps and knock-on delays, most of which are the airline’s responsibility. Make them state the cause.
Does bad weather somewhere else count?
It can, if it hit the aircraft assigned to your flight, and the airline must show that. Weather affecting the region on a day your airport operated normally is not enough. Ask which sector, and when.
Can they refuse because the delay was only just over three hours?
No. The three hour line is measured on arrival at your final destination, by when the doors open, not by landing. Minutes matter at the boundary, so record the actual arrival time rather than relying on the airline’s figure.
Sources: Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, Articles 5 and 7 and Recitals 14 and 15, legislation.gov.uk. Court of Justice of the European Union judgments in C-549/07, C-257/14, C-294/10, C-315/15, C-195/17, C-501/17, C-159/18, C-74/19 and C-28/20, curia.europa.eu. Jet2.com v Huzar [2014] EWCA Civ 791 and Lipton v BA Cityflyer [2024] UKSC 24. UK Civil Aviation Authority guidance on compensation entitlement and alternative dispute resolution. European Parliament and Council agreement on the revision of Regulation 261/2004, June and July 2026.
Researched from primary sources and checked September 2026. General information, not advice.
