Why do airlines reject claims even when the entitlement is clear?
You sent the claim, waited weeks, and finally got the reply: “Dear passenger, your compensation claim is rejected due to extraordinary circumstances.” Game over, right?
Wrong. For airlines, rejection is mostly an automated business tactic. They count on most passengers walking away after the first “no”.
Picture yourself as an airline CFO. You have a delayed flight with 180 passengers, each entitled to €400. That’s €72,000 — on a single flight. If the airline paid every passenger who asked, the losses would be enormous. So claims get processed automatically, and the reasons for rejection are either generic or simply untrue.
In our experience, most claims an airline rejects are actually valid.
What is (and isn’t) an extraordinary circumstance?
“Extraordinary circumstances” is a favourite excuse. In practice, it means the airline is released from paying compensation if it proves the delay was beyond its control. The trouble is that airlines try to hide everything under that label.
Genuine extraordinary circumstance (airline doesn’t pay):
- Airport closure due to a heavy snowstorm, extreme fog or high winds
- Air traffic control (ATC) strike or security checks
- Terrorist threat or airspace closure by state authorities
- A bird strike confirmed as the cause of the delay
Common excuses courts typically reject:
- Crew shortage or mandatory rest — the airline must have reserve capacity
- Strike by the airline’s own pilots or cabin crew — an internal management problem
- “The aircraft arrived late from its previous destination” (knock-on effect) — the original cause has to be examined
- A routine technical fault — standard part of operations
Aircraft technical fault: the most common invalid excuse
The most common sentence in rejection emails: “The delay was caused by an unforeseen technical fault. Passenger safety is our top priority, so no compensation is payable.”
The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled clearly on this: faults that are part of the normal operation of an airline are not an extraordinary circumstance. Airlines have a duty to maintain aircraft and keep back-up solutions ready. When a component fails, it’s usually wear from heavy utilisation — operational responsibility of the airline.
The only exception is a so-called “hidden manufacturing defect” confirmed by the manufacturer (e.g. a Boeing production flaw). That’s extremely rare. In the vast majority of cases, the fault is tied to ordinary maintenance.
How to fight back after a rejection?
You have essentially three options.
1. Reply to the airline
Push back with concrete arguments (date, arrival time, flight data). Honestly, this rarely goes anywhere — the airline’s automated systems just send another standard reply.
2. Complain to the national civil aviation authority
The regulator can force the airline to review the case. Downside: proceedings take months and don’t always lead to a direct payout.
3. Hand the case to Refundio
Refundio takes on previously rejected cases. We assess the flight data, verify the real cause of the delay, and if the airline is at fault, escalate the case — including court action at our own cost. The success rate on accepted cases is 98 %.
How Refundio wins rejected cases
- Flight data and rotations: we analyse not just the data for the affected flight, but the aircraft’s previous rotations. If the airline claims “weather” but the data tells a different story, we can prove it.
- Airlines know us: if a carrier’s representative won’t communicate or won’t back up its claims with evidence, we file suit. With an international team of lawyers, we have coverage across Europe.
Refundio runs on a no win, no fee basis: if we don’t succeed, you pay nothing. If we win, we take 35 % (incl. VAT) of the recovered compensation. No hidden fees.