What would you do? My airline owes me €600 but all I’m getting is excuses

Timothy Delaney was on his way to his mother-in-law’s funeral in Addis Ababa when he encountered an unexpected delay: His Emirates flight from London to Dubai was canceled after a de-icer accidentally rammed his jet.

“Luckily, they managed to schedule another flight the next day,” he says. “However, I arrived more than 24 hours later than planned and had to spend nights in London and Dubai — on Emirates tab, but with some hassle.”

Emirates was correct to accommodate Delaney during this mechanical delay. But is he entitled to more?

His rights are outlined in EU Regulation 261/2004, the controversial European law that protects airline passengers.

“I would be entitled to up to 600 euros if I read correctly,” he says. “I was expecting that they would at least offer me some miles and or a free flight or upgrade.”

But Emirates did nothing, other than apologize and point out that it had already taken care of him.

In its response, which was definitely no form letter, Emirates painstakingly laid out all of the things it had done for passengers that day — including paying for an upscale hotel and hot meals. It added,

Our staff worked extremely hard under challenging circumstances and many worked double shifts with little or no breaks in an effort to assist our passenger as much as possible during this disruption.

In other words, we bent over backwards to help you for an event that we had no control over. It also says further compensation would violate its own contract with passengers.

This flight cancellation was due to a “Force Majeure” situation, which was beyond the control of Emirates.

According to our Conditions of Carriage, which may be viewed on our website www.emirates.com, “Force Majeure” means unusual and unforeseen circumstances which cannot be controlled and the consequences of which cannot be avoided by taking reasonable care.

Emirates believes it owes him no compensation because the de-icer accident was an event beyond its control. In addition to its conditions of carriage, there’s a provision in EU 261 that exempts airlines from any responsibility when that happens.

Delaney doesn’t buy it.

I’ve been delayed and cancelled plenty of times in my life for weather related issues and I accept terming these cases “Force Majeure” but I did not realize that the incompetency of ground crew could be termed in this way as well.

Using this excuse in this situation, I could make a reasonable argument for anything as “Force Majeure” (pilot showing up drunk, someone forgot to change the oil, etc.).

I agree with Delaney’s interpretation of EU 261. And while there’s no doubt that Emirates tried its best to accommodate the stranded passengers in London, I think it’s sidestepping EU law. A European court in 2008 drafted a specific definition of “extraordinary” circumstances. It included defects revealed by the manufacturer or acts of sabotage or terrorism, but alas, no de-icers.

But how to fix this?

Delaney already tried the brief, polite email appeal to Emirates and got nowhere. I contacted Emirates, too, but it didn’t even bother responding to my inquiry.

As I see it, he has three choices:

1. He could sue Emirates in a European court. That could be expensive and may require him to travel. It might also take more time than he’s willing to spend. But he would almost certainly win.

2. He could send an appeal to a supervisor at Emirates. In the past, such appeals have been very successful. Managers do read their messages, but there’s still a chance the higher-ups might side with Emirates’ wrong interpretation of EU 261.

3. Delaney could try one of the new third-party mediation services like EU Claim that charge a commission and fees to negotiate EU 261 cases.

What would you do?

That would have been my first instinct, too. But Delaney went for door number three. Emirates paid up.

(Photo: Ear kle/Flickr Creative Commons)

  • http://www.thetravelinggiraffe.com Crissy

    I would appeal to a manager. He’s not out any money so spending a few minutes on a letter is worth the hassel. But going through all the work of sueing or mediation for a case that is in a gray area. Unless he wants to make a point and has the time to do that, isn’t worth the hassel.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    I would appeal to a manager. If that didn’t work then I will use an EU mediation service.

  • Tom

    Not Force Majeure. Since the European Union has given passengers a big stick to beat the airlines, I say go for it. E-mail the manager, employee the mediator and if still not satisfied sue them and demand treble damages and legal fees. Emirates is an airline with very deep pockets. 600 Euros is peanuts to them.

  • Katie

    I agree with other commenters and the interpretation that this was not a “force majeure” incident. I’d start with appealing through the chain of command with the airline and go as high as necessary. If none of that works, then I’d go for the mediation route. If that doesn’t work, then I don’t know. Suing would probably cost me more than 600 euros.

  • John

    Also remember in much of Europe the loser pays all legal fees in a lawsuit so he could get stuck with a bill that exceeds the 600 euro

  • BillC

    I think he received enough. There did not appear to be any delay or problem with the airline providing accommodation or meals. There is nothing in the article to suggest that he lost money from this delay.

    Unless the de-icing truck was owned and operated by the airline I don’t think you can expect the airline to pay for another company’s mistake. If he really wants the money perhaps he should go after the party that was responsible for the delay. Not the party with deep pockets.

  • Richard Trilling

    It is NOT a case of force Majeur as defined under European laws. He is owed compensation for the delay. Whether or not it is worthwhile fighting for in another question.

    @Chris to say that the law is controversial does you a disservice.

    It may be controversial in the US where the airlines can do what ever they want as long as they write into their contract of carriage. Here is Europe we have another idea about what consumer protection laws should be about. The airlines might also find it “controversial” because they don’t like it.

  • Harry

    Who pays the de-icer people?
    If it is the Airline then I agree they should be responsible for the 600. But if the ground crew works for the airport I think it could be read as a force Majeure situation.
    Then again that is what business interuption insurance is for.
    I think an EU mediation service is the way to go. I think Managers would not have a passenger friendly interpretation of the rules.

  • Christopher Elliott

    @Richard, I think it is controversial. See this story from last year. The airlines hate EU 261.

  • Phil

    Greedy

  • Dang

    De-icer is employed by the Airport Authority and I think it’s not Emirates responsibilities. The bud stop there when the Airlines had provide the accommodations, meals and the continuing flight.
    I had once experienced the delay due to the de-icing of the Northwest Plane in Montreal causing a misconnection in Detroit to my flights to Bangkok. DELTA/Northwest had handled very professionally by providing a room at Embassy Suites with meals and giving the choice of Delta or Korean Air for continuing my journey. All was done in less than 15 minutes in the Detroit Sky Club by very courteous DELTA/Northwest personnel.

  • Ann

    Where’s “None of the above”? You can’t satisfy some people.

  • Harry

    Thanks Dang. I think this bring up the question of legality and morality. It is annoying and frustrating when an airline or a travel company sticks to the letter of their contract. But often times they do go above and beyond (sometimes Chris has to give them a push) but in most cases they do what is right.

    Correct me if I am wrong but I think the 600 Euro is a penalty to punish the airlines. But should Arab Emerites be punished? Maybe they are on the hook legally but I think this is clearly a case of something that was out of their control. If this was in the USA I think we would agree that the airline did the right things.

    It seems like the OP is trying to game the system. While he may be right by the letter of the law, it seems like the wrong thing to do. Yes, sometimes the airlines act in similar ways but two wrongs don’t make a right.

  • http://www.phoenixjustice.com Phoenix Justice

    I am going to be the voice of dissent today. I am going to side with Emirates on this issue. I do think that a deicing truck crashing into one of their aircraft which is taken out of commission is a Force Majeure.

    I also think that Emirates did a very good job in taking care of their passengers during the 24 hour delay.

    I understand that the OP was upset about the delay, especially since he was going to a funeral, but I think he is asking for more than even the EU 261 allows in this instance.

  • MeanMeosh

    So who actually operates those de-icing trucks, anyway? If they’re operated by Emirates ground crews, I think Emirates has a difficult argument on the “extraordinary circumstances” excuse (at least I would hope your own incompetence wouldn’t be an “extraordinary circumstance” excusing you from compensation). If they’re operated by BAA, though, that’s a different story. Emirates would argue that they have no “control” over BAA employees, and as such, can’t be responsible for their incompetence/negligence in the matter. And I think they’d have a point there.

    I’d give the EU mediation service a call and see what they think.

  • Kevin M

    Chris, I’m with the people who say “Emirates did enough” should be an option. If they had no control over the de-icer truck (i.e. if it was run by the airport, not the airline), then I don’t see the difference between, say, a terrorist damaging the plane and the airport doing it. Each is an examlpe of something beyond the airline’s control, ie force majeure.

    It’s possible that EU 261 would technically require the compensation (and it’s possible Emirates is right and it doesn’t owe anything else). But really, given all of what Emirates did for the travelers on its own, is this REALLY a case where the passenger deserves more attention and help? When the airlines here are still being caught and fined for not adhering to our (much more watered down and basic) consumer protections?

  • NW

    I agree with @Harry, if the de-icers work for the airline then it’s their responsibility. Usually they do not work for the airline and because of that how is the airline to know that an the person is behind the wheel is not properly trained/drunk/sleepy… etc. It’s not like a plane can just jump out of the way.
    From another article I saw this “A technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.” the last part is what I find interesting. “…normal exercise of the activities of the air carrier concerned”. So what the airline normally does is pull a plan to a specific parking spot and wait for another company to de-ice. If the airline does not actually run the de-icing activities then this case is bound to fail.

  • Mike Z

    This was not an act of god and certainly not outlined by the courts as a reason to deny compensation. the airline clearly owes the cash, regardless of what they had already done to accomodate the passengers. if the airline has to pay out, then they will go to the owner/operator of the de-icing company and collect from their insurance. It really isn’t that difficult.

  • http://noaddedsalt.blogspot.com Elisa in Finland

    This is not force majeure, I agree. However the situation is covered by Article 5, section 3: Regardless of whose employee damaged the plane, the operator could not have forseen or prevented that accident from occurring. Emirates doesn’t owe monetary compensation. Their obligation to assist you ends once they provide you with either a refund or alternative travel.

    I do sympathise with the traveller, however, this is where travel insurance might have given you the opportunity to travel with a competitor on short notice. In fact, while I acknowledge that it was massively stressful and inconvenient to you, Emirates did the right thing by you in providing accommodation (and hopefully, travel to/from, plus meals and a few phone calls).

    You would do far better to recognise that Emirates has, in fact, bent over backwards for you. While they had to do these things by law, their competitors do it largely with an enormous grumble or often not at all.

    If you choose to continue holding your grudge, that’s fine – but I can assure you, it’s ridiculous to sue over such a small amount and you won’t feel better for wasting hours and hours of your time pursuing your perceived “rights”, you’ll only spend days/weeks/months feeling bitter and ripped off. Weigh up where you’re at right now: Yes it was an unfortunate turn of events, but are you actually suffering for the delay right now? Of course not. Move on, you’ll be happier for it.

  • Brooklyn

    I wonder if there’s a website for EU Regulation 261/2004? If so, there might be a complaint mechanism that doesn’t involve a lawsuit, or at least someone who could tell the OP what the risk of losing a lawsuit would be. I would be inclined to go ahead and sue the airline since European courts award expenses to the winner; any necessary travel, hotels and so on would be part of the award and even if they weren’t, the 600 euros would cover most of the cost. The fact that the airlines hate the law doesn’t give them an excuse to flaunt it and if the law is seen to be enforced, Congress will have one less excuse for failing to pass similar legislation in the US.

  • Joe Farrell

    I disagree it is a force majure – accidents involving de-icers and airplane happen every single year – they are expected actually to occur with some known frequency – thus how can anything which is expected to occur be a fore majure?

  • Christophe

    De-icing is, in mosts European airports, provided by the airport, and the airline have no say in the way they are handled. Therefore, I believe Emirates is right when it states that it is a case of “Force Majeure”, as they had no means to prevent this from happening.
    “Forget about the claim” should be one option provided in the poll !

  • Janet

    Let me see. The airline did go out of their way and jumped through hoops to get the passenger there 24 hours later. The passenger wants more. This is a case of entitlement, imho. Things go wrong, it’s not always someone’s fault and the airline should not have to pay.

  • Aaron

    “Our staff worked extremely hard under challenging circumstances and many worked double shifts with little or no breaks in an effort to assist our passenger as much as possible during this disruption.”

    This annoys me. That’s the friggin’ JOB, people. Years ago I worked as a lot-boy for a rent-a-car agency when an ice storm hit. Most of the staff couldn’t get to work, and that left the general manager and I out there chipping away at thick layers of ice so we could have cars to rent. Did we complain? Did we bitch to customers? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Our company’s job was to have cars ready to rent, so we did what we had to do. I’ve always respected Emirates, but I can’t believe they would whine to a customer that people were working double shifts, like we are supposed to congratulate them? That’s what you’re SUPPOSED to do when the feces hits the rotary cooling device, people.

  • Richard Trilling

    To those people saying that it is not “force majeur”, the important opinion is not yours, but of the European courts. Weather delays have to be compensated for also.

    Again thank goodness for European consumer laws that protect the consumer. For those that don’t like them, avoid fly though Europe.

    @Chris
    Please, I stated in my original posting that the airlines don’t like EU261. That only makes it controversial in their eyes, not in the consumers eyes.

    The airlines don’t like other things also An Irish airlines objected to a Spanish courts recent ruling that they can’t charge 40€ to a passenger because he forgot his boarding pass at home and that they had to print a new one at the airport.

    The same airline objected to having French labor laws apply to their personnel based in France. That too was a court decision.

    Under French law, just because a clause is written into a contract that does not make it applicable. The clause has to be legal also. The French word for that is “clause abusif”. European consumer law tries to strike a balance, unlike US law were anything put into the Contract of Carriage seems to apply. The US consumer that needs to travel has no protection against that. Here we do.

  • http://nmdfreelance.com Nancy

    I’m not an attorney so I can’t really decide what would be best but I opted for escalating to a manager. The moment the airline invoked “force majure” it suggested to me they were trying to muddy the waters (confuse the OP) with their “legalese”. It reminded me too much of the adage, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS”.

    Whenever someone pulls something like that in a disagreement, it leads me to believe they have something to hide.

  • Walt Blackadar

    It’s definitely not Force Majeure. Whether or not the driver is an employee isn’t all that relevant. The airlines pay for that service, so even if the de-icing is done by the airport they’re really nothing more than a subcontractor. That your hired subcontractor was neglegent doesn’t fit the definition of Force Majeure.

    And to all who is claiming the OP is greedy…he’s just pursuing what’s legally his under the law. There are so many people here who blame the victim simply because they didn’t follow some unknown/hidden contractual clause, yet they’ll call people greedy when they do try to follow the law.

    This guy, in all likelihood, is owed 600 euros. I hope he gets it.

  • flutiefan

    the OP is going to pursue this whether or not we agree with it. clearly, he is NOT going to let it go. that’s why Chris didn’t give the option of “none of the above” or “the airline did enough”.

    @Joe Farrell wrote: “thus how can anything which is expected to occur be a fore majure?” really? we know when hurricanes are coming. so are they not a force majeur either?

    @Aaron wrote: “That’s the friggin’ JOB, people.” wow. their job is NOT supposed to be working double shifts (which in airline terms amount to 17+ hours) with little to no breaks. in fact, that’s against labor laws all over the world. just because you were such a stellar employee who never made a peep doesn’t mean it’s right to criticize those who work hard and perhaps merit a nice pat on the back.

    i think the airline did enough given the circumstances, but if the OP insists on pushing the issue, he should try the managerial route.

  • Monica

    I voted to write to a manager, but honestly, I think the airline did the right thing. They found him a hotel, meals, and a new flight to get him to his destination. The airline did it in a reasonable amount of time. It doesn’t sound like the OP missed the funeral, either. I’m not sure why the OP wants more?

    Maybe I understand the rule incorrectly. Does the rule say the airlines owe the passenger money *and* room/meals/new flight? I would think it is one *or* the other. I’d be happy to get to my destination, albeit a little late, but with no additonal expenses out of my pocket.

  • Joe Farrell

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure – the definition is sufficient for our purposes -

    When someone commits an act of negligence the consequences are deemed within the control of the person who commits the act because the normal rule is that you should not do that act which is negligent. A Force Majeure is generally something outside the reasonable control of the parties – since the purpose of deicing is not to damage the aircraft while doing it- the actions leading up to it are NOT intended to do negligently – hence the entire reason for the negligence causing the damage.

    A FJ is a storm, war, strike, labor or civil unrest, earthquake, alien invasion, etc which is not the normal events in the world for that region. . . . that being said – in summer the Asian carriers know that they will have to deal with typhoons – thus – they know that they need to make arrangements occasionally.

  • MVFlyer

    There is another option–complain to the UK’s aviation enforcement body. Each member state was required under EU361 to create such an office–here’s a link to all of them: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passengers/air/doc/2004_261_national_enforcement_bodies.pdf

    Also, there are a couple of site, such as http://www.airpassengerrights.eu/, that describe what to do.

    My opinion: Emirates did do all that they could in this situation, but the law is the law–EU361 makes it clear the extraordinary events are NOT preventable, e.g. weather, volcanoes, terrorist attacks, etc. Collisions are preventable.

    One of the reasons the airlines don’t like EU361, particularly non-EU airlines, is that it applies to them whether they agree with it or not–Emirates probably would try to weasel out of their requirements if one appeals to a manager (although going through channels is a good idea, at least to give them a fair chance to resolve the issue.)

    Unfortunately, Emirates and the other airlines really need to factor 361 into their model if they want to serve EU member states. They may have done the right thing by the pax, putting them up for the night, feeding them, and giving them alternate transport, but under 361, that’s not enough.

  • Richard Trilling

    @MVFlyer

    My feeling is that the airlines have had it there way for so long now, writing their own contracts of carriage that “inconvenience” people and not only that, they have gotten most people to think that is the norm; utterly brilliant. Now the EU comes along sorry there are consumers and they have rights.

    It’s hard for people, even here on this blog, to get used to that idea. The only way they will change their business model is by forcing them to.

  • Jesse

    If I had gone through this myself, I would follow up with an arbitration service just for principle even if the arbitration service took all the money I was able to make up from this.

  • Mark K

    @Monica

    I thought the same too, but the rule is very clear that meal, hotel, *and* the 600 Euros are all owed to the customer for things that are within the control of the airline. I guess that is why the airline is claiming in this situation that the damage to the plane was outside of their control thereby exempting them from the cash payout.

    I would be happy with what was already provided to the OP if I was in a similar situation. I feel the airline got him where he wanted to go and took care of him during the delay. Sure, the 600 Euros would be a great bonus, but at some point the expense of trying to get it outweighs the value.

  • Mike Z

    Interesting resolution. I wonder how much of the cut the mediation service takes. Half? 1/3rd?

  • Carrie Charney

    Emirates pays the customer, then subrogates against the insurance company of the deicer. I wouldn’t be surprised if European law with regards to vehicle accidents is like that of US law.

  • Stoyko

    There’s a small problem with contacting a manager: Many non-US airlines don’t provide their executive contacts easily. US airlines seem to do a much better job at that, and Chris has done us a great favor by compiling and posting links to those.

  • Dominic

    Using EU claim is all well and good but they take a fairly high percentage of your claim as their fee.

    It’s very easy to initiate small claims proceedings in UK via moneyclaim.gov.uk and it only costs about £35 to do so.

    I successfully sued an airline last year like this. They tried to argue out of it, but prior to the hearing date they settled in full and I got all the compensation plus interest and the £35 court fee.