When the airline blames a technical fault
A technical fault is the reason airlines give most often for refusing compensation, and it is the one that fails most often in law. Problems inherent in running aircraft are not extraordinary circumstances, so the refusal usually does not stand.
Work out what your flight is owed →Why it fails
Aircraft break. That is a normal part of operating them, which is precisely why it is not extraordinary. Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07) put it directly: a technical problem coming to light during maintenance, or because of a failure in maintenance, is inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier's activity.
van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14) closed the obvious escape route. KLM argued that a component failing before the end of its expected life was unforeseeable and therefore extraordinary. The Court disagreed: parts failing early is exactly what maintenance regimes exist to manage.
The narrow exceptions
Some technical causes can qualify:
- A hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the manufacturer or a regulator as affecting a whole fleet.
- Sabotage or an act of terrorism affecting the aircraft.
- Damage from an external event — a bird strike, a lightning strike, a collision with ground equipment operated by someone else.
Each is narrow and each is provable. If the airline is relying on one, it can say which and produce the airworthiness directive or the incident report.
What to send back
Please identify the technical defect, the aircraft registration, and the basis on which you say it falls outside Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07) and van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14). A technical problem inherent in the normal exercise of a carrier's activity is not an extraordinary circumstance within Article 5(3).
Most refusals are sent by a system. This one is not answerable by a system.
Questions
The airline says the fault was unforeseeable. Does that matter?
Not by itself. van der Lans v KLM (C-257/14) dealt with exactly that argument — a part failing sooner than expected — and held it was still inherent in normal operations.
What if the aircraft was grounded for safety?
Grounding for safety is proper and expected, but it does not make the underlying fault extraordinary. The question is the cause of the fault, not the decision to ground.
Related
- “Extraordinary circumstances” — what actually counts
- EU261 — the statute itself
- Your flight was cancelled