Bonjour,
Nous avons organisé un séjour dans les parcs de l'Ouest américain pour l'été prochain.
C'est une destination fréquentée qui nécessite de réserver les hébergements au moins 6 mois à l'avance.
Nous avons acheté des billets ALLER auprès de LEVEL, début décembre pour bénéficier de tarifs intéressants.
2 mois après, nous recevons une annulation pure et simple de cette route de la compagnie vers Las Vegas.
Entre temps, nous avons évidemment déjà réservé et payé notre location de voiture + les nuitées successives à compter de cette date. Or il n'y a plus de vols directs possibles ce jour là. Nous allons donc devoir modifier / annuler toutes les réservations déjà effectuées.
Évidemment les tarifs actuels ne sont plus du tout les mêmes qu'il y a 2 mois pour ce vol ALLER !!
Nous avons donc écrit au groupe ''Vueling'', en charge des réclamations, faisant part des surcouts occasionnés par leur annulation de vol. Nous avons été remboursés du prix des billets mais sans aucune indemnisation pour tous les surcouts engendrés par les modifications et annulations.
D'après eux, leur plan d'assistance aux passagers inclut l´option de remboursement du trajet mais aucune compensation financière en cas d'annulation plus de 14 jours à l'avance.
Nous vous déconseillons donc la compagnie LEVEL qui n'est PAS FIABLE et vend des billets sur des vols, alors qu'ils ont décidé de fermer la route 3 mois avant la date du vol !! (fermeture de la ligne vers LAS VEGAS à partir de mars 2020. Billets achetés pour juillet !)
Bonsoir,
Nous venons de rentrer du Viet Nam et avons voyagé avec Etihad (billets achetés sur le site de la compagnie)
Nous avons cumulé les problèmes à l'aller comme au retour
- retard de plus de 7h à l'aller
- bagages arrivés avec 48 h de retard
- pour le retour, nous avons du acheter un billet pour rallier Singapour car le billet vendu par Etihad pour faire HCMC/Singapour était erroné (le vol proposé à l'heure affichée partait en fait la veille !). J'ai contacté Etihad du Vietnam, une semaine avant le supposé vol quand j'ai constaté le problème, ils n'ont RIEN fait. Chaque message recevait une réponse du style, "notre équipe travaille a vous trouver un vol" , il n'empêche que j'ai du acheter un autre billet.
J'ai donc plusieurs motifs de réclamation !!!
Je souhaite envoyer des courriers recommandés à la compagnie pour enclencher mes demandes mais je ne trouve pas d'adresse postale valide (j'avais trouvé une adresse rue du Berry à Paris 8ème, mais mes lettres sont revenues.
L'un(e) d'entre vous peut il m'aider?
Merci par avance
Françoise
Bonjour,
L'époque où Air France n'opposait pas trop de résistance aux demandes d'indemnisation pour retard important (3 heures ou plus) est bien révolue.
La nouvelle mode chez Air France, depuis un certain temps déjà, est la réponse suivante (ou similaire) : "«Je déplore que le vol du ......... ait été retardé en raison d’une décision prise par le Centre de Contrôle Aérien. De ce fait, nous avons malheureusement du retarder le décollage du vol n° ……Les circonstances du retard étant indépendantes de notre volonté, notre politique commerciale ne prévoit pas de compensation. »
On ne peut pas mieux faire pour se payer la tête des passagers : attendre l’autorisation de décoller constitue le quotidien de tout pilote, et donc, par nature même, ça ne PEUT PAS être une circonstance extraordinaire. Et s’il s’agit d’autre chose, on ne sait pas de quoi on parle ! Or, aussi valable que puisse être un motif allégué, il ne vaut RIEN si la PREUVE n’en est pas apportée. 1° Puisque la PREUVE doit être fournie, ceci implique qu’un motif PRECIS soit donné, ce qui est loin d’être le cas, puisque le motif donné est à ce point vague (UNE décision – laquelle ?) que ça n’en est même plus un ! 2°l’application du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil s’impose et, par conséquent, ne peut pas avoir quoi que ce soit à voir avec la politique commerciale d’une compagnie aérienne; 3° Que ce soit indépendant, ou pas, de la volonté de la compagnie est complètement sans objet : il y a eu, ou pas, survenance de « circonstances extraordinaires qui n’auraient pas pu être évitées même si toutes les mesures raisonnables avaient été prises » et point barre ! D’ailleurs, on n’imagine pas qu’une compagnie ait la volonté de retarder un vol… La façon appropriée de se défendre se trouve détaillée là : http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/refus-dindemnisation-en-raison-dune-decision-prise-par-le-centre-de-controle-aerien-comment-reagir/ Cordialement
L'époque où Air France n'opposait pas trop de résistance aux demandes d'indemnisation pour retard important (3 heures ou plus) est bien révolue.
La nouvelle mode chez Air France, depuis un certain temps déjà, est la réponse suivante (ou similaire) : "«Je déplore que le vol du ......... ait été retardé en raison d’une décision prise par le Centre de Contrôle Aérien. De ce fait, nous avons malheureusement du retarder le décollage du vol n° ……Les circonstances du retard étant indépendantes de notre volonté, notre politique commerciale ne prévoit pas de compensation. »
On ne peut pas mieux faire pour se payer la tête des passagers : attendre l’autorisation de décoller constitue le quotidien de tout pilote, et donc, par nature même, ça ne PEUT PAS être une circonstance extraordinaire. Et s’il s’agit d’autre chose, on ne sait pas de quoi on parle ! Or, aussi valable que puisse être un motif allégué, il ne vaut RIEN si la PREUVE n’en est pas apportée. 1° Puisque la PREUVE doit être fournie, ceci implique qu’un motif PRECIS soit donné, ce qui est loin d’être le cas, puisque le motif donné est à ce point vague (UNE décision – laquelle ?) que ça n’en est même plus un ! 2°l’application du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil s’impose et, par conséquent, ne peut pas avoir quoi que ce soit à voir avec la politique commerciale d’une compagnie aérienne; 3° Que ce soit indépendant, ou pas, de la volonté de la compagnie est complètement sans objet : il y a eu, ou pas, survenance de « circonstances extraordinaires qui n’auraient pas pu être évitées même si toutes les mesures raisonnables avaient été prises » et point barre ! D’ailleurs, on n’imagine pas qu’une compagnie ait la volonté de retarder un vol… La façon appropriée de se défendre se trouve détaillée là : http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/refus-dindemnisation-en-raison-dune-decision-prise-par-le-centre-de-controle-aerien-comment-reagir/ Cordialement
Hi,
On October 30, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its ruling in case C-558/24 Corendon.
When an airline issues a ticket (or booking confirmation) and later issues a new ticket delaying the arrival time at the final destination, the delay of "3 hours or more"—which entitles passengers to compensation of 250, 400, or 600 euros (depending on the distance) per paying passenger—must be calculated based on the arrival time stated in the initial booking.
In the case examined, the airline had issued a new booking confirmation that delayed the flight. The passenger arrived less than 3 hours late compared to the arrival time in the new confirmation but was more than 3 hours late compared to the original booking confirmation.
This puts an end to interpretations that the previous texts allowed.
The ruling states:
"Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 [...] must be interpreted as meaning that: in the event of a change to the departure and arrival times of a flight, announced in advance by an air carrier and accompanied by the issuance of a new booking confirmation to the passengers concerned, the duration of the delay suffered by those passengers upon arrival must be determined by taking into consideration the initially scheduled arrival time."
Full ruling here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0558
Best regards
When an airline issues a ticket (or booking confirmation) and later issues a new ticket delaying the arrival time at the final destination, the delay of "3 hours or more"—which entitles passengers to compensation of 250, 400, or 600 euros (depending on the distance) per paying passenger—must be calculated based on the arrival time stated in the initial booking.
In the case examined, the airline had issued a new booking confirmation that delayed the flight. The passenger arrived less than 3 hours late compared to the arrival time in the new confirmation but was more than 3 hours late compared to the original booking confirmation.
This puts an end to interpretations that the previous texts allowed.
The ruling states:
"Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 [...] must be interpreted as meaning that: in the event of a change to the departure and arrival times of a flight, announced in advance by an air carrier and accompanied by the issuance of a new booking confirmation to the passengers concerned, the duration of the delay suffered by those passengers upon arrival must be determined by taking into consideration the initially scheduled arrival time."
Full ruling here:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62024CJ0558
Best regards
Hi Voyage Forum members,
My wife and I took American Airlines flight no. 63 on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 9:30 AM, with a scheduled arrival in Miami at 1:30 PM local time.
After about half an hour of flight, a young passenger had a medical emergency. They were given care, and a flight attendant went to get an oxygen bottle. Then, an announcement over the loudspeakers informed passengers that the plane was diverting to London.
Once at London Heathrow (LHR), we were waiting to depart again. But a new announcement asked us to disembark because the plane wouldn’t be able to take off until the next day. (American responded to my follow-up, saying they’re required to limit their staff’s working hours to a certain number per day.)
A crowd of travelers gathered at the American Airlines counter, where they were told to follow instructions to get to a hotel. Meanwhile, I called the airline’s customer service to find a replacement flight that same day, since I couldn’t afford to leave the next day. If I had, I would’ve lost my hotel and car rental reservations due to late cancellation, which would’ve cost me a significant amount.
After discussing in English with customer service and the counter staff (who I handed my phone to), we managed to get two seats on British Airways flight BA 0209, which was leaving about 2 hours later.
That’s how, after a stressful wait unsure if we’d get our luggage back, and once we did, we hurried—heavily loaded—to reach the far-off terminal for our new boarding on foot and by train shuttle.
We finally took off for Miami and landed around 7:30 PM, which was 6 hours later than the originally scheduled arrival time of American Airlines flight 63.
On top of the stress, there were the costs of meals in the meantime, and I had to notify the hotel and car rental company about our delay.
As a result, I requested compensation for a flight delay of at least 3 hours (and I’ve involved my insurance’s legal protection to pursue this claim). American Airlines argued that exceptional circumstances prevented them from compensating me.
What do you think? Is my request unreasonable?
My wife and I took American Airlines flight no. 63 on Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 9:30 AM, with a scheduled arrival in Miami at 1:30 PM local time.
After about half an hour of flight, a young passenger had a medical emergency. They were given care, and a flight attendant went to get an oxygen bottle. Then, an announcement over the loudspeakers informed passengers that the plane was diverting to London.
Once at London Heathrow (LHR), we were waiting to depart again. But a new announcement asked us to disembark because the plane wouldn’t be able to take off until the next day. (American responded to my follow-up, saying they’re required to limit their staff’s working hours to a certain number per day.)
A crowd of travelers gathered at the American Airlines counter, where they were told to follow instructions to get to a hotel. Meanwhile, I called the airline’s customer service to find a replacement flight that same day, since I couldn’t afford to leave the next day. If I had, I would’ve lost my hotel and car rental reservations due to late cancellation, which would’ve cost me a significant amount.
After discussing in English with customer service and the counter staff (who I handed my phone to), we managed to get two seats on British Airways flight BA 0209, which was leaving about 2 hours later.
That’s how, after a stressful wait unsure if we’d get our luggage back, and once we did, we hurried—heavily loaded—to reach the far-off terminal for our new boarding on foot and by train shuttle.
We finally took off for Miami and landed around 7:30 PM, which was 6 hours later than the originally scheduled arrival time of American Airlines flight 63.
On top of the stress, there were the costs of meals in the meantime, and I had to notify the hotel and car rental company about our delay.
As a result, I requested compensation for a flight delay of at least 3 hours (and I’ve involved my insurance’s legal protection to pursue this claim). American Airlines argued that exceptional circumstances prevented them from compensating me.
What do you think? Is my request unreasonable?
Hi there,
Does anyone know of an agency that specializes in flight delay compensation with a reasonable commission? The ones I’ve come across online charge 27-30%.
Thanks
Does anyone know of an agency that specializes in flight delay compensation with a reasonable commission? The ones I’ve come across online charge 27-30%.
Thanks
Bonjour,
Voilà un motif de refus d'indemnisation qui devient à la mode : "......en raison d'une décision prise par le Centre de Contrôle Aérien. De ce fait, nous avons malheureusement du retarder le décollage du vol n° ……Les circonstances du retard étant indépendantes de notre volonté, notre politique commerciale ne prévoit pas de compensation. » Ou bien
« Après vérification, il s’avère que le vol a été retardé en raison de gestion de flux du trafic aérien. Dans de telles circonstances inopinées et indépendantes de notre volonté, il ne nous est pas possible de répondre favorablement aux demandes d’indemnisations. »
On ne peut pas mieux faire pour se payer la tête des passagers : attendre l’autorisation de décoller constitue le quotidien de tout pilote, et donc, par nature même, ça ne PEUT PAS être une circonstance extraordinaire. Et s’il s’agit d’autre chose, on ne sait pas de quoi on parle ! Or, aussi valable que puisse être un motif allégué, il ne vaut RIEN si la PREUVE n’en est pas apportée.
1° Puisque la PREUVE doit être fournie, ceci implique qu’un motif PRECIS soit donné, ce qui est loin d’être le cas, puisque le motif donné est à ce point vague (UNE décision – laquelle ?) que ça n’en est même plus un !
2°l’application du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil s’impose et, par conséquent, ne peut pas avoir quoi que ce soit à voir avec la politique commerciale d’une compagnie aérienne;
3° Que ce soit indépendant, ou pas, de la volonté de la compagnie est complètement sans objet : il y a eu, ou pas, survenance de « circonstances extraordinaires qui n’auraient pas pu être évitées même si toutes les mesures raisonnables avaient été prises » et point barre ! D’ailleurs, on n’imagine pas qu’une compagnie ait la volonté de retarder un vol…
4° Le libellé même du paragraphe 3 de l'article 5 du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil implique que la compagnie doit fournir DEUX preuves pour être dispensée de l'obligation d'indemniser les passagers : - preuve des circonstances extraordinaires alléguées - preuve d'avoir mis en oeuvre toutes les mesures raisonnables.
Il est clair que, tel qu'il est libellé, le refus d'indemnisation n'apporte aucune des deux preuves exigées. Donc, vous ne devez pas vous satisfaire d’une telle réponse, à ce point vague, et engager la procédure.
Et là, on trouve des cas dans lesquels la compagnie prétend que les "circonstances extraordinaires" consistent dans le fait qu'il a fallu attendre l'autorisation de décoller (vu l'encombrement habituel du ciel de nos jours) et qu'ils ne pouvaient donc prendre aucune mesure raisonnable.
Si vous ne répondez rien, la compagnie aura gain de cause puisqu'un Juge ne rend sa décision qu'en vertu des "moyens" avancés par chacune des deux parties.
Vous trouverez les moyens de votre défense, face à une telle position, là :
http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/refus-dindemnisation-en-raison-dune-decision-prise-par-le-centre-de-controle-aerien-comment-reagir/
fondés sur les jurisprudences Wallentin Hermann et Eglïtis rendues par la Cour de Justice de l'Union Européenne.
Voilà qui a le mérite de déterrer l'arrêt Eglïtis, qui, jusqu'à maintenant, ne servait pas à grand chose....
Cordialement
Voilà un motif de refus d'indemnisation qui devient à la mode : "......en raison d'une décision prise par le Centre de Contrôle Aérien. De ce fait, nous avons malheureusement du retarder le décollage du vol n° ……Les circonstances du retard étant indépendantes de notre volonté, notre politique commerciale ne prévoit pas de compensation. » Ou bien
« Après vérification, il s’avère que le vol a été retardé en raison de gestion de flux du trafic aérien. Dans de telles circonstances inopinées et indépendantes de notre volonté, il ne nous est pas possible de répondre favorablement aux demandes d’indemnisations. »
On ne peut pas mieux faire pour se payer la tête des passagers : attendre l’autorisation de décoller constitue le quotidien de tout pilote, et donc, par nature même, ça ne PEUT PAS être une circonstance extraordinaire. Et s’il s’agit d’autre chose, on ne sait pas de quoi on parle ! Or, aussi valable que puisse être un motif allégué, il ne vaut RIEN si la PREUVE n’en est pas apportée.
1° Puisque la PREUVE doit être fournie, ceci implique qu’un motif PRECIS soit donné, ce qui est loin d’être le cas, puisque le motif donné est à ce point vague (UNE décision – laquelle ?) que ça n’en est même plus un !
2°l’application du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil s’impose et, par conséquent, ne peut pas avoir quoi que ce soit à voir avec la politique commerciale d’une compagnie aérienne;
3° Que ce soit indépendant, ou pas, de la volonté de la compagnie est complètement sans objet : il y a eu, ou pas, survenance de « circonstances extraordinaires qui n’auraient pas pu être évitées même si toutes les mesures raisonnables avaient été prises » et point barre ! D’ailleurs, on n’imagine pas qu’une compagnie ait la volonté de retarder un vol…
4° Le libellé même du paragraphe 3 de l'article 5 du règlement 261/2004 du Parlement Européen et du Conseil implique que la compagnie doit fournir DEUX preuves pour être dispensée de l'obligation d'indemniser les passagers : - preuve des circonstances extraordinaires alléguées - preuve d'avoir mis en oeuvre toutes les mesures raisonnables.
Il est clair que, tel qu'il est libellé, le refus d'indemnisation n'apporte aucune des deux preuves exigées. Donc, vous ne devez pas vous satisfaire d’une telle réponse, à ce point vague, et engager la procédure.
Et là, on trouve des cas dans lesquels la compagnie prétend que les "circonstances extraordinaires" consistent dans le fait qu'il a fallu attendre l'autorisation de décoller (vu l'encombrement habituel du ciel de nos jours) et qu'ils ne pouvaient donc prendre aucune mesure raisonnable.
Si vous ne répondez rien, la compagnie aura gain de cause puisqu'un Juge ne rend sa décision qu'en vertu des "moyens" avancés par chacune des deux parties.
Vous trouverez les moyens de votre défense, face à une telle position, là :
http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/refus-dindemnisation-en-raison-dune-decision-prise-par-le-centre-de-controle-aerien-comment-reagir/
fondés sur les jurisprudences Wallentin Hermann et Eglïtis rendues par la Cour de Justice de l'Union Européenne.
Voilà qui a le mérite de déterrer l'arrêt Eglïtis, qui, jusqu'à maintenant, ne servait pas à grand chose....
Cordialement
bonjour,
je vais essayer de faire simple ; si vous avez des solutions merci. Je lis beaucoup sur les forums et blog mais je ne trouve pas de réponse :
Billets AR Paris Manille avec escales achetés sur e bookers...pas la peine de me répéter que c'est mieux sur la compagnie...je sais...c'est ce que je fais quasiment tout le temps sauf que là le billet était vraiment plus intéressant sur voyagiste.
Vol retour Manille Hong kong du 7 février annulé par mail le 3 février ; mail reçu de la philippine Airlines. aucun motif aucune solution ; juste annulé. Cela m'annule donc le reste de mon voyage : Hong Kong Londres Paris puisque aucun vol trouvable Manille Hong Kong.
Je contacte e bookers qui me propose la seule solution de me rembourser mon retour...bon bah ok pas le choix. J'attends le remboursement ; ils ont dit sous 30 jours.
Je rachète un vol sec retour Manille Paris avec escale mais surtout cher vu que sec !
Ma CB visa 1er ne prend pas mon cas en considération ; ils assurent en cas de maladie ou incapacité de MA part de voyager.
Puis-je être indemnisé d'après vous ?
Quelqu'un a t-il une idée lumineuse afin que je récupère quelques euros...je n'ai jamais payé un billet d'avion aussi cher MDR.
Merci 🙂🙂
We bought round-trip tickets from Mulhouse/Basel to Maun (Botswana) in January 2023 through Option Way.
Turkish Airlines issued the entire round-trip tickets. The flight plan was:
31 August 2023: TK 926 from Basel/Mulhouse to Istanbul and TK38 from Istanbul to Johannesburg 1 September 2023: Airlink (4Z)300 from Johannesburg to Maun. 11 September 2023: Airlink (4Z)301 from Maun to Johannesburg and TK43 from Johannesburg to Istanbul 12 September 2023: TK1923 from Istanbul to Basel/Mulhouse.
On 1 September, on the outbound trip, Turkish Airlines flight TK38 from Istanbul to Johannesburg arrived 1 hour and 30 minutes late due to airport congestion. As a result, we missed our connection with Airlink flight (4Z) 300 from Johannesburg to Botswana (even though the initial layover time was sufficient for the connection). Upon arrival at Johannesburg Airport, a Turkish Airlines agent greeted us, booked us a room near the airport, and rebooked us on the same flight for the following day, 2 September. On 2 September, after numerous difficulties checking in at the Airlink counter in Johannesburg, we finally reached our final destination with a 24-hour delay. We lost our first day of vacation in Botswana, including the activities that were planned for that day. On 11 September, during our return trip and almost certainly due to the rescheduling of the outbound flight, the Airlink check-in counter in Maun did not recognize our tickets issued by Turkish Airlines. After many searches and phone calls, we had to buy new tickets for the Maun/Johannesburg flight 4Z301. This cost us 9,306 Botswana pula (643 €). Upon arrival in Johannesburg, the Turkish Airlines check-in counter again had trouble identifying us for flight TK43 from Johannesburg to Istanbul. It’s clear that the root of our check-in problems stemmed from the renumbering of our tickets when the Turkish Airlines representative rebooked us on the Airlink (4Z)300 flight for 2 September. During this process, all subsequent flight tickets must have been canceled. Since our return, I’ve requested the following from Turkish Airlines: · Compensation under the European Regulation EC 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 for flight delays, amounting to 600 € per passenger. We meet all the conditions: departure from a Franco/Swiss airport, arrival at the final destination more than 4 hours late, and a distance greater than 3,500 kilometers. Turkish Airlines has not provided evidence that they did everything possible to avoid this delay. · Reimbursement for the Airlink Maun/Johannesburg tickets on 11 September, which we had to pay again to Airlink even though we had already paid for them through our agent, Option Way. Turkish Airlines refuses compensation on the grounds that they complied with all regulations. Turkish Airlines and Airlink are passing the buck when it comes to reimbursing the tickets we paid for twice. For Turkish Airlines, claims can only be made through their website, and each time a different agent responds. I’ve contacted our insurance, legal protection, the travel ombudsman... without success. Currently, the case is with a lawyer working for "Air Indemnité," but I have little hope. Obviously, I won’t be flying with Turkish Airlines again—they seem to have a habit of not respecting schedules or customer satisfaction. A good lesson for planning very long layovers.
Turkish Airlines issued the entire round-trip tickets. The flight plan was:
31 August 2023: TK 926 from Basel/Mulhouse to Istanbul and TK38 from Istanbul to Johannesburg 1 September 2023: Airlink (4Z)300 from Johannesburg to Maun. 11 September 2023: Airlink (4Z)301 from Maun to Johannesburg and TK43 from Johannesburg to Istanbul 12 September 2023: TK1923 from Istanbul to Basel/Mulhouse.
On 1 September, on the outbound trip, Turkish Airlines flight TK38 from Istanbul to Johannesburg arrived 1 hour and 30 minutes late due to airport congestion. As a result, we missed our connection with Airlink flight (4Z) 300 from Johannesburg to Botswana (even though the initial layover time was sufficient for the connection). Upon arrival at Johannesburg Airport, a Turkish Airlines agent greeted us, booked us a room near the airport, and rebooked us on the same flight for the following day, 2 September. On 2 September, after numerous difficulties checking in at the Airlink counter in Johannesburg, we finally reached our final destination with a 24-hour delay. We lost our first day of vacation in Botswana, including the activities that were planned for that day. On 11 September, during our return trip and almost certainly due to the rescheduling of the outbound flight, the Airlink check-in counter in Maun did not recognize our tickets issued by Turkish Airlines. After many searches and phone calls, we had to buy new tickets for the Maun/Johannesburg flight 4Z301. This cost us 9,306 Botswana pula (643 €). Upon arrival in Johannesburg, the Turkish Airlines check-in counter again had trouble identifying us for flight TK43 from Johannesburg to Istanbul. It’s clear that the root of our check-in problems stemmed from the renumbering of our tickets when the Turkish Airlines representative rebooked us on the Airlink (4Z)300 flight for 2 September. During this process, all subsequent flight tickets must have been canceled. Since our return, I’ve requested the following from Turkish Airlines: · Compensation under the European Regulation EC 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 for flight delays, amounting to 600 € per passenger. We meet all the conditions: departure from a Franco/Swiss airport, arrival at the final destination more than 4 hours late, and a distance greater than 3,500 kilometers. Turkish Airlines has not provided evidence that they did everything possible to avoid this delay. · Reimbursement for the Airlink Maun/Johannesburg tickets on 11 September, which we had to pay again to Airlink even though we had already paid for them through our agent, Option Way. Turkish Airlines refuses compensation on the grounds that they complied with all regulations. Turkish Airlines and Airlink are passing the buck when it comes to reimbursing the tickets we paid for twice. For Turkish Airlines, claims can only be made through their website, and each time a different agent responds. I’ve contacted our insurance, legal protection, the travel ombudsman... without success. Currently, the case is with a lawyer working for "Air Indemnité," but I have little hope. Obviously, I won’t be flying with Turkish Airlines again—they seem to have a habit of not respecting schedules or customer satisfaction. A good lesson for planning very long layovers.
Hello! Tout juste de retour d un séjour au Québec, j ai de petites interrogations suite à mon trajet aller.. J exposé les faits
J ai réservé mon trajet paris CDG Montreal avec escale à Washington IAD directement sur le site air Canada. Premier vol CDG Washington avec United airlines et second air Canada (express me semble). Bref trajet vendu avec correspondance à Washington d 1h30.. Juste certes mais s ils le vendent C est qu ils doivent l honorer non ? Bref le premier vol a ateri avec 15 min de retard en somme rien, sauf que forcément derrière correspondance loupée..
Sur place United airlines et air Canada se sont renvoyés la balle, laissant 11 personnes (dans le même cas que moi) en plan à Washington sans solution (ni placement sur autre vol, ni à boire et manger, ni chambre d hôtel...) nous avons eu un numéro de téléphone à contacter ne répondant pas avant 2h, il était alors 18h nous voulions avoir trouver une solution avant le soir pour s'organiser malgré tout.. Bref après plus de 2 h de forcing auprès d United airlines nous avons réussi à être placé sur un vol air Canada Washington (mais l autre aéroport) Montréal le lendemain..
Bref ma question, nous sommes arrivés à destination finale avec quasi 20h de retard avec un départ partance de l UE, ?pensez vous que l on peut espérer une indemnisation ? Écrire à qui, United airlines car au final ce sont les 15 min de retard qui nous mettent dedans ou à air Canada car ils n ont pas respecté leur billet vendu en correspondance ?
Bref un peu perdu j avoue..
Merci à ceux qui prendront le temps d étudier le cas et de me répondre 😉 sinon le séjour au quebec était au top malgré le jour en moins 😍
Hi, after a flight delayed by more than 24 hours, can I file a compensation claim with the airline (where they told me they’re in financial trouble!) and at the same time with a specialized compensation claim website?
Hi,
I often see people here claiming that if a flight is canceled due to weather, the passenger isn’t entitled to any compensation. However, the airline is only exempt from compensating the passenger if—and **only if**—they offer re-routing “as soon as possible.”
Here’s what happened: A single booking with Swiss International Air Lines (a Lufthansa subsidiary) for Paris - Zurich operated by Swiss, then Zurich - Puerto Plata operated by Edelweiss Air (another subsidiary).
After arriving in Zurich, the airport was closed for a few hours due to weather, and all flights were canceled. So far, nothing unusual. But Swiss International Airlines really outdid themselves:
Meals and hotel (plus transport to and from): “Figure it out yourselves, but we’ll reimburse you.” No re-routing offered at the time of cancellation (which is **mandatory** at the **same time**), nor in the following days, even though possible re-routing options existed. Worse: After 2 days with no information from the airline, the passenger showed up at the airport to demand immediate re-routing (3 hours later) on a flight operated by the same airline that had canceled the original flight, even though the final destination was 6 hours by road from the originally planned airport (Punta Cana instead of Puerto Plata). The airline refused because there was only space left in business class—and thus, the passenger had to pay!!! It’s completely absurd!!! The passenger declined, so the airline refused the re-routing! No other re-routing options were offered. The next day, the passenger returned, and this time, they were offered—**for the following day**—the exact same re-routing that had been refused the day before (Zurich - Punta Cana)! The passenger accepted. Arrival at a destination 6 hours by road from the final airport. Complete silence from the airline about the transfer. The passenger had to figure it out alone! In the end, arrival at the final destination with a 5-day delay. When the passenger claimed reimbursement for their expenses (nearly 600 €) the day after arrival, it took a month and a half to get the money back.
Swiss didn’t even bother responding to the registered letter requesting compensation. The passenger only received two replies from the parent company (Lufthansa), responding on behalf of its subsidiary, stating that the request should be addressed to its other subsidiary.
The passenger turned to the justice conciliator (a mandatory step before taking the case to court). The airline went silent and didn’t respond to the conciliator, who then issued a report of failure to cooperate. The passenger took the case to the local court in Aulnay-sous-Bois and sent Swiss their “submissions.” The airline remained silent until less than 48 hours before the hearing. Then, over the phone, the airline’s lawyer verbally agreed to pay the 600 € owed but proposed a reduced settlement for the rest. The passenger refused. Then, 24 hours before the hearing, the passenger received Swiss’s “submissions,” confirming the previous day’s verbal proposals.
Finally, the hearing took place, and the judgment was received: 600 € in compensation, as provided by Articles 5 and 7 of EU Regulation 261/2004 + 500 € under Article 12 of the same regulation (additional compensation, given how badly Swiss handled things) + 200 € for legal costs (registered letters, preparing the particularly large case file). All the details of this case (correspondence, justice conciliator, passenger’s submissions, the airline’s submissions, the arguments presented in court, and the judgment) are available here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/ In summary: -Just because a flight is canceled due to weather doesn’t mean the airline is automatically exempt from compensating the passenger. -In such cases, immediately look for possible re-routing options yourself (same airline or not), stop just before payment, and take screenshots. -Don’t always blindly believe what the airline tells you. -Don’t give up: the process is simple and free. But you must follow the templates provided on my website https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com without deviating from them. Best regards,
Meals and hotel (plus transport to and from): “Figure it out yourselves, but we’ll reimburse you.” No re-routing offered at the time of cancellation (which is **mandatory** at the **same time**), nor in the following days, even though possible re-routing options existed. Worse: After 2 days with no information from the airline, the passenger showed up at the airport to demand immediate re-routing (3 hours later) on a flight operated by the same airline that had canceled the original flight, even though the final destination was 6 hours by road from the originally planned airport (Punta Cana instead of Puerto Plata). The airline refused because there was only space left in business class—and thus, the passenger had to pay!!! It’s completely absurd!!! The passenger declined, so the airline refused the re-routing! No other re-routing options were offered. The next day, the passenger returned, and this time, they were offered—**for the following day**—the exact same re-routing that had been refused the day before (Zurich - Punta Cana)! The passenger accepted. Arrival at a destination 6 hours by road from the final airport. Complete silence from the airline about the transfer. The passenger had to figure it out alone! In the end, arrival at the final destination with a 5-day delay. When the passenger claimed reimbursement for their expenses (nearly 600 €) the day after arrival, it took a month and a half to get the money back.
Swiss didn’t even bother responding to the registered letter requesting compensation. The passenger only received two replies from the parent company (Lufthansa), responding on behalf of its subsidiary, stating that the request should be addressed to its other subsidiary.
The passenger turned to the justice conciliator (a mandatory step before taking the case to court). The airline went silent and didn’t respond to the conciliator, who then issued a report of failure to cooperate. The passenger took the case to the local court in Aulnay-sous-Bois and sent Swiss their “submissions.” The airline remained silent until less than 48 hours before the hearing. Then, over the phone, the airline’s lawyer verbally agreed to pay the 600 € owed but proposed a reduced settlement for the rest. The passenger refused. Then, 24 hours before the hearing, the passenger received Swiss’s “submissions,” confirming the previous day’s verbal proposals.
Finally, the hearing took place, and the judgment was received: 600 € in compensation, as provided by Articles 5 and 7 of EU Regulation 261/2004 + 500 € under Article 12 of the same regulation (additional compensation, given how badly Swiss handled things) + 200 € for legal costs (registered letters, preparing the particularly large case file). All the details of this case (correspondence, justice conciliator, passenger’s submissions, the airline’s submissions, the arguments presented in court, and the judgment) are available here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/ In summary: -Just because a flight is canceled due to weather doesn’t mean the airline is automatically exempt from compensating the passenger. -In such cases, immediately look for possible re-routing options yourself (same airline or not), stop just before payment, and take screenshots. -Don’t always blindly believe what the airline tells you. -Don’t give up: the process is simple and free. But you must follow the templates provided on my website https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com without deviating from them. Best regards,
Hi,
I’m planning a trip to Australia—Paris to Melbourne.
I’m flying with Etihad and have a 1-hour connection in Abu Dhabi.
Does that seem doable to you?
Thanks for your feedback and experiences!
My Montpellier-Fez flight was canceled by Air Arabia and rescheduled with only 1 day on site instead of 4, making the trip pointless. Customer service is unresponsive. If you’re also affected by this flight (or a similar one), join me to consider a group action. Contact me here or via DM! #AirArabia #PassengerRights
quelqu un a t il expérimenté ces médiateurs qui proposent des indemnites en cas de retard de vol lorsque la compagnie aérienne ne prévoit pas de remboursement ou indemnité pour retard ? Ces médiateurs sont ils fiables ?
Bonjour,
La justice était quasiment à l'arrêt pendant cette période particulière de confinement. Mais elle a repris son cours. C'est ainsi que des jugements, condamnant Ryanair, qui auraient été rendus plus tôt sinon, commencent à être rendus. Voir exemples dans le lien ci-dessous.
Bien entendu, si Ryanair a largement l'habitude de communiquer sur les jugements qui lui sont favorables, lorsque des passagers, néophytes du droit, s'y sont mal pris, il est clair que Ryanair garde motus et bouche cousue dans les autres cas.....
Si la procédure est correctement menée, Ryanair ne peut qu'être condamnée à indemniser les passagers pour les vols annulés du fait de la grève de son propre personnel. Mais, pour cela, bien suivre, sans s'en écarter, la procédure indiquée là :
http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/greve-du-personnel-ryanair-annulation-vol-obtenir-indemnisation-et-remboursement/
Mais, j'insiste bien : la procédure doit être correctement menée. Et, en particulier, il n'est pas sensé de ne pas rédiger de "conclusions n°2" en réponse aux conclusions de l'avocat de Ryanair suivant le modèle donné dans le lien ci-dessus.
Cordialement
La justice était quasiment à l'arrêt pendant cette période particulière de confinement. Mais elle a repris son cours. C'est ainsi que des jugements, condamnant Ryanair, qui auraient été rendus plus tôt sinon, commencent à être rendus. Voir exemples dans le lien ci-dessous.
Bien entendu, si Ryanair a largement l'habitude de communiquer sur les jugements qui lui sont favorables, lorsque des passagers, néophytes du droit, s'y sont mal pris, il est clair que Ryanair garde motus et bouche cousue dans les autres cas.....
Si la procédure est correctement menée, Ryanair ne peut qu'être condamnée à indemniser les passagers pour les vols annulés du fait de la grève de son propre personnel. Mais, pour cela, bien suivre, sans s'en écarter, la procédure indiquée là :
http://retardimportantavion.unblog.fr/greve-du-personnel-ryanair-annulation-vol-obtenir-indemnisation-et-remboursement/
Mais, j'insiste bien : la procédure doit être correctement menée. Et, en particulier, il n'est pas sensé de ne pas rédiger de "conclusions n°2" en réponse aux conclusions de l'avocat de Ryanair suivant le modèle donné dans le lien ci-dessus.
Cordialement
Bonjour à tous,
Je viens vers vous et je ne pense pas être le seul dans notre cas. Suite aux récentes actualités sur le blocage des frontières à cause du Covid-19 nous devions aller à San Francisco avec ma conjointe le 10 avril 2020. Donald Trump ayant bloqué les frontières aux européens ayant séjourné plus de 14 jours dans l’espace Schengen.
La compagnie que nous avions prise FrenchBee a annulé notre vol et nous a proposé deux solutions :
· Report du vol. · Avoir.
Effectivement la première (Report du vol) est un arrangement commercial de la compagnie le deuxième (Avoir) est légal mais sous la validation signé du client mais ils se sont bien tenu de parler de la dernière qui est le remboursement total et qui est soumis à la réglementation française et européennes dont voici les extraits :
· Code du tourisme - Article L211-14 Alinéa III :
« -L’organisateur ou le détaillant peut résoudre le contrat et rembourser intégralement le voyageur des paiements effectués, mais il n'est pas tenu à une indemnisation supplémentaire, si : »
· Règlement (CE) n° 261/2004 – Article 8 Assistance : droit au remboursement ou au réacheminement :
« 1. Lorsqu'il est fait référence au présent article, les passagers se voient proposer le choix entre: a) — le remboursement du billet, dans un délai de sept jours, selon les modalités visées à l'article 7, paragraphe 3, au prix auquel il a été acheté, pour la ou les parties du voyage non effectuées et pour la ou les parties du voyage déjà effectuées et devenues inutiles par rapport à leur plan de voyage initial, ainsi que, le cas échéant, — un vol retour vers leur point de départ initial dans les meilleurs délais; »
Je souligne également les modalités de remboursement liée à l’article 8.1.a ci-dessus :
· Règlement (CE) n° 261/2004 – Article 7 Droit à indemnisation :
« 3. L'indemnisation visée au paragraphe 1 est payée en espèces, par virement bancaire électronique, par virement bancaire ou par chèque, ou, avec l'accord signé du passager, sous forme de bons de voyage et/ou d'autres services. »
J’ai envoyé un mail le mardi 24/03/2020 en expliquant que nous ne souhaitons ni le report de vol ni un avoir mais bien un remboursement total de ce fait je leurs ai rappelé leurs obligations dans ce cas en énonçant le volet législatif ci-dessus. Depuis aucune réponse d’accusé de réception par mail (Au pire un retour en expliquant que leur boite mail est saturé…mais bien sûr), ils ne répondent pas au téléphone (Pour cause de confinement…y’a même par le stricte minimum) en clair autruche total de leur part.
Dans le mail dans lequel ils nous annoncent que le vol est annulé il faut qu’on leur donne une réponse avant le 31 mars pour le report de vol ou l’avoir.
Etant donné qu’on a aucun retour de leurs part (On ne sait pas s’ils ont reçu notre mail) mais je pense que si car on a reçu un mail « Boite mail saturé » mais que pour nous nous voulons le remboursement vous pensez qu’il faut qu’on attende gentiment un « retour à la normale des services » pour réclamer notre remboursement en laissant passer la date butoir de demande d’avoir ?
Dans tout les cas notre vol ne décolleras pas.
Merci d’avance pour vos retours.
Je viens vers vous et je ne pense pas être le seul dans notre cas. Suite aux récentes actualités sur le blocage des frontières à cause du Covid-19 nous devions aller à San Francisco avec ma conjointe le 10 avril 2020. Donald Trump ayant bloqué les frontières aux européens ayant séjourné plus de 14 jours dans l’espace Schengen.
La compagnie que nous avions prise FrenchBee a annulé notre vol et nous a proposé deux solutions :
· Report du vol. · Avoir.
Effectivement la première (Report du vol) est un arrangement commercial de la compagnie le deuxième (Avoir) est légal mais sous la validation signé du client mais ils se sont bien tenu de parler de la dernière qui est le remboursement total et qui est soumis à la réglementation française et européennes dont voici les extraits :
· Code du tourisme - Article L211-14 Alinéa III :
« -L’organisateur ou le détaillant peut résoudre le contrat et rembourser intégralement le voyageur des paiements effectués, mais il n'est pas tenu à une indemnisation supplémentaire, si : »
· Règlement (CE) n° 261/2004 – Article 8 Assistance : droit au remboursement ou au réacheminement :
« 1. Lorsqu'il est fait référence au présent article, les passagers se voient proposer le choix entre: a) — le remboursement du billet, dans un délai de sept jours, selon les modalités visées à l'article 7, paragraphe 3, au prix auquel il a été acheté, pour la ou les parties du voyage non effectuées et pour la ou les parties du voyage déjà effectuées et devenues inutiles par rapport à leur plan de voyage initial, ainsi que, le cas échéant, — un vol retour vers leur point de départ initial dans les meilleurs délais; »
Je souligne également les modalités de remboursement liée à l’article 8.1.a ci-dessus :
· Règlement (CE) n° 261/2004 – Article 7 Droit à indemnisation :
« 3. L'indemnisation visée au paragraphe 1 est payée en espèces, par virement bancaire électronique, par virement bancaire ou par chèque, ou, avec l'accord signé du passager, sous forme de bons de voyage et/ou d'autres services. »
J’ai envoyé un mail le mardi 24/03/2020 en expliquant que nous ne souhaitons ni le report de vol ni un avoir mais bien un remboursement total de ce fait je leurs ai rappelé leurs obligations dans ce cas en énonçant le volet législatif ci-dessus. Depuis aucune réponse d’accusé de réception par mail (Au pire un retour en expliquant que leur boite mail est saturé…mais bien sûr), ils ne répondent pas au téléphone (Pour cause de confinement…y’a même par le stricte minimum) en clair autruche total de leur part.
Dans le mail dans lequel ils nous annoncent que le vol est annulé il faut qu’on leur donne une réponse avant le 31 mars pour le report de vol ou l’avoir.
Etant donné qu’on a aucun retour de leurs part (On ne sait pas s’ils ont reçu notre mail) mais je pense que si car on a reçu un mail « Boite mail saturé » mais que pour nous nous voulons le remboursement vous pensez qu’il faut qu’on attende gentiment un « retour à la normale des services » pour réclamer notre remboursement en laissant passer la date butoir de demande d’avoir ?
Dans tout les cas notre vol ne décolleras pas.
Merci d’avance pour vos retours.
Bonjour à tous,
Ci-joint un article de presse publié par "Air Journal".
Il n'y a pas encore le feu au lac, mais tout ça laisse quand même une grande suspicion sur les motivations de la Croatie...
Cordialement
https://www.air-journal.fr/2020-02-18-compensations-la-directive-eu261-menacee-5218314.html
https://www.air-journal.fr/2020-02-18-compensations-la-directive-eu261-menacee-5218314.html
Bonjour à tous,
Je sais que la question a souvent été posée mais je n'ai pas trouver de réponses a mon pb (enfin pas aussi précisément que j'en ai besoin).
Lors de mon retour de pointe a pitre l'avion avait plus de 30 minute de retards ce qui m'a fait rater la navette orly CDG prévue, j 'ai pris la suivante et bien sur l vion allait décoller le comptoir Air France m'as donc remis sur un autre vol ce qui m'a fait atterir a Montpellier avec plus de 5 heures de retard.
J'ai don fait une reclamation mais Air France me réponds que c'est la faute du prestataire extérieur a Air france si mon premier vol était en retard (je vous met la réponse de KLM
"Je regrette que ma réponse précédente ne vous ait pas donné entière satisfaction.Je suis navrée du manque de précision de ma réponse. En effet, d'après les informations à ma disposition, votre vol AF797 a été retardé en raison de l'attente du prestataire effectuant la prise en charge d'un client nécessitant une assistance pour débarquer de l'avion, lors de l'arrivée du vol d'apport.Dans ces circonstances, la responsabilité de notre compagnie n'est pas engagée, c'est pourquoi je ne suis pas en mesure de répondre favorablement à votre demande d'indemnisation.Il apparaît dans votre compte Flying Blue que ce voyage vous a fait bénéficier de 3332 miles. Prenant en considération la gêne occasionnée par cette attente importante de votre nouveau vol à destination de Montpellier, j'ai souhaité vous offrir 5000 miles supplémentaires à titre commercial, "Puis-je faire quelque chose ou me contenter des miles Merci de votre expertise
"Je regrette que ma réponse précédente ne vous ait pas donné entière satisfaction.Je suis navrée du manque de précision de ma réponse. En effet, d'après les informations à ma disposition, votre vol AF797 a été retardé en raison de l'attente du prestataire effectuant la prise en charge d'un client nécessitant une assistance pour débarquer de l'avion, lors de l'arrivée du vol d'apport.Dans ces circonstances, la responsabilité de notre compagnie n'est pas engagée, c'est pourquoi je ne suis pas en mesure de répondre favorablement à votre demande d'indemnisation.Il apparaît dans votre compte Flying Blue que ce voyage vous a fait bénéficier de 3332 miles. Prenant en considération la gêne occasionnée par cette attente importante de votre nouveau vol à destination de Montpellier, j'ai souhaité vous offrir 5000 miles supplémentaires à titre commercial, "Puis-je faire quelque chose ou me contenter des miles Merci de votre expertise
Bonjour,
Juste pour avoir le sentiment des membres sur Ryanair et sa politique vis à vis de ses clients. Les retards sont courants maintenant sa nouvelle pratique consiste en l'annulation des vols sans explications: un vol réservé, payé deus semaine plus tard on reçoit un mail de la compagnie qui annule le vol sans considération pour tous les frais occasionnés ( réservations avec accomptes d'hotels ou de location, de véhicules à l'arrivée sans évoquer le reste.
Y a t il un moyen pour influencer ces pratiques abusives!!!
Bonjour,
J’ai récemment eu un retard de vol avec la compagnie American Airlines. Vol CDG -> New York prévu à 11h50. Après avoir embarqué, le vol a été retardé à 3 reprises, avant qu’on nous demande de quitter l’avion car le vol sera reprogrammé.
Embarquement et départ finalement reprogrammé à 15h30. Quasiment 4h de retard donc.
Cependant je ne sais pas comment et s’il est possible d’obtenir/éligible de remboursement ou d’indemnités de la part d’American Airlines pour un retard +3h sur un vol long courrier
Possibilité d’aide ? Merci
J’ai récemment eu un retard de vol avec la compagnie American Airlines. Vol CDG -> New York prévu à 11h50. Après avoir embarqué, le vol a été retardé à 3 reprises, avant qu’on nous demande de quitter l’avion car le vol sera reprogrammé.
Embarquement et départ finalement reprogrammé à 15h30. Quasiment 4h de retard donc.
Cependant je ne sais pas comment et s’il est possible d’obtenir/éligible de remboursement ou d’indemnités de la part d’American Airlines pour un retard +3h sur un vol long courrier
Possibilité d’aide ? Merci
Bonjour à tous,
Avec ce titre accrocheur, je vais en avoir des contradicteurs !
Les contributeurs de VF avaient eu connaissance, il y a plusieurs mois, que plusieurs arrêts de la Cour de Cassation avaient conforté les compagnies aériennes qui refusaient d'indemniser les passagers retardés de plus de 3 heures, au motif qu'ils ne présentaient pas leurs cartes d'embarquement permettant de justifier leur présence sur le vol incriminé.
C'est fini !
Grâce à l'opiniâtreté de l'un d'entre eux, la Cour de Justice de l'Union Européenne s'est prononcée sur ce cas spécifique et a rendu son avis dans l'ordonnance C-756/18 du 24 octobre 2019.
Une réservation confirmée prouve que le passager était bien à bord.
Cette ordonnance s'impose désormais à tous les Tribunaux européens.
Cordialement
http://leparticulier.lefigaro.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-10/decision_cjue_24102019_transport_aerien.pdf
Bonjour,
Je n'arrive pas à trouver une réponse. Je suis arrivée à l'aéroport de Lyon avec 2h05 de retard, après 00h30 avec easyjet. J'habite à Grenoble. A cette heure il n'y plus de transport en commun. L'hôtel de l'aéroport était plein. J'ai donc pris un uber à 135€ (beaucoup moins cher qu'un taxi). Mais impossible de me faire rembourser le taxi par easyjet ou par l'assurance de ma carte bleue (gold) au motif que j'ai eu moins de 3h de retard. Est-ce qu'ils ont raison ? Que faire si cette situation se reproduit (à part dormir par terre dans l'aéroport, ce que j'aurai fait si je n'avais pas eu deux enfants en bas âge avec moi)
En vous remerciant pour votre aide !
Emilie
Je n'arrive pas à trouver une réponse. Je suis arrivée à l'aéroport de Lyon avec 2h05 de retard, après 00h30 avec easyjet. J'habite à Grenoble. A cette heure il n'y plus de transport en commun. L'hôtel de l'aéroport était plein. J'ai donc pris un uber à 135€ (beaucoup moins cher qu'un taxi). Mais impossible de me faire rembourser le taxi par easyjet ou par l'assurance de ma carte bleue (gold) au motif que j'ai eu moins de 3h de retard. Est-ce qu'ils ont raison ? Que faire si cette situation se reproduit (à part dormir par terre dans l'aéroport, ce que j'aurai fait si je n'avais pas eu deux enfants en bas âge avec moi)
En vous remerciant pour votre aide !
Emilie
Hello,
Since it came into force, Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council, which defines air passenger rights, has faced fierce resistance from airlines, backed by IATA (the association representing almost all passenger airlines).
Beyond the airlines' often abusive—and even frequently bad-faith—resistance to passenger rights, IATA has been lobbying EU institutions for years, with the Council paying close attention for a long time.
As a result, the Council and the Commission have been proposing revisions to Regulation 261/2004 for years that are particularly unfavorable to passengers. The latest attempt nearly eliminated the right to compensation for delays of 3 hours or more upon arrival at the final destination.
However, since this is a regulation of both the European Parliament AND the Council, the two bodies had to agree.
But the European Parliament has always stood firm, consistently responding that passenger rights must be preserved.
After 11 years of struggle, it seems likely that we’re finally nearing the end of the match between the European Commission, the Council (the 27 heads of state or government), and the European Parliament.
Indeed, the Commission and the European Parliament have agreed on a text that will be debated again on Monday, July 6, 2026, with a vote scheduled for July 7, 2026. It’s very likely that this text, which would come into force in a year, will be adopted.
The main changes would be as follows: - Families with children will no longer be forced to pay to sit together on planes; - A flight will be considered canceled (not just delayed) if it departs more than one hour late; - Right to compensation for arrival at the final destination if the delay exceeds 3 hours (no longer "3 hours OR more"). The arrival time will be when the plane, having reached its parking spot, engages its parking brakes (no longer when the aircraft door opens); - Airlines can no longer refuse boarding or charge extra on the return flight for a passenger who didn’t take the outbound flight; - If a flight is canceled, the airline must, at the same time as informing passengers of the event, offer the choice between a refund and re-routing, and inform them of their rights to assistance and, if applicable, compensation; - The airline must, without undue delay, inform passengers of the reason; - In the case of a connecting flight, if the connection is missed and the delay at the final destination entitles the passenger to compensation, the responsible airline will be liable. This is very different from the current situation, where, under the KLM ruling, any airline operating a segment of the flight is liable for compensation. This promises more disputes that the Court of Justice of the European Union will have to resolve if two separate airlines operating segments of a connecting flight are both responsible for the delay. See this case for an example: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/ Moreover, this case demonstrates in advance another potential dispute: It could be argued that it wasn’t a missed connection since the flight was canceled before the first leg even departed. - Within 96 hours of a flight that could entitle passengers to compensation, the airline must contact them to inform them of their rights and explain the next steps. - Passengers must claim their right to compensation within 9 months. This is very different from the current situation, as Regulation 261/2004 sets no time limit. Currently, national law applies—in France, the limit is 5 years. The airline must respond within 30 days. If the airline refuses compensation on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances," it must specify which type of case it refers to from the list in the annex of the new regulation. If the case isn’t on the list, the airline must explain what the event was, why it qualifies as extraordinary circumstances with "clear, substantial, and concise" explanations, and why it’s directly linked to the reason given. It must also declare what "reasonable measures" were taken to mitigate the issue. This is, of course, a huge change in the regulation, with the clear goal of preventing airlines from declaring just anything as "extraordinary circumstances" to avoid compensation. - If, within 3 hours of a last-minute canceled or delayed flight, the airline hasn’t offered re-routing under comparable transport conditions and as soon as possible—whether on one of its own flights or another airline’s—the passenger will have the right to arrange their own re-routing and demand a refund for the new ticket, up to 400% of the original ticket price. This is a significant improvement that would have likely prevented the case described here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/ - If a flight is canceled due to "extraordinary circumstances," the airline will only be required to offer up to 3 nights in a hotel. This is a major change, as there’s currently no limit. Expect disputes if the extraordinary circumstances end while the passenger hasn’t been re-routed. - The price of a flight, as first displayed, must obligatorily include a cabin bag. This doesn’t prevent the airline from offering a price reduction if the passenger waives the cabin bag. This will put an end to abnormal practices, such as (just one example) Condor charging extra for a cabin bag on long-haul flights like Frankfurt (Germany)–Puerto Plata (Dominican Republic)–Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)–Frankfurt. - Free correction of a passenger’s name if requested 48 hours before departure. Note: This can’t be used to replace one passenger with another—just to correct a typo, e.g., Dupont instead of Dpont. - Airlines’ websites and apps must include information on how to file a claim.
It’s clear that, despite a few details, these changes are very positive for upholding passenger rights. It remains to be seen whether this text will be definitively adopted on July 7, 2026, as is very likely, and, more importantly, whether IATA will encourage airlines to loyally respect these new rules or persist in their old habits.
Best regards,
Since it came into force, Regulation 261/2004 of the European Parliament and Council, which defines air passenger rights, has faced fierce resistance from airlines, backed by IATA (the association representing almost all passenger airlines).
Beyond the airlines' often abusive—and even frequently bad-faith—resistance to passenger rights, IATA has been lobbying EU institutions for years, with the Council paying close attention for a long time.
As a result, the Council and the Commission have been proposing revisions to Regulation 261/2004 for years that are particularly unfavorable to passengers. The latest attempt nearly eliminated the right to compensation for delays of 3 hours or more upon arrival at the final destination.
However, since this is a regulation of both the European Parliament AND the Council, the two bodies had to agree.
But the European Parliament has always stood firm, consistently responding that passenger rights must be preserved.
After 11 years of struggle, it seems likely that we’re finally nearing the end of the match between the European Commission, the Council (the 27 heads of state or government), and the European Parliament.
Indeed, the Commission and the European Parliament have agreed on a text that will be debated again on Monday, July 6, 2026, with a vote scheduled for July 7, 2026. It’s very likely that this text, which would come into force in a year, will be adopted.
The main changes would be as follows: - Families with children will no longer be forced to pay to sit together on planes; - A flight will be considered canceled (not just delayed) if it departs more than one hour late; - Right to compensation for arrival at the final destination if the delay exceeds 3 hours (no longer "3 hours OR more"). The arrival time will be when the plane, having reached its parking spot, engages its parking brakes (no longer when the aircraft door opens); - Airlines can no longer refuse boarding or charge extra on the return flight for a passenger who didn’t take the outbound flight; - If a flight is canceled, the airline must, at the same time as informing passengers of the event, offer the choice between a refund and re-routing, and inform them of their rights to assistance and, if applicable, compensation; - The airline must, without undue delay, inform passengers of the reason; - In the case of a connecting flight, if the connection is missed and the delay at the final destination entitles the passenger to compensation, the responsible airline will be liable. This is very different from the current situation, where, under the KLM ruling, any airline operating a segment of the flight is liable for compensation. This promises more disputes that the Court of Justice of the European Union will have to resolve if two separate airlines operating segments of a connecting flight are both responsible for the delay. See this case for an example: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2026/04/18/swiss-international-air-lines-la-mauvaise-foi/ Moreover, this case demonstrates in advance another potential dispute: It could be argued that it wasn’t a missed connection since the flight was canceled before the first leg even departed. - Within 96 hours of a flight that could entitle passengers to compensation, the airline must contact them to inform them of their rights and explain the next steps. - Passengers must claim their right to compensation within 9 months. This is very different from the current situation, as Regulation 261/2004 sets no time limit. Currently, national law applies—in France, the limit is 5 years. The airline must respond within 30 days. If the airline refuses compensation on the grounds of "extraordinary circumstances," it must specify which type of case it refers to from the list in the annex of the new regulation. If the case isn’t on the list, the airline must explain what the event was, why it qualifies as extraordinary circumstances with "clear, substantial, and concise" explanations, and why it’s directly linked to the reason given. It must also declare what "reasonable measures" were taken to mitigate the issue. This is, of course, a huge change in the regulation, with the clear goal of preventing airlines from declaring just anything as "extraordinary circumstances" to avoid compensation. - If, within 3 hours of a last-minute canceled or delayed flight, the airline hasn’t offered re-routing under comparable transport conditions and as soon as possible—whether on one of its own flights or another airline’s—the passenger will have the right to arrange their own re-routing and demand a refund for the new ticket, up to 400% of the original ticket price. This is a significant improvement that would have likely prevented the case described here: https://retardimportantavion.wordpress.com/2024/01/12/reacheminement-catastrophique-droit-indemnisation-meme-circonstances-extraordinaires-2/ - If a flight is canceled due to "extraordinary circumstances," the airline will only be required to offer up to 3 nights in a hotel. This is a major change, as there’s currently no limit. Expect disputes if the extraordinary circumstances end while the passenger hasn’t been re-routed. - The price of a flight, as first displayed, must obligatorily include a cabin bag. This doesn’t prevent the airline from offering a price reduction if the passenger waives the cabin bag. This will put an end to abnormal practices, such as (just one example) Condor charging extra for a cabin bag on long-haul flights like Frankfurt (Germany)–Puerto Plata (Dominican Republic)–Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)–Frankfurt. - Free correction of a passenger’s name if requested 48 hours before departure. Note: This can’t be used to replace one passenger with another—just to correct a typo, e.g., Dupont instead of Dpont. - Airlines’ websites and apps must include information on how to file a claim.
It’s clear that, despite a few details, these changes are very positive for upholding passenger rights. It remains to be seen whether this text will be definitively adopted on July 7, 2026, as is very likely, and, more importantly, whether IATA will encourage airlines to loyally respect these new rules or persist in their old habits.
Best regards,
I’ve been traveling regularly for over twenty years,
but this is the first time an airline has treated me as poorly as Air France.
Two trips, two problems. The latest:
Trip from Seoul to Rennes. Last leg from Paris CDG to Rennes with Air France.
I arrive in Paris and go straight to Air France to get my boarding pass to Rennes. They assure me my baggage is continuing to Rennes.
Arriving in Rennes, no baggage—same as five other people.
The Air France office is closed, and the airport staff tell me there’s rarely anyone there.
With the help of the airport staff, I file a claim online, and my baggage is almost immediately located. As a result, I’m told I’ll have it the next day.
Four days later, the baggage is still in the same place at CDG—nothing’s moving.
The problem is Air France has no customer service. What they call customer service is a department that takes an hour to answer and just repeats what’s on the online form. No coordination, no way to get things moving. I guess Air France would rather pay the compensation after 21 days than actually do something.
I’ve had lost baggage on other trips, but this is the first time I’ve seen such indifference and lack of professionalism.
but this is the first time an airline has treated me as poorly as Air France.
Two trips, two problems. The latest:
Trip from Seoul to Rennes. Last leg from Paris CDG to Rennes with Air France.
I arrive in Paris and go straight to Air France to get my boarding pass to Rennes. They assure me my baggage is continuing to Rennes.
Arriving in Rennes, no baggage—same as five other people.
The Air France office is closed, and the airport staff tell me there’s rarely anyone there.
With the help of the airport staff, I file a claim online, and my baggage is almost immediately located. As a result, I’m told I’ll have it the next day.
Four days later, the baggage is still in the same place at CDG—nothing’s moving.
The problem is Air France has no customer service. What they call customer service is a department that takes an hour to answer and just repeats what’s on the online form. No coordination, no way to get things moving. I guess Air France would rather pay the compensation after 21 days than actually do something.
I’ve had lost baggage on other trips, but this is the first time I’ve seen such indifference and lack of professionalism.
Emirates just put out a statement, and for those of us struggling, it’s total nonsense. No concrete dates because they’re clueless, all dependent on military strikes. Don’t get your hopes up.
Good news for passengers stranded in the Gulf, though. Emirates expects its network to return to normal in the coming days. However, the resumption of commercial flights is still subject to airspace availability and meeting all operational conditions, Emirates said in a statement. The airline added that it transported around 30,000 passengers from Dubai on Thursday. By March 7, Emirates will operate 106 daily return flights to 83 destinations, covering nearly 60% of its network. The Dubai-based national airline was forced to cancel thousands of flights following Iran’s retaliatory strikes, which led the UAE to close its airspace and caused minor structural damage to its Dubai hub.
Good news for passengers stranded in the Gulf, though. Emirates expects its network to return to normal in the coming days. However, the resumption of commercial flights is still subject to airspace availability and meeting all operational conditions, Emirates said in a statement. The airline added that it transported around 30,000 passengers from Dubai on Thursday. By March 7, Emirates will operate 106 daily return flights to 83 destinations, covering nearly 60% of its network. The Dubai-based national airline was forced to cancel thousands of flights following Iran’s retaliatory strikes, which led the UAE to close its airspace and caused minor structural damage to its Dubai hub.
Hi everyone,
I have a Ryanair flight scheduled for 10/14 (outbound, returning on the 16th) from Charleroi in Belgium. A strike is confirmed, and the airport will be closed on the 14th. But Ryanair is still saying the flight is confirmed. I get that they’re trying to make us change and pay extra fees rather than wait for the free compensation.
If I make a new booking, can I still claim a refund for the first one?
Thanks in advance for your help—this is the first time I’ve faced this situation.
I have a Ryanair flight scheduled for 10/14 (outbound, returning on the 16th) from Charleroi in Belgium. A strike is confirmed, and the airport will be closed on the 14th. But Ryanair is still saying the flight is confirmed. I get that they’re trying to make us change and pay extra fees rather than wait for the free compensation.
If I make a new booking, can I still claim a refund for the first one?
Thanks in advance for your help—this is the first time I’ve faced this situation.
Hi,
I’m traveling to New Zealand in January 2026 with Lufthansa.
To check the allowed baggage dimensions, I went to my "booking" account on the Lufthansa website.
And that’s when I discovered that my last layover, the Zurich-Bordeaux flight operated by Swiffairlines, was canceled. I never received an email, and even worse, it’s not even noted on my booking.
So I contacted Lufthansa. They told me that for now, there are no other flights but that there will be by the time I leave.
They advised me to call them every week to get a flight.
What do you think of their response?
Has this ever happened to you?
Emilie
On February 19, 2025, we traveled on Cathay Pacific flight CX702, which was supposed to take us from Bangkok to Paris Charles de Gaulle, with a transfer via their Hong Kong hub.
The departure from Bangkok was scheduled for 7:15 PM, with an arrival in Hong Kong at 11:05 PM local time.
The layover was supposed to last 1 hour and 10 minutes, and we were due to take off for Paris on flight CX261 at 12:15 AM, with a scheduled arrival at CDG at 7:35 AM local time.
From Bangkok, flight CX702 took off over an hour late. The scraps of information provided didn’t give us any real idea of the reason for the delay or whether we’d make our connection in Hong Kong on flight CX261.
Then, on the plane, the CX702 crew couldn’t tell us anything about the connection or confirm that our luggage would be transferred to Paris (we were pretty worried, as our bags contained research materials and results).
Upon arrival in Hong Kong, we were immediately told—without any explanation—that we wouldn’t be taking flight CX261!
The staff then rushed us through the airport corridors, past Chinese police checks, after handing us two non-regulation flight tickets for CX289 to Frankfurt instead of Paris.
These tickets were scribbled in ballpoint pen, with a departure time that had already passed and no gate information.
The plane took off on February 20, 2025, well after the scheduled 12:15 AM departure. We landed in Frankfurt around 7:00 AM local time.
From there, after going through additional security checks and completely exhausted from the journey, we had to walk through Frankfurt Airport’s endless corridors—only to find out we’d been dropped off at the opposite end from the gate for flights to CDG.
Not to mention, when we reached gate A01, we were told we had to backtrack to gate A24. And as if that wasn’t enough after 15 hours of travel, the gate changed again without any announcement or email.
You’d think Cathay Pacific’s management would know how long these walks are...
In the end, we arrived at Paris CDG at 1:30 PM—six hours later than scheduled, with an extra layover in Frankfurt.
Discussion: Cathay Pacific informed us via email on February 19—while we were already in the air—that our connection had been canceled for "commercial and operational reasons."
Yet, the plane for flight CX289 was full of passengers, so there was no reason the original flight CX261 couldn’t have been delayed. We concluded we were victims of overbooking—without being told!
Especially since the rerouting to Frankfurt seemed well-rehearsed...
Regarding the overbooking, our tickets were flexible, and we paid an extra 220 € for that.
We should *never* have been overbooked!!!
I also want to let other travelers know that Cathay Pacific initially told us via email that our delayed arrival in Paris would be at 10:30 AM instead of 7:35 AM.
We immediately arranged for colleagues in Paris to pick us up at that time.
Except the arrival time was changed *again* to 1:30 PM. And by then, we couldn’t get home before the evening of February 21, with all the extra costs that entailed.
Back in Frankfurt, we were stuck waiting from 7:00 AM to 12:15 PM on some of the most uncomfortable seats, with no refreshments, snacks, or assistance—right in the middle of the constant flow of travelers heading for short- and medium-haul flights. The least they could’ve done was let us into the international lounge, which would’ve been far more suitable for exhausted, freezing travelers. Right?
On this point, European law states that if an airline fails in its obligations, passengers can claim full compensation for material and moral damages without a cap. Moral damages can also be compensated (CJEU, October 13, 2011, case C-83/10).
And whether Cathay Pacific’s management likes it or not, commercial or technical issues causing flight cancellations or delays *do not* count as "extraordinary circumstances" that would exempt the airline from liability (CJEU ruling, November 19, 2009).
Most importantly, due to the over 6-hour delay and the distance between the departure airport and CDG, we should have been compensated at least 600 € per passenger under European law (Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004).
But that’s not possible because Cathay Pacific refuses to comply with European legislation guaranteeing compensation for travelers affected by such delays.
To bypass passenger rights, Cathay Pacific evades responsibility by claiming that, as a Chinese company headquartered in Hong Kong, it isn’t bound by European laws.
Yet that doesn’t stop them from enjoying commercial advantages by operating a French subsidiary for passenger transport, registered in the trade register and based in Neuilly-sur-Seine.
So it *is* subject to European law!!!
Air travelers are thus victims of Cathay Pacific’s strategies to circumvent European law...
In our case, we had to endure the cancellation of our access to flight CX261, an imposed layover in Frankfurt, no minimal assistance during the 5-hour wait in Germany, a delay of over 6 hours upon arrival, and the costs of an extra day to get home.
And as if that weren’t enough, we also suffered moral and financial damages due to the airline’s blatant disregard for its customers!
The fact is, Cathay Pacific and its executives subjected us to these damages because of an overbooking policy hidden from customers. We weren’t informed of our rights, the reasons for the delay or rerouting, or given any assistance during the imposed layover. We weren’t even refunded the extra we paid for flexible tickets—what was the point of that when overbooking was clearly planned?
And on top of it all, they excluded us from European law, which would’ve allowed us to be compensated 600 € each for the delay—totaling 1,200 €.
We wrote three times by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt to Cathay Pacific’s Group CEO, the France Regional Director, and the head of the French-registered subsidiary.
No response—except an email refusing to comply with European legislation!
Given this policy of circumventing European law and passenger protections, Cathay Pacific’s online and in-agency flight offers *must* clearly inform customers that in case of delays, cancellations, or rerouting, they won’t be compensated by the Chinese airline!!!
The departure from Bangkok was scheduled for 7:15 PM, with an arrival in Hong Kong at 11:05 PM local time.
The layover was supposed to last 1 hour and 10 minutes, and we were due to take off for Paris on flight CX261 at 12:15 AM, with a scheduled arrival at CDG at 7:35 AM local time.
From Bangkok, flight CX702 took off over an hour late. The scraps of information provided didn’t give us any real idea of the reason for the delay or whether we’d make our connection in Hong Kong on flight CX261.
Then, on the plane, the CX702 crew couldn’t tell us anything about the connection or confirm that our luggage would be transferred to Paris (we were pretty worried, as our bags contained research materials and results).
Upon arrival in Hong Kong, we were immediately told—without any explanation—that we wouldn’t be taking flight CX261!
The staff then rushed us through the airport corridors, past Chinese police checks, after handing us two non-regulation flight tickets for CX289 to Frankfurt instead of Paris.
These tickets were scribbled in ballpoint pen, with a departure time that had already passed and no gate information.
The plane took off on February 20, 2025, well after the scheduled 12:15 AM departure. We landed in Frankfurt around 7:00 AM local time.
From there, after going through additional security checks and completely exhausted from the journey, we had to walk through Frankfurt Airport’s endless corridors—only to find out we’d been dropped off at the opposite end from the gate for flights to CDG.
Not to mention, when we reached gate A01, we were told we had to backtrack to gate A24. And as if that wasn’t enough after 15 hours of travel, the gate changed again without any announcement or email.
You’d think Cathay Pacific’s management would know how long these walks are...
In the end, we arrived at Paris CDG at 1:30 PM—six hours later than scheduled, with an extra layover in Frankfurt.
Discussion: Cathay Pacific informed us via email on February 19—while we were already in the air—that our connection had been canceled for "commercial and operational reasons."
Yet, the plane for flight CX289 was full of passengers, so there was no reason the original flight CX261 couldn’t have been delayed. We concluded we were victims of overbooking—without being told!
Especially since the rerouting to Frankfurt seemed well-rehearsed...
Regarding the overbooking, our tickets were flexible, and we paid an extra 220 € for that.
We should *never* have been overbooked!!!
I also want to let other travelers know that Cathay Pacific initially told us via email that our delayed arrival in Paris would be at 10:30 AM instead of 7:35 AM.
We immediately arranged for colleagues in Paris to pick us up at that time.
Except the arrival time was changed *again* to 1:30 PM. And by then, we couldn’t get home before the evening of February 21, with all the extra costs that entailed.
Back in Frankfurt, we were stuck waiting from 7:00 AM to 12:15 PM on some of the most uncomfortable seats, with no refreshments, snacks, or assistance—right in the middle of the constant flow of travelers heading for short- and medium-haul flights. The least they could’ve done was let us into the international lounge, which would’ve been far more suitable for exhausted, freezing travelers. Right?
On this point, European law states that if an airline fails in its obligations, passengers can claim full compensation for material and moral damages without a cap. Moral damages can also be compensated (CJEU, October 13, 2011, case C-83/10).
And whether Cathay Pacific’s management likes it or not, commercial or technical issues causing flight cancellations or delays *do not* count as "extraordinary circumstances" that would exempt the airline from liability (CJEU ruling, November 19, 2009).
Most importantly, due to the over 6-hour delay and the distance between the departure airport and CDG, we should have been compensated at least 600 € per passenger under European law (Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004).
But that’s not possible because Cathay Pacific refuses to comply with European legislation guaranteeing compensation for travelers affected by such delays.
To bypass passenger rights, Cathay Pacific evades responsibility by claiming that, as a Chinese company headquartered in Hong Kong, it isn’t bound by European laws.
Yet that doesn’t stop them from enjoying commercial advantages by operating a French subsidiary for passenger transport, registered in the trade register and based in Neuilly-sur-Seine.
So it *is* subject to European law!!!
Air travelers are thus victims of Cathay Pacific’s strategies to circumvent European law...
In our case, we had to endure the cancellation of our access to flight CX261, an imposed layover in Frankfurt, no minimal assistance during the 5-hour wait in Germany, a delay of over 6 hours upon arrival, and the costs of an extra day to get home.
And as if that weren’t enough, we also suffered moral and financial damages due to the airline’s blatant disregard for its customers!
The fact is, Cathay Pacific and its executives subjected us to these damages because of an overbooking policy hidden from customers. We weren’t informed of our rights, the reasons for the delay or rerouting, or given any assistance during the imposed layover. We weren’t even refunded the extra we paid for flexible tickets—what was the point of that when overbooking was clearly planned?
And on top of it all, they excluded us from European law, which would’ve allowed us to be compensated 600 € each for the delay—totaling 1,200 €.
We wrote three times by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt to Cathay Pacific’s Group CEO, the France Regional Director, and the head of the French-registered subsidiary.
No response—except an email refusing to comply with European legislation!
Given this policy of circumventing European law and passenger protections, Cathay Pacific’s online and in-agency flight offers *must* clearly inform customers that in case of delays, cancellations, or rerouting, they won’t be compensated by the Chinese airline!!!
