Guide · 8 min read
What counts as extraordinary, and what the airline made up
Four causes genuinely excuse an airline from paying. Four others get written on rejection letters every week and don't survive the case law. Knowing which is which is the whole argument.
The verdict names the article and the case it comes from.
Crew shortage is not an extraordinary circumstance: €400 still owed per passenger.
An extraordinary circumstance is a cause outside the airline's control that removes the compensation duty under Art. 5(3) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004. Weather, air traffic control strikes, security incidents and medical emergencies qualify. Technical faults, crew shortages and the carrier's own staff striking do not, and €250 to €600 stays owed.
Cause by cause, with the authority
Art. 5(3) never lists what counts. The test the Court of Justice applies is whether the cause is inherent in the normal exercise of the airline's activity — the things any carrier deals with as part of flying planes are the airline's problem, and the things it can't plan around aren't. Here is how the causes that actually appear on rejection letters fall out.
| Cause the airline gives | Extraordinary? | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Weather | Yes · no payout | Art. 5(3). Check the METAR before you argue |
| ATC or airport strike | Yes · no payout | Art. 5(3). Third-party industrial action |
| Security incident | Yes · no payout | Art. 5(3) |
| Medical emergency | Yes · no payout | Art. 5(3) |
| Technical fault | No · still owed | CJEU C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann) |
| Strike by the airline's own staff | No · still owed | CJEU C-195/17 (Krüsemann) |
| Crew shortage | No · still owed | Inside the airline's control |
| "Operational reasons" | No · still owed | Not a defined defence under Art. 5(3) |
Our free check returns the same eight verdicts, with one difference: a weather rejection comes back at medium confidence rather than high, because weather is the excuse most often being told straight.
The three judgments that decide it
Three rulings from the Court of Justice carry almost every argument you'll have with an airline. Two of them define what the airline can hide behind. The third decides whether Art. 5(3) is even in play.
CJEU C-549/07Wallentin-Hermann: a technical fault isn't extraordinary
The Court held that a technical problem is inherent in an airline's normal activity. Planes break. Maintaining them, and absorbing the delay when a part fails, is part of running a fleet, so a technical fault on its own does not excuse the airline from paying compensation. It does not matter that the fault was unexpected, and it does not matter that the airline fixed it as fast as anyone could.
Airlines cite the case anyway — or rather, they cite the word "technical" and the word "extraordinary" in the same paragraph and hope you stop reading. British Airways rejects on technical grounds often, and every one of those rejections is rebuttable. That's one of the six rebuttals in the $19 kit and what it covers: the citation, the holding in one sentence, and the request that they either withdraw the rejection or produce the technical log.
CJEU C-195/17Krüsemann: the airline's own staff striking isn't either
A wildcat strike by the carrier's own staff is inherent in its activity, so it is not extraordinary. Pay disputes, restructurings and the walkouts that follow them are a normal part of employing people. The airline is on both sides of that argument, which is exactly why it can't use it as an excuse against you.
A third-party strike is a different thing entirely, and here the airline is right. Air traffic controllers and airport staff don't work for your carrier and it has no seat at their negotiating table. When they walk out, Art. 5(3) applies and the compensation goes away. So the question to ask a rejection letter is short: whose staff?
CJEU C-402/07Sturgeon: the three-hour line the whole thing hangs on
Sturgeon is why a delay pays anything at all. The Court set the threshold at three hours' delay measured at the final destination — not at departure, not at the gate, but the moment the doors opened at the place printed on your ticket. A connection you missed is measured the same way, by when you finally arrived.
It belongs on this page because Art. 5(3) is the second gate, never the first. Under three hours late, the cause is irrelevant: nothing is owed whether the delay came from a thunderstorm or a broken coffee maker. Past three hours, distance sets the amount — €250, €400 or €600 per passenger under the EU261 distance bands explained in full — and the only remaining question is whether the airline can prove an extraordinary circumstance it couldn't have avoided. Airlines sometimes argue Art. 5(3) on a two-hour delay. They've already won that one and don't need to.
Why most weather rejections are correct
This is the part where the rules go against you, and pretending otherwise would cost you time. Weather is extraordinary under Art. 5(3), and weather rejections are frequent and usually accurate. easyJet in particular pays reliably on a properly cited claim and rejects on weather a lot — and when it does, it's normally telling the truth.
You can check it yourself in about two minutes, which is more than can be said for most airline excuses. A METAR is the routine weather observation an airport publishes roughly every half hour, it's archived, and it's public. Pull the one for your departure airport at your scheduled time and read it. Fog below minimums, a thunderstorm sitting over the field, a snow closure — that claim is dead and you should let it go.
Clear skies in the archive and "adverse weather" in the letter is a mismatch worth putting to them in writing. So is weather at a different airport on the same day, or weather that had cleared hours before your slot. Ask which observation they're relying on. Airlines that can't name one tend to stop citing it.
"Operational reasons" is not a defence
It's a phrase, not a category. Art. 5(3) requires the airline to prove a specific extraordinary circumstance, and that the delay couldn't have been avoided even with all reasonable measures taken. "Operational reasons" names no circumstance, so it proves nothing. Lufthansa cites it frequently, and it's one of the six excuses the rebuttal pack answers by name.
The reply that works is a question rather than an argument. Ask them, in writing, to state the specific cause and confirm which limb of Art. 5(3) they're relying on. One of three things happens. They name a genuine extraordinary circumstance and you can check it. They name something inherent in their activity, which is the rejection collapsing under its own weight. Or they don't reply, and you take a well-evidenced file to the national regulator.
Who has to prove the cause
Split it in two and it gets much simpler. The cause is the airline's to prove and yours to report. You say what happened to you — the route, the date, how late you landed, and what they told you at the gate or in the app. The airline is the party holding the maintenance records, the crew rosters and the slot data, so it's the party that has to substantiate any Art. 5(3) defence it wants to run.
That has a useful consequence. A passenger who never found out why the flight was late still has a claim worth filing — just a less certain one. File on the facts you have and let them assert the cause; a rejection that names a specific circumstance gives you something to check, and a rejection that names nothing gives you the paragraph above. Where the odds drop is a flight that obviously sat on the ground in a storm. Don't spend six weeks on that one.
Getting this in the right order is most of what the step-by-step claim sequence is for: report the facts, ask for the cause, then answer it with the article or the case.
Care survives every one of these
An extraordinary circumstance takes away Art. 7 compensation. It leaves Art. 9 care completely intact, and airlines rarely volunteer that in a rejection letter. Both articles sit in the same regulation and Art. 5(3) is written against one of them.
So on a flight leaving an EU, EEA or UK airport, a weather cancellation still owes you meals and refreshments proportionate to the wait, two phone calls or emails, a refund instead of travelling from five hours late if you chose not to fly, and a hotel with transfers from eight hours or on any cancellation that keeps you overnight. Keep the receipts. What the airline owes you while you're stuck is set out in the duty-of-care guide, and the $5 expense pack exists precisely for the claims where compensation is off the table and the hotel bill isn't.
Questions people ask
What counts as an extraordinary circumstance?
Weather, an air traffic control or airport strike, a security incident and a medical emergency. Those four sit outside the airline's control under Art. 5(3), so no compensation is owed. Everything else on a rejection letter is worth a second look.
Is a technical fault an extraordinary circumstance?
No. A technical problem is inherent in an airline's normal activity, which is what CJEU C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann) decided. Compensation is still owed at €250, €400 or €600 by distance. Airlines reject on technical grounds anyway, so the rebuttal quotes the case back at them.
Do I get compensation if there was a strike?
It depends whose staff struck. A wildcat strike by the airline's own crew or ground staff is inherent in its activity and doesn't excuse it — CJEU C-195/17 (Krüsemann). A strike by air traffic control or by airport staff is third-party industrial action, which is extraordinary, and nothing is owed.
Can I challenge a weather rejection?
Usually you shouldn't. Weather is extraordinary and airlines are mostly honest about it — easyJet's weather rejections in particular tend to hold up. Read the METAR for your airport at your scheduled time first. If the archive shows clear conditions, ask them which observation they're relying on.
What does "operational reasons" mean on a delay?
Nothing legally. It isn't a defined defence, and Art. 5(3) requires the airline to prove a specific extraordinary circumstance it could not have avoided. Lufthansa uses the phrase often. Write back asking for the actual cause and which limb of Art. 5(3) they're relying on.
Who has to prove why the flight was late?
The airline. It holds the maintenance logs, the rosters and the slot data, so an Art. 5(3) defence is its to substantiate. Your job is to report the facts accurately: route, date, arrival delay at the final destination, and what you were told.
What if the airline never told me the cause?
File anyway. The claim is still worth pursuing, just less certain, because the burden of proving an extraordinary circumstance sits with the carrier. Say what you know, ask them to state the cause, then answer whatever they name with the article or the case that covers it.
Do I still get a hotel if the delay was extraordinary?
Yes. Art. 5(3) removes Art. 7 compensation and leaves Art. 9 care untouched. On a departure from an EU, EEA or UK airport that means meals, two calls or emails, and a hotel with transfers from eight hours late or on a cancellation that strands you overnight — weather included.
Find out which side of the line you're on
Enter the route, the delay and the cause the airline gave. The check is free and it names the article and the case behind the verdict — including when the verdict is no.
FlightOwe is an information service, not a law firm and not your legal representative. We tell you what the rules say and give you the letters — you file your own claim and keep everything you recover.