Extraordinary Circumstances Explained: The Airline Excuse That Often Fails

Why Airlines Rely on “Extraordinary Circumstances” — and Why It Often Doesn’t Work

If there is one phrase airlines use more than any other to reject compensation claims, it is “extraordinary circumstances.”
Passengers see it in denial emails, automated responses, and even formal legal letters — often without any real explanation.

Under EU Regulation 261/2004, airlines may refuse to pay fixed compensation (250–600 EUR) only if they can prove that a flight disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances and that the delay or cancellation could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

This is where most refusals collapse.

In practice, airlines frequently rely on this clause as a generic shield, not a legally substantiated defense.

What Are “Extraordinary Circumstances” Under EU261 — Legally Speaking

EU261 does not provide a closed list of extraordinary circumstances.
Instead, the definition has been shaped by CJEU case law (Wallentin-Hermann, Eglītis, Pešková, Krüsemann, and others).

To qualify as extraordinary, an event must meet both criteria:

1. It is not inherent in the normal activity of the airline

2. It is outside the airline’s actual control

Failing either test means compensation remains payable.

This narrow interpretation is exactly why the airline excuse so often fails when properly challenged.

Situations That May Qualify as Extraordinary Circumstances

Courts and regulators usually accept the following — but only with evidence:

• Severe weather conditions incompatible with safe flight operations

• Air traffic control restrictions or airspace closures

• Political instability, security risks, or acts of sabotage

• Bird strikes or foreign object damage (case-specific)

• Airport-wide strikes by external staff (ATC, ground handling)

Even in these cases, airlines must prove direct causal link and reasonable mitigation efforts.

What Airlines Wrongly Call “Extraordinary” (And Lose on in Court)

This is where most refusals become legally weak:

• Technical problems caused by wear and tear or maintenance

• Aircraft rotation issues and late incoming flights

• Crew shortages, sick leave, rostering failures

• Internal airline strikes (pilots, cabin crew)

• “Operational reasons” or “safety reasons” without specifics

• Weather at a previous airport affecting later flights

European courts consistently confirm:
Operational complexity is not extraordinary.

Why Airlines Use This Excuse Anyway

Because it works — statistically.

Most passengers do not challenge refusals, do not request evidence, and do not escalate to ADR or court.
A generic “extraordinary circumstances” response filters out a large percentage of valid claims automatically.

This is not a legal strategy — it is a volume strategy.

Many cases labeled as “extraordinary circumstances” are legally compensable after proper analysis.
Airlines rarely provide full meteorological reports, ATC notices, or maintenance logs voluntarily — but those documents matter.

The Hidden Legal Test Airlines Hope You Don’t Know

Even if extraordinary circumstances existed, the airline must still prove it took all reasonable measures, such as:

• Re-routing passengers on alternative flights

• Using reserve aircraft or crews

• Adjusting schedules to limit delay impact

Failure to demonstrate mitigation = compensation owed.

This second test is where many airline defenses collapse entirely.

Why These Cases Are Not DIY Claims

Extraordinary circumstances cases require:

• Flight-specific operational analysis

• Cross-checking METARs, NOTAMs, and ATC data

• Knowledge of EU court precedents

• Understanding when EU261 applies — and when Montreal Convention Article 19 is the correct legal route

This is precisely why automated airline refusals are often overturned — and why professional handling matters.

Why MySkyHelp Wins These Claims

MySkyHelp does not rely on templates or assumptions.
Each case is assessed under the correct legal framework, whether EU261, UK261, or Montreal Convention.

Instead of accepting airline labels, we analyze:

• Whether the event was truly extraordinary

• Whether the airline proved causation

• Whether reasonable measures were taken

• Whether the airline misapplied the regulation

That is why the airline excuse that “often works” against passengers often fails against professionals.

Bottom Line

“Extraordinary circumstances” is not a magic word.
It is a strict legal exception — and airlines must prove every element of it.

Most refusals do not survive proper legal scrutiny.
And that is exactly where MySkyHelp makes the difference.