Airlines operating under Europe's passenger rights framework are rejecting a majority of compensation claims that appear legitimate under the law, according to analysis that casts fresh doubt on whether the rules work as intended. AirHelp, a company that manages claims on behalf of travellers, says that up to 60 per cent of claims refused by carriers are in fact valid when measured against the relevant regulations and supporting evidence.

The figure, drawn from screening millions of cases worldwide, adds quantitative weight to what consumer advocates have argued for years: that rights which exist on paper are far harder to exercise in practice. AirHelp's review of 2024 data found that more than half of initially rejected claims it considered eligible were later overturned, either through court proceedings or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

How carriers turn down legitimate claims

Airlines deploy several methods to refuse claims that may be valid. The most basic is simply to ignore them. AirHelp describes a significant proportion of submissions as receiving no substantive response at all, leaving passengers uncertain whether their case has even been considered. For anyone unfamiliar with their rights, silence can be enough to end the process.

Where carriers do respond, the most frequent justification is that the disruption fell under "extraordinary circumstances," a carve-out in the regulations that exempts airlines from paying compensation for events outside their control. Severe weather, air traffic control restrictions, and security incidents all qualify. The difficulty is that some airlines invoke this exemption for technical faults and operational failures that courts have subsequently ruled were within the carrier's own responsibility.

A third approach involves contractual restrictions. Some airlines argue that their conditions of carriage impose procedural limits on how claims can be made or who is permitted to submit them. Consumer groups counter that statutory rights under Regulation EC 261/2004 cannot be reduced by private contracts. The tension between what an airline's terms state and what the law actually requires leaves many passengers accepting refusals they should not have to accept.

Why first refusal is not the final word

The data points to a clear pattern. Airlines benefit from making the claims process opaque and time-consuming. Many passengers give up after an initial rejection, particularly if they do not know how to escalate or cannot afford to wait months for resolution. Those who persist, or who seek professional assistance, frequently succeed: the fact that more than half of eligible rejected claims are eventually overturned suggests that the first answer from an airline is often not a reliable indicator of whether compensation is owed.

This does not mean every refused claim is valid. Airlines legitimately deny some requests, and the regulations properly exempt carriers from liability for events genuinely beyond their control. What the figures indicate is that the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate refusals is being drawn too far in the airlines' favour, and that current enforcement mechanisms are not correcting this quickly enough.

The commercial dimension of claims management

AirHelp is not a disinterested party. The company charges a commission on successful claims, which means its business model depends on passengers pursuing compensation and on a sufficient volume of wrongful rejections to justify its existence. Its data and public statements serve that commercial interest. Even so, the figures it publishes align with a pattern that independent consumer organisations have documented for years: a persistent gap between rights as legislated and rights as experienced.

Passengers who use third-party claims services typically surrender a significant share of their payout in fees. Those willing and able to navigate the process themselves can obtain the same compensation directly from the airline or through a national enforcement body, without paying a commission. The existence of a thriving claims management industry, however, is itself evidence that many travellers find the direct route impractical or intimidating.

Enforcement gaps across Europe and beyond

The findings arrive as regulators in several markets examine airline compliance more closely. In the European Union, enforcement of EC 261/2004 and its national implementations continues to evolve through court judgments and regulatory interventions that clarify when carriers may invoke extraordinary circumstances and what information they must provide to passengers.

Enforcement, however, remains largely decentralised. National bodies handle complaints within their own jurisdictions, with varying degrees of resources and political willingness to act. The European Commission maintains a passenger rights information portal and has taken enforcement action against carriers that systematically fail to meet their obligations, but the effectiveness of enforcement depends heavily on which member state the passenger turns to.

Outside the EU, similar debates are developing. In Canada, submissions to the Canadian Transportation Agency have described disputes over whether carriers can refuse to engage with claims submitted through intermediaries, a practice consumer groups argue obstructs access to redress. The UK, which has retained a version of the EU rules post-Brexit, faces comparable questions about how effectively its enforcement regime is functioning.

What passengers can do

The practical implication is that an airline's initial rejection does not determine whether compensation is owed. Passengers facing disruption should document delays thoroughly, retain boarding passes and booking confirmations, and keep records of all correspondence with the carrier.

Where a refusal cites extraordinary circumstances without specific justification, or where the airline simply fails to respond, travellers can escalate to their national enforcement body or, where available, an alternative dispute resolution scheme that reviews airline decisions independently. The process takes time and persistence, but the data suggests that persistence pays off more often than not.

Organisations

AirHelp