All passengers without exception choosing to travel by air are faced with the problem of delay or cancellation of the flight.

To cope with the effects of these harms affecting the thousands or even millions of travelers each year, in the different corners of the globe, the European Parliament has decided to create a law protecting nevertheless passengers traveling in Europe or in the European Union more precisely .

Fourteen years after the entry into force of this regulation helping to repair the inconvenience suffered by passengers, caused mainly by the air carrier, millions of victims have been compensated while millions of other travelers have not benefited, either because of the difficulties they encounter in claiming procedures, or because their case is not eligible for compensation.

Reparable moral damage? Some criteria must be met first!

Speaking of the criteria for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it is important to clarify certain aspects that relate to the repair of inconveniences that may prevent passengers from traveling as they have planned.

We already know how the European regulation 261/2004 works. The EU consumer rights law requires air operators to compensate passengers for failing to carry them on schedule. The delays giving right to compensation are those who cross the three-hour mark.

However, it should be noted that a flight that has a delay of 180 minutes is not necessarily compensable. For example, flights disrupted by climatic conditions including typhoons, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions are not compensable, but what about delays due to mechanical problems disrupting the takeoff of the aircraft?

In one case, a couple booked a flight to travel to Nice from Bordeaux. Scheduled at 13:45, the arrival of the flight was scheduled at 15:05, however, the aircraft operated on this line did not land its wings at Nice airport at 20:40 by registering a delay of around six hours.

Indeed, a technical breakdown was at the origin of this delay. In their report, the aeronautical engineers mentioned that this problem was caused by a lightning strike on the plane that was on the tarmac. An important part of one of its engines was affected after which the operator decided to change it because it no longer fulfilled the conditions of optimum safety.

The couple still relied on European regulations hoping to have compensation. However, their request did not succeed. Yet the mechanical breakdowns give rise to compensation but in their case, the conditions of compensation were not fulfilled because the problem caused was out of the control of the airline.