Passengers flying from Phuket to Copenhagen arrived 47 hours and 27 minutes later than planned. It was undisputed that the airline had already paid EUR 600 in compensation per passenger.
Similar to a case we recently discussed, the dispute centred on the right to double compensation. The passengers believed that they had suffered a cancellation and were subsequently rebooked onto a flight which was then further delayed. The airline argued that the flight in question was never cancelled but suffered a long delay.
What differs in this case is that the aircraft scheduled to operate the flight had been changed shortly before the planned departure. The passengers relied on that change as an indication that the original operation had been abandoned and replaced by a new one.
The court held that the aircraft substitution did not in itself mean that the flight had been cancelled. The change of aircraft was therefore an operational adjustment within the same delayed flight, not evidence of a separate replacement flight giving rise to a new compensation event.
On that basis, there was no reason to treat the situation as both a cancellation and a separate delayed re-routing.
iuno’s opinion
This case is particularly interesting because the change of aircraft can easily create the impression that the original flight has been cancelled and replaced. The court nevertheless treated the disruption as one continuous delayed operation.
Seen together with earlier Danish case law, the judgment points to a clearer line being drawn: for a passenger to be considered rebooked onto another flight, that flight must be planned independently of the original flight schedule. By contrast, a so-called rescue flight arranged to complete the disrupted operation does not, in itself, turn the situation into a cancellation.
This case is also a reminder of how important it is for airlines to keep their disruption records aligned across internal systems, passenger communications, and operational reports. Where aircraft substitutions or rescue flights are involved, clear documentation showing whether passengers were actually rebooked onto a separately planned service can be decisive.
If you wish to discuss this case and the effects on your operations, our Aviation team is happy to help.
[Decision of the Copenhagen City Court of 10 February 2023 in case BS-49615/2020-KBH]