THE BOTTOM LINE
- Extraordinary circumstances are not a blank check: An airline can avoid paying compensation for delays caused by events like airspace closures, but only if it proves it took all “reasonable measures” to mitigate the situation.
- “Reasonable measures” have limits: An airline is not required to make major, long-term changes to its flight schedules in response to a volatile situation that is officially communicated as temporary (e.g., through short-term notices).
- Documentation is key: Airlines must be prepared to demonstrate the practical steps taken to manage disruptions, including re-routing calculations and the search for alternative flights for passengers across multiple carriers, not just their own.
THE DETAILS
This case centered on a KLM flight from Delhi to Amsterdam that was significantly delayed, causing passengers to miss their connection to Marseille. The root cause was the closure of Pakistani airspace due to military conflict between Pakistan and India. While both parties agreed that the airspace closure qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance” under EU Regulation 261/2004, the legal battle focused on a critical follow-up question: did KLM take all “reasonable measures” to prevent or minimize the delay? The claims agency AirHelp, representing the passengers, argued that the airline had not.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal sided with KLM, providing important clarity on what constitutes “reasonable measures” in a fluid crisis. The court rejected the argument that KLM should have preemptively altered its entire flight schedule when the airspace first closed a month prior. Crucially, the closure was extended through a series of short-term official notices (known as NOTAMs, or ‘Notice to Airmen’), each lasting only a few days. The court found that in such an unpredictable environment, it was reasonable for KLM to treat the situation as temporary and not undertake a costly, long-term operational overhaul that might be rendered pointless if the airspace suddenly reopened.
The court’s decision highlights the practical and financial realities of airline operations. It accepted KLM’s position that demanding a complete schedule change would constitute an “unacceptable financial sacrifice” under the circumstances. Furthermore, the court was satisfied with KLM’s evidence, which showed it had rerouted the affected flight along the next best alternative and re-booked the stranded passengers on the earliest available connecting flight using a system that searched across more than 200 airlines. This ruling reinforces that while airlines bear a heavy responsibility during disruptions, the standard of “reasonable measures” is not one of perfection, but of diligent and commercially sensible crisis management.
SOURCE
Source: Amsterdam Court of Appeal
