Air Passenger Rights in Europe
Towards a historic reform between protections and corporate interests

Regulation 261/2004 and its impact on passenger protection

To fully understand the significance of the proposed reform, it is essential to briefly retrace the legislative history that led to the current framework for air passenger protection. In February 2004, the European Parliament and the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, a legislative measure that represented a true revolution in European air transport law.

This regulation, which entered into force on February 22, 2005, established for the first time common rules on compensation and assistance for passengers in cases of denied boarding, flight cancellation, or long delay.

Before the adoption of this regulation, the situation in European air transport was deeply fragmented. Passenger rights were governed by the Montreal Convention of 1999 and, to a lesser extent, by the older Warsaw Convention of 1929, but these international frameworks did not offer a sufficiently high level of protection, nor were they applied uniformly across Europe. The absence of a cohesive EU framework meant that European passengers enjoyed very different levels of protection depending on their country of origin and their airline.

Regulation 261/2004 clearly defined passenger rights in cases of flight disruption. In particular, it establishes that passengers are entitled to financial compensation when their flight arrives more than three hours late (calculated from the actual landing time compared to the scheduled arrival time), when a flight is cancelled, or when boarding is denied due to overbooking.

Compensation amounts vary according to flight distance: €250 for flights of 1,500 kilometers or less, €400 for intra-EU flights over 1,500 kilometers and for all other flights between 1,500 and 3,500 kilometers, and €600 for all other flights.

In addition to monetary compensation, the regulation also provides assistance rights for passengers affected by disruption. In the event of a long delay, airlines are required to provide refreshments and meals appropriate to the waiting time, as well as telephone or electronic communications. If the delay results in an unplanned overnight stay, the airline must also provide accommodation and transport between the airport and the place of lodging.

Despite the significant progress achieved by Regulation 261/2004, its practical application has revealed numerous shortcomings over the years. Airlines have often found ways to evade or limit their compensation obligations through restrictive interpretations of the provisions, particularly by exploiting the “extraordinary circumstances” clause, which excludes compensation in situations entirely beyond the carrier’s control, such as natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, or acts of sabotage.

Moreover, complaint procedures remain complex and discouraging, to the extent that fewer than 10 percent of passengers who have actually experienced a disruption manage to obtain the compensation provided by law. A recent study shows that 52 percent of compensation claims are unlawfully rejected, highlighting a systematic pattern of violations of legally established passenger rights.

The European Parliament’s reform proposal: a citizen-focused vision of passenger rights

Precisely to address these shortcomings and adapt the rules to the changes that have taken place in the air transport sector over the past two decades, the European Union launched a review process of Regulation 261/2004 in 2025.

After months of work within parliamentary committees, on January 21, 2026, the European Parliament approved its position on the reform, setting out a clear course aimed at strengthening and simplifying passenger protection.

Maintaining the three-hour delay threshold

A key element of the Parliament’s position is the retention of the three-hour delay threshold as the condition for the right to compensation. This choice represents an explicit rejection of attempts by national governments to raise this threshold.

The Council of the European Union has in fact proposed increasing the point at which the right to compensation arises, ranging from four to six hours depending on flight distance. From a passenger perspective, this proposal would constitute a clear rollback in protection: raising the three-hour threshold would exclude millions of travelers who experience significant delays but shorter than four hours from compensation.

The Parliament, by contrast, chose to maintain the current threshold, reaffirming the principle that a three-hour delay represents substantial harm to the passenger and therefore deserves financial compensation.

Preserving compensation amounts

In line with its objective of maintaining the current level of protection, the Parliament has proposed preserving existing compensation amounts, ranging between €300 and €600 depending on flight distance.

This stance is diametrically opposed to that of the Council, which suggests reducing the maximum compensation amount to €500.

Considering the inflation accumulated since 2004, some observers have even argued that current amounts should have been increased. The Parliament’s decision to keep them at existing levels therefore represents a reasonable compromise that does not worsen the situation, protecting passengers from further losses in purchasing power.

Free carry-on luggage and the removal of unjustified extra fees

One particularly innovative aspect of the Parliament’s proposal concerns the standardization of baggage rights. The Parliament has proposed that all passengers have the right to bring on board free of charge one personal item (such as a handbag, backpack, or laptop) and one small carry-on bag with total dimensions not exceeding 100 centimeters (calculated as the sum of length, width, and height) and a maximum weight of 7 kilograms.

This proposal aims to harmonize industry practices and eliminate a major source of confusion and frustration for passengers.

Alongside this core measure, the Parliament has also proposed eliminating extra fees for correcting passenger details (such as names) and for check-in services, as well as guaranteeing passengers the right to choose between a digital or paper boarding pass.

These measures were explicitly designed to counter the commercial practices of Ryanair, the European low-cost airline that has systematically monetized services that other carriers consider standard. Ryanair has eliminated paper boarding passes, allowing only digital versions; imposed significant fees for correcting ticket details; limited free check-in to specific time windows before departure; and allows only a small backpack under the seat to be carried on board free of charge. The Parliament’s proposals therefore represent an attempt to restore fair competition in the sector and protect passengers from the most aggressive commercial practices.

Strengthening protection for vulnerable passengers

The Parliament’s proposal pays particular attention to the most vulnerable passenger groups. In particular, it provides that passengers with reduced mobility, pregnant women, infants, and children in strollers are entitled to automatic boarding priority.

Furthermore, for these categories, accompanying persons must be allowed to sit next to the passenger at no additional cost. Finally, these passengers are entitled to compensation and assistance if they miss their flight due to a lack of airport assistance.

These measures respond to both practical and ethical considerations. From a practical standpoint, passengers with reduced mobility require more time for boarding and disembarking, making boarding priority a matter of accessibility rather than privilege. Pregnant women and infants represent situations of vulnerability that justify special protective measures.

From an ethical perspective, ensuring that companions can sit next to vulnerable passengers at no extra cost acknowledges their dignity and the need for continuity of care, rather than treating seating as a purely commercial matter.

Clarifying extraordinary circumstances

The Parliament has also proposed that the European Commission regularly update the list of extraordinary circumstances that exempt airlines from paying compensation. This represents an important effort to reduce the legal uncertainty that currently surrounds this issue. At present, airlines and passengers frequently dispute whether a specific situation qualifies as an “extraordinary circumstance” exempt from compensation.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on several specific situations in the past (such as extreme weather conditions or mechanical issues not detected before the flight), but the area remains characterized by ambiguity and divergent interpretations.

A regularly updated and publicly available list of extraordinary circumstances approved by the European Commission would provide passengers and airlines with clear and predictable guidance, reducing disputes and increasing transparency.

How can I get my compensation?

Here's how to do it in 3 simple steps:

The divide: the Council of the European Union and its pro-corporate orientation

While the European Parliament has adopted a position clearly focused on protecting passengers, the Council of the European Union—where representatives of national governments sit—has expressed a markedly different approach. The Council has proposed a model in which passenger rights would be significantly scaled back, showing a clear inclination toward airline interests.

Main points of divergence

The Ryanair case: when commercial practice conflicts with the spirit of the law

Ryanair represents a clear example of how an airline can operate within the letter of the law (formally complying with Regulation 261/2004) while at the same time undermining the spirit of the protections it provides.

Over the years, the airline has implemented a series of commercial policies that, while technically compatible with the regulation, have the practical effect of making it more difficult and costly for passengers to access their rights.

For example, Ryanair offers exclusively digital boarding passes, meaning that passengers without a smartphone or without internet access at airport gates may encounter difficulties when checking in.

Similarly, it restricts free check-in to specific time windows (usually within two hours before departure), with the result that many passengers feel compelled to pay for assisted check-in services. Finally, it imposes significant fees for correcting errors in ticket details, even when these are simple typographical mistakes in the passenger’s name. Although technically legal, these practices are a constant source of frustration for passengers and contribute to a gradual erosion of overall service quality.

The key role of procedural simplification

The Parliament’s proposal to introduce pre-filled forms represents a crucial acknowledgment that the problem lies not only in the level of nominal protection, but above all in the practical accessibility of that protection.

Making complaint procedures simple, standardized, and proactive (with the airline sending the form to the passenger rather than waiting for the passenger to seek out the airline) would lead to a significant increase in the number of passengers who actually receive the compensation they are entitled to.

This change would mark an important step toward a more effective consumer protection model, in which nominal rights are transformed into rights that are genuinely exercised.

In behavioral economics, this is known as the power of the “nudge” or the “default option”: when a system is designed to make the exercise of a right easier, the number of people who actually exercise that right increases dramatically, even without changes to the nominal level of protection.

The legislative path: from Parliament to the conciliation committee

Although the approval by the European Parliament on January 21, 2026 represents an important milestone, the path toward an effective reform is far from complete.

The European co-decision procedure

In the European legislative system, the ordinary procedure requires both the Parliament and the Council to reach an agreement on a common text in order for a regulation to be adopted. When their positions diverge significantly, as in the case of the reform of air passenger rights, the next step is the establishment of a conciliation committee, composed of an equal number of representatives from the Parliament (27) and the Council (27), tasked with finding a compromise acceptable to both sides.

The conciliation committee has a deadline, generally six weeks (extendable to eight weeks), to reach an agreement on a single text. If the committee fails to reach an agreement within this timeframe, the proposal laps and the previous regulation remains in force.

In the case of the revision of air passenger rights, this would mean that Regulation 261/2004 would continue to apply in its current form.

Negotiation outlook

Observers of European legislative dynamics expect the conciliation phase to be intense and full of compromises. Some areas where agreement may be easier include the clarification of extraordinary circumstances, a topic of shared interest for both institutions, and assistance for stranded passengers, where positions are already relatively aligned.

Other areas where compromise will be more difficult include the delay threshold, with a significant gap between the three hours proposed by the Parliament and the four to six hours proposed by the Council; compensation amounts, where the Parliament seeks to maintain or increase current levels while the Council proposes reductions; and carry-on luggage and extra fees, symbolically important issues as countermeasures to practices associated with Ryanair.

A realistic possibility is that the conciliation committee may reach a compromise that maintains the three-hour threshold (representing a key victory for the Parliament and consumers), allows a modest increase in compensation amounts, affirms the right to free carry-on luggage with standardized size limits, and introduces pre-filled forms with slightly adjusted terms. If the committee were to fail, the outcome would be the maintenance of the status quo, which would nevertheless represent a setback for the Council’s efforts to reduce passenger protections.

The broader picture: passenger rights and the sustainability of the air transport sector

One argument often put forward by those advocating a weakening of passenger protections is that high compensation levels and assistance rights impose costs on airlines that are ultimately passed on to ticket prices, making air travel less affordable. However, this argument fails to adequately account for several key factors.

First, airlines have recorded significant profits in the years following the adoption of Regulation 261/2004, demonstrating that it is possible to operate profitably while complying with high consumer protection standards. Second, the costs associated with compensation are already, to a large extent, built into ticket prices: passengers implicitly pay a form of “insurance” against future disruption when purchasing their tickets. Third, consumer protection is a fundamental pillar of a well-functioning market economy: markets where consumers are not adequately protected tend to be characterized by information asymmetries, poor service quality, and inefficiencies.

The real question, therefore, is not whether airlines can bear the cost of passenger protections, but rather how that cost should be distributed. The European Parliament’s position reflects the principle that when an airline fails to meet its contractual obligations—by not delivering the service on time—the economic damage resulting from that failure should be borne primarily by the airline, not by the passenger.

The European Parliament’s vote of January 21, 2026 represents a pivotal moment in the history of air passenger protection in Europe. With an overwhelming majority, Members of Parliament reaffirmed the fundamental principle that the European Union must stand with citizens and their rights, not with the corporate interests of airlines. The specific proposals—maintaining the three-hour threshold, preserving compensation amounts, introducing free carry-on luggage, simplifying refund procedures, and strengthening protections for vulnerable passengers—form a coherent attempt to transform nominal rights into rights that are actually exercised.

However, the path toward an effective reform remains uncertain. The confrontation with the Council of the European Union, where national governments often prioritize airline interests, will involve intense negotiations and difficult compromises. The conciliation committee will represent a crucial arena in which the vision of a Europe serving its citizens will be tested against a vision of Europe serving corporate interests.

Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, the message sent by the European Parliament is powerful: millions of European passengers deserve clear, simple, and effective protections. At a time when trust in European institutions is declining in many Member States, a success in protecting air passenger rights could serve as an important signal that the European Union is still capable of tangibly improving the lives of its citizens. Conversely, a failure or an overly weak compromise could further fuel the perception that Europe is more attentive to multinational interests than to those of ordinary citizens.

For European travelers, regardless of the outcome, the advice remains to be aware of their current rights under Regulation 261/2004 and not to hesitate to assert those rights when disruptions occur. While awaiting reform, the battle for the protection of European air passengers continues, and its outcome will have implications that extend far beyond the transport sector alone.