Whether to send the claim yourself or through the airline compensation service

If the flight clearly arrived more than three hours late, the route is covered, the airline does not mention extraordinary circumstances and you have all the documents, a stand-alone claim may be reasonable.

In that case, the most important thing is that the request is clear, short and sent through an official channel. The flight number, date, route, booking reference, description of the disruption and what you are looking for are required.

Going solo is especially logical when you have time to follow up on status, respond to complements, and continue communication if the first response isn't good.

Service has more value when the case is not clean: missed connection, multiple segments, partial rerouting, cancellation with unclear reason, overbooking, denied request or communication in multiple languages.

Then the problem is not just filling out the form. The problem is to assess whether the case is worth pursuing, what legal framework makes sense, what is missing from the evidence and how to respond to the airline's defense.

If the airline says extraordinary circumstances, technical problem or flight control, you need to know when it's really valid and when it's too broad an explanation.

If the service works with a commission only based on success, the main question is whether it is worth it for you to exchange part of the payment for less work, a better procedure and less direct communication with the airline.

In a simple case, it may be more worthwhile for you to try it yourself. In a contested case, a commission may be a reasonable price for evaluation, management, tracking deadlines and responding to rejections.

It is important to understand the model before submitting. At letkasni.rs, the idea is simple: no upfront costs and commissions only if the case is charged.

If someone guarantees payment without checking the route, reason, documentation and actual arrival, it's a weak signal. In aviation compensation, the details decide.

A good service should also tell when the case is not realistic. It is useful, because it saves time and prevents the traveler from expecting money for a case that does not stand legally.

A better approach is a conservative estimate, a clear explanation, and a next step that makes sense: claim, supplement, wait for a response, escalate, or give up.

Even when using the service, the passenger must provide accurate information and documents. The service cannot fabricate a boarding pass, booking reference, hotel bill or airline message.

The passenger should be honest about the facts: whether he arrived at the gate on time, whether the tickets were separated, whether he accepted the voucher, whether he already received a refund and what he signed.

The more accurate the information, the better the estimate. Exaggerating or skipping over details later only weakens the case.

If the case is simple, you have the documents and you are ready to follow the procedure, try it yourself or at least submit a proper complaint first. If the case is disputed, denied or you are not clear about the next step, the service can be of real value.

The most important thing is not to miss deadlines or accept a vague offer before you understand the value of your case.

You can combine approaches: first you send a basic complaint yourself, and turn on the service if you get a rejection, if the answer is late or if the airline asks for supplements that you don't understand.

That way, you keep control of the simple part, but you're not left alone when the case becomes procedurally or legally complicated.

The decision is not a matter of pride, but of the relationship between time, the value of the claim and the complexity of the evidence. Sometimes the independent way is quite enough, and sometimes it is more expensive to lose a good case because of a minor procedural error.

If the potential fee is higher and the documentation is questionable, it's worth at least doing a professional check before giving up or accepting the first offer.

Not every service is the same. Some just forward the request, while others keep correspondence, check flight databases, involve lawyers and, if necessary, go to further proceedings. The difference becomes important only when the airline refuses the request.

Before choosing a service, check the commission model, whether there are administrative costs, what happens if the airline pays you directly, and whether the service covers legal or other costs if they arise.

For the passenger, the most important thing is that there are no surprises. No win, no fee sounds simple, but you should always know the percentage, possible additional fees and the moment when you commit.

For whether to send the claim yourself or through the airline compensation service, first check whether the route is protected, then what actually happened, and only then which claim makes sense. Use Air passenger rights for the baseline rule and amounts, while this page checks the concrete scenario and the evidence that changes it.

The best approach is to build a short timeline. Write down the scheduled time, actual time, where you were when the problem happened, what the airline offered, what you accepted and what you paid yourself. That timeline later decides whether the case is about fixed compensation, ticket refund, expense reimbursement or only care rights.

If the case involves arrival delay, a missed connection, rerouting or an overnight wait, also check flight delay compensation. Most practical passenger questions eventually depend on how late the whole journey ended and whether the reason was within the airline's control.

The strongest evidence is evidence from the same day: boarding pass, booking confirmation, airline messages, app screenshot, departures-board photo, receipts for food, hotel or transfer and any written information received at the airport.

If the reason was explained verbally, write down the exact wording, time and place. If the reason changed, keep every version. The difference between a technical fault, air traffic control, bad weather, strike and crew shortage is not a formality; it is often the line between a strong and weak claim.

In the claim, do not only say that you want compensation. Include flight number, date, route, booking reference, scheduled and actual arrival time, a short timeline and a clear separation between fixed compensation and expenses you want reimbursed.

The airline's first reply is often not a full assessment. It may contain broad wording, an automatically selected category or an answer that covers only one part of the claim. Read it carefully: does it address the exact flight, date, final destination and concrete reason that caused the disruption?

If the answer does not mention evidence, timeline or the measures the airline took, send a short follow-up. You do not need to repeat the whole story. Ask for a precise explanation and attach the most important proof again. That follow-up often separates genuinely weak cases from cases that were only rejected superficially.