Flight delay compensation

Flight delay compensation is not assessed by how stressful the airport wait felt or by how much the ticket cost. The core question is whether you reached the final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time. If departure was late but the aircraft recovered time in the air, the claim can be weaker. If the first segment looked like a smaller delay but caused a missed connection under one booking, the case can be much stronger.

The second question is route coverage. European rules commonly cover flights departing from the EU, flights arriving in the EU when operated by a European carrier, and one-booking journeys where a problem on one segment affects arrival at the final destination. For travelers from Serbia, routes through Vienna, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, Amsterdam and other European hubs matter because a single booking reference can change the assessment.

The third question is the cause of the delay. Technical faults, late aircraft rotation, crew shortage and operational organization can often sit within the airline's responsibility. Bad weather, airport closure, air traffic control restrictions and safety events can be stronger defenses. The difference is not the label, but the evidence connecting route, time, cause and consequence.

Under the European model, the common amounts are 250, 400 and 600 euros per passenger. For routes up to 1,500 kilometres, the usual amount is 250 euros. For routes between 1,500 and 3,500 kilometres, and for longer intra-EU routes, the usual amount is 400 euros. For routes over 3,500 kilometres, the amount can be 600 euros.

On long routes there is an important exception: if arrival delay is between three and four hours, the amount can be reduced. That is why it is not enough to know that the flight was late. The exact route, scheduled arrival, actual arrival and final destination need to be clear.

For most flights from Belgrade, Nis or Kraljevo to European cities, 250 or 400 euros are the practical amounts. Intercontinental routes through EU hubs require closer review, especially with connections. Let Kasni therefore checks distance and booking before calculating the amount, because a badly framed amount can slow the case down.

Airlines often reject claims with short phrases: weather, slot, air traffic control, safety reason, late rotation, operational reasons or technical reason. Some of these reasons can genuinely defeat fixed compensation. The problem is that a broad sentence does not prove that the event directly affected your flight and caused that much delay at final destination.

For bad weather, it is not enough that rain or fog existed somewhere in the network. The issue is where it happened, how long it lasted and whether other flights could operate. For air traffic control slots, the real question is which part of the delay was caused by the restriction and which part came later from aircraft, crew or airline organization.

This is where professional handling changes the tone. Instead of the passenger arguing with a generic rejection, the case is framed around checkable points: what happened, when it started, when it ended, which segment it affected and what measures the airline took to reduce the delay. Without that, the rejection often remains an assertion, not proof.

The strongest claim starts with evidence saved while the problem is fresh. Keep the boarding pass, booking confirmation, booking reference, flight number, airline messages, flight-status screenshots, departure-board photos and receipts for food, water, transfer or hotel. If gate staff state a reason, write down the exact wording, time and place.

This does not mean the passenger should run a legal argument at the airport. The goal is to avoid losing the material needed for later professional review. Two photos, one screenshot and a receipt often matter more than a long explanation written a month later. If the reason changed during the day, keep every version.

If the wait goes overnight, hotel and transfer evidence becomes important. If the airline organizes nothing, reasonable costs can be a separate issue from fixed compensation. A hotel, taxi or meal receipt should not be treated as a side detail. It may remain recoverable even while fixed compensation is disputed.

A passenger can technically file directly with the airline, but not every case is suitable for a simple form. The form usually asks for flight number, date and a short explanation. The real dispute starts when the airline says it owes nothing, cites a slot, weather, operational reasons or an event outside its control.

At that point the claim becomes an evidence problem. Fixed compensation must be separated from expense reimbursement, route coverage must be checked, one booking must be established, scheduled and actual arrival must be compared, and the airline's reason must be tested. This is the paperwork-heavy part that claim services address by taking over communication, evidence review and legal pressure where needed.

Let Kasni therefore takes over the part that most often changes the result: eligibility review, evidence organization, airline communication and response to the first generic rejection. Airlines often expect an individual passenger to stop after that first rejection. The pressure is different when the claim is handled by someone who knows the rules, deadlines and procedure. The goal is not only to send a message. The goal is to frame a claim the airline must answer specifically.

The strongest claim does not need extra emotion, but it needs pressure through facts. That is the difference between a message customer support can close with a template and a file showing what happened, what is requested and why a broad rejection is not enough.

Travelers from Serbia often start from the wrong question: whether the passenger is Serbian or whether the ticket was bought in Serbia. In most cases, departure airport, arrival airport, operating carrier and one booking matter more. A flight from the EU to Serbia is usually cleaner. A flight from Serbia to the EU can be strong when operated by a European carrier.

The ECAA context matters because Serbia-based passengers often sit between local practice, European rules and mixed routes. If you travel from Serbia through a European hub, the first aircraft is not always assessed in isolation. The full booking, operating carrier and final destination need to be checked.

For codeshare flights, the operating carrier is especially important. The ticket can show one airline while another operates the aircraft. That can change the assessment for arrivals into the EU from third countries and for multi-segment journeys. Professional review therefore starts with the e-ticket, boarding pass, flight number and app details.

The decisive threshold is arrival at the final destination, not departure delay alone. If departure was four hours late but arrival was two hours and fifty minutes late, fixed compensation can be disputed. If the first flight was less delayed but caused a missed connection and a five-hour late arrival, the case can be much stronger.

The assessment needs scheduled arrival, actual landing, door-opening time where available, app screenshots and airline messages. Passenger-rights guidance and official EU sources focus on arrival because this is where passengers often make mistakes. Passengers remember departure waiting, but fixed compensation usually depends on the end of the journey.

If you were diverted to another airport, it is not enough to look only at landing time at the alternative airport. The key question is when you actually reached the airport or destination in the booking, who arranged transfer and how much the journey was extended.

The amount is calculated by distance, not by ticket price, travel class or paid extras. A passenger with a cheap fare can have the same fixed amount as someone who paid far more. That is why route assessment comes before claim value.

Under one booking, distance is not always reduced to the segment that first caused the problem. If a short segment delay caused a serious late arrival at the final destination, the whole journey sold as one booking can matter. If tickets were separate, the assessment changes because the airline usually does not answer for a separately bought onward flight.

The amount table on this page is a quick orientation tool, not a substitute for responsibility review. Two flights of the same distance can have different outcomes if one was delayed by an ordinary technical fault and the other by airport closure. Let Kasni therefore treats the amount as the last step after route, arrival and cause.

A technical fault is one of the common reasons why passengers should not give up immediately. Ordinary technical issues are usually part of airline operating risk. That does not mean every fault is automatically payable, but a broad technical-reason sentence is not enough if it does not explain what happened, when it was found and why the delay lasted so long.

Late aircraft rotation requires checking the earlier segment. If your aircraft was late because it arrived late from another city, the real question is why that previous flight was late. If the cause was within airline responsibility, the claim can remain strong. If the earlier segment was hit by severe weather or airport closure, the case is harder but not automatically closed.

Crew shortage, crew duty-time limits and poor scheduling can look like internal operational issues. Professional handling therefore does not accept the crew label by itself. It checks whether crew was delayed by an event outside the airline's control or because the airline lacked an available team for a planned flight.

Bad weather can be an extraordinary circumstance, but not every rain, wind or fog event is enough. The question is where it happened, how long it lasted and whether it directly prevented this flight. If weather affected an earlier rotation, later waiting may still need separate review.

Air traffic control slots are often a stronger airline argument because the carrier does not control airspace. Still, a slot may explain part of the delay without explaining a full day of waiting. The period, affected segment and later airline actions need to be checked.

Safety events, runway closure, medical emergencies, lightning strike or bird strike can genuinely sit outside the airline's control. Even then, care, alternative transport and waiting costs remain separate questions. This matters for framing: even when fixed compensation is uncertain, the passenger may still have rights, and professional review helps avoid mixing the wrong claim parts.

Care rights are separate from fixed compensation. A passenger may have rights to meals, refreshments, communication, hotel and transfer even if the airline later proves that fixed compensation of 250, 400 or 600 euros is not owed. This distinction matters because passengers often mix compensation for lost time with necessary waiting costs.

If the flight leaves the next day, hotel accommodation and transport between the airport and hotel become relevant. If the airline organizes nothing, costs should be reasonable and provable. Reasonable means what was needed to continue the journey or spend the night, not luxury. Receipt and purchase time matter more than a long explanation.

If you bought a new ticket because of the delay, the case becomes sensitive. It needs proof that assistance was requested, that the offered alternative was not reasonable or that no help was available. This is a common case where passengers skip the most important evidence, while professional handling separates fixed compensation, receipts and mitigation.

The most important documents are booking confirmation, boarding pass, flight number, date, full route, scheduled arrival, actual arrival, airline messages, evidence of the delay reason and receipts for necessary costs. For connections, add the complete itinerary and proof that the segments were under one booking.

Deadlines depend on the rules and country where the claim is pursued. Waiting for months is not good, but neither is filing a thin claim the same day without evidence. The better strategy is to save documents quickly, build a timeline and check whether the case is fixed compensation, care, expense reimbursement or a combination.

Let Kasni takes over the hardest part: arranging facts, choosing the basis, communicating with the airline and responding to generic rejections. The passenger provides the available data and evidence. This is more realistic than promising that one form solves everything, because good claims often fail when they are poorly framed.

Professional handling is especially useful when several items are requested at once: fixed compensation, hotel, transfer, meal or a new ticket. If these items are not separated, the airline often answers only one and ignores the rest.

A rejection does not automatically mean the case is over. The common problem is that the airline gives a broad reason without proof: extraordinary circumstances, operational reasons, slot, weather or airport decision. That answer needs to be read point by point: does it mention the correct flight, date, segment, duration and connection with final-arrival delay?

If the answer skips key facts, the next step is not an emotional argument but a precise follow-up. In practice, the claim asks for evidence of the event, start and end time, why no earlier alternative was available and a separation of fixed compensation from care expenses. This is where professional tone often matters more than a long passenger message.

If the airline does not respond, keep the communication trail. One orderly follow-up with the same facts and a clear question is better than many unstructured messages. If the case later escalates, the communication history shows that the passenger tried to resolve the matter directly and gave the airline a chance to explain specifically.

Good handling therefore does not look only at the airline's last answer. It looks at the whole communication trail: what the passenger sent, what the airline skipped and whether the reason changed. That sequence often shows that the rejection is not specific enough.

Professional review matters most when the case is not clean at first glance: connection under one booking, codeshare flight, mixed delay reasons, alternative airport, arrival close to the three-hour threshold, overnight waiting, a new ticket bought by the passenger or a generic rejection. One wrong detail can change the amount or the whole claim basis.

The real value is not only knowing that rights exist. The value is taking over the work: flight check, document review, airline communication, evidence requests and legal pressure where needed. Let Kasni bases the process on that: the passenger understands the logic, but it is clear that the process is not trivial and that outcomes often change when someone who knows the procedure handles the case.

The best framing is not fear. It is the realistic picture. If the case is simple, it can be checked quickly. If it is complex, direct back-and-forth with the airline often ends with accepting the first rejection or missing expenses that could have been claimed. Professional review is useful exactly when the airline sounds confident and the evidence is incomplete. In those cases the difference is not only tone, but speed, sequence of steps and pressure for a specific answer.

The first mistake is relying on a verbal explanation without evidence. The second is deleting boarding passes and airline messages once the journey ends. The third is mixing fixed compensation, ticket refund, hotel, meals and transfer into one unclear complaint. A vague claim is easier to reject than a claim that separates each item.

Another common mistake is accepting a voucher or offer without understanding the terms. A meal voucher does not remove fixed compensation, but some settlement offers may include a waiver of further claims. Before accepting anything that looks like a final solution, the terms should be saved and checked.

The third mistake is giving up after the first rejection. If the rejection is specific and supported by evidence, the case may be weak. If it is broad, without a timeline or connection to your flight, it is the start of the second phase. That is where Let Kasni takes over: checks the reason, organizes evidence and decides whether to continue or close the case realistically.