Last updated: 09.03.2026
Airline Liability for Flight Cancellations and Delays – Strikes and Armed Conflicts under EU261
Difficulties in operating flight networks, as illustrated by the recent wave of protests in aviation, expose air carriers to serious financial risk connected with the need to pay compensation for cancelled and delayed flights.
A key issue for airlines remains the possibility of being released from the obligation to pay fixed compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the event of disruptions caused by crew strikes.
The case law of Polish courts indicates that, in certain circumstances, a staff strike may constitute an effective basis for an air carrier to refuse compensation.
Strikes by aviation personnel, airspace closures and the escalation of armed conflicts are increasingly leading to operational disruptions resulting in cancelled and delayed flights. For air carriers, this means a significant financial risk connected with the growing number of passenger claims pursued under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (EU261).
From the perspective of an air carrier’s liability, the key issue is the ability to demonstrate the occurrence of so-called extraordinary circumstances, which allow the carrier to be released from the obligation to pay fixed compensation for a cancelled or delayed flight.
The latest case law of Polish courts confirms that, in certain cases, both official staff strikes and the consequences of armed conflicts may constitute circumstances excluding the carrier’s liability under EU261.
Staff strike as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004
Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, the operating air carrier is released from the obligation to pay fixed compensation if it proves that the cancellation or long delay of a flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
Although Recital 14 of the Regulation expressly lists strikes as an example of such events, for years they have raised controversy in the context of their “external” or “internal” nature in relation to the undertaking.
Traditionally, authorities have often taken the position that strikes fall within the scope of the “employer’s risk”. However, national judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 29 April 2025 (case ref. II GSK 2172/21), clarify the conditions under which an airline may effectively invoke force majeure in the event of a strike.
Crew strike and air carrier liability – the position of the Supreme Administrative Court and the CJEU
In its latest case law, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that a strike by pilots and cabin crew organised by an external strike committee or trade unions should be considered an extraordinary circumstance.
The Court emphasised that such an event, due to its nature and origin, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and remains outside its effective control.
For a carrier to be effectively released from liability, two cumulative conditions must be met:
- The cancellation of the flight must result from circumstances that are not part of the airline’s normal operations.
- The carrier must prove that it did not have the means to effectively prevent the protest action or neutralise its effects without making excessive sacrifices.
An important distinction here is that a so-called “wildcat strike” is not recognised as an extraordinary circumstance. If staff absence is spontaneous and constitutes a direct response to management decisions (e.g. an announcement of restructuring), the CJEU and Polish courts more often rule in favour of passengers.
However, an official collective dispute conducted by trade unions is treated as an external factor independent of the carrier.
How can an air carrier exclude liability for a cancelled or delayed flight?
The burden of proving the existence of extraordinary circumstances rests with the carrier. In the evidentiary process, it is crucial to demonstrate that:
- The strike was official, organised by third parties (trade unions), and covered a broad scope of operations (e.g. dozens of flights on domestic and European routes).
- All reasonable measures were taken to avoid disruptions, while the court cannot require the carrier to satisfy every demand of the strikers in order to prevent the protest.
- Replacing staff ad hoc (e.g. through charters or crew leasing) was technically impossible due to safety requirements, the need to hold specific authorisations for a given aircraft type, and the scale of the protest.
In disputes concerning carrier liability under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the classification of a strike as an extraordinary circumstance, the proper assessment of the facts and the appropriate preparation of a litigation strategy are of key importance.
Similar interpretative challenges also arise in the context of geopolitical events, which in recent years have increasingly affected the operations of air carriers.
Armed conflicts and air carrier liability in light of EU261
The escalation of armed conflicts in the Middle East has significantly disrupted global air traffic, leading to airspace closures, flight cancellations and delays.
In such circumstances, the issue of air carrier liability under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the possibility of invoking so-called extraordinary circumstances become crucial.
For carriers operating in this region, the key question concerns the limits of compensatory liability in the face of circumstances over which they have no influence.
War and airspace closure as extraordinary circumstances
In light of EU Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, the carrier is released from the obligation to pay fixed compensation (ranging from EUR 250 to EUR 600) if it proves that the change to the flight results from so-called extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
Political destabilisation, security threats and the resulting restrictions imposed by air traffic control services should be treated precisely as examples of extraordinary circumstances. These events remain entirely outside the scope of an airline’s effective control.
Case law of Polish courts concerning air carrier liability
The practice of Polish courts increasingly clearly confirms that circumstances of war release an air carrier from the obligation to pay fixed compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
This has already been confirmed, among others, by court judgments concerning flights cancelled due to the armed conflict in Ukraine.
In one of the discussed cases, the District Court for Warsaw-Mokotów dismissed the passengers’ claim, finding that restrictions introduced in connection with the war in Ukrainian airspace constituted a circumstance excluding the carrier’s liability.
From a business perspective, the court’s conclusions regarding so-called aircraft rotations are extremely important:
- The carrier may invoke an extraordinary circumstance that occurred at an earlier stage of the journey of the same aircraft.
- A direct causal link is required between the event and the delay of the subsequent flight in the rotation, the so-called domino effect.
- Airlines cannot be required to maintain surplus reserve aircraft at every airport in case of global flight restrictions.
Our experts have also recently obtained a number of judgments favourable to carriers, successfully demonstrating the impossibility of counteracting flight delays affecting flights impacted by the consequences of missile attacks in the Middle East region in October 2024.
In light of the above, the current war in the Middle East should also be treated as an extraordinary circumstance.
Carrier obligations despite extraordinary circumstances under EU261
It should be remembered, however, that the occurrence of force majeure does not release the carrier from the obligation to provide care to passengers under Article 9 of the Regulation. Even in the face of war, airlines are obliged to provide travellers with:
- meals and refreshments adequate to the waiting time,
- hotel accommodation and transport if departure takes place in the following days,
- access to means of communication (e-mail, telephone).
In the event of flight cancellation, the carrier must offer an alternative flight or a refund of the unused ticket.
It is worth noting that the carrier may be released from the above obligations if the flight departed from a country that is not a Member State of the European Union and the flight is operated by an airline whose principal place of business is outside the EU.
Effectively invoking extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 requires not only knowledge of case law, but also proper evidentiary preparation and a consistent strategy, both at the operational stage and in the course of court proceedings.
The correct classification of the event and demonstrating its direct impact on the performance of air operations are of key importance.
Legal support for air carriers in EU261 disputes
We support air carriers in regulatory advice, defence against passenger claims and representation in court proceedings, including matters related to operational disruptions resulting both from staff actions and geopolitical situations. Contact us to discuss how we can support your organisation.
We support air carriers in matters concerning liability for cancelled and delayed flights, disputes under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (EU261), passenger claims and court proceedings related to extraordinary circumstances, including staff strikes, airspace closures and armed conflicts.
We advise airlines both at the stage of ongoing operational disruptions and as part of litigation strategies concerning air carrier liability. Contact us to discuss how we can support your organisation.
