Airline guide

TAP, SAS, Jet2, Swiss & Austrian — EU261 compensation

These airlines have been directly involved in ECJ rulings that clarify when common denial reasons don't actually hold up. Worth knowing before you file.

Key ruling — applies across all airlines on this page · ECJ confirmed The English Court of Appeal in Jet2 v. Huzar (2014) established that ordinary technical problems — component failure, general wear and tear — do not count as "extraordinary circumstances" exempting the airline from compensation. This directly counteracts one of the most common denial reasons airlines use.

TAP Air Portugal

TAP is a Portuguese EU carrier, so EU261 applies to all TAP flights departing EU airports and all TAP flights arriving in the EU from elsewhere. Portugal's limitation period for claims is generally 3 years.

ECJ ruling directly involving TAP · confirmed In joined cases against TAP (C-156/22 to C-158/22), the ECJ ruled that the death of a pilot scheduled to operate a flight does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" — staff absence falls within normal airline operations. If TAP has ever cited unexpected crew absence as a reason to deny your claim, this ruling is directly relevant.

Claims via TAP's online Customer Support form. Portugal's INAC is the national enforcement body for escalation.

SAS (Scandinavian Airlines)

SAS is an EU carrier (headquartered in Stockholm), so EU261 applies fully. SAS went through a Chapter 11 restructuring in the US in 2022-2024 and emerged as a private airline — it continues to operate and EU261 obligations were unaffected by the restructuring.

ECJ ruling involving SAS · confirmed SAS denied compensation to passengers for a 2019 pilot strike, claiming "extraordinary circumstances." The ECJ rejected this — airline staff strikes fall within normal management activities, and the airline retains control over employment relations. Only third-party strikes (e.g. air traffic control, airport staff not employed by the airline) can qualify as extraordinary. If SAS cites a staff strike to deny your claim, cite this ruling.

Claims via SAS's online Feedback/Claims form. Sweden's Transportstyrelsen, Norway's Luftfartstilsynet, or Denmark's Trafikstyrelsen are the relevant enforcement bodies depending on departure country.

Jet2

Jet2 is a UK carrier, so post-Brexit claims on Jet2 flights are under UK261 (not EU261) — but UK261 is functionally identical, with the same compensation amounts in pounds (£220/£350/£520) for the same situations. The Jet2 v. Huzar ruling mentioned above came from a Jet2 case, which means Jet2's own legal history explicitly establishes they cannot use ordinary technical faults as extraordinary circumstances.

Claims via Jet2's Customer Relations team. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the UK enforcement body for escalation, and the Aviation ADR scheme (which Jet2 participates in) provides an alternative dispute resolution route before small claims court.

Swiss International Air Lines & Austrian Airlines

Both are Lufthansa Group carriers and EU airlines — Swiss is incorporated in Switzerland (EEA), Austrian in Austria (EU). EU261 applies in full to both.

Swiss and Austrian generally follow similar claims patterns to Lufthansa: claims can be submitted online, and the same tendency toward "wait and see if the passenger escalates" that we documented for Lufthansa has been reported for these carriers too, though we haven't found the same volume of documented cases as for Lufthansa specifically.

Switzerland's FOCA (Federal Office of Civil Aviation) handles Swiss Air Lines escalations. Austria's Austro Control handles Austrian Airlines escalations.

Airline cited technical fault or crew issue to deny your claim?

Our claim letter cites the relevant ECJ rulings directly. Check eligibility free first.

Check my flight free