Yes, if the airline failed to offer re-routing at the earliest opportunity. The Commission guidelines on Regulation 261/2004, read 17 September 2026, say it **must reimburse the costs for an alternative flight** to your final destination, and the Court's yardstick for such sums is what proves **necessary, appropriate and reasonable**. Keep the airline's own offer as evidence.
Yes, when the airline did not do what Article 8 requires. On 17 September 2026 we read the Commission's Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 261/2004, OJ C/2024/5687 of 25 September 2024. Section 4.2 says, If the air carrier does not comply with its obligation to offer re-routing or return under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity, it must reimburse the costs for an alternative flight to the passenger's final destination or a return flight incurred by the passenger. The next sentence adds, The burden of proving that re-routing was performed at the earliest opportunity lies with the operating air carrier, citing the Court's judgment in Rusu, C-354/18.
That is the rule the top results argue around. One claims-company page says a replacement flight is refunded with no upper limit, another says the cost is generally not recoverable. Neither is what the guidelines say. The sum is recoverable, and it is limited, by a test the guidelines apply more than once for money spent because the airline did not act, necessary, appropriate and reasonable.
The duty starts in Article 8(1), which says passengers shall be offered the choice between a refund within seven days, re-routing at the earliest opportunity, or re-routing at a later date. A refund alone, or a seat three days out with nothing else, is not that choice. The separate fixed compensation under Article 7 is in our EU261 guide.
The guidelines attach no number and no euro cap to the three words. They set the yardstick in three places. Section 4.2 ends with the Court's ruling in Austrian Airlines, C-49/22, that compensation for an airline's failure to refund or assist must nevertheless be limited to what, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proves necessary, appropriate and reasonable to remedy the shortcomings of that operating air carrier. Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.9 apply the same test to self-bought care and to the transfer from an alternative airport when passengers have to make their own arrangements.
In practice the test excludes a short list.
No. A walk-up fare on the day is the cost of the airline's failure, and the guidelines say the carrier bears re-routing costs even at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service. Another carrier and a train both count. Good practice (d) asks that total travel time be as close as reasonably possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey.
If the airline decides unilaterally to reimburse the passenger instead of offering the choice, the passenger is entitled to a further reimbursement of the price difference with the new ticket under comparable transport conditions. A refund landing in your account is a deduction from the claim, not the end of it. Self-arranged hotels are capped at the airline's reasonable offer, which we cover separately.
Section 4.2 gives the airline one defence, and it is the whole argument in most refusals. If an air carrier can demonstrate that it has contacted the passengers who have accepted to give their personal contact details, and that it has sought to provide the assistance required by Article 8, but the passengers have nonetheless made their own assistance or re-routing arrangements, then the air carrier may conclude that it is not responsible for any additional costs the passengers have incurred and may decide not to reimburse them.
Three things follow. The airline must demonstrate contact and a real attempt, so a cancellation text with a refund link is a weak version. The defence covers arrangements made instead of an adequate offer, not after an inadequate one, and does nothing for an airline that offered no re-routing at all.
| What the airline did | What the guidelines say | What you can claim |
|---|---|---|
| Offered nothing, or only a refund | Further reimbursement of the price difference with the new ticket | The replacement fare, less any refund paid |
| Offered a later flight when an earlier one existed elsewhere | Must deploy all resources, including other carriers, in the same alliance or not | The replacement fare, with proof of the earlier option |
| Contacted you and offered comparable re-routing, you booked your own anyway | May conclude it is not responsible for additional costs | Usually nothing beyond the refund |
| Flew you to another airport with no onward transport | Section 4.4.9, amounts within what is necessary, appropriate and reasonable | The transfer cost |
Because the burden is on the carrier to prove it re-routed you at the earliest opportunity, and its own offer is the measure of what it did. A screenshot of the rebooking page showing the next seat four days out, beside a confirmation on another airline the following morning, is the whole case.
The guidelines say what the airline must have tried. To escape Article 7 compensation it must deploy all the resources at its disposal to ensure reasonable, satisfactory and timely re-routing, including seeking alternative direct or indirect flights that may be operated by other air carriers, whether or not belonging to the same airline alliance, from the Court's ruling in C-74/19. Keep these, in this order.
Short, with the two sentences the claims team has to answer. If you booked through an agent the onus stays on the operating carrier, section 4.2 says so in terms, and two airlines on one booking covers which carrier that is.
Have a claims company chase itA claims firm keeps a share of what it recovers, so check that the replacement fare, not only the flat compensation, is part of the claim it will run.Tracked on mobile web only, the page works on desktop too.
Yes. The regulation was kept in UK law, and Article 8 on legislation.gov.uk carries the same three options. The CAA's cancellations page says the airline must find you an alternative flight, and that you may have the right to be booked on another airline flying there significantly sooner, or on other suitable transport. On money you spend yourself its advice is the three-word test in plain English, keep every receipt and do not spend more than is reasonable.
The Commission guidelines do not bind a UK court, but Article 8 reads the same and the CAA points the same way, so your email can stay as written. What changes is where a refusal goes, an ADR scheme or the CAA rather than an enforcement body abroad. Keep the Article 7 claim separate in either system, since Article 12 keeps the regulation without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation. See our methodology for what we checked and when.
Yes, if the airline did not offer re-routing under comparable transport conditions at the earliest opportunity. Section 4.2 of the Commission guidelines says it must then reimburse the cost of an alternative flight to your final destination, and the burden of proving it re-routed you at the earliest opportunity is on the carrier. Keep its offer, or the absence of one, as evidence.
Not a number. The guidelines set no cap in euros. The limit is the Court's test, what proves necessary, appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances to remedy the airline's failure. A higher fare than your original ticket passes. A different destination, a needless upgrade, or extras like bags and seat selection that were not on the original booking do not.
No. The guidelines say the carrier must seek flights operated by other airlines, whether or not in the same alliance, and that re-routing on another carrier or another mode of transport should cost you nothing extra. The measure is total travel time as close as reasonably possible to the original journey, so a rival's flight the next morning is exactly what the rule expects.
Yes. Section 4.2 says that if the airline does not offer the choice between refund and re-routing but unilaterally refunds you, you are entitled to a further reimbursement of the price difference with the new ticket under comparable transport conditions. Treat the refund as a deduction from the replacement fare, not as settlement of the claim.
Yes, within the same test. The guidelines treat an alternative mode of transport as valid re-routing and ask only that the total travel time stay as close as reasonably possible to the scheduled journey, in the same or a higher class if necessary. A train that gets you there before the airline's next available flight is a reasonable replacement and its fare is claimable on the same basis.
No. The fixed compensation under Article 7 depends on the cancellation and its notice period, not on how you eventually travelled, and Article 12 keeps the regulation without prejudice to further compensation. Claim the two separately. Reimbursement of the replacement fare is a different sum from the flat compensation, and bundling them lets a claims handler settle both with one payment.