**Ryanair's claim:** "The flight was cancelled/delayed due to adverse weather conditions." **Is it valid?** Yes — if it's genuinely severe. Severe weather that makes flying unsafe (heavy thunderstorms, volcanic ash, extreme crosswinds exceeding aircraft limits, heavy snowfall closing the runway) is a legitimate extraordinary circumstance. The airline can't control the weather. **But there's a catch:** Ryanair must prove the weather was actually severe enough to prevent the specific flight, not just that "weather was bad." Light rain, moderate wind, or fog that other airlines operated through is not extraordinary. If your flight was cancelled but other airlines flew the same route at the same time, Ryanair's weather defence weakens significantly. **Seasonal pattern:** Ryanair weather claims spike in: - **November–February:** Winter storms across Northern Europe. Legitimate for extreme events, but Ryanair over-claims. Moderate cold weather that merely causes de-icing delays is NOT extraordinary — de-icing is routine winter operations. - **July–August:** Summer thunderstorms in Mediterranean. Often legitimate for individual storms, but Ryanair sometimes blanket-claims weather for entire evenings of disruption when only specific time windows were affected. **What to check:** Were other airlines operating the same route? What does the METAR (aviation weather report) for your departure/arrival airport say? If other carriers flew normally, Ryanair's weather claim is suspect. **Court success rate when challenged (genuine severe weather):** Low — airlines usually win genuine weather cases. But the "genuine" qualifier matters: roughly 30-40% of weather-based rejections are successfully challenged because the weather wasn't severe enough to justify the specific disruption. ---

Ryanair Extraordinary Circumstances: Every Excuse They Use — and When You Can Still Claim

Q: ❌ Technical Faults / Mechanical Issues

**Ryanair's claim:** "The delay was caused by a technical/mechanical issue with the aircraft." **Is it valid?** Almost never. The European Court of Justice ruled in **Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07)** that technical problems are *inherent to the normal exercise of air transport*. An aircraft is a complex machine. Parts wear out, systems fail, instruments need recalibration. This is part of running an airline — not an extraordinary circumstance. Ryanair's ultra-tight turnaround model (25 minutes gate-to-gate) gives them less buffer for technical issues than most airlines. A brake pad that needs replacing, a faulty sensor, a hydraulic leak — at airlines with 45-minute turnarounds, these get handled without a delay. At Ryanair, they cascade into 3-hour disruptions affecting multiple subsequent flights. The CJEU went even further in **van der Lans (C-257/14)**: even a *hidden manufacturing defect* — something that couldn't have been detected during routine maintenance — is not extraordinary. The airline chose the aircraft manufacturer and maintenance regime. The risk is theirs. **What to do:** If Ryanair rejected your claim citing a technical fault, you have a strong case. Request the aircraft technical log via a Subject Access Request. File a complaint or check your eligibility here. **Court success rate when challenged:** Over 95%. ---

Q: ❌ Crew Shortage / Crew Illness

**Ryanair's claim:** "The delay was caused by crew unavailability" or "a crew member fell ill." **Is it valid?** No. The ECJ ruled in **Case C-156/22** that crew illness does not automatically qualify as extraordinary circumstances. The reasoning: airlines are responsible for maintaining adequate standby crew levels. If a single sick call can ground a flight, the airline's contingency planning is insufficient — and that's an operational failure, not an extraordinary event. The earlier **Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17)** ruling was even more emphatic: TUIfly tried to claim that a *wave* of simultaneous pilot sick calls was extraordinary. The Court said no. Staff management — including managing unusual absence patterns — is the airline's responsibility. Ryanair, with its enormous fleet of over 550 aircraft, has the scale to maintain standby crew at every base. When they don't, and a crew shortage causes your delay, that's a staffing decision — not extraordinary circumstances. **What to do:** Ask Ryanair to specify whether the "crew unavailability" was illness, scheduling, or industrial action. Each has a different legal treatment. Then check your eligibility. **Court success rate when challenged:** Over 90%. ---

Q: ❌ Late Arrival of Incoming Aircraft (Rotation Delay)

**Ryanair's claim:** "Your flight was delayed because the aircraft arrived late from its previous flight." **Is it valid?** No — this is explicitly not extraordinary. This is Ryanair's most common delay reason, and it's also their weakest defence. A rotation delay means Ryanair scheduled your aircraft too tightly, didn't have spare aircraft available, or failed to recover from an earlier disruption. All of these are operational decisions. The CJEU has confirmed this repeatedly: cascading delays from tight scheduling are inherent to how the airline operates. They are not extraordinary. The airline chose its turnaround times, fleet deployment, and recovery strategy. **What to do:** This is essentially an automatic win if challenged. Ryanair knows it — which is why many rotation delay claims are rejected as a first response but paid out if you persist or escalate. Check your eligibility → **Court success rate when challenged:** Over 95%. ---

Q: ❌ IT System Failure

**Ryanair's claim:** "A system outage caused the disruption." **Is it valid?** No. IT systems are infrastructure the airline chose, built, or contracted. A check-in system crash, a booking system outage, or a crew scheduling software failure is a failure of the airline's own technology. Courts treat this the same as a technical fault on the aircraft — it's inherent to airline operations. Ryanair's large-scale IT outages (they've had several affecting hundreds of flights) are particularly indefensible because they reflect systemic infrastructure decisions, not one-off unforeseeable events. **Court success rate when challenged:** Over 90%. ---

Q: ✅ Air Traffic Control (ATC) Restrictions

**Ryanair's claim:** "Air traffic control imposed restrictions/a ground stop." **Is it valid?** Yes — if it's a genuine ATC decision. ATC slot restrictions, ground stops, and airspace closures are genuinely outside the airline's control. When Eurocontrol issues a regulation or a control tower imposes a flow restriction, no airline can overrule it. **But:** Ryanair must prove the ATC restriction directly affected *your specific flight*. A general "ATC delays in the region" excuse for a 5-hour delay doesn't hold up if the ATC restriction lasted 30 minutes and Ryanair failed to recover afterwards. The extraordinary circumstance covers the ATC restriction itself — not the airline's inability to manage the aftermath. **Seasonal pattern:** ATC restrictions are most common: - **June–September:** Peak traffic creates flow management delays, especially at congested airports (Barcelona, Lisbon, Rome, Athens) - **French ATC strikes:** Recurring pattern — French controllers strike several times per year, creating overflight restrictions across Europe. These ARE extraordinary (they're third-party industrial action), but only if your specific flight was demonstrably affected. **Court success rate when challenged:** Airlines usually win genuine ATC cases. Successfully challenged when airline fails to prove the ATC restriction was the direct cause of the full delay. ---

Q: ✅ Bird Strikes

**Ryanair's claim:** "The aircraft was involved in a bird strike." **Is it valid?** Yes, partially. The CJEU ruled in **Pešková v Travel Service (C-315/15)** that bird strikes *can* constitute extraordinary circumstances. Birds hitting aircraft is not inherent to airline operations. **But the airline must still prove two things:** 1. A bird strike actually occurred (not just suspected) 2. The airline took all reasonable measures to minimise the resulting delay — including rebooking passengers, deploying spare aircraft, or arranging alternative transport If the bird strike caused a 1-hour delay but the actual delay was 6 hours because Ryanair had no recovery plan, only the first hour is covered by extraordinary circumstances. The remaining 5 hours are Ryanair's operational failure. **Seasonal pattern:** Bird strikes peak during spring (March–May) and autumn (September–November) migration seasons, and are more common at airports near wetlands or coastal areas. **Court success rate when challenged:** Mixed — bird strikes themselves are accepted, but passengers often win when the airline failed to take reasonable measures to minimise the resulting delay. ---

Q: ❌ Ryanair Staff Strikes

**Ryanair's claim:** "Industrial action by our staff caused the disruption." **Is it valid?** No — not when it's Ryanair's own employees. Strikes by the airline's own pilots, cabin crew, or ground staff are NOT extraordinary circumstances. The CJEU confirmed this in **Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17)**: industrial action by your own employees is a labour relations matter inherent to the airline's operations. If your pilots are striking because of working conditions you set, that's your problem — not the passenger's. Ryanair has faced repeated cabin crew and pilot strikes across Europe (Spain, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, France). Every one of these was an own-staff strike — and none qualifies as extraordinary. **Important distinction:** A strike by *airport staff* (security, ground handling subcontractors who serve multiple airlines, air traffic controllers) CAN be extraordinary because the airline doesn't employ them and can't resolve the dispute. Ryanair sometimes blurs this distinction deliberately. **What to ask:** "Was the strike by Ryanair employees or by third-party airport workers?" If it's Ryanair's own staff, challenge the rejection. **Court success rate when challenged (own-staff strikes):** Over 90%. ---

Q: ⚠️ Security Threats / Unruly Passengers

**Ryanair's claim:** "The flight was disrupted due to a security incident." **Is it valid?** Usually yes — but it depends. Bomb threats, security alerts requiring aircraft evacuation, and disruptive passengers who force emergency diversions are generally considered extraordinary. These are genuinely unforeseeable events outside the airline's control. **However:** If a flight is delayed because Ryanair's boarding process failed to identify an intoxicated passenger who then caused disruption, the airline bears some responsibility. Boarding screening is part of the airline's operational process. **Court success rate when challenged:** Airlines usually win genuine security cases. Successfully challenged when the airline's own processes contributed to the security issue. ---

Q: ❌ Airport Infrastructure (Baggage Systems, Gates, Boarding Bridges)

**Ryanair's claim:** "A failure at the airport (baggage handling, gate allocation, bridge malfunction) caused your delay." **Is it valid?** Rarely — and it's complicated. Ryanair chose that airport. Ryanair contracted ground handling services at that airport. If the baggage system breaks at an airport where Ryanair operates 200 flights a day, the argument that this was "unforeseeable" is weak. Courts increasingly hold airlines responsible for the infrastructure they depend on, especially at airports where they're a dominant carrier. **What to check:** Does Ryanair use its own ground handling subsidiary (Ryanair was historically heavily involved in its own ground ops)? If so, it's even harder for them to claim the failure was external. ---

Ryanair is the most-claimed-against airline in Europe. They carry over 180 million passengers a year, run 3,000+ daily flights on tight 25-minute turnarounds, and — when things go wrong — they fight compensation claims harder than almost any other carrier.

Their favourite weapon? The phrase "extraordinary circumstances."

Under EU Regulation EC 261/2004, airlines don't have to pay compensation if the disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances that couldn't have been avoided even with all reasonable measures. Ryanair knows this, and they use it liberally — sometimes correctly, often not.

This guide lists every extraordinary circumstances excuse Ryanair commonly uses, whether it's legally valid, and what the European Court of Justice has actually ruled. If Ryanair rejected your claim, find their reason below and see whether you should challenge it.

→ Check if your Ryanair flight qualifies for compensation — free, 30 seconds

What "Extraordinary Circumstances" Actually Means

Before the list, a quick reality check. The legal standard set by the European Court of Justice is specific:

An extraordinary circumstance must be:

Not inherent to the normal exercise of the airline's activity — it can't be something that's part of running an airline
Beyond the airline's effective control — the airline couldn't have prevented it
Unavoidable even if all reasonable measures were taken — even with good planning and contingencies, it still would have happened

All three conditions must be met. If an event is inherent to airline operations — even if it's unexpected or inconvenient — it doesn't qualify. This is the standard the CJEU set in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07), and it's the standard that governs every case below.

The Complete Ryanair Extraordinary Circumstances List

❌ Technical Faults / Mechanical Issues

Ryanair's claim: "The delay was caused by a technical/mechanical issue with the aircraft."

Is it valid? Almost never.

The European Court of Justice ruled in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07) that technical problems are inherent to the normal exercise of air transport. An aircraft is a complex machine. Parts wear out, systems fail, instruments need recalibration. This is part of running an airline — not an extraordinary circumstance.

Ryanair's ultra-tight turnaround model (25 minutes gate-to-gate) gives them less buffer for technical issues than most airlines. A brake pad that needs replacing, a faulty sensor, a hydraulic leak — at airlines with 45-minute turnarounds, these get handled without a delay. At Ryanair, they cascade into 3-hour disruptions affecting multiple subsequent flights.

The CJEU went even further in van der Lans (C-257/14): even a hidden manufacturing defect — something that couldn't have been detected during routine maintenance — is not extraordinary. The airline chose the aircraft manufacturer and maintenance regime. The risk is theirs.

What to do: If Ryanair rejected your claim citing a technical fault, you have a strong case. Request the aircraft technical log via a Subject Access Request. File a complaint or check your eligibility here.

Court success rate when challenged: Over 95%.

❌ Crew Shortage / Crew Illness

Ryanair's claim: "The delay was caused by crew unavailability" or "a crew member fell ill."

Is it valid? No.

The ECJ ruled in Case C-156/22 that crew illness does not automatically qualify as extraordinary circumstances. The reasoning: airlines are responsible for maintaining adequate standby crew levels. If a single sick call can ground a flight, the airline's contingency planning is insufficient — and that's an operational failure, not an extraordinary event.

The earlier Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17) ruling was even more emphatic: TUIfly tried to claim that a wave of simultaneous pilot sick calls was extraordinary. The Court said no. Staff management — including managing unusual absence patterns — is the airline's responsibility.

Ryanair, with its enormous fleet of over 550 aircraft, has the scale to maintain standby crew at every base. When they don't, and a crew shortage causes your delay, that's a staffing decision — not extraordinary circumstances.

What to do: Ask Ryanair to specify whether the "crew unavailability" was illness, scheduling, or industrial action. Each has a different legal treatment. Then check your eligibility.

Court success rate when challenged: Over 90%.

❌ Late Arrival of Incoming Aircraft (Rotation Delay)

Ryanair's claim: "Your flight was delayed because the aircraft arrived late from its previous flight."

Is it valid? No — this is explicitly not extraordinary.

This is Ryanair's most common delay reason, and it's also their weakest defence. A rotation delay means Ryanair scheduled your aircraft too tightly, didn't have spare aircraft available, or failed to recover from an earlier disruption. All of these are operational decisions.

The CJEU has confirmed this repeatedly: cascading delays from tight scheduling are inherent to how the airline operates. They are not extraordinary. The airline chose its turnaround times, fleet deployment, and recovery strategy.

What to do: This is essentially an automatic win if challenged. Ryanair knows it — which is why many rotation delay claims are rejected as a first response but paid out if you persist or escalate. Check your eligibility →

Court success rate when challenged: Over 95%.

❌ IT System Failure

Ryanair's claim: "A system outage caused the disruption."

Is it valid? No.

IT systems are infrastructure the airline chose, built, or contracted. A check-in system crash, a booking system outage, or a crew scheduling software failure is a failure of the airline's own technology. Courts treat this the same as a technical fault on the aircraft — it's inherent to airline operations.

Ryanair's large-scale IT outages (they've had several affecting hundreds of flights) are particularly indefensible because they reflect systemic infrastructure decisions, not one-off unforeseeable events.

Court success rate when challenged: Over 90%.

✅ Severe Weather

Ryanair's claim: "The flight was cancelled/delayed due to adverse weather conditions."

Is it valid? Yes — if it's genuinely severe.

Severe weather that makes flying unsafe (heavy thunderstorms, volcanic ash, extreme crosswinds exceeding aircraft limits, heavy snowfall closing the runway) is a legitimate extraordinary circumstance. The airline can't control the weather.

But there's a catch: Ryanair must prove the weather was actually severe enough to prevent the specific flight, not just that "weather was bad." Light rain, moderate wind, or fog that other airlines operated through is not extraordinary. If your flight was cancelled but other airlines flew the same route at the same time, Ryanair's weather defence weakens significantly.

Seasonal pattern: Ryanair weather claims spike in:

November–February: Winter storms across Northern Europe. Legitimate for extreme events, but Ryanair over-claims. Moderate cold weather that merely causes de-icing delays is NOT extraordinary — de-icing is routine winter operations.
July–August: Summer thunderstorms in Mediterranean. Often legitimate for individual storms, but Ryanair sometimes blanket-claims weather for entire evenings of disruption when only specific time windows were affected.

What to check: Were other airlines operating the same route? What does the METAR (aviation weather report) for your departure/arrival airport say? If other carriers flew normally, Ryanair's weather claim is suspect.

Court success rate when challenged (genuine severe weather): Low — airlines usually win genuine weather cases. But the "genuine" qualifier matters: roughly 30-40% of weather-based rejections are successfully challenged because the weather wasn't severe enough to justify the specific disruption.

✅ Air Traffic Control (ATC) Restrictions

Ryanair's claim: "Air traffic control imposed restrictions/a ground stop."

Is it valid? Yes — if it's a genuine ATC decision.

ATC slot restrictions, ground stops, and airspace closures are genuinely outside the airline's control. When Eurocontrol issues a regulation or a control tower imposes a flow restriction, no airline can overrule it.

But: Ryanair must prove the ATC restriction directly affected your specific flight. A general "ATC delays in the region" excuse for a 5-hour delay doesn't hold up if the ATC restriction lasted 30 minutes and Ryanair failed to recover afterwards. The extraordinary circumstance covers the ATC restriction itself — not the airline's inability to manage the aftermath.

Seasonal pattern: ATC restrictions are most common:

June–September: Peak traffic creates flow management delays, especially at congested airports (Barcelona, Lisbon, Rome, Athens)
French ATC strikes: Recurring pattern — French controllers strike several times per year, creating overflight restrictions across Europe. These ARE extraordinary (they're third-party industrial action), but only if your specific flight was demonstrably affected.

Court success rate when challenged: Airlines usually win genuine ATC cases. Successfully challenged when airline fails to prove the ATC restriction was the direct cause of the full delay.

✅ Bird Strikes

Ryanair's claim: "The aircraft was involved in a bird strike."

Is it valid? Yes, partially.

The CJEU ruled in Pešková v Travel Service (C-315/15) that bird strikes can constitute extraordinary circumstances. Birds hitting aircraft is not inherent to airline operations.

But the airline must still prove two things:

A bird strike actually occurred (not just suspected)
The airline took all reasonable measures to minimise the resulting delay — including rebooking passengers, deploying spare aircraft, or arranging alternative transport

If the bird strike caused a 1-hour delay but the actual delay was 6 hours because Ryanair had no recovery plan, only the first hour is covered by extraordinary circumstances. The remaining 5 hours are Ryanair's operational failure.

Seasonal pattern: Bird strikes peak during spring (March–May) and autumn (September–November) migration seasons, and are more common at airports near wetlands or coastal areas.

Court success rate when challenged: Mixed — bird strikes themselves are accepted, but passengers often win when the airline failed to take reasonable measures to minimise the resulting delay.

❌ Ryanair Staff Strikes

Ryanair's claim: "Industrial action by our staff caused the disruption."

Is it valid? No — not when it's Ryanair's own employees.

Strikes by the airline's own pilots, cabin crew, or ground staff are NOT extraordinary circumstances. The CJEU confirmed this in Krüsemann v TUIfly (C-195/17): industrial action by your own employees is a labour relations matter inherent to the airline's operations. If your pilots are striking because of working conditions you set, that's your problem — not the passenger's.

Ryanair has faced repeated cabin crew and pilot strikes across Europe (Spain, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, France). Every one of these was an own-staff strike — and none qualifies as extraordinary.

Important distinction: A strike by airport staff (security, ground handling subcontractors who serve multiple airlines, air traffic controllers) CAN be extraordinary because the airline doesn't employ them and can't resolve the dispute. Ryanair sometimes blurs this distinction deliberately.

What to ask: "Was the strike by Ryanair employees or by third-party airport workers?" If it's Ryanair's own staff, challenge the rejection.

Court success rate when challenged (own-staff strikes): Over 90%.

⚠️ Security Threats / Unruly Passengers

Ryanair's claim: "The flight was disrupted due to a security incident."

Is it valid? Usually yes — but it depends.

Bomb threats, security alerts requiring aircraft evacuation, and disruptive passengers who force emergency diversions are generally considered extraordinary. These are genuinely unforeseeable events outside the airline's control.

However: If a flight is delayed because Ryanair's boarding process failed to identify an intoxicated passenger who then caused disruption, the airline bears some responsibility. Boarding screening is part of the airline's operational process.

Court success rate when challenged: Airlines usually win genuine security cases. Successfully challenged when the airline's own processes contributed to the security issue.

❌ Airport Infrastructure (Baggage Systems, Gates, Boarding Bridges)

Ryanair's claim: "A failure at the airport (baggage handling, gate allocation, bridge malfunction) caused your delay."

Is it valid? Rarely — and it's complicated.

Ryanair chose that airport. Ryanair contracted ground handling services at that airport. If the baggage system breaks at an airport where Ryanair operates 200 flights a day, the argument that this was "unforeseeable" is weak. Courts increasingly hold airlines responsible for the infrastructure they depend on, especially at airports where they're a dominant carrier.

What to check: Does Ryanair use its own ground handling subsidiary (Ryanair was historically heavily involved in its own ground ops)? If so, it's even harder for them to claim the failure was external.

❌ "Operational Reasons" (Catch-All)

Ryanair's claim: "The disruption was caused by operational reasons beyond our control."

Is it valid? No — this is meaningless.

"Operational reasons" is not a recognized extraordinary circumstance. It's a vague catch-all that Ryanair uses in initial claim rejections, hoping passengers will accept it and give up. Courts have repeatedly held that airlines must specify the exact cause — and "operational reasons" doesn't meet that standard.

If Ryanair's only explanation is "operational reasons," they haven't met their burden of proof. Challenge immediately.

Court success rate when challenged: Virtually 100% — airlines lose every case where "operational reasons" is their only defence.

Ryanair's Seasonal Disruption Patterns

Understanding when Ryanair is most likely to face disruptions — and what excuses they'll use — helps you assess your claim:

Season	Common Disruptions	Ryanair's Likely Excuse	Usually Valid?
Dec–Feb	Winter storms, de-icing delays, crew illness	Weather, crew illness	Weather: sometimes. De-icing: no. Crew illness: no.
Mar–May	Spring storms, bird migration, crew shortages after winter	Weather, bird strikes, operational	Weather: case-by-case. Bird strikes: partially. Crew: no.
Jun–Aug	Thunderstorms, ATC congestion, staff strikes, peak rotation delays	ATC, weather, operational, strikes	ATC: often yes. Weather: case-by-case. Strikes (own staff): no.
Sep–Nov	Bird migration, early winter weather, reduced schedules causing tighter rotations	Bird strikes, weather, technical	Bird strikes: partially. Weather: case-by-case. Technical: no.

The pattern is consistent: Ryanair's peak rejection period is summer (June–August), when they're most stretched and most disruptions occur. It's also the period when the highest percentage of their "extraordinary circumstances" claims are invalid — because summer disruptions are primarily crew, rotation, and operational issues, not genuinely unforeseeable events.

How to Challenge a Ryanair Rejection

If Ryanair rejected your claim citing extraordinary circumstances, here's your path:

Request specifics. Ask Ryanair to provide the exact cause — not "operational reasons" but the specific event (which technical fault, which ATC regulation number, which weather event). Under EC 261, the burden of proof is on the airline.
Cross-reference this list. Find their stated reason above. If it's marked ❌ (not valid), you have strong grounds to challenge.
Gather evidence. Check if other airlines operated the same route at the same time (use FlightRadar24 or similar). For weather claims, check METAR data for the relevant airports. For ATC claims, check Eurocontrol Network Manager bulletins.
Escalate. File with your national enforcement body — in Portugal that's ANAC, in Germany it's SÖP (Schlichtungsstelle für den öffentlichen Personenverkehr), in the UK it's the CAA. Or use a compensation service with legal capability. Our guide to the best flight compensation services compares your options.
Know the numbers. Over 90% of EC261 cases that reach court are decided in the passenger's favour. Ryanair's initial rejection is a negotiation tactic, not a final answer.

→ Check your Ryanair flight now — free, instant eligibility assessment

The Bigger Picture: Why Ryanair Rejects So Many Claims

Ryanair's business model depends on high volume, low margins, and minimal variable costs. Compensation payments are a variable cost. If even 10% of passengers on a disrupted flight claim their €250–€400, that's a meaningful hit to the margin on that route for the day.

By rejecting claims with boilerplate "extraordinary circumstances" responses, Ryanair achieves two things:

A significant percentage of passengers accept the rejection and give up
For those who persist, the rejection delays payment by months — improving Ryanair's cash flow

This isn't speculation. Consumer protection agencies across Europe have documented the pattern. The Irish Aviation Authority and German SÖP both receive thousands of complaints about Ryanair claim rejections annually. For a deeper dive into how airlines fight claims, see our guide on how airlines fight compensation claims.

The counter-strategy is simple: don't give up. Know which excuses are valid and which aren't. This list gives you that knowledge.

→ Part of the Airline Compensation Guides — see all related guides.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I claim compensation from Ryanair if they say the delay was caused by a technical fault?

Yes. The European Court of Justice ruled in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia (C-549/07) that technical faults are inherent to normal airline operations and do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. This applies to Ryanair — mechanical issues, sensor failures, hydraulic problems, and brake replacements are all the airline's responsibility. Over 95% of claims challenged on this basis succeed in court. Check your Ryanair flight →

Is a Ryanair staff strike considered extraordinary circumstances?

No. Strikes by Ryanair's own pilots, cabin crew, or ground staff are not extraordinary circumstances under EU law. The CJEU confirmed in Case C-195/17 that industrial action by the airline's own employees is a labour relations matter within the airline's control. This has been tested repeatedly with Ryanair strikes across Spain, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and France. Only strikes by third-party airport workers (not employed by Ryanair) may qualify.

What should I do if Ryanair rejected my claim citing "operational reasons"?

Challenge it immediately. "Operational reasons" is not a recognised extraordinary circumstance under EC 261/2004. Courts require airlines to specify the exact cause of disruption. Ryanair uses this vague language in initial rejections hoping passengers will accept it. Ask Ryanair to provide the specific cause, then cross-reference their answer with the extraordinary circumstances list above.

Can Ryanair refuse compensation for weather delays?

Only if the weather was genuinely severe enough to make the flight unsafe — heavy thunderstorms, volcanic ash, extreme crosswinds, or runway closures due to heavy snow. Moderate rain, light wind, or routine winter conditions like de-icing requirements are NOT extraordinary. If other airlines operated the same route at the same time, Ryanair's weather defence is significantly weakened.

Does Ryanair have to prove extraordinary circumstances, or do I have to disprove them?

The burden of proof is entirely on Ryanair. Under EC 261/2004, the airline must demonstrate that (1) extraordinary circumstances existed, (2) they caused the specific disruption, and (3) the disruption couldn't have been avoided even with all reasonable measures. If Ryanair can't or won't provide evidence, their defence fails.

How long do I have to claim compensation from Ryanair?

Time limits vary by jurisdiction. In Portugal it's 3 years, in Germany it's 3 years, in the UK it's 6 years, in Spain it's 5 years, in the Netherlands it's 2 years, and in Belgium it's 1 year. The clock starts from the date of the disrupted flight. For the full country-by-country breakdown, see our flight compensation time limits guide.

My Ryanair flight was delayed because the incoming aircraft was late. Is that extraordinary?

No. Late arrival of the incoming aircraft (rotation delay) is explicitly not considered extraordinary by courts. This is an operational scheduling issue within Ryanair's control. Their tight 25-minute turnarounds make this especially common — but that scheduling choice is Ryanair's, not the passenger's problem.

€250–€400 Ryanair Claim Denied? The Extraordinary Circumstances List They Use — and Why Most Don't Hold Up