Technical Fault Compensation (2026)
Can you claim compensation when an airline says the delay was caused by a technical problem? Often, yes. Under EU261 and UK261, most routine technical faults do not remove the airline's obligation to pay compensation.
Table of Contents
What Is Technical Fault Compensation?
Airlines often cite a technical fault as the reason for a flight delay or cancellation — and then tell passengers this means no compensation is due. That is not what the law says.
EU261 and UK261 do not state that a technical fault removes the airline's obligation to pay. The legal test is whether the event was an extraordinary circumstance that the airline could not have avoided even with all reasonable measures. Most routine technical problems fail that test.
Routine maintenance issues
Airline is responsible. Compensation applies.
Genuine manufacturer recall
May qualify as extraordinary. Compensation unlikely.
Important: A technical fault does not automatically remove your right to compensation. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled that routine technical problems are part of normal airline operations.
Can You Claim For A Technical Fault?
| Situation | Eligible? |
|---|---|
| Engine component failure | ✅ Usually Yes |
| Hydraulic problem | ✅ Usually Yes |
| Electrical fault | ✅ Usually Yes |
| Software malfunction | ✅ Usually Yes |
| Aircraft maintenance issue | ✅ Usually Yes |
| Manufacturing defect recall | ❌ Usually No |
| Hidden safety defect affecting entire fleet | ❌ Usually No |
| Terrorism-related safety issue | ❌ Usually No |
Which Technical Problems Qualify?
These are routine issues that courts have consistently classified as part of normal airline operations. If your delay was caused by any of these, you are likely entitled to compensation.
Engine Fault
Unexpected engine issues are generally considered part of airline operations. Wear and tear on engine components is a foreseeable risk that airlines must manage through regular maintenance programmes.
Hydraulic Problems
Maintenance-related hydraulic failures usually remain within airline responsibility. Hydraulic systems require routine inspection and servicing — a failure here is rarely extraordinary.
Electrical System Failures
Airlines are expected to maintain aircraft electrical systems. A wiring fault, power distribution issue, or avionics failure is part of the operational risk of running flights.
Software Or Computer Errors
Routine system failures — flight management software glitches, navigation computer errors, or instrument calibration issues — are rarely extraordinary circumstances.
Maintenance Errors
Mistakes by airline engineers, missed inspection deadlines, or incorrect repairs remain the airline's responsibility. Poor maintenance does not become extraordinary just because it caused a delay.
Which Technical Problems Do NOT Qualify?
These are the narrow exceptions where a technical issue may genuinely qualify as extraordinary. The airline still bears the burden of proof — and must show it took all reasonable measures.
Manufacturer Recall
Aircraft-wide recalls issued by manufacturers (such as the Boeing 737 MAX grounding) may qualify as extraordinary. If a regulator orders all aircraft of a type to be grounded, the airline cannot operate the flight regardless of its own maintenance standards.
Hidden Manufacturing Defect
A defect affecting an entire aircraft type that was not previously known and could not have been discovered through normal maintenance may remove compensation liability. This is a narrow exception acknowledged in the Wallentin-Hermann ruling.
Aviation Authority Grounding
Mandatory grounding orders issued by aviation regulators (EASA, FAA, CAA) that apply to an entire fleet are generally outside the airline's control. These are treated similarly to airport closures.
Sabotage Or Security Incidents
If a technical problem was caused by sabotage, terrorism, or a security breach, this is outside the airline's normal activity and beyond its actual control. These events are normally exempt from compensation.
Important EU Court Rulings
These are the court decisions that define whether technical faults qualify as extraordinary circumstances. If your airline rejected your claim, these rulings are your strongest weapon.
2008 — C-549/07
Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia
The European Court of Justice ruled that ordinary technical faults — including engine defects discovered during maintenance — are not extraordinary circumstances. The court found that airlines confront technical problems as a matter of course, and resolving them is inherent in normal airline operations.
Passenger won2015 — C-257/14
Van der Lans v KLM
An unexpected technical problem that emerged shortly before departure was not considered extraordinary. The court ruled that even unforeseen component failures are part of normal operational risk — the airline cannot escape liability simply because the fault was unexpected.
Passenger won2018 — C-195/17
Krüsemann v TUIfly
A “wildcat strike” by airline staff following a surprise restructuring announcement was not an extraordinary circumstance. The court ruled that the social consequences of management decisions — including staff refusing to work — are inherent in the normal exercise of an airline's activity. This ruling reinforces that airlines cannot escape liability for disruptions that stem from their own operational decisions.
Passenger wonThese court decisions are why many airline technical-fault rejections are legally weak. If your airline cited a technical problem to deny your claim, the odds are in your favour.
Real Technical Fault Examples
These examples show how compensation maps to real routes and real technical problems.
| Route | Delay | Airline Reason | Compensation |
|---|---|---|---|
| London → Rome | 4h | Hydraulic fault | €250 |
| Paris → Madrid | 3.5h | Engine issue | €250 |
| Frankfurt → Athens | 5h | Electrical problem | €400 |
| Amsterdam → Tenerife | 6h | Technical inspection | €400 |
| London → New York | 5h | Aircraft defect | €600 |
In each of these cases, the airline cited a technical reason — and in each case, the passenger was entitled to compensation because the fault was not extraordinary.
Why Airlines Reject Technical Fault Claims
Airlines use the same set of phrases to reject technical fault claims. Here is what they say — and why it usually does not hold up.
Airline says: “Unexpected Technical Problem”
Reality: Unexpected does not automatically mean extraordinary. The Van der Lans ruling (2015) confirmed that even unforeseen component failures are part of normal operational risk.
Airline says: “Safety Issue”
Reality: Safety concerns still require proof that the event was outside normal operations. A routine safety check that reveals a known type of fault is not extraordinary — it is what safety checks are designed to catch.
Airline says: “Component Failure”
Reality: EU courts have repeatedly ruled that component failures are part of running an airline. The Wallentin-Hermann ruling (2008) established this, and no subsequent ruling has overturned it.
Airline says: “Technical Inspection Required”
Reality: Routine inspections and repairs remain airline responsibility. If an inspection reveals a problem that maintenance should have caught earlier, that is not extraordinary — it is a maintenance failure.
Compensation comparison
Compensation
€600
Claim Company
€390
You lose €210
FlightClaimGuide
€591
You keep €201 more
Technical fault claims are among the most commonly rejected — and the most commonly overturned on appeal. Our claim package includes rejection-response templates and escalation guidance.
Get My Claim PackageHow To Claim Technical Fault Compensation
Verify Delay Length
You need a 3+ hour arrival delay at your final destination. Check the actual arrival time — not the departure delay.
Keep Airline Notifications
Save emails, text messages, and any airport announcements about the delay. If the airline mentions a technical issue, that is evidence in your favour.
Request Delay Reason
Ask the airline for written confirmation of the specific reason for the delay. A vague "technical issue" is not enough — they must tell you what actually happened.
Compare Reason Against EU Case Law
Check whether the airline's excuse matches a scenario already ruled on by the ECJ. Most technical-fault excuses fail legal scrutiny under Wallentin-Hermann and Van der Lans.
Submit Claim
File your claim directly with the airline. Cite EU261 or UK261, state the compensation amount, and reference the relevant court ruling if they cite a technical fault.
Escalate If Rejected
If the airline rejects your claim, escalate to an ADR body — CEDR for UK departures, SÖP for Germany, or your national enforcement body. ADR decisions on technical fault claims frequently go in the passenger's favour.
Use Airline-Specific Claim Package
Our claim packages include rejection-response templates and escalation guidance tailored to each airline's common tactics.
Related Guides
Flight Delay Compensation
Claim up to €600 for delayed flights.
Flight Cancellation Compensation
Your rights when a flight is cancelled.
EU261 Compensation Guide
The EU regulation protecting passenger rights.
UK261 Compensation Guide
Post-Brexit passenger rights under UK261.
Missed Connection Compensation
Rights when you miss a connecting flight.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I claim if the airline says it was a technical fault?
Are technical problems extraordinary circumstances?
What did the Wallentin-Hermann case decide?
What if the engine failed unexpectedly?
Can maintenance problems qualify for compensation?
What is a hidden manufacturing defect?
How much compensation can I receive?
Do technical fault claims often get rejected?
How long do technical fault claims take?
What evidence should I keep?
Airline Blamed A Technical Fault?
Most technical fault rejections do not hold up. Check your eligibility in under 2 minutes and keep 100% of your compensation.
Check Compensation FreeDisclaimer
This guide is provided for informational purposes only. FlightClaimGuide does not provide legal advice and recommends seeking independent professional advice for complex legal matters.