Airport Chaos: What Passengers Can Claim After ATC IT Failures

Successive air traffic control IT failures have repeatedly thrown European air travel into chaos, leaving passengers asking a pointed question: if an outage starts with the tower rather than the airline, can they still claim?

When an IT Meltdown Hits ATC, Not Your Airline

Major disruptions linked to air traffic control (ATC) technology have become a recurring feature of European travel. A high-profile example was the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) flight-planning system failure on 28 August 2023, which triggered widespread cancellations and delays across UK airspace during a peak holiday period. Subsequent technical problems, including a fresh NATS glitch in September 2026 and IT outages affecting airport and airline systems elsewhere in Europe, have underscored how dependent modern aviation is on complex digital infrastructure.

Official investigations into the 2023 NATS incident describe it as a failure within the flight data processing system that forced controllers to restrict traffic flows in order to maintain safety. Progress reports and an independent review published by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) highlight both the rarity of such failures and the scale of the knock-on disruption for passengers, from missed connections to multiday delays.

For travellers, the central issue is whether these large-scale breakdowns are treated as events that airlines must pay for, in the form of cash compensation, or as external shocks that fall into the legal category of “extraordinary circumstances.” The answer, emerging from recent regulator statements and legal guidance, is nuanced. Passengers may be entitled to rerouting, refunds and reimbursement of reasonable expenses, but in many ATC IT cases, they are unlikely to receive the headline cash sums often associated with long delays and cancellations.

How UK and EU Passenger Rights Treat ATC Failures

In the UK, air passenger rights are set out in retained EU Regulation 261/2004, now known as UK261. In the European Union, the original EU261 regulation continues to apply. Both frameworks distinguish between airline-caused disruption and events considered to be beyond an airline’s control, such as certain decisions by air traffic management.

Guidance on official EU passenger rights explains that decisions by air traffic management, along with severe weather and security risks, are typically regarded as “extraordinary circumstances.” Airlines are not required to pay cash compensation where such circumstances are the sole cause of a long delay or cancellation, provided the carrier took all reasonable measures to avoid or mitigate the impact. Similar wording appears in UK guidance and court interpretations, which continue to track EU case law closely following Brexit.

After the August 2023 NATS outage, publicly available CAA documents stressed that the failure lay within the ATC system rather than with individual airlines. More recently, a CAA statement following the September 2026 NATS disruption indicated that the regulator considers this type of outage likely to fall within the category of extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of UK261. That stance means airlines would generally not owe the fixed cash payments many travellers associate with delays of three hours or more.

At the same time, European institutions have been working on strengthening and clarifying passenger protection rules. The Council of the European Union and the European Parliament reached a political agreement in mid-2026 on updated air passenger rights, which aims, among other things, to provide clearer definitions of extraordinary circumstances and improve enforcement. While this package is still moving through formal adoption and implementation, it signals a continued focus on making sure passengers are not left carrying the financial burden of systemic failures.

What You Can Still Claim After an ATC IT Meltdown

The fact that an ATC IT failure is usually treated as an extraordinary circumstance does not leave passengers without rights. Under both UK261 and EU261, airlines must still provide a choice between rerouting at the earliest opportunity and a refund when a flight is cancelled, regardless of the underlying cause. For long delays that make the trip pointless, passengers may also be able to opt for a refund instead of waiting for an extremely late departure.

Crucially, airlines retain a duty of care during extended disruption. That means they are required to provide or reimburse “reasonable” assistance, including meals and refreshments in proportion to the waiting time, and hotel accommodation and transport between the airport and hotel when an overnight stay becomes necessary. Research commissioned by the CAA into the passenger experience of the August 2023 NATS outage found that many travellers had to make their own arrangements for hotels and alternative routes home, often paying on personal credit cards, but that those who persisted with claims were in many cases able to recover at least part of their expenses.

Even where regulators signal that an incident is likely to fall under extraordinary circumstances, that assessment is not an absolute bar to claims. The CAA’s latest statement on the September 2026 NATS failure notes that passengers or groups of passengers can still pursue compensation or reimbursement if they consider that their specific situation does not fit the regulator’s general interpretation. In practice, that can cover situations where poor airline handling appears to have worsened the impact, such as failures to offer available rerouting options, lack of basic assistance at the airport, or decisions that left some flights operating while others were cancelled for reasons arguably within the carrier’s control.

Borderlines and Grey Areas: When ATC Is Not the Only Problem

One of the challenges for travellers is that real-world disruption rarely maps neatly onto a single cause. A technical fault in an ATC system may trigger flow restrictions, but the severity of a particular passenger’s delay can also depend on the airline’s rostering, fleet flexibility, and how quickly it is able to reposition aircraft and crew. Legal decisions at the European Court of Justice and national courts have repeatedly emphasised that airlines cannot invoke extraordinary circumstances for problems that are inherent to their own operations, such as routine maintenance issues or foreseeable staffing shortages.

Recent case law has also refined how “exceptional” or “extraordinary” circumstances are interpreted. In 2024, for example, a judgment on baggage-loading staff shortages clarified that airport-side operational issues may, in some circumstances, qualify as extraordinary if they are not inherent to the airline’s activity and are genuinely beyond its control. At the same time, guidance from the European Commission reiterates that most technical problems with an aircraft discovered during maintenance, or caused by poor maintenance, do not meet that test and therefore do not remove the obligation to pay compensation.

In the context of ATC IT failures, this evolving case law suggests that while the initial system breakdown will almost always be treated as extraordinary, downstream decisions by airlines are open to scrutiny. If an airline cancels one flight but operates others on the same route and day, or fails to rebook passengers when seats on partner carriers are available, a traveller may argue that at least part of their delay was caused by choices under the airline’s control. Claims in such grey areas are less straightforward, and outcomes can vary, but they explain why some passengers still pursue compensation even after regulators label an incident as extraordinary.

How to Build a Strong Claim After ATC-Related Disruption

Consumer groups and legal commentators emphasise that documentation is critical for any claim linked to an ATC IT meltdown. Passengers are advised to keep boarding passes, booking confirmations and all receipts for food, accommodation, ground transport and replacement flights. It is also important to obtain, and save, written confirmation of the reason given for a delay or cancellation; airlines typically state this in emails, text messages or online disruption notices.

When submitting a claim under UK261 or EU261, travellers generally do best by separating two questions. The first is whether they are owed duty-of-care expenses and a refund or rerouting, which usually still apply in ATC cases. The second is whether they can make a credible argument that their specific delay or cancellation was not solely due to extraordinary circumstances, opening the door to additional cash compensation. Specialist claims companies operate in this space, but official EU guidance warns passengers to understand fee structures and data-use policies before signing over their rights.

If an airline rejects a claim, passengers in the UK can escalate to an approved alternative dispute resolution body, where available, or to the CAA’s consumer service. Within the EU, complaints can be taken to national enforcement bodies or pursued through small-claims procedures. Parallel work at EU level to strengthen enforcement and create new redress mechanisms for disruption caused by third parties, such as ATC or airport operators, may eventually give travellers more direct routes to compensation when the root cause lies outside airline operations.