More news on this day
Thousands of passengers have faced cancellations and long delays after technical failures at UK air traffic control provider NATS, raising urgent questions about when airlines must pay refunds, cover expenses or offer cash compensation.
Get the latest news straight to your inbox!
How UK261 applies when NATS systems fail
Flight disruption linked to National Air Traffic Services is covered by the same legal framework that applies to most delays and cancellations in or out of the UK. The key rules are set out in UK law derived from Regulation EC 261/2004, often referred to as UK261, which establishes common rights to assistance, re-routing and fixed-sum compensation when travel plans are severely disrupted.
Whether these protections apply depends mainly on the itinerary and carrier. According to guidance from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), UK261 generally covers any flight departing a UK airport, flights arriving in the UK on a UK or EU airline, and many flights operated by UK carriers even when both departure and arrival are outside the UK. Passengers on flights operated entirely by non-UK, non-EU airlines and departing from outside the UK are usually protected instead by local rules or contract terms.
UK261 distinguishes between the airline’s duty to look after passengers and its obligation to pay financial compensation. Duty of care applies widely whenever a covered flight is heavily delayed or cancelled, while compensation is only payable when the disruption is the airline’s responsibility and not caused by what the law calls extraordinary circumstances.
In recent NATS-related incidents, including the major outage in August 2023 and further disruption reported in September 2026, CAA statements and published industry guidance have treated the underlying technical failures in the NATS flight-planning and air-traffic systems as extraordinary circumstances. That classification has a direct impact on how much cash passengers can expect to receive.
Why NATS outages are usually classed as “extraordinary circumstances”
The extraordinary circumstances test is central to any claim for fixed-sum delay or cancellation compensation. CAA guidance explains that extraordinary circumstances are events not inherent in the normal exercise of an airline’s activity and outside its actual control, such as air traffic control restrictions, airport closures, severe weather or security risks. In these cases airlines remain responsible for caring for passengers but are usually exempt from paying compensation for the disruption itself.
Published advice from the CAA following the August 2023 NATS failure stated that cancellations and long delays caused by the technical issue in the NATS flight-planning system were likely to be considered extraordinary circumstances. As a result, passengers were described as “unlikely to be entitled to compensation” for that specific episode, even though their rights to re-routing, refunds and reasonable expenses still applied.
That position has been echoed in government statements and parliamentary material summarising the legal landscape. These reports note that when NATS is at fault, airlines argue that they cannot reasonably prevent or control the failure of an external air traffic management system, and therefore the statutory exemption from compensation applies. Airlines are still expected to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to avoid or limit the impact on passengers, but the bar for proving extraordinary circumstances is relatively low when a national air traffic provider experiences a system-wide failure.
Consumer groups have pointed out that this distinction can be confusing, because passengers affected by large-scale NATS outages may suffer the same practical consequences as in airline-led disruption yet receive less money. For now, however, publicly available guidance from regulators and court decisions indicate that air traffic control failures sit firmly in the category that blocks cash compensation, even as broader reforms to passenger protection are considered.
Refunds and rerouting: what you can insist on
Although fixed-sum compensation is unlikely after a NATS-related failure, passengers do retain strong rights to refunds or alternative transport. CAA guidance on cancellations states that when a covered flight is cancelled, regardless of the cause, an airline must offer a choice between a full refund for the unused journey or rerouting to the final destination at the earliest opportunity under comparable transport conditions.
In practice, that means travellers whose flights are cancelled due to air traffic control restrictions can normally choose to abandon their trip and receive their money back, or ask to be rebooked on the next available service. The obligation to reroute is not limited to the same airline: official guidance notes that if a rival carrier or different mode of transport can deliver passengers significantly sooner, travellers may have a right to be placed on that alternative option, particularly during mass disruption.
Where disruption knocks out a single leg of an itinerary, passengers may be entitled to a refund for the entire journey if the cancelled flight makes the overall trip pointless. CAA advice on long delays also highlights that if a departure is delayed by at least five hours and a passenger chooses not to travel, the airline must refund the unused tickets and, where relevant, return them to their point of departure.
These refund and rerouting rights apply independently of whether NATS is responsible for the underlying issue. The central questions are whether the flight is covered by UK261 and whether it has been cancelled or heavily delayed, not who caused the disruption in the first place.
Duty of care: meals, hotels and other expenses
Even in situations classed as extraordinary circumstances, airlines retain a clear duty of care towards passengers on covered flights. CAA guidance on delays explains that once a disruption crosses certain thresholds, airlines must provide assistance which typically includes food and drink, access to communication and, when necessary, overnight accommodation and transport between the airport and hotel.
The trigger for duty-of-care support depends on both the length of the delay and the distance of the flight. For example, on many short-haul routes a delay of two or more hours is enough to require airlines to offer vouchers or reimburse reasonable costs for refreshments. On longer flights, higher delay thresholds apply, but the underlying principle is that passengers should not be left to absorb essential expenses when they are stuck at the airport or forced to stay overnight.
In the aftermath of the August 2023 NATS outage, a review commissioned by the CAA and passenger watchdogs reported that experiences varied widely. Passengers whose airlines quickly arranged hotels and new flights often avoided major personal costs, while others who were told to make their own arrangements incurred substantial bills for extra nights, meals and onward travel. Case studies included in that report highlight that some travellers later struggled to recover these outlays from airlines.
Regulators stress that such essential expenses should be refunded when reasonably incurred, even during extraordinary events. Receipts and clear records of communication with the airline tend to be important in practice, particularly if a dispute ends up in an alternative dispute resolution scheme or small-claims court.
Fixed-sum compensation: when it is still possible
The fact that a disruption begins with a NATS failure does not automatically rule out all compensation. Under UK261, passengers may be entitled to fixed-sum payments when long delays or cancellations are caused by factors within the airline’s control, such as crew shortages, aircraft technical issues not classed as extraordinary, scheduling decisions or late notice operational changes.
Complex chains of disruption can raise grey areas. For example, if an initial wave of cancellations is clearly attributable to a NATS systems failure, later knock-on delays might in some cases be linked more to airline resourcing, aircraft position or crew management decisions. CAA guidance to industry emphasises that each claim must be assessed on its own facts, with airlines required to explain the specific cause of disruption for each flight rather than relying on generic references to air traffic control problems.
Legal rulings have also narrowed the scope of what counts as extraordinary on the airline side. Court decisions cited by the CAA have held that ordinary technical faults and component failures are part of normal airline operations and cannot automatically be treated as extraordinary circumstances. Where such issues, rather than external air traffic management failures, are the real cause of a long delay or cancellation, passengers may still be able to claim compensation.
Passengers pursuing a claim typically need to contact the airline in the first instance, using its official complaints process and providing booking details, timelines and evidence of costs. If the airline rejects the claim and the carrier is signed up to an approved alternative dispute resolution scheme, travellers can escalate the complaint there. Otherwise, small-claims court proceedings may be an option, although this can be time-consuming and may involve fees.
https://www.caa.co.uk/air-passengers/travel-problems-and-rights/flight-delays-and-cancellations/