More news on this day
Hundreds of thousands of passengers hit by widespread flight delays and cancellations after a UK air traffic control glitch are unlikely to receive compensation, according to guidance from the country’s aviation regulator.
Get the latest news straight to your inbox!
Regulator points to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ rule
Publicly available statements from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) indicate that the large scale disruption triggered by the technical outage at National Air Traffic Services (NATS) is expected to be treated as the result of “extraordinary circumstances” under UK passenger rights rules. That legal classification is crucial, because it usually removes airlines’ obligation to pay fixed cash compensation for delays and cancellations.
Guidance published by the regulator explains that when flight disruption is caused by events outside an airline’s control, such as air traffic control failures, compensation under UK261 is typically not due. In its latest statement on the incident, the CAA notes that although airlines must still look after affected customers, passengers “are unlikely to be entitled to compensation for delays or cancellations that were directly caused by the incident.”
The regulator’s position echoes its approach following a previous NATS systems failure in August 2023, when it also considered the disruption to be an extraordinary circumstance. At that time, the CAA advised airlines that they remained responsible for care and assistance, but that compensation payments were not generally expected in relation to the air traffic control fault.
Industry and consumer reports suggest that the same reasoning is now being applied to the latest outage, leaving many travellers facing lengthy delays, missed holidays and unexpected expenses without the prospect of a statutory payout.
Thousands of flights disrupted across UK airports
News coverage of the outage indicates that the glitch in the NATS flight processing system led to widespread disruption across major UK airports, including Heathrow, Gatwick and other key hubs. Airlines were forced to delay or cancel a significant number of departures and arrivals while flight data was processed manually and traffic levels were reduced for safety reasons.
Media tallies suggest that well over a thousand flights were cancelled or severely delayed on the day of the incident, with knock on effects continuing into subsequent days as aircraft and crew were left out of position. Some passengers reported being stranded overseas, while others faced last minute cancellations at departure airports and long queues for rebooking.
Transport bulletins describe scenes of crowded terminals, departure boards filled with cancellations and long waits at airline service desks. While operations gradually recovered once the immediate technical problem was resolved, the scale of the backlog meant that schedule disruptions and re routings continued well beyond the original outage window.
The regulator has confirmed that the government has asked it to carry out an independent review into what went wrong at the air traffic control provider and how resilience can be improved. That review is expected to look at both the technical trigger for the failure and the wider operational impact on passengers and airlines.
What airlines must still provide to affected travellers
Although most passengers are unlikely to qualify for compensation, current consumer guidance makes clear that airlines still have extensive obligations to look after those caught up in the disruption. Under UK261 rules, carriers must provide care and assistance, which typically includes meals, refreshments, accommodation where an overnight stay is required, and transport between the airport and hotel.
Regulatory advice states that if an airline cannot or does not arrange this support in a timely way, passengers may purchase reasonable refreshments, hotels and transport themselves and later submit receipts for reimbursement. Consumer organisations recommend keeping detailed records of all additional costs and any written communication received from airlines about the cause of the disruption.
Airlines must also offer passengers a choice between a refund of the unused part of their ticket or re routing at the earliest opportunity, even where the underlying cause is an extraordinary circumstance. This can include rebooking on alternative airlines if the original carrier has no suitable options. For many travellers, these rerouting rights and expense reimbursements may provide the most practical route to limiting financial losses from the air traffic control collapse.
However, the absence of automatic cash compensation means that those whose trips were curtailed or significantly shortened may still be left out of pocket for non refundable hotels, tours or other holiday elements not booked as part of a package, unless covered separately by travel insurance.
How the compensation rules work after an air traffic control failure
UK passenger rights on delayed and cancelled flights are based on the former EU Regulation 261, now reflected in UK261. The framework requires airlines to pay fixed compensation when flights are heavily delayed or cancelled, but only if the disruption was within the airline’s control and not caused by extraordinary circumstances.
Regulatory and legal summaries describe extraordinary circumstances as events that are not inherent in the normal exercise of an airline’s activity and are beyond its actual control. Common examples include severe weather, security incidents and restrictions imposed by air traffic control. Technical problems within an airline’s own fleet or crew planning issues, by contrast, are normally considered within its responsibility.
In this incident, early assessments by the CAA and multiple news reports link the disruption to a specific failure in NATS’ flight data processing, rather than any issue with individual airlines. On that basis, the regulator expects courts and enforcement bodies to view the situation as an extraordinary circumstance, even though the outcome for travellers is similar to delays caused by more routine airline problems.
Specialist commentary also notes that there can be grey areas, for example where an air traffic control issue triggers initial disruption but subsequent airline decisions exacerbate delays. In such cases, passengers may still attempt to argue that part of the delay was within the carrier’s control, but this typically requires detailed evidence and may be resolved on a case by case basis.
What travellers can do next
For passengers caught up in the latest air traffic control meltdown, consumer advocates suggest a series of practical steps. These include requesting written confirmation from the airline about the reason for the disruption, retaining boarding passes and booking confirmations, and keeping careful records of any additional expenditure incurred as a direct result of delays or cancellations.
Travellers are generally advised to submit claims first to the airline, covering refunds or rerouting where appropriate, and reimbursement for meals, accommodation and transport. If they believe that compensation may still be due in specific circumstances, they can lodge a claim referencing UK261, although recent CAA guidance indicates that most such claims are likely to be rejected where the delay stems solely from the NATS outage.
Those dissatisfied with an airline’s response can escalate disputes to an alternative dispute resolution body or the CAA’s passenger advice services, where eligible. Package holiday customers may also have additional protections under package travel regulations, particularly if the disruption meant a significant part of the holiday could not be provided as booked.
Legal and consumer experts highlight the continuing importance of comprehensive travel insurance, particularly for covering losses that fall outside statutory flight protections, such as missed hotel nights or excursions. In the wake of repeated air traffic control incidents in recent years, the latest outage is expected to intensify debate about whether the current balance of responsibilities between air navigation providers, airlines and travellers remains appropriate.
UK Civil Aviation Authority statement on NATS disruption