My JFK - CDG flight was delayed by 5.5 hours. In the end it was operated by Hi Fly's A380.

Norwegian has denied my EC261 claim, citing extraordinary circumstances. They claim it was caused by "mandatory checks from aviation authorities on a specific type of Rolls Royce engine, forcing us to take the scheduled aircraft out of service."

I found some excellent information in this posting:

Norwegian refuses EU delay (4.7 hours) compensation because it turned out there was nothing wrong with the aircraft

However, I am unclear if all of this applies as Norwegian mentions inspection of Rolls Royce engine. Are they trying again to use the manufacturer defect as the reason for the extraordinary circumstance? I thought these engines were replaced and aren't inspections normal anyway? Does anyone have any expert advice as to whether or not my claim would be valid. I really appreciate your input.

  • When was this? What type of plane was it? Do you have the date and flight number?
    – jcaron
    Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 19:22
  • It was just last Friday 9/6 or ultimately 9/7. I believe it was meant to be operated by a Dreamliner.
    – user103855
    Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 20:33
  • Well, there was indeed a report published a few days before regarding the ongoing issues with those engines after the incident back in August. Not sure if EASA or the FAA actually changed the rules, but even if it is just a precautionary measure taken by Norwegian, I wouldn’t blame them (the last issue involved another of their Dreamliners). I think this one falls on the “extraordinary circumstances”.
    – jcaron
    Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 21:01
  • Could we get a canonical Q&A for " $AIRLINE refuses EC261 compensation for $OBVIOUS_BALONEY_REASON "? This really seems like they're all dups of each other, and it doesn't seem constructive to ligitate every BS excuse the airlines give. Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 22:10

1 Answer 1


If aviation authorities have mandated inspections of all airplanes with a specific engine model, I suspect they may actually have more merit to claim extraordinary circumstances in this case. This brings it closer to "hidden manufacturing defect", which has been ruled to be extraordinary circumstances. The fact that aviation authorities have mandated the inspection may also be seen as providing the "external" in "unpredictable, unavoidable and external ".

However, you should still ask to see some form of evidence of these mandated inspections before you buy their explanation.

If you give up on trying to argue with Norwegian, you could always try to contact a claim agency specializing in EC261 claims and present your case to them. If they don't think you have a good case they probably will not pursue it, but there's not much harm in trying and if they do agree to pursue it you'll get most of the compensation with a minimum of effort.

  • I would add "and if they do agree to pursue it you'll get most of the compensation with a minimum of effort" or something like that.
    – phoog
    Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 17:44
  • @phoog It's done!
    – jkej
    Commented Sep 19, 2019 at 19:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .