@chx Why does this case constitute extraordinary circumstances? Why did they have to inspect them aircraft? Inspecting aircrafts is pretty ordinary.

And inspecting aircraft is normally scheduled for a time when the aircraft is not due to fly.

According to this write up linked to in recent question, it was concluded in the van der Lans case that "...dealing with technical problems is inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity.". I would argue that investigating "a possible technical fault" falls under "dealing with technical problems", regardless of whether there was an actual technical fault or not.

But I think the key question is why an inspection was done. Was it because there were indications that there might be a problem, or was there some kind of "unpredictable, unavoidable and external" agent that forced them to do a completely unmotivated inspection?

This is complete and utter BS wrapped in a thick dose of legalese. The legal basis for compensation is not case law but EC261, which requires compensation unless there are exceptional circumstances. They have not shown any exceptional circumstances, and they try to get out of it by showing that the situation does not actually match a previous case. An alarm which requires a diagnostic is a technical issue. In the worst case, it means that whatever system or sensor which triggered the alarm is faulty.

Doesn't "exceptional circumstances" mean something like a sudden outbreak of war, a hurricane, or something similar? Otherwise they could just label any and all problems (up to and including the pilot coming late to work) as "exceptional".

@vsz basically, as well as cases such as the manufacturer grounding all aircraft of a given type due to manufacturing fault.

I think this shows that the first thing to in such a case should be to exchange contact details with other passengers. Collective claims are much easier. I think at this point it's best to "sell" your claim to a lawyer ie. let them charge you on the condition of winning the case.

@life-on-mars : will a lawyer even bother for the commission to be gained from a 400€ case? For a planeload of passengers probably yes, but how would you organize hundreds of passengers, many of them probably not even having a common language (if traveling internationally)?

@vsz Yes. At least law firms that specialise on this kind of claim. Other lawyers might do it for the experience, records, portfolio etc. Such cases usually don't go to court anyway and if the chances are too low to win the law firm would probably not accept it and tell you.

@life-on-mars When my Air Berlin flight got cancelled and I was rerouted, a guy from a company specializing in EU 261/2004 cases was standing there handing out contact cards. I looked it up and there are number of these companies and their business model is to take ~30% of the money if they win and charge you nothing if you lose. I was going to take their offer but I tried sending an email to Air Berlin first and it turned out they agreed to pay me directly. Since the case Norwegian is making is so weak, I think it might be worth it for OP to push them a little more before contacting a lawyer.

@jkej Probably, you're right. With flights to/from Germany you could probably also contact the Wettbewerbszentrale. If they decide to help you, they'll do it for free. Consumer rights organisations should also be able to tell you rather detailed how to deal with the airline.

@vsz in America we have the class action. You file as a class with every passenger on the flight being a member of the class, unless they opt out. You get the passenger list in discovery. This makes the litigation much bigger, and forces them to pay all passengers instead of only complainers, and typically legal fees to boot!

Basic rule of corporate lawyering - until you wave a lawyer under their nose they're not going to take you seriously. 400 Euros is probably not enough to hire a lawyer and sic him on the company so they know they're safe. Basically, unless you're an attorney (or equivalent) yourself, you're screwed.

@Harper - if you dig through all your ticketing documents you're likely to find something which says that by purchasing the ticket you agree to forfeit your right to file a class action in relation to any and all events surrounding the flight, and that all claims for compensation, etc, must be filed as an individual. Airlines do not have stupid lawyers working for them and they know better than you or I how the legal system works - therefore they force you to waive your right to a class action.

@Fattie the specific nature of the crap is rather more egregious than normal, however. "We aren't responsible because the flight was delayed when nothing was actually wrong"? Really? It's mind boggling! The regulation should be amended, though, to make every flight a class action, at least for the purpose of the extraordinary circumstances determination. Surely dozens of people on that flight got the same letter and, as someone else pointed out, if even a few of them swallowed it the airline comes out ahead. I'd bet that at least half fall for it.

@BobJarvis That's all very nice, but prohibiting class action law suits like that is not legal in every European country.

If responding doesn't work for you (sometimes their reaction is pretty much just 'sue us'), you could use a claim agency, they usually take x % of your compensation, no costs up front and no costs if they fail*. (*Source: I work at one of these places)

@Revetahw please let us know afterwards how it ended

@JonathanReez Sure, will do :)

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.

@BobJarvis they can put anything they want in a contract, and the class action judge will set it aside if, under the circumstances, it does not amuse him.