French airline crew strike, 17 October to 21 October: will your flight go?

Told it was “extraordinary circumstances”?

It is the two-word answer that makes claims disappear. It has a precise legal meaning, the airline has to prove it, and most of the excuses have already lost in court.

Check your flight

Free

On your boarding pass or booking email. easyJet 8706 works too.

Landed just after midnight? Pick the day before.

The question that decides it

What actually caused it?

A technical fault, crew shortage, or a late inbound aircraft.
£220 to £520each All three have lost in court. These are the airline’s own problems, so the money is owed.
Severe weather, an air traffic control strike, or a bird strike.
Genuinely outside their control, so no compensation. Food, drink and a hotel are still theirs to pay for.

The burden of proof is theirs. Saying the words is not the same as showing it.

The airline carries the burden of proof Most excuses have lost in court Free to check

Excuses that have lost in court

Excuses that genuinely hold

Even then there's a second test: the airline must show it took all reasonable measures to avoid the delay anyway. An ATC restriction that cost 40 minutes doesn't excuse a 5-hour delay if the other 4 hours were the airline scrambling for a crew.

When the excuse holds, they still owe you this

"Extraordinary circumstances" cancels the cash compensation. It does not cancel anything else, and this is the part airlines rarely mention. Whatever caused the delay, once you are waiting the airline has to look after you, and if it does not, it has to pay back what you spent doing it yourself.

None of this depends on whose fault it was. That is the whole point of it: the compensation rules ask who caused the delay, the care rules only ask how long you have been sitting there.

Air traffic control failures

The UK's air traffic control system, run by NATS, failed on 8 September 2026 and again on 21 September. Both times thousands of flights were delayed or cancelled, and both times the answer on compensation is the same one the regulator gave after the first: the CAA said disruption from the NATS outage is likely to count as extraordinary circumstances, so passengers are unlikely to be owed compensation for it.

Two things worth knowing beyond that. The regulator said the same applies to the knock-on delays over the following days, so a flight disrupted on the Tuesday by Monday's failure is in the same position. And its view is guidance, not a ruling — the CAA says plainly that a passenger who disagrees can still claim, including through the courts. What is not in doubt is the care above: the CAA used the same statement to remind airlines they must feed you, house you overnight and reimburse what you spend when they do not.

The burden of proof is theirs, not yours

You do not have to prove the delay was the airline's fault. The airline has to prove it wasn't, with evidence: weather reports for the actual airport at the actual time, ATC slot messages, technical logs. A refusal email that just asserts "extraordinary circumstances" with nothing behind it is a first offer, not a verdict. Reply asking for the specific cause and the evidence. A surprising number of refusals fold at that first push-back.

How to challenge a refusal