Airline Says Your Delay Was Caused by Weather: Are You Still Entitled to Compensation?
Airline says your delay was caused by weather? Learn what the APPR actually requires, why other planes may still be flying, and what questions to ask before accepting a denied compensation claim.
Ah, Canadian weather, eh?
Snow in April. Thunderstorms in July. Fog rolling in at exactly the wrong moment. A Chinook doing whatever a Chinook feels like doing.
If you fly often enough in Canada, sooner or later you are going to hear some version of this announcement:
Unfortunately, your flight has been delayed or cancelled due to weather.
And sometimes that makes perfect sense.
You look out the window and can barely see the terminal across the apron. The departure board is turning red. Aircraft are sitting at the gates. Nobody is going anywhere.
Fair enough.
But then there is the other experience.
Your airline tells you that your flight has been cancelled because of weather.
You look out the window.
A plane takes off.
Then another.
One lands.
Another taxis past your gate.
And you understandably think:
Wait a second. If the weather makes flying unsafe, why is everyone else still flying?
That is a perfectly reasonable question.
But it does not necessarily mean the airline is wrong.
Weather claims under Canada's Air Passenger Protection Regulations (“APPR”) are more nuanced than simply asking whether it was raining, snowing or windy somewhere in the country.
The important question is what the weather actually did to your flight.
What the APPR actually says about weather
This is where the wording of the regulation matters.
Section 10(1) of the APPR deals with delays, cancellations and denied boarding caused by situations outside an airline's control.
Weather appears in paragraph 10(1)(c), which refers to:
meteorological conditions or natural disasters that make the safe operation of the aircraft impossible
That is the actual regulatory language. Department of Justice Canada
Notice what it does not say.
It does not simply say:
“weather.”
It does not say:
“bad weather.”
And it does not say:
“weather somewhere affected our operations today.”
The regulation refers specifically to meteorological conditions that make the safe operation of the aircraft impossible. Department of Justice Canada
That distinction is important.
Bad weather and legally relevant weather are not necessarily the same thing
Canada has bad weather all the time.
Airlines also operate aircraft in bad weather all the time.
Aircraft routinely fly in:
rain;
snow;
cold temperatures;
strong winds;
clouds;
reduced visibility; and
winter conditions that would make most of us reconsider whether we really need groceries today.
The existence of unpleasant weather does not, by itself, answer the APPR question.
What matters is whether the meteorological conditions actually made safe operation of the aircraft impossible in the circumstances of the flight.
That can involve much more than looking out the terminal window.
“But other planes are still taking off!”
This is probably one of the most frustrating situations for passengers.
Your flight is cancelled.
The airline says weather.
Meanwhile, you can literally watch other aircraft taking off and landing.
It certainly does not look like flying is impossible.
So what gives?
The first thing to understand is that other aircraft operating does not automatically prove that your airline's weather explanation is false.
There are many reasons why one aircraft may be able to operate while another cannot.
For example, the relevant weather may be at your destination, not your departure airport.
It could be along the route.
Conditions may have affected your aircraft earlier in the day.
Different aircraft can have different operational capabilities or limitations.
Wind direction and crosswinds can matter.
Visibility can change rapidly.
A particular airport or runway may have been affected.
Your aircraft may have been displaced because an earlier flight could not operate.
Air traffic control restrictions may also be associated with severe weather even while some aircraft continue to move.
So this:
“I saw another airplane take off.”
does not automatically establish this:
“Therefore my flight could safely operate.”
But—and this is important—it can still be a good reason to ask questions.
The airline should be able to explain the connection
Suppose you are flying from Calgary to Vancouver.
Your flight is cancelled at 4:00 p.m.
The airline tells you it was due to weather.
But Calgary is clear.
Vancouver is operating normally.
Flights operated by several airlines continue departing Calgary for Vancouver throughout the evening.
Does that prove you are owed compensation?
No.
But it certainly makes this a reasonable question:
What weather event caused my particular flight to be cancelled?
The airline should be able to tell you more than simply:
Weather.
Ask:
Where did the relevant weather occur?
When did it occur?
What weather condition affected the flight?
Did it affect the departure airport, destination, route, aircraft or an earlier flight?
How did that weather event prevent the safe operation of your aircraft?
If the weather had already passed, why was your flight still disrupted?
Those are not trick questions.
They go directly to understanding why the airline says your disruption falls within section 10 of the APPR.
Sometimes the real story happened hours earlier
Airline operations are complicated.
The aircraft scheduled to fly you from Calgary to Vancouver at 4:00 p.m. may have spent the morning flying from Toronto to Winnipeg and then Winnipeg to Calgary.
A severe thunderstorm in Winnipeg could disrupt the aircraft hours before you ever arrive at the airport.
That can create what is sometimes called a knock-on or downstream disruption.
The APPR recognizes this possibility.
Under section 10(2), a later disruption that is directly attributable to an earlier disruption outside the carrier's control can itself be treated as outside the carrier's control—but only where the carrier took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the earlier disruption. Department of Justice Canada
That last part matters.
The analysis does not necessarily end with:
“There was weather earlier today.”
There are two questions:
Was your disruption directly attributable to that earlier weather disruption?
And:
Did the airline take all reasonable measures to mitigate its impact?
That can become particularly important as more time passes between the original weather event and the passenger's flight.
Imagine this scenario
Suppose your 8:00 p.m. flight is cancelled.
The airline says weather.
You discover that your aircraft was supposed to arrive from another city earlier that afternoon but was delayed by a major thunderstorm.
That may genuinely explain the problem.
The weather does not have to be raging outside your window at 8:00 p.m. for weather to have affected your flight.
But now imagine the original weather event occurred early in the morning.
The skies cleared.
Operations resumed.
Twelve hours later your flight is still cancelled, and the airline gives you nothing more than the word “weather.”
At that point, it may be reasonable to ask what happened during those intervening hours and what the airline did to mitigate the disruption.
The answer might still favour the airline.
But passengers are entitled to understand the explanation.
Weather may also lead to air traffic control restrictions
There is another wrinkle.
Section 10 separately identifies instructions from air traffic control as a situation outside an airline's control. Department of Justice Canada
Severe weather can reduce the number of aircraft that an airport or airspace can safely handle.
Flights may still be taking off and landing, but at a reduced rate.
That means some flights operate while others are delayed or cancelled.
Again, seeing aircraft moving outside the terminal does not necessarily establish that your flight could have operated as scheduled.
But it does mean the airline should be able to explain whether it is actually relying on weather, an air traffic control instruction, an airport operational problem, or some combination of those circumstances.
Be wary of explanations that change
This is where keeping the messages you receive becomes important.
Imagine receiving the following:
At 2:15 p.m.:
“Your flight has been delayed due to crew availability.”
At 4:30 p.m.:
“Your flight has been cancelled due to operational requirements.”
Three weeks later, after submitting your compensation claim:
“Your disruption was caused by weather outside our control.”
Maybe there is a completely legitimate explanation tying those events together.
But you should ask for it.
Changing descriptions do not automatically prove wrongdoing.
Airline operations evolve quickly, and the information available to front-line staff may change as the situation develops.
Nevertheless, if the final reason for denying compensation is materially different from the reasons provided during the disruption, that is something worth examining.
Save the screenshots.
Save the emails.
Save the text messages.
They may become important later.
Ask what actually happened—not just how the airline classified it
A common mistake is arguing immediately about whether something was “within” or “outside” the airline's control.
Start one step earlier.
Ask:
What actually happened?
Suppose the airline says:
Your flight was cancelled because of weather outside our control.
A useful response is not necessarily:
No it wasn't.
A better response may be:
Please identify the meteorological conditions relied upon, where and when they occurred, how they affected my flight, and how those conditions made safe operation of the aircraft impossible.
Now you are asking for facts.
Once you know the facts, you can consider how the APPR applies to them.
What if the weather really did make flying unsafe?
Then compensation may not be payable.
And that is entirely appropriate.
Nobody should want an airline captain looking at unsafe weather and thinking:
Well, cancelling this flight might cost the company $1,000 per passenger…
Safety comes first.
The APPR recognizes that.
If a genuine meteorological condition made safe operation impossible, the disruption can fall outside the airline's control under section 10. Department of Justice Canada
But “no compensation” does not necessarily mean “no obligations.”
The airline may still have to get you where you are going
When a delay or cancellation is outside the airline's control, the APPR still imposes obligations.
Among other things, the regulations require airlines to provide passengers with information, and qualifying delays and cancellations trigger obligations concerning alternate travel arrangements or refunds. Sections 10 and 18 set out those requirements. Department of Justice Canada
So even where genuine weather means standardized compensation is unavailable, you should not assume the airline has no further responsibilities.
There is an important distinction between:
compensation for the inconvenience
and
the airline's obligation to deal with your disrupted journey.
They are not the same thing.
What should you do when an airline denies your claim because of weather?
Start by preserving the evidence.
Keep:
your original itinerary;
every delay or cancellation notification;
emails and text messages;
screenshots from the airline's app;
the compensation claim you submitted;
the airline's denial; and
any useful information you recorded at the airport.
Then look at the chronology.
What reason did the airline give initially?
Did that explanation change?
When did the alleged weather occur?
Where?
How did it affect your flight?
Was your flight disrupted directly by the weather, or was the airline relying on an earlier flight disruption?
If it was an earlier disruption, what explanation has the airline given about its efforts to mitigate the downstream effects?
You can ask the airline for a better explanation
If all you received was:
Your claim is denied because your flight was affected by weather outside our control,
you do not have to treat those words as a detailed explanation of what happened.
Ask for more information.
For example:
Please identify the meteorological conditions relied upon in denying my claim, where and when those conditions occurred, how they affected my flight, and the factual basis for concluding that they made safe operation of the aircraft impossible.
If the airline relies upon an earlier disruption, you can also ask it to explain:
which earlier flight was affected;
what caused that disruption;
how it resulted in your delay or cancellation; and
what measures were taken to mitigate its effect on your flight.
Keep the request factual and professional.
You are trying to understand the case, not win an argument with a customer-service representative.
And yes, look at what else was flying—but use that evidence carefully
If numerous comparable flights were operating during the period when the airline says weather made your flight impossible, that may be something worth investigating.
But do not overstate what it proves.
Another airline's flight may have:
used a different aircraft;
departed at a different time;
taken a different route;
had a different destination;
used a different runway;
avoided an earlier disruption; or
simply been affected differently operationally.
So instead of arguing:
“Another plane took off, therefore weather is impossible,”
the stronger position is:
“Other flights appear to have continued operating. Please explain what meteorological condition prevented the safe operation of this particular flight.”
That's a much better question.
Sometimes the answer will be perfectly reasonable
SkyGuard is not suggesting that every weather denial is suspicious.
Canada is enormous.
Our weather is occasionally ridiculous.
Weather causes genuine aviation disruptions every day, and airlines cannot control thunderstorms, freezing rain, blizzards, extreme winds or Mother Nature's occasional decision to turn Pearson into a very expensive snow globe.
Sometimes the airline's explanation will make perfect sense.
If it does, that may be the end of the compensation issue.
But passengers should not confuse “weather was involved somewhere” with a complete legal analysis.
The regulation contains more specific language for a reason.
The words “safe operation of the aircraft impossible” matter
That is the central takeaway.
When an airline relies on paragraph 10(1)(c), the APPR does not merely identify unpleasant weather.
It refers to:
meteorological conditions or natural disasters that make the safe operation of the aircraft impossible
Those words should guide the questions you ask. Department of Justice Canada
What conditions?
Where?
When?
Which aircraft?
How did they make its safe operation impossible?
Was the effect direct, or was this an earlier disruption being carried forward?
If it was an earlier disruption, were reasonable measures taken to mitigate its impact?
Those are much more useful questions than simply arguing about whether the weather looked bad from the terminal window.
The bottom line
Oh, Canadian weather, eh?
Sometimes it really is the culprit.
Sometimes a storm hundreds of kilometres away can disrupt your aircraft before you ever reach the airport.
Sometimes air traffic restrictions mean you will watch other aircraft take off while yours stays stubbornly attached to the gate.
And sometimes an airline gives a passenger the single word “weather” when what the passenger really needs is an explanation.
If your compensation claim is denied because of weather, do not automatically assume the airline is wrong.
But do not automatically assume the airline is right either.
Find out what happened.
Compare the explanation with the messages you received.
Preserve your evidence.
Ask how the weather affected your particular flight.
And remember the actual wording Parliament chose for the APPR.
The issue is not merely whether there was Canadian weather doing Canadian-weather things.
The issue is whether the relevant meteorological conditions fit the legal requirements of the regulations—and whether the airline can explain how they caused your disruption.
This article provides general legal information only and is not legal advice. Entitlement to compensation under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations depends on the particular facts of the disruption and the applicable law.