The change—still pending final approval by the European Parliament—seeks to strike a balance between consumer protection and the operational viability of airlines. Airlines, which have long called for a revision of the compensation conditions established under Regulation 261/2004, view the new threshold as more realistic and aligned with the current dynamics of air traffic. They argue that delays can often be caused by factors beyond their control, such as severe weather or air traffic control disruptions, and that bearing the cost of every delay beyond three hours has become disproportionate and financially burdensome.
In contrast, consumer organizations and passenger advocacy groups have strongly criticized the proposal, arguing that it represents a step backward in passenger protections. From their perspective, increasing the required delay for monetary compensation to four hours means a tangible loss of already-established rights—especially in a context where delays are becoming increasingly common. They also point out that the Court of Justice of the European Union has repeatedly upheld the validity of compensation for delays starting at three hours, establishing a clear framework that now appears to be changing in a controversial manner.
The debate also has a political dimension. Some Member States, such as Germany and France, have supported the change as a way to give their national carriers more flexibility, while others—especially tourism-driven countries that depend heavily on international traffic—have voiced concerns about the potential negative impact on travelers’ perception. The Belgian presidency of the EU Council, which facilitated the consensus, emphasized that the agreement still maintains a high level of passenger protection, and that other compensatory measures—such as ticket refunds, required assistance, and the right to be rebooked on another flight—will remain unchanged.
The airline industry has welcomed the preliminary agreement, seeing it as a potential relief in reducing the number of compensations, especially for medium-haul flights, where profit margins are tighter. Airlines have also stressed the need to complement this reform with investments in infrastructure, airport coordination, and digital process improvements to enhance punctuality and reduce the underlying causes of delays.
For the measure to take effect, the European Parliament must approve the text in an upcoming plenary session, where a tight vote is expected. Several MEPs have already announced their intention to oppose the reform, arguing that it weakens hard-won rights for European citizens. Until then, Regulation 261/2004 and its judicial interpretations will continue to apply at European airports.
This new scenario reopens the debate on how far travelers should be protected versus the need for economic sustainability in the aviation sector. And it raises, once again, the eternal question: where is the right balance between business profitability and consumer rights in 21st-century transport?
