Snow and de-icing delays: when the airline still has to pay

Updated 15 October 2026
General information, not legal advice. The outcome depends on the facts of your case.

Your winter flight sat at the gate for hours waiting for de-icing, or was cancelled in a snowfall. You claimed compensation and the airline answered "weather" or "extraordinary circumstances". In the Nordics de-icing is an ordinary part of winter flying. That matters, because an airline can only refuse compensation for events outside its normal operations.

What the airline has to prove

Under Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004, the airline must prove two things (Airhelp v SAS C-28/20, para 23):

1. An extraordinary event outside its normal activity and actual control.
2. All reasonable measures. It did what it reasonably could to avoid or limit the delay, including rerouting you on other airlines (LE v TAP C-74/19).

Only the part of the delay that the event caused is excused (Pešková C-315/15). If a snowstorm closed the runway for two hours and you landed nine hours late, the airline must explain the rest.

Routine de-icing: usually not extraordinary

Germany, Federal Court of Justice, 27 August 2024 (X ZR 146/23). A passenger flew Minneapolis to Amsterdam in December 2021, missed the connection to Düsseldorf because of de-icing and arrived almost 4 hours late. The court held that the need to de-ice before take-off, at airports and times where winter temperatures are to be expected, is not an extraordinary circumstance. As reported, it made no difference that many aircraft were affected or that the airline had no influence over the de-icing itself.

Running out of de-icing fluid: not extraordinary

• Germany, Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, 19 November 2013 (2 U 3/13). A Berlin–Rome flight on 10 December 2010 was cancelled because there was not enough de-icing fluid. A contractor working for the airport did the de-icing. The court said the airline must make sure the supplies needed for the flight are there, that a shortage can normally be avoided by stocking enough in time, and that it did not matter that a third party supplied the fluid. €250 per passenger.
• Norway, Transportklagenemnda, Kirkenes–Tromsø–Oslo, March 2017. Kirkenes airport ran out of de-icing fluid during bad weather, and the passenger arrived 8 hours late. As reported by flysmart24 (2 March 2018), the majority awarded €400. It said the airline can seek the money back from the airport, but the passenger should not carry that risk.

Snowfall and closed airports: maybe, if documented

Heavy snow that closes an airport can be extraordinary. The airline must still show how it hit your flight.

• Sweden, ARN 2017-03049 (22 May 2018). A connecting flight from Istanbul was cancelled during snowfall. ARN accepted that snow can be extraordinary, but the airline did not explain how the snowstorm affected that flight or why it could not avoid the cancellation. €600 per passenger.

Courts do not all agree

A Dutch district court went the other way. In ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:15907 (Haarlem, 28 May 2025), an Amsterdam–London flight on 9 December 2022 arrived 3 hours 25 minutes late after earlier flights had to be de-iced and air traffic control held them. The judge accepted waiting for de-icing and the de-icing itself as extraordinary, because the airline documented it and showed that the waiting time was set by air traffic control and the airport.

So the evidence decides. A rejection that just says "de-icing" or "winter weather" is not proof.

Meals and hotel are owed anyway

Even when the snow really was extraordinary, the airline must give you meals, drinks and a hotel if you have to stay overnight. There is no time or money limit, and you can claim back reasonable costs if it gave you nothing (McDonagh v Ryanair C-12/11). Keep the receipts.

What evidence to ask for

• the timeline for your flight: when it was ready, when de-icing was requested and when it started
• whether de-icing was delayed by lack of fluid, equipment or staff, and who was responsible
• weather data (METAR) and any airport closure notice (NOTAM), with times
• whether other flights, also other airlines, left in the same period
• which other flights were checked to reroute you

Step by step

1. Reply in writing. Point out that routine de-icing is normal operations (X ZR 146/23) and ask for the evidence above.
2. Wait about 4 weeks in Sweden and Norway, 6 weeks in Denmark.
3. Go to the board for the country where the disruption happened: KRIL in Finland, ARN in Sweden, Trafikstyrelsen in Denmark, Transportklagenemnda in Norway. See the Nordic complaint boards.

Deadlines differ by country. See EU261 time limits in the Nordics. Flying home for the holidays? See Christmas flight cancelled.

When it is worth it, and when not

Worth it: the delay came from waiting for de-icing on an ordinary winter day, the airport ran out of fluid, or the delay lasted much longer than the snowfall.

Weak: the airport was closed for everyone, the airline documents it, and it got you on the first possible flight. Then claim your costs and let the compensation go.

When the airline says no

Reply once with the court decisions above and a request for the timeline. Many airlines answer every winter claim with the same text. See extraordinary circumstances or try the rejection checker.

Appeal My Flight writes the reply to the airline and the board complaint for €29 per booking, however many passengers. You send it yourself and keep the full payout. We cannot promise an outcome.

FAQ

The airline says the de-icing queue was the airport's fault. Does that help it?

Not on its own. The German court in 2 U 3/13 said it made no difference that a third party handled the fluid.

It was snowing heavily. Do I still have a case?

Possibly. Ask whether the airport was closed, for how long, and whether other flights left. Snow that did not stop others is weak proof.

My flight was cancelled before I got to the airport. Is that different?

The notice rules then matter too. See Christmas flight cancelled for the 14-day and 7-day rules.

Got the airline's reply? Paste it into the rejection checker and see what EU court rulings say about their excuse.