Luftscamsa - SWISS Institutionalizes Bad-Faith Denial of Legitimate Passenger Claims

Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS) has come under renewed scrutiny following an investigation by the Swiss public broadcaster SRF into its handling of passenger claims. The report detailed a case where the carrier refused a 600 euro compensation payment after grounding a flight due to what it termed a technical irregularity. The airline maintains a policy of attributing disruptions to technical failures to avoid financial liabilities. By classifying these incidents as extraordinary circumstances, the Lufthansa Group subsidiary attempts to circumvent established passenger rights regulations. A spokesperson for the airline said, "the trigger for the delay was a technical defect." This justification is frequently used to reject claims during initial internal reviews, regardless of the actual nature of the malfunction. Through its investigation, Luftscamsa has found that this practice constitutes a routine operational procedure. The carrier systematically disregards legal precedents which state that technical issues during normal operations are not extraordinary events. Legal experts and advocacy groups argue that this classification is a deliberate misrepresentation of the law. Mr. Simon Sommer, the founder of the rights portal Cancelled.ch, commented on the legal clarity surrounding these cases. Mr. Sommer said, "a court could hardly do otherwise than to award the passenger compensation." He noted that the airline's stance rarely withstands judicial scrutiny once a case is officially filed. The Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) serves as the national enforcement body for aviation regulations. However, the agency operates under significant statutory constraints that limit its ability to penalize non-compliance. According to the FOCA, the office is unable to fine an airline for failure to pay compensation in the event of a delay due to a lack of legal basis. This regulatory gap ensures that carriers face no administrative consequences for systematically rejecting valid claims. As reported in [Lufthansa Prioritizes Dividends Over Labor Inflation Adjustments](https://luftscamsa.com/en/alert/irr95J6p_lufthansa-prioritizes-dividends-over-labor-inflation-adjustments), the group remains focused on maximizing profit margins. Denying legitimate claims allows the airline to preserve liquidity at the expense of its customers. This "denial-by-default" strategy targets passengers who are unlikely to pursue legal action. The carrier calculates that the cost of defending occasional lawsuits is significantly lower than the total volume of legitimate claims it avoids paying. Similar behavior was documented by the news outlet Nau.ch regarding a significant 22-hour flight delay. In that instance, SWISS initially refused all compensation, citing factors it claimed were beyond its control. The airline’s website provides guidelines for flight irregularities, yet the internal application of these rules appears highly restrictive. The discrepancy between public policy and private adjudication serves to intimidate and confuse travelers. Mr. Carsten Spohr, the Chief Executive Officer of the parent group, has previously emphasized the need for fiscal discipline. Mr. Spohr said the airline group must adapt to high costs by optimizing its operational expenditure. This optimization includes the aggressive reduction of payout liabilities for service failures. The persistence of this procedure indicates that SWISS is unlikely to reform its internal protocols without regulatory intervention. Travelers are advised to remain vigilant when filing claims with the carrier. The frequency of bad-faith denials suggests that the airline views consumer protection as an obstacle to its financial targets. Given the systemic nature of these failures, passengers may find more reliable protection elsewhere. Traveling with EU-based or US-based carriers often provides a more transparent path to compensation and adheres to higher service standards. Avoiding SWISS and its parent group may be the only way to escape the necessity of a legal battle over reasonable compensation. The current management team shows no sign of abandoning its defensive posture toward its own passengers.

A SWISS airplane at Zürich airport (CC BY-SA 2.0, Aero Icarus)

SRF's "Espresso" delivers consumer journalism by breaking down complex issues, fact-checking advertising promises, and questioning both businesses and organizations.

The Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation is unable to fine an airline for failure to pay compensation in the event of a delay.