Weather is the cause that sounds most obvious — and which airlines therefore use most broadly. The main rule: severe weather normally counts as an extraordinary circumstance under EU 261/2004, and no cash compensation is then paid. But the answer is more nuanced than the rumour going round the forum threads — that "a flight cancelled because of wind and weather never gives compensation". If the delay was really caused by the airline's own handling, and weather just became the label, you may still be entitled to EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 (roughly SEK 2,800, 4,500 or 6,800). And one thing applies regardless: the duty of care — meals, drinks, a hotel where needed — never falls away. Read more in our guide to whether you are entitled .
This page belongs to our guide to extraordinary circumstances on flights , where all the causes — weather, technical fault, strike, bird strike, ATC — are compared side by side.
The main rule: weather is usually extraordinary
An airline does not control the weather. Storm, heavy snowfall, dense fog, thunderstorms, icing in the air — that sort of thing lies outside the airline's control and does not belong to its normal activity. If that is the actual reason your flight was delayed by more than three hours or cancelled, the starting point is that the airline does not have to pay compensation. That is how Article 5(3) of EU 261/2004 is built: the exception for extraordinary circumstances exists precisely for events of this kind.
So far the common belief holds. The problem is that it is often applied too broadly — as if the word "weather" in a rejection email closed the question. It does not.
When "weather" is not the whole truth
What matters is not whether it was bad weather that day. What matters is whether your particular delay really was caused by the weather, or whether weather is just the name for a failure that was the airline's own. Three questions reveal the difference:
- Did other flights go? If other airlines' planes took off from the same airport at roughly the same time, the weather clearly was not an absolute obstacle. The airline must then explain why your flight specifically was hit.
- Was it the de-icing that took time? That it is snowing is weather. De-icing the aircraft is the airline's own responsibility and part of normal operations. A long delay caused by a de-icing queue, too few de-icing resources or poor forward planning is not a pure weather case.
- Had the crew already run out of time? Sometimes the causes stack. The weather gave an initial delay, but what tipped the flight over the three-hour threshold was the crew hitting their duty-time limits — and crew planning is the airline's responsibility.
If you find any of this in your case, it is not certain the exception holds. And remember: the burden of proof is on the airline. It is the airline that must show the weather was an extraordinary circumstance and that it took all reasonable measures to limit the delay. An email that only says "weather reasons" is not proof.
Common weather situations — and where the line tends to fall
| Situation | Starting point | What can change the answer |
|---|---|---|
| Heavy storm, airport closed | Extraordinary — no compensation | Rarely; a field closed by the authorities lies outside the airline's control |
| Snowfall, long de-icing queue | Depends | If de-icing took unnecessarily long because of too few resources, compensation can be paid |
| Fog at the departure airport | Usually extraordinary | If the fog lifted but the flight was still delayed for other reasons |
| Snow on an earlier flight with the same aircraft | Depends | The airline must show it could not have rescheduled to protect your departure |
| "Weather reasons" without further explanation | Test the answer | Ask for detail — a vague claim is not proof |
The pattern recurs: the more a delay is about the airline's handling of the weather — resources, planning, rebooking — the weaker the defence of an extraordinary circumstance becomes.
A concrete example
Picture a departure from Arlanda on a snowy winter morning. It is snowing, but moderately, and other airlines' planes take off roughly on schedule. Your flight is delayed four hours. The rejection email says "weather conditions".
The question is not whether it snowed — it did. The question is what those four hours consisted of. Was the plane in the de-icing queue for twenty minutes and then ready? Then the rest of the delay was probably something else: a late crew, an aircraft that came in late from an earlier leg, or administrative trouble. Ask the airline to account for the timeline. If it cannot explain why the snow caused exactly four hours when other departures went as scheduled, "weather reasons" hardly holds as a complete answer — and your claim for EUR 400 may still be alive.
The duty of care applies regardless of weather
This is the part that gets forgotten, and it is worth stating clearly. Even when the weather genuinely frees the airline from paying cash compensation, the duty of care remains.
The duty of care means the airline must look after you during the wait: meals and drinks in reasonable quantity, the means to get in touch, and for a delay overnight also a hotel and transport to and from it. That right is tied to the disruption itself, not to the cause. A snowstorm can remove your EUR 400 — but it does not remove the airline's obligation to make sure you have food and a roof over your head. If you meet an airline that points to "force majeure" to escape all responsibility, that is not correct. More on what you are entitled to is on the right to care, meals and a hotel during a flight delay . We work through what counts as force majeure for flights in a section of its own.
How to assess your own case
A short summary to work through:
- Was it really the weather? Or was it de-icing, planning or crew time — things the airline itself controls?
- Ask for a concrete explanation if you got a no. "Weather reasons" without detail is not enough; the airline has the burden of proof.
- Claim the duty of care regardless of how the question of cause lands — meals, drinks, a hotel where needed.
- Take it further if the answer does not hold. ARN (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes) resolves the dispute free of charge, and Transportstyrelsen (the Swedish Transport Agency) is the supervisory authority.
If you are not sure your case qualifies at all, work through our router that decides whether you are entitled to compensation . To see what a claim might be worth, use the flight compensation calculator . Read more in compensation for a bird strike flight delay .
This is not legal advice
This page is based on published and institutional sources — expert review has not yet been carried out. For advice on your individual case, contact ARN (Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — the Swedish National Board for Consumer Disputes) or Transportstyrelsen (the Swedish Transport Agency), the supervisory authority for air passenger rights in Sweden.
Frequently asked questions
Can you get compensation for a flight delay caused by weather?
Usually not. Severe weather normally counts as an extraordinary circumstance under EU 261/2004, and the airline is then freed from paying compensation. But if the delay was in fact caused by the airline's own handling — too little de-icing capacity or poor planning — and weather is only used as a label, you may still be entitled to EUR 250–600.
Do snow and de-icing always count as weather?
No. That it is snowing is weather, but de-icing the aircraft is the airline's own responsibility and part of normal operations. If other flights left as scheduled and yours alone was heavily delayed because of a de-icing queue or too few resources, it is no longer a pure weather case — and compensation can then be paid.
Am I entitled to meals and a hotel if my flight is delayed by weather?
Yes. The duty of care applies regardless of cause. Even when weather frees the airline from cash compensation, it must offer meals and drinks during the wait and, for a delay overnight, a hotel and transport. That right never falls away because of bad weather.
Who decides whether the weather really was the cause?
The burden of proof is on the airline. It is the airline that must show the weather was an extraordinary circumstance and that it could not have avoided the delay with reasonable measures. If you only get "weather reasons" without an explanation, you can ask for more detail and take the case to ARN.
Sources and further reading
- EUR-Lex — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 , in particular Article 5(3) and Article 9 (duty of care)
- Transportstyrelsen — Air passenger rights (the supervisory authority in Sweden)
- Konsumentverket — Delayed or cancelled flights (the Swedish Consumer Agency)
- ARN — Allmänna reklamationsnämnden — resolves disputes free of charge for the consumer
Last reviewed: 17 May 2026.
No comments yet