TAP technical fault: compensation despite the excuse
"A technical problem with the aircraft" is one of the most common reasons TAP Air Portugal gives for refusing compensation - and one of the weakest. Under EU Regulation 261/2004, a routine technical or maintenance fault is not an extraordinary circumstance, so it does not release TAP from paying. If a technical issue delayed you three or more hours or cancelled your flight, the "we had a mechanical problem" line is usually a reason to press your claim harder, not to drop it.
Free eligibility check
Check your case in the form
Enter your route, date and type of disruption. We will check whether your case qualifies for a claim under EU 261/2004 or UK261.
What happened to your flight?
Claim up to €600 for a delayed or cancelled flight.
Choose the situation that applies to your flight:
Short answer: An ordinary technical fault is part of running an airline, and the Court of Justice has ruled twice that it does not count as an extraordinary circumstance (C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann and C-257/14 van der Lans). TAP still owes EUR 250, EUR 400 or EUR 600 by distance unless it proves the very narrow exception - a genuine hidden defect or external damage - which almost never applies. Put the burden of proof back on TAP and ask for the specific evidence.
Why a technical fault is (almost) never extraordinary
Article 5(3) lets an airline avoid compensation only if the disruption was caused by "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken". The Court reads that phrase narrowly, and technical faults sit firmly outside it.
In C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann) the Court held that a technical problem which comes to light during maintenance, or because of a failure to maintain, is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier's activity. Aircraft break; keeping them airworthy is precisely the airline's job. The Court went further in C-257/14 (van der Lans): even a premature, unexpected failure of a component that had been properly maintained is still part of normal operations and does not excuse payment. Engine warning lights, hydraulics, avionics, an unserviceable auxiliary power unit, a "spare part not in stock at Lisbon" - all of these are the airline's own risk to manage.
That is why phrases like "unforeseen technical issue" or "aircraft on ground for maintenance" carry no legal weight on their own. Unforeseen is not the same as extraordinary.
The narrow exception TAP has to prove
There is a genuine exception, but it is small and TAP bears the burden of proving it. Van der Lans identified two situations where a technical cause can be extraordinary because, by its nature or origin, it is not inherent in normal operations:
- a hidden manufacturing defect revealed by the aircraft or engine manufacturer, or by a safety authority, as affecting the safety of a whole fleet type; or
- damage caused by an external event such as sabotage, a terrorist act, or a bird strike - things done to the aircraft from outside, not wear from flying it.
A one-off broken part on your specific TAP aircraft is not a "hidden defect" in this sense. To rely on the exception, TAP would need to point to a manufacturer service bulletin or airworthiness directive covering the exact fault - documents it rarely produces, because they rarely exist for an everyday snag.
| TAP says the cause was... | Extraordinary circumstance? |
|---|---|
| Routine technical / maintenance fault | No (C-549/07, C-257/14) |
| Premature part failure, aircraft properly maintained | No (C-257/14) |
| "Aircraft on ground", spare not available | No |
| Manufacturer-flagged hidden defect (fleet-wide) | Possibly, if documented |
| Sabotage, bird strike, external damage | Possibly, if proven |
How much a technical delay is worth
Because TAP is a Portuguese (EU) carrier, EU261 covers every TAP flight leaving an EU airport and every TAP flight arriving in the EU from a third country - so a technical delay on Lisbon-Frankfurt and on São Paulo-Lisbon are both covered. The trigger for a delay is three hours or more at your final destination (C-402/07 Sturgeon); our three-hour delay guide explains the threshold.
| Distance | Compensation | Typical TAP route |
|---|---|---|
| up to 1,500 km | EUR 250 | Lisbon-Madrid, Lisbon-Funchal |
| 1,500-3,500 km, or over 1,500 km within the EU | EUR 400 | Lisbon-Rome, Lisbon-Berlin |
| over 3,500 km outside the EU | EUR 600 | Lisbon-Newark, Lisbon-Salvador, Lisbon-Luanda |
TAP's Brazil, US, Canada and Africa routes sit in the EUR 600 band. One reduction applies: under Article 7(2), if TAP reroutes you and you still reach a long-haul destination less than four hours late, it may halve EUR 600 to EUR 300. For a connection, the arrival delay at your final destination and the distance to that final destination govern, not the leg where the aircraft broke (C-11/11 Folkerts). Estimate your figure with the flight compensation calculator. If your flight departed the UK, UK261 applies instead (GBP 220/350/520).
How to rebut a technical rejection
When TAP refuses on technical grounds, do not argue the engineering - argue the burden of proof. TAP must prove both that the cause was truly extraordinary and that it took all reasonable measures to avoid the disruption. A refusal letter that just asserts "technical reasons" does neither.
- Ask for the specific defect and the date it was discovered - vague wording is a red flag.
- Ask for documentary proof that it falls in the narrow exception: a manufacturer bulletin, an airworthiness directive, or an external-damage report.
- Check the operating carrier. Under C-532/17 (Wirth) the airline that actually flew the leg is liable; if TAP Express or a codeshare partner operated it, direct the claim there.
- Keep your right to care. Even in a genuinely extraordinary event, TAP still owes meals, refreshments and, if needed, a hotel under Article 9 (C-12/11 McDonagh).
If TAP holds its "no", escalate - see what to do when TAP rejects a claim. And do not confuse a technical fault with the other excuses: strikes by TAP's own staff are also not extraordinary (C-28/20 Airhelp v SAS; see the strike guide), while weather and air-traffic-control problems sometimes are.
ClaimWinger works on a no win, no fee basis: no upfront cost, and we take a commission only if your claim succeeds. We read TAP's technical excuse against the case law, demand the evidence the airline hopes you will not ask for, and handle escalation. Start with a free check on our delayed-flight page, or see the full TAP Air Portugal compensation guide.
FAQ — Frequently asked questions
TAP said the delay was a "technical problem". Can I still claim?
Usually yes. A routine technical or maintenance fault is not an extraordinary circumstance (C-549/07, C-257/14), so if you arrived three or more hours late TAP normally still owes compensation. Ask it to prove the fault fell within the narrow hidden-defect exception.
What is the "hidden defect" exception?
It is the rare case where a manufacturer or safety authority flags a concealed design or production fault affecting a whole aircraft type, or where external damage (sabotage, a bird strike) caused the problem. TAP has to document it - a single broken part on your aircraft does not qualify.
The part failed even though the plane was maintained. Does that help TAP?
No. In van der Lans (C-257/14) the Court held that an unexpected, premature failure of a properly maintained component is still inherent in normal operations, so it does not excuse payment.
My technical delay was on a Lisbon-Brazil flight. How much is it worth?
Routes over 3,500 km outside the EU pay EUR 600 for a three-hour-plus arrival delay - unless a rerouting brings you in under four hours late, when Article 7(2) can reduce it to EUR 300.
How long do I have to bring a claim?
Time limits depend on the jurisdiction where you sue, so there is no single universal deadline - check yours early. A widely discussed reform would add a nine-month claim window and a 30-day airline response deadline, but that is a proposal, not yet in force.
Sources
This guide reflects the EU261 position in 2026: the three-hour threshold and the EUR 250/400/600 amounts are in force, while the proposed EU261 reform (a nine-month claim window and a 30-day airline response deadline) is not yet applicable. It is general information, not legal advice.