A flight can touch down within its scheduled window and still qualify for claim compensation for a delayed flight, because “landed” and “arrived” are not the same moment under EU rules. Passengers who check only the touchdown time can wrongly conclude they missed the three-hour threshold, even when the aircraft spent additional time taxiing or waiting before passengers could leave. When those final minutes push the legally relevant arrival time beyond the threshold, they can become important to a potential claim.
The Arrival Time That Actually Matters
The Court of Justice of the European Union addressed this issue in Case C-452/13. Its ruling established that the relevant arrival time is the moment when at least one aircraft door is opened, rather than when the aircraft touches down or reaches its parking position.
The distinction exists because passengers remain confined to the aircraft until the doors are opened. Touchdown therefore does not necessarily mark the point at which the journey has legally reached its arrival time for EU261 purposes.
This interpretation applies when EU261 governs the flight, regardless of which airline operates it.
What Happens Between Touchdown and the Gate?
The period after landing can involve several stages that are easy to overlook when checking a flight’s delay:
- The aircraft may need to taxi to its assigned stand.
- A busy airport may cause the aircraft to wait for a gate or parking position.
- The crew may wait for a jet bridge or stairs to become available.
- Ground operations can create additional minutes before the aircraft door is opened.
- Flight-tracking services may display touchdown as the arrival event, even though that is not necessarily the legally relevant time.
Individually, these delays may appear insignificant. When the scheduled arrival is already close to the three-hour threshold, however, a difference of several minutes can change the calculation.
A Three-Hour Delay Is Not Measured by Touchdown
Consider a flight scheduled to arrive at 14:00. If the aircraft touches down at 16:57, a passenger might assume the three-hour threshold has not been reached.
But suppose the aircraft remains on the ground for several more minutes and a door is not opened until 17:03. The legally relevant arrival time would then be beyond three hours after the scheduled arrival.
The example shows why passengers should not automatically rely on the timestamp shown by a flight tracker. The important comparison is between the scheduled arrival and the legally relevant arrival moment.
Which Records Should Passengers Check?
When a flight is close to the three-hour threshold, passengers may need to look beyond a basic “landed” timestamp.
Useful details can include:
- the scheduled arrival time shown on the booking;
- the touchdown time;
- the time the aircraft reached its stand;
- records showing when a door was opened, where available;
- airline or airport records relating to the arrival.
An airline’s recorded arrival time may therefore need closer examination if it does not clearly reflect the legally relevant moment. Likewise, a cabin announcement that the aircraft has landed does not by itself establish the arrival time used for EU261 purposes.
When the Arrival Time Needs a Closer Look
The difference between touchdown and door opening is particularly important when a delay is close to three hours. Skycop can review the relevant arrival timing for delayed-flight claims and handle correspondence with the airline when a claim is submitted.
The key is not simply proving that the aircraft landed late. It is establishing the arrival moment that matters under the applicable passenger-rights rules.
The Clock Doesn’t Stop at Touchdown
A flight that appears to have landed on time can still cross the threshold that matters. Under EU261, the relevant arrival moment is when at least one aircraft door is opened, so the minutes spent taxiing or waiting for a stand can matter when the delay is close to three hours.
Checking that final arrival moment rather than relying only on touchdown time gives passengers a more accurate basis for assessing whether a potential compensation claim exists.
