Who owes you compensation when your flight is operated by another airline?

For EU261 or UK261 claims, the legally responsible party is the operating air carrier — the airline that actually operates the flight — not the airline whose code appears on your ticket. That rule holds whether the flight is a code-share or a wet lease.

In the U.S., disclosure rules identify the transporting carrier but generally do not create a fixed cash payment for delay. In Canada, APPR compensation scales by arrival delay and carrier size, from CAN$125 to CAN$1,000. Under the Montreal Convention, a passenger can pursue damages against the contracting carrier, the actual carrier, or both.

The first mismatch: what your booking record shows and what it hides

When a U.S. ticket involves a code-share or a long-term wet lease, federal rules oblige the seller to name the carrier that will actually fly. The confirmation must carry a set phrase — Operated by — and then the corporate name of that carrier.

That sounds like clarity, but it answers only one question. The confirmation never has to display the operator’s AOC number, and nothing in the retrieved rule distinguishes a wet lease from a code-share as far as the passenger can see. There is no public register where you can enter a flight number and get back “wet lease” or “code-share.”

Regulatory filings can carry an operator’s AOC type and licence details — the Canadian Transportation Agency has said as much — but that is not the same as a lookup a traveler can use. The official material backs one dependable conclusion: the booking record identifies the transporting carrier, not the commercial arrangement behind it.

EU261 and UK261: the operator owes, not the ticket seller

The starting point is where the flight departs, not which airline’s code sits on the ticket. Any passenger departing from an EU member state airport falls inside EU261. For a flight arriving into the EU from a third country, the rule only applies if the operating carrier is a Community carrier — unless the passenger already received equivalent assistance or compensation in that third country.

UK261 keeps that same test as retained law. According to UK legislation (The National Archives), the operating air carrier is whoever operates a flight — or intends to — for the contracting person or under a passenger contract. A qualifying cancellation gives the passenger a compensation right against that operating carrier.

The amount then follows three distance bands: €250 for flights up to 1,500 km, €400 for qualifying intra-EU flights over 1,500 km and other flights from 1,500 to 3,500 km, and €600 for longer flights. Nothing in this turns on who sold the ticket.

One legal line matters here. EU261’s standardized compensation and assistance are separate from Montreal Convention damages. A passenger can be owed EU261 cash and still have a Convention claim — two tracks, not one replacement.

Canada’s APPR uses delay bands, not logos

Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations pull the same trick in a different direction: the payout depends on arrival delay and carrier size, not on the marketing arrangement. For a large carrier, a qualifying arrival delay of 3–6 hours means CAN$400, 6–9 hours means CAN$700, and at least 9 hours means CAN$1,000. For a small carrier, the bands are CAN$125, CAN$250, and CAN$500.

The CTA adds a rule that trips people up: if a small airline flies on behalf of a large one, the Canadian Transportation Agency says the compensation, rebooking and refund rules that apply are the large carrier’s. That means a passenger can read the small airline’s name on the boarding pass and still be entitled to the large-carrier amounts because of the underlying arrangement.

Montreal Convention: a parallel damages track

When an international journey is flown by an airline other than the one that sold it, Articles 39 and 40 of the Montreal Convention open a separate route for the passenger. The passenger’s choice under those provisions is to name the contracting carrier, the actual carrier, or both at once, with the Convention’s liability rules governing how responsibility is allocated. The Permanent Court of Arbitration archive includes the Convention provisions, and EU261 itself draws a line between its Articles 7–9 compensation and assistance and delay-damages actions brought under the Convention.

The two roles can point to different airlines in practice: the contracting carrier is the one named on the ticket, while the actual carrier is the one that flew the aircraft. A passenger weighing a claim therefore has to decide which — or both — to name.

The decision table at a glance

The table condenses the verified markers into one view. The EU261 departure, EU261 third-country arrival, and APPR delay-band rows carry the passenger’s actual claim rights. The code-share and wet-lease rows show what the disclosure does and does not do.

Notably absent from the table: dry lease, damp lease, franchise, blocked-space and virtual interlining. The retrieved authoritative material did not provide enough arrangement-specific cells for those without inference, so they stay out.

What an AOC actually authorizes — and what it doesn’t

An air operator certificate (AOC) is a regulator’s authorization for an airline to run specified commercial operations with approved aircraft, procedures and management systems. EASA handles many EU technical approvals; member-state authorities issue operating certificates to carriers they license. But the certificate tells you who is certified to operate — it is not the EU261 payment trigger by itself.

Operational control covers the decisions that matter for a given flight — dispatch, crew and safety. For a passenger, the takeaway is that none of it turns on the logo on the ticket; it turns on the legal identity of the operator.

We did not verify the often-cited CJEU wet-lease ruling directly from a court database, so the table relies on the statute and official guidance instead.

What this means when you file a claim

First, find the Operated by line on your confirmation. That names the transporting carrier — the one EU261/UK261 will normally hold responsible if the flight falls under the coverage test. If you are flying into the EU from a third country, the question to ask is whether the operator is a Community carrier; who sold you the seat does not settle it.

If both carriers deny the claim, the verified route is a complaint to the national enforcement body designated in the country where the flight departed. There is no single EU-wide complaint form and no universal response deadline, so the process depends on that country’s rules.

One thing the research did not verify: a documented passenger case of double-denial by both carriers with a fixed outcome. So do not expect a guaranteed playbook — but the legal assignment of responsibility is clear from the operating-carrier test. For Canadian flights, if a small airline operates on a large carrier’s behalf, claim against the large carrier’s thresholds.

For Montreal Convention damages, you can name the contracting carrier, the actual carrier, or both — that track sits alongside any EU261 or APPR compensation.

Key terms

Operating air carrier

The operating air carrier is the airline that actually operates a flight — or intends to — for the contracting person or under a passenger contract. EU Regulation 261/2004 defines the term in Article 2(b), and every operating carrier providing covered transport falls within the Regulation. Because the test turns on who flies the aircraft rather than who sells the seat, a passenger’s claim can point at a carrier whose name never appeared on the booking.

Code-share

A code-share is an arrangement in which one airline sells seats under its own flight code on a service another carrier operates. U.S. disclosure rules require the seller to identify the transporting carrier on the itinerary, and Canada’s rules treat the arrangement as one where the operating carrier’s role determines which compensation regime applies. Because the marketing carrier can sell a seat on a flight it does not operate, a code-share booking can leave the passenger dealing with a carrier they never chose.

Wet lease

A wet lease is an arrangement in which one airline supplies an aircraft and crew to another, which then sells seats on the flight. U.S. rules treat long-term wet leases like code-shares, requiring the same “Operated by” disclosure on the confirmation. Because the disclosure is identical for both, a passenger trying to work out who owes compensation has to rely on the operating-carrier test rather than the paperwork.

Air Operator Certificate (AOC)

An air operator certificate is a regulator’s authorization for an airline to conduct specified commercial operations using approved aircraft, procedures and management systems. It is issued and overseen by the relevant national aviation authority — EASA handles many EU technical approvals, while member-state authorities issue operating certificates to the carriers they license. Because the certificate names the certified operator rather than the seller, it can help a passenger work out who to claim against, though the legal test still turns on who operated the flight.

Montreal Convention

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty that governs carrier liability for international carriage, including claims for damage caused by delay. Articles 39 and 40 address carriage performed by a carrier other than the contracting one, allowing a passenger to pursue the contracting carrier, the actual carrier, or both. Because its liability rules allocate responsibility between those two roles, the Convention can reach a carrier that the standardized EU261 amounts do not.

Questions? Answers.