Brussels Airport Strike on 9 October 2026: Can Passengers Get a Refund or EU261 Compensation?
Introduction
The Brussels Airport strike scheduled for October 9, 2026, is expected to disrupt international flights as employees of ground-handling company Alyzia participate in nationwide industrial action in Belgium. Belgian media have reported approximately 140 anticipated flight cancellations, although the airport has not confirmed a definitive total. Passengers whose flights are canceled may be entitled to reimbursement, alternative transportation, and assistance under European Union law, regardless of whether the airline caused the disruption (Brussels Airport, 2026; Reuters, 2026).
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 also provides financial compensation of €250, €400, or €600 in qualifying cases. Airlines may nevertheless avoid these payments when cancellations result from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been prevented through reasonable measures. Industrial action involving an external ground-handling provider raises a particular legal question because the disruption may originate outside the airline's effective control without releasing it from its other passenger-protection obligations.
International travelers may also have rights under the 1999 Montreal Convention, which establishes a separate liability regime for damage caused by delay in international air carriage. The distinction between European statutory compensation, mandatory assistance, and international liability determines which remedies may be available to passengers affected by the disruption.
1. The Brussels Airport Strike and Flight Cancellations
The disruption scheduled for Friday, October 9, follows nationwide trade union demonstrations against Belgian federal government policies. Alyzia, one of Brussels Airport's ground-handling providers, is expected to operate with reduced staffing because some employees will participate in the industrial action. Its services include baggage handling, ramp operations, aircraft cleaning, and other activities necessary for airport operations (The Brussels Times, 2026).
Brussels Airport has announced that approximately half of the flights handled by Alyzia are expected to operate normally. Belgian media have reported approximately 140 anticipated cancellations, while Brussels Airlines expects around 40% of its flights to be affected. The airline has emphasized that it is not participating in the industrial action, which involves an external service provider. These figures remain provisional rather than a definitive count of cancellations (Brussels Airport, 2026; The Brussels Times, 2026).
The airport has indicated that flights handled by Aviapartner are not currently expected to be affected by the Alyzia action. Airlines working with Alyzia are responsible for contacting affected passengers and communicating available alternatives. Cancellations appear in the airport's flight information system once registered by the relevant airline. For international travelers, confirmation of individual cancellations is particularly significant when connecting flights form part of the same journey.
2. EU261 Rights When Flights Are Canceled
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishes common European rules concerning flight cancellations, long delays, and denied boarding. Article 3 generally applies to passengers departing from airports within the European Union, irrespective of nationality or the operating airline's country of establishment. Accordingly, qualifying passengers departing Brussels for destinations such as London, New York, or Istanbul fall within its territorial scope (European Parliament and Council, 2004).
The Regulation establishes distinct legal remedies. Article 8 governs reimbursement and rerouting, Article 9 provides assistance during disruption, and Article 7 determines fixed financial compensation where legally applicable. Article 5 connects these provisions to cancellations and establishes circumstances in which compensation may be excluded. These rights serve different purposes and must be assessed separately.
Responsibility rests primarily with the operating air carrier, meaning the airline performing or intending to perform the flight. This remains relevant where tickets are marketed through codeshare agreements or purchased from intermediaries. Although Alyzia's reduced operations may cause cancellations, the involvement of a ground-handling contractor does not automatically transfer the airline's statutory obligations to that contractor.
2.1. Refunds and Alternative Transportation
Article 8 gives passengers whose flights are canceled a choice between reimbursement and rerouting. Alternative transportation may be offered at the earliest opportunity under comparable transport conditions or at a later date convenient to the passenger, subject to available seats. Reimbursement must ordinarily be provided within seven days and covers the relevant unused portions of the ticket (European Parliament and Council, 2004).
The position becomes more complicated where international journeys include connecting flights. If the canceled service forms part of a single booking, reimbursement may extend to portions already traveled when the journey no longer serves the passenger's original travel plan. Article 8 also provides for a return flight to the initial departure point where appropriate. Separately booked flights do not automatically receive the same treatment as a single itinerary.
Passengers seeking a Brussels Airlines cancelled flights refund retain these rights when the Regulation applies. Airlines cannot require passengers to accept travel vouchers instead of statutory reimbursement. Under Articles 7(3) and 8, payment through vouchers or other services requires the passenger's signed agreement. Choosing reimbursement instead of continuing the journey may also affect subsequent assistance associated with rerouting.
2.2. Meals, Hotels, and Passenger Assistance
Article 9 requires airlines to provide appropriate meals and refreshments during qualifying disruption, together with communication facilities. Where replacement transportation necessitates an overnight stay, the airline must provide hotel accommodation and transportation between the airport and the accommodation. These obligations address passengers' immediate needs rather than the financial value of their original tickets.
The duty of care becomes particularly relevant during widespread industrial action because alternative flights may not be immediately available. In IATA and ELFAA v Department for Transport (Case C-344/04, 2006), the Court of Justice distinguished standardized assistance under EU261 from individualized damages governed by the Montreal Convention. The two regimes have different legal foundations and purposes.
An extraordinary circumstance does not automatically extinguish the duty of care. Passengers awaiting rerouting may remain entitled to assistance even where the airline is exempt from fixed compensation. If the carrier fails to provide required assistance, reasonable and necessary expenses may be recoverable, provided they can be substantiated (Belgian Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport, 2026).
3. Can Passengers Claim EU261 Strike Compensation?
Article 7 establishes three compensation bands: €250 for flights of 1,500 kilometers or less; €400 for intra-EU flights exceeding 1,500 kilometers and other flights between 1,500 and 3,500 kilometers; and €600 for flights outside those categories. These amounts may be reduced by 50% where rerouting permits arrival within the applicable limits of two, three, or four hours, respectively (European Parliament and Council, 2004).
Entitlement also depends on cancellation notice. Compensation is generally excluded where passengers receive notice at least 14 days before departure. For notification between seven and 14 days beforehand, the exemption requires rerouting permitting departure no more than two hours early and arrival less than four hours late. Where notice is given fewer than seven days before departure, the corresponding limits are one hour early and less than two hours late.
These notification rules operate independently of Article 5(3), which establishes the extraordinary-circumstances defense. Even where insufficient notice would ordinarily support compensation, an airline may avoid payment if it establishes the statutory exemption. Conversely, passengers may retain reimbursement, rerouting, and assistance rights where fixed compensation is excluded.
3.1. Ground-Handling Strikes and Extraordinary Circumstances
Article 5(3) exempts airlines from fixed compensation where they establish that cancellation resulted from extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The Court of Justice examines whether the event is inherent in the airline's normal activity and whether it lies outside its effective control. The classification of an event as industrial action does not automatically satisfy this test.
In Airhelp v Scandinavian Airlines (Case C-28/20, 2021), the Court held that a lawful strike organized by an airline's own pilots over employment-related demands did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Collective bargaining and associated industrial action were considered part of ordinary airline management. The judgment does not establish that every strike involving an external service provider automatically qualifies for exemption.
A different situation arose in Touristic Aviation Services v Flightright (Case C-405/23, 2024). The Court held that insufficient personnel at an airport operator responsible for baggage loading may constitute an extraordinary circumstance. Nevertheless, the airline must establish that the resulting disruption could not have been avoided through reasonable measures. The judgment concerned airport staffing shortages rather than a strike involving an independently contracted ground-handling provider.
The reasonable-measures requirement was examined further in LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (Case C-74/19, 2020). The Court held that an airline seeking exemption may need to consider alternative direct or connecting flights operated by other carriers. Offering only its own next available service may be insufficient where an earlier reasonable alternative exists. Airlines are not, however, required to make intolerable sacrifices relative to their operational capacities.
Applied to Alyzia, these principles require consideration of the provider's relationship with the operating airline, the circumstances causing disruption, and the alternatives reasonably available. Commercial independence does not necessarily establish an absence of effective control. The airline must demonstrate the causal connection between the industrial action and the particular cancellation, together with the adequacy of its response.
3.2. The 2026 EU Passenger Rights Reform
Regulation (EU) 2026/2202, adopted on September 16 and published on October 2, 2026, introduces substantial amendments to European passenger-rights legislation. Its new non-exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances expressly addresses strikes involving essential airport service providers, subject to specific conditions (European Parliament and Council, 2026).
The provisions include strikes involving ground-handling providers that airlines do not effectively choose within the meaning of Directive 96/67/EC, provided the industrial action remains beyond the actual control of the operating airline or its corporate group. This qualification prevents the automatic classification of every third-party ground-handling strike as extraordinary.
The Regulation enters into force on October 22, 2026, but its substantive amendments apply only from October 23, 2027. Accordingly, the October 9 disruption remains governed by Regulation 261/2004 in its currently applicable form and the relevant Court of Justice jurisprudence.
4. International Liability Under the Montreal Convention
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, adopted in Montreal on May 28, 1999, establishes a separate liability regime for international air transport. Article 19 provides for carrier liability for damage occasioned by delay in transporting passengers, baggage, or cargo, subject to the Convention's defenses. Unlike EU261's fixed compensation system, this framework addresses individualized losses that must be established by the claimant (ICAO, 1999).
The distinction is relevant where disrupted international travel causes additional financial losses. A passenger arriving late after rerouting may incur expenses beyond those covered by immediate statutory assistance. Recovery under Article 19 requires evidence of legally recoverable damage and a causal connection with delay in international carriage. Cancellation alone does not automatically establish liability under the Convention.
The carrier may avoid liability by proving that it and its servants and agents took all measures reasonably required to avoid the damage or that such measures were impossible. Under Article 22(1), the revised liability limit for passenger delay is 6,303 Special Drawing Rights per passenger, effective December 28, 2024. This is a liability ceiling rather than an automatic payment. Article 22(5) provides an exception in specified cases involving intentional or reckless conduct accompanied by knowledge that damage would probably result (ICAO, 2024).
The Convention also establishes distinct jurisdictional and procedural rules. Article 33 identifies the courts in which qualifying actions may be brought, while Article 35 generally extinguishes the right to damages unless proceedings commence within two years of the relevant date. These rules differ from the national limitation periods governing EU261 compensation proceedings.
5. Cross-Border Application of Passenger Rights
Passengers departing Brussels Airport generally receive EU261 protection regardless of nationality or residence. Travelers flying to France or Germany remain protected by the same directly applicable EU legislation rather than separate national compensation systems. France's Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) and Germany's Federal Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt) are designated national enforcement authorities. For incidents involving departures from Brussels, Belgian authorities ordinarily exercise the relevant regulatory oversight (European Commission, 2026).
Flights between Brussels and the United Kingdom may also engage the United Kingdom's retained passenger-rights legislation, commonly called UK261. The UK regime covers flights departing the United Kingdom and certain incoming services operated by UK or EU carriers. A Brussels–London flight operated by an EU airline may consequently fall within both systems, subject to provisions addressing assistance or compensation already received under another applicable regime (UK Civil Aviation Authority, n.d.).
For journeys involving the United States, federal passenger-protection rules provide additional refund rights. The US Department of Transportation requires refunds for qualifying canceled flights to, from, or within the United States where passengers do not accept alternative transportation or other offered compensation. These rules do not establish a general American equivalent to EU261's fixed cancellation payments (US Department of Transportation, 2024).
Canada's Air Passenger Protection Regulations similarly apply to flights to, from, and within Canada, including qualifying connecting services. The Canadian framework distinguishes disruptions within an airline's control from those outside it, including certain labor and airport-related disruptions. Depending on the circumstances, passengers retain applicable rebooking and refund rights without necessarily qualifying for fixed compensation. Canadian rules also restrict duplicate compensation for the same inconvenience already compensated under another jurisdiction's passenger-protection regime (Canadian Transportation Agency, 2026).
6. Claims and Enforcement in Belgium
The operating airline remains the principal party responsible for complying with Regulation 261/2004. Article 5(4) places the burden of proving whether and when passengers were informed of cancellation on the carrier. Where extraordinary circumstances are invoked, the airline must establish the conditions supporting exemption. General references to industrial action do not eliminate the need to demonstrate the circumstances affecting the particular flight.
Documentary evidence is significant in contested claims. Cancellation notices establish the timing and stated reasons for disruption, while booking records and replacement flight details clarify the journey covered and alternatives offered. Receipts may substantiate necessary expenses arising where the airline failed to provide legally required assistance.
In Belgium, the Belgian Civil Aviation Authority supervises compliance with European passenger-rights legislation and examines relevant complaints. Its administrative responsibilities are distinct from judicial proceedings for individual monetary recovery. In LOT Polish Airlines v Budapest Capital Government Office (Case C-597/20, 2022), the Court of Justice confirmed that Member States may authorize national enforcement bodies to order compensation payments where domestic legislation grants that power. Such authority is not automatically conferred on every national enforcement body by EU261.
The Belgian authority identifies Article X.49 of the Economic Law Code as establishing a two-year limitation period for relevant passenger-transport proceedings, including EU261 claims governed by Belgian law. This is not a uniform European limitation period. In Cuadrench Moré v KLM (Case C-139/11, 2012), the Court held that limitation periods for EU261 compensation actions are determined by applicable national rules. The competent forum and governing procedural law consequently remain important in cross-border disputes.
Also read
Conclusion
Passengers affected by the Brussels Airport strike on October 9, 2026, retain enforceable rights under Regulation 261/2004 where its conditions are satisfied. Canceled flights generally give rise to reimbursement or rerouting rights, together with applicable assistance. These protections are not automatically displaced by industrial action involving an external ground-handling provider.
Fixed financial compensation requires a separate assessment. The airline must establish any extraordinary-circumstances defense, demonstrate the connection between the disruption and the cancellation, and show that reasonable measures could not have avoided the relevant consequences. Alyzia's involvement does not independently determine liability.
For international travelers, the Montreal Convention may provide an additional basis for recovering proven delay-related damage, subject to its distinct conditions and limitations. European passenger-protection legislation, international aviation law, and applicable domestic procedures provide different remedies for different consequences of the same disruption.
References
Belgian Federal Public Service Mobility and Transport (2026) Passengers rights. Updated 3 August 2026. Available at: https://mobilit.belgium.be/en/aviation/passengers/passengers-right
Brussels Airport (2026) Operational announcements: National strike on Friday 9 October. Available at: https://www.brusselsairport.be/en/airport-operations/operations/operational-communication/operational-announcements
Canadian Transportation Agency (2026) Flight delays and cancellations: Rebooking, refunds and compensation. Updated 26 February 2026. Available at: https://protection-passager-passenger.otc-cta.gc.ca/en/refunds-and-compensation/flight-delays-cancellations-rebooking-refunds-compensation
Court of Justice of the European Union (2006) International Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport, Case C-344/04, Judgment of 10 January 2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:10. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62004CJ0344
Court of Justice of the European Union (2012) Joan Cuadrench Moré v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV, Case C-139/11, Judgment of 22 November 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:741. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0139
Court of Justice of the European Union (2020) LE v Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA, Case C-74/19, Judgment of 11 June 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:460. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0074
Court of Justice of the European Union (2021) Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark–Norway–Sweden, Case C-28/20, Judgment of 23 March 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:226. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0028
Court of Justice of the European Union (2022) Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT SA v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala, Case C-597/20, Judgment of 29 September 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:735. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62020CJ0597
Court of Justice of the European Union (2024) Touristic Aviation Services Limited v Flightright GmbH, Case C-405/23, Judgment of 16 May 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:408. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62023CJ0405
European Commission (2026) National enforcement bodies for passenger rights. Available at: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/passenger-rights/national-enforcement-bodies-neb_en
European Parliament and Council (2004) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. Official Journal of the European Union, L 46, pp. 1–8. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/261/oj/eng
European Parliament and Council (2026) Regulation (EU) 2026/2202 of 16 September 2026 amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97. Official Journal of the European Union, 2 October 2026. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/2202/oj/eng
German Federal Government (n.d.) Luftverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung, Section 63d: Nichtbeförderung bei Überbuchung, Annullierung und Verspätung von Flügen. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/luftvzo/__63d.html
International Civil Aviation Organization (1999) Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air. Montreal, 28 May 1999. Published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L 194, 18 July 2001, pp. 39–49. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/convention/2001/539/oj/eng
International Civil Aviation Organization (2024) 2024 Revised Limits of Liability Under the Montreal Convention 1999. Effective 28 December 2024. Available at: https://www.icao.int/sites/default/files/secretariat/legal/LEB%20Treaty%20Collection%20Documents/2024_Revised_Limits_of_Liability_Under_the_Montreal_Convention_of_1999_en.pdf
Reuters (2026) ‘Belgian strike prompts flight cancellations at Brussels Airport on Friday’, 6 October. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/belgian-strike-prompts-flight-cancellations-brussels-airport-friday-2026-10-06/
The Brussels Times (2026) ‘Brussels Airport to cancel 140 flights due to ground handler action’, 6 October. Available at: https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/2348926/brussels-airport-to-cancel-140-flights-due-to-ground-handler-action
UK Civil Aviation Authority (n.d.) Cancellations. Available at: https://www.caa.co.uk/air-passengers/travel-problems-and-rights/flight-delays-and-cancellations/cancellations/
United Kingdom (2004, as amended) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, as it applies in UK domestic law. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2004/261/body
US Department of Transportation (2024) Refunds and Other Consumer Protections. Final Rule. Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/federal-register-documents/2024-07177