Connecting flights - one of the most daunting tasks if you are traveling and have to catch two flights. Worse still, if the flights are back-to-back, chances are you won’t even get proper time to reach the next flight, while you have to sprint like Usain Bolt, so you don’t miss it, with minimum connecting time (MCT) being hardly longer than a minute. Moreover, the baggage transfer time from one flight to another is so haphazard and unsystematic that a passenger either finds out missing luggage after reaching airport, or in case it takes time, the next flight gets extremely delayed.
To help you have a smooth journey, even with a connecting flight to catch in between, an alternative dispute resolution body has taken a firm stand against the improper use of Minimum Connection Time (MCT) by airlines to deny compensation. By holding carriers accountable for not incorporating adequate buffer times, the body highlights that you deserve fair treatment, especially when delays are beyond your control.
Minimum Connection Time is designed to ensure smooth transfers between flights. However, when used as a shield against rightful claims, it undermines passenger trust. The ruling seeks to rectify this imbalance, advocating fair treatment. Want to know more about the ruling? This blog has got you covered.
If you've ever landed in one terminal only to race across an airport to catch your next flight, you’ve experienced the real-life pressure of what’s known as the Minimum Connection Time, or MCT. It’s not just a guideline—it’s the shortest official window you should have to make a legal connection between flights. And if that window is too tight? The airline is playing a risky game with your journey.
MCT depends on several factors: the layout of the airport, the time needed to clear security or customs, and even how quickly bags can be moved between flights. Heathrow Airport, for example, works with airlines like British Airways to set these times carefully. For same-terminal transfers at Terminal 5, the MCT is 75 minutes. If your next flight leaves from another terminal, it goes up to 90 minutes.
These times there are not suggestions. They’re part of official flight planning standards set with the guidance of IATA’s Resolution 765 and refined by local committees. If your connection doesn’t meet with the MCT or the airline didn’t allow enough extra time to cover a small delay, you may have the right to claim compensation.
The airline’s job is to plan realistic itineraries. When they don’t, passengers pay the price on missed flights and waste hours.
The aviation industry follows a process defined by IATA’s Resolution 765, which outlines how these connection windows should be created and updated.
At each airport, Local Minimum Connection Time Groups (LMCTGs) take the lead. These aren’t just bureaucratic labels—they’re made up of teams from both the airlines and the airport itself. They work together to assess things like passenger flow, gate distances, and security protocols to determine how much time a traveler truly needs to move from one flight to the next.
Once agreed upon, these times will be updated in global booking systems. This keeps things consistent, no matter where or how you book. Through LMCTG committees, airport and airline reps agree on realistic timings based on:
Here’s how it usually plays out: your connecting flight is delayed, you miss the next leg, and then the airline tells you—you should’ve “known better”. They’ll claim you had enough time to connect. But that’s only true on paper. And sometimes, not even then.
This is how airlines twist Minimum Connection Time against you. They argue that because the connection technically met the MCT, they don’t owe you a cent. But missed connection compensation claims aren’t about what could have worked, they’re about what didn’t. And when a tiny delay causes a massive disruption, it’s not the passenger’s job to predict that outcome.
The recent decision of the alternative dispute resolution body has started to call this out. They’re siding with passengers, recognizing that most travelers don’t—and can’t—track fluctuating MCTs at every airport. If the airline doesn't allow enough breathing room between flights, the burden falls on them.
When airlines tell you delays are out of their control, what they’re really doing is sidestepping legal responsibility. But Europe’s highest courts have already ruled—clearly and repeatedly—against this approach.
In the Eglītis Ratnieks case (C-294/10), the CJEU emphasized that airlines must organize operations with contingency in mind. Paragraphs 25 and 26 highlight that carriers must be able to recover after unexpected issues by using built-in reserve time. If they don’t do this, they haven’t met the “all reasonable measures” requirement under Article 5(3).
This is reinforced by Wallentin-Hermann, which cemented the idea that airlines can’t simply declare “extraordinary circumstances” and walk away. They have to show, with evidence, that they prepared thoroughly.
And the UK’s Gahan v Emirates ruling brought clarity for connecting flights. Compensation depends on the arrival time at your final destination, not whether the first flight was marginally delayed.
Together, these rulings build a powerful foundation for your flight delay rights. Airlines are not above the law. And courts are watching.
This was a missed connection caused by a delay on the first leg of the trip. The airline said the delay wasn’t long enough to trigger compensation under the relevant air passenger regulations. They also said the connection technically met the Minimum Connection Time.
But here’s the thing. The decision didn’t just stop at that explanation. They looked at how long it took the passenger to reach the final destination, and it was hours beyond what was planned.
That total delay is what counts under EU/UK Regulation 261, not just the time between flights.
What’s more, the airline hadn’t factored in any reserve time. The schedule didn’t give passengers much breathing room. And that’s where the decision drew the line. Airlines need to leave space for minor delays. If they don’t, and the passenger suffers the consequences, compensation is due.
Bottom line? A valid missed connection claim doesn’t disappear just because the original delay was short. If you’re delayed by hours in the end, and the schedule was tight to start with, the law is on your side.
If you’ve missed a connecting flight due to delays, here’s what matters most — and it’s not what the airline says.
Under your flight delay rights, the total delay at your final destination is what counts. The airline might argue the MCT was valid. However, as the decision has reinforced, that alone doesn’t excuse them.
Here’s what to do:
The decision shows that when airlines don’t factor in buffer time, they’re responsible for the fallout. Thus, if you’re filing a missed connection claim, don’t back down just because they toss around the term “MCT.” That’s not the full story.
Minimum Connection Time has become a shield that airlines use to deflect valid claims. But here’s the legal truth: MCT is not an obligation for passengers — it’s an internal planning benchmark for carriers. The moment an airline invokes it to deny a missed connection claim, it assumes the responsibility to prove it met all its legal obligations, not just scheduling ones.
That’s where the burden shifts — and where claim companies should press harder.
The CJEU in Eglītis made it clear: airlines must reserve time for operational hiccups. If they rely on tight turnarounds without leaving space for delays, the courts and the alternative dispute resolution bodies can — and do — rule that compensation is due.
It’s not enough for carriers to say, “The MCT was valid.” They must show they made reasonable decisions in context, taking into account airport layout, staffing, and delay frequency. If they can’t, their defense crumbles.
For claim agents, this means citing precedent confidently, backing it with real flight data, and reinforcing the narrative that this isn’t just a missed flight — it’s a missed duty. If the airline gambled at minimums and lost, that cost is not the passenger’s to bear.
The outcome of this case is a turning point—and one every air passenger should know about it. When airlines plan tight connections and don’t build in buffer time, they are the ones at fault. Not you.
This decision sends a strong message: passengers aren’t responsible for calculating MCTs behind the scenes. Airlines are. And when they get it wrong, they pay.
But here's the catch: claiming what’s rightfully yours isn’t always straightforward. It’s not just about documents and flight delays. It’s about building a case strong enough to stand up to the airline’s excuses—and that takes more than a simple complaint.
That’s why Click2Refund exists. We don’t just file claims, we manage the full journey. From reviewing your eligibility to assembling evidence and following through till your money is in hand. All at no risk to you.
Let us take the hassle off your plate. No fees upfront. No wasted time. Just real results.
Want to know what you’re owed? Try our free, 2-minute flight compensation checker—zero guesswork, 100% clarity.
It’s the shortest time you need to connect between two flights at a specific airport. If your itinerary doesn’t allow for that, you may miss your flight—and the airline may still be responsible.
MCTs aren’t always public, but airlines and airports use internal IATA rules to set them. If you miss a connection, we can help verify whether your connection was valid.
Yes. What matters is your delay at the final destination—not just the first flight. If you arrive over 3 hours late, you may be eligible for compensation.
That’s a common excuse. Airlines approve and sell these connections—if they fail to plan for delays, they can’t blame you. The most recent decision supports this.