Aer Lingus owes me $1,285 but claims my bank doesn’t exist

To say that Jerry Slaff’s trip from Washington to Prague didn’t go as planned would probably be an understatement. 

Aer Lingus delayed the first leg of his flight by a day, and he scrambled to find an alternate flight with a single connection–and then his new flight was delayed by six hours.

But at least Aer Lingus promised him and his wife $1,285 under European Union passenger rights regulations.

“Aer Lingus said it would take approximately eight weeks to get the money,” Slaff says. 

Eight months later, Slaff is still waiting.

What happened next reads like a customer service manual on how to frustrate passengers into surrender. Phone calls that lasted an hour on hold. Claims that were mysteriously closed without notice. And a banking code mix-up that would be comical if it weren’t costing Slaff more than a thousand dollars.

This case raises several important questions about airline compensation:

• How long should passengers wait for flight compensation they’re legally entitled to receive?
• What happens when airlines use international banking procedures to delay payments?
• When should frustrated travelers escalate their complaints to consumer advocates?

A promise that became a mirage

Slaff’s flight ordeal began routinely enough. He and his wife were booked on Aer Lingus flight 116 from Washington Dulles to Prague via Dublin, departing at 5:10 p.m. The plane never took off.

“At approximately 11 p.m., an Aer Lingus rep told us to collect our luggage, rebook a flight for the next day and go home,” Slaff recalls.

He called Aer Lingus from the airport and managed to rebook on United Airlines for the following day. But that flight was delayed six hours and changed from one stop to two stops — adding Frankfurt to an already disrupted itinerary. (United compensated Slaff and his wife $175 each, which Slaff grudgingly accepted.)

But Aer Lingus owed them more under EC Regulation 261, which requires airlines to pay compensation for cancelled flights. For flights over 1,500 kilometers that are canceled, passengers can receive up to €600 compensation, regardless of ticket price. The Washington-to-Prague route via Dublin qualified. (Related: Hyatt ignored these 80-year-olds’ pleas — then hit them with a $53,678 bill.)

Slaff filed his compensation claim about three weeks after returning from his Eastern European trip. Aer Lingus acknowledged his entitlement to €600 each and requested his banking information for the international transfer.

“I provided my banking information, including a SWIFT code for transfer, as they asked,” Slaff says. “I was told it would take approximately 8 weeks.”

But 8 weeks came and went. Then 16 weeks. Then 24 weeks.

Where was the money?

The banking code shell game

When Slaff called for updates, Aer Lingus told him it was processing his claim. More weeks passed. Then, during one call, a customer service representative delivered a bombshell: his claim had been closed because there was no SORT code for his bank — or, to put it differently, his bank didn’t exist.

There was just one problem with that explanation.

“Not only did no one ask for a SORT code, but most U.S. banks do not use SORT codes,” he says. “They use SWIFT codes instead, which I provided earlier.” (Related: She prepaid for checked bags on Frontier. The price changed after she hit “confirm.”)

SORT codes are used primarily in the United Kingdom and Ireland for domestic transfers. SWIFT codes — also called BIC codes — are the international standard for bank identification. Any airline routinely handling international compensation payments should know the difference.

Slaff spoke with someone at his bank who confirmed that US banks don’t use SORT codes for international transfers. He provided all the requested banking information again, and Aer Lingus reopened his case, promising resolution within 7 business days.

A week passed. Nothing.

And that’s when he contacted my advocacy team.

How long should passengers wait for legally required compensation under EC 261?

The European Union designed Regulation 261 to ensure passengers receive compensation for flight disruptions. But unfortunately, the regulation doesn’t specify payment timelines. Passengers can claim flights from the past 3 years.

Airlines typically claim that processing takes 6 to 8 weeks, though there’s no legal requirement for this timeframe. Some carriers pay within days; others drag the process out for months, hoping passengers will forget or give up.

In Slaff’s case, Aer Lingus had acknowledged his valid claim and the correct compensation amount. The only remaining step was a routine international bank transfer — something any major airline handles dozens of times daily.

The banking confusion excuse becomes even more suspect when you consider that Slaff offered alternatives. 

“I have suggested that if international bank transfers are a problem, to receive payment through PayPal or even a bank check,” said in an email to the airline.

But Aer Lingus continued to drag its feet, despite his flexibility.

What happens when airlines try to weaponize international banking?

International banking can seem complex to consumers, making it an attractive excuse for airlines to delay payments. The SORT code confusion in Slaff’s case appears designed to create bureaucratic hurdles rather than solve legitimate banking problems.

Here’s what passengers should know about international compensation payments:

SWIFT codes are standard: Every U.S. bank that handles international transfers has a SWIFT code. These 8 to 11 character codes identify banks globally and are required for international wire transfers.

SORT codes are regional: Used primarily in the UK and Ireland, SORT codes identify specific bank branches for domestic transfers. They’re irrelevant for transfers to U.S. banks. If a business asks for one, it’s probably trying to delay payment.

Airlines know the difference: Any carrier handling international routes processes dozens of cross-border payments weekly. They understand international banking requirements. Again, getting SWIFT and SORT confused is just stalling for time.

U.S. banks don’t use IBAN numbers either — that’s a European system. But airlines regularly transfer money to U.S. accounts using standard SWIFT codes and account numbers.

When should travelers escalate an EC 261 case?

Many passengers abandon legitimate EC 261 compensation claims after a few phone calls. Airlines count on this attrition, which is why they make the process as frustrating as possible.

But there are clear signals that indicate when you should take your complaint to the next level:

• Contradictory explanations: If an airline’s story keeps changing, something’s wrong. Slaff received different explanations for delays at different times, suggesting customer service representatives were improvising rather than following standard procedures.

• Impossible requirements: When airlines request information that doesn’t exist (like SORT codes for U.S. banks), they’re creating artificial barriers. Legitimate banking requirements don’t change based on geography or airline preference.

• Extended delays without explanation: While payment processing takes time, months-long delays for acknowledged claims signal deliberate foot-dragging — particularly when the airline has already verified the passenger’s entitlement and claim amount.

• Ignored alternative solutions: When passengers offer reasonable alternatives (like PayPal or checks) and airlines refuse without explanation, they’re prioritizing bureaucracy over customer service.

In Slaff’s case, all of these red flags were present. He’d provided correct banking information, offered alternatives, and waited far beyond reasonable processing times. The airline’s excuses made no technical sense, and its customer service team gave contradictory information.

That’s when escalation becomes necessary. A brief, polite email to an Aer Lingus executive can help — and so can contacting the best consumer advocacy team in the world.

The resolution: Sometimes persistence pays

Slaff contacted my team, and we reached out to Aer Lingus on his behalf. The airline promised compensation would arrive “shortly.” But even that didn’t happen immediately — it took another six weeks.

Finally, in late July, nearly nine months after his original flight cancellation, Slaff received a bank check for $1,285.

“Our long nightmare is over!” Slaff wrote.

The resolution came via the most basic payment method available — a paper check. No complex international banking procedures. No SORT codes. No SWIFT codes. Just a check that could have been cut eight months earlier.

This reveals the true nature of Slaff’s ordeal. Aer Lingus wasn’t struggling with legitimate banking complications. The airline was simply hoping he’d eventually give up on his claim.

It’s a calculated strategy that works more often than it should. How many passengers abandon legitimate compensation claims after an airline tells them they have the wrong codes? How many accept delay after delay, assuming the airline is working in good faith?

Slaff’s persistence paid off, but he shouldn’t have needed to wage an eight-month campaign for compensation he was legally entitled to receive. Airlines that play these games are counting on passenger fatigue to protect their bottom lines.

The irony is that Aer Lingus probably spent far more in administrative costs handling Slaff’s repeated phone calls than it would have cost to simply pay his claim promptly. But from the airline’s perspective, every delayed payment that causes a passenger to give up is money saved.

For travelers facing similar situations, Slaff’s case offers important lessons. Document everything. Don’t accept technical explanations that don’t make sense. Offer reasonable alternatives when airlines claim payment is impossible. And don’t give up when you’re legally entitled to compensation.

Sometimes the only way to make airlines honor their obligations is to outlast their bureaucratic games. In Slaff’s case, persistence — and a little advocacy help — finally forced Aer Lingus to write that long-overdue check.