The reported delay
Shared flight evidence supports the case review.
Individual claim reviewFOLLOW A CASE
One flight.
Every case still matters.
See how shared evidence, individual circumstances and human review connect.
Illustrative walkthrough with synthetic cases. The response examples are written for this website; they are not live model outputs or approved passenger communications.
01 / START WITH THE FACTS
A delay reported.
A fact still missing.
Two claims relate to the same flight. The scheduled arrival is recorded, but the authoritative actual-arrival fact has not yet been confirmed.
The case stays open for evidence. A fluent draft cannot fill that gap.
SYNTHETIC FLIGHTAMS LIS
- Scheduled arrival
- Recorded
- Actual arrival
- Evidence needed
- Linked claims
- Two cases
One shared evidence gap. Visible to the people handling both cases.
02 / SHARED CONTEXT, INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
Review the flight.
Keep the exception visible.
When the required flight facts are available, versioned rules can produce a proposal for an authorised reviewer. The approved shared context can inform the linked claims.
One passenger also reports a missed onward connection. Their itinerary needs separate review before that claim can progress.
See the actual review screenThe onward journey
A passenger-specific circumstance needs additional itinerary facts.
Separate review pathThe example does not determine eligibility or a compensation amount.
03 / WORDS THAT FIT THE CASE
Different circumstances.
A considered response.
These examples show possible progress updates while review continues. The language and detail change with the case; an unapproved outcome is never presented as a decision.
Acknowledge the delay.
Thank you for contacting us about the delay to your Amsterdam–Lisbon flight. We understand that the disruption affected your plans.
We are reviewing the flight records alongside your claim. Your claim is still under review; this message does not confirm an outcome.
Why this wording?
It acknowledges the reported disruption and explains the current review stage. It does not invent a cause, promise a response time or announce a compensation decision.
Address the onward journey.
Vous nous avez indiqué avoir manqué votre correspondance après le vol Amsterdam–Lisbonne. Nous comprenons que cela ait perturbé la suite de votre voyage.
Pour examiner votre situation, pourriez-vous nous préciser votre itinéraire complet et nous indiquer si les vols figuraient sur une même réservation ? Votre demande reste en cours d’examen.
English translation & review notes
You told us you missed your connection after the Amsterdam–Lisbon flight. We understand that this disrupted the rest of your journey.
To review your circumstances, could you provide your full itinerary and confirm whether the flights were on the same booking? Your claim remains under review.
What changed: the draft addresses the connection and asks for missing journey facts. It makes no eligibility determination.
In an airline deployment, the wording follows approved templates, language checks and human review. These editorial examples illustrate the approach; model quality must be evaluated for the task and language in scope.
04 / KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED
An approved draft.
A separate delivery step.
A reviewer approves the exact communication. Your configured airline connector then handles delivery, and its receipt records whether that delivery succeeded.
The decision, approval and transport outcome remain distinct. A draft appearing on screen is not proof that a passenger received it.
- 01Draft
Prepare the wording from the case context.
- 02Approve
An authorised reviewer accepts the communication.
- 03Deliver & confirm
The airline connector supplies the transport outcome.
A CLEAR NEXT STEP
Where does your
claims process slow down?
Let’s find a useful starting point for your airline.