Ryanair diversion to Ostend raises questions over responsibility for Charleroi curfew breach

A passenger on a Ryanair flight from Milan Bergamo to Brussels South Charleroi has challenged the airline’s explanation for the diversion of the service to Ostend-Bruges Airport, presenting correspondence from the Walloon airport authority that appears to contradict Ryanair’s account of the incident.

The case concerns Ryanair flight FR4523 on 27 July 2026, which was scheduled to arrive at Brussels South Charleroi Airport at 22:45. Instead, the Boeing 737-800 was diverted to Ostend, with passengers eventually transported by coach to Charleroi, arriving at around 05:04 the following morning—more than six hours behind schedule.

Passengers describe overnight wait

According to one of the passengers, travellers were left waiting for several hours at Ostend with little practical assistance. He claims there were no visible Ryanair representatives, no meal vouchers, only limited access to drinking water, and very little information regarding onward transport.

At 01:08, Ryanair informed passengers by SMS that coaches had been arranged and were expected to arrive at 02:30. However, passengers say the coaches failed to arrive at the announced time and no revised estimate was communicated, leading many to repeatedly move between the terminal building and the outside pick-up area in search of transport.

Some passengers reportedly arranged their own onward journey, with taxi fares of around €300 being discussed among travellers, although these amounts could not be independently verified.

Conflicting explanations

Following the diversion, Ryanair reportedly informed affected passengers that the aircraft had been refused permission to land at Charleroi because it was “not based in Belgium“. The airline also stated that Charleroi Airport remained operational and encouraged passengers to contact the Walloon airport authorities.

However, the passenger subsequently contacted Benoît Marissal, Director of the Walloon Operational Airport Authority and Airport Commander at Brussels South Charleroi Airport.

In a written reply relating specifically to flight FR4523, Marissal reportedly confirmed that the aircraft was indeed refused permission to land, but disputed Ryanair’s explanation. According to his response, the aircraft was actually based in Belgium, and the delay resulted from operational decisions made by the airline itself.

He stated that:

“The reasons for the delay are attributable to the airline.”

He further added:

“As this is an operational choice made by Ryanair, the delay is attributable to the airline.”

According to Marissal, Ryanair had undertaken an aircraft-swapping operation which, in this case, caused delays that meant the flight no longer qualified for an exemption allowing arrivals after Charleroi’s night curfew.

Public flight data appears consistent

The passenger also reconstructed the aircraft’s movements using publicly available flight-tracking data.

According to those records, flight FR4523 was operated by Boeing 737-800 registered 9H-QAG. Earlier that day, the aircraft had operated services from Athens to Charleroi and from Charleroi to Wroc?aw.

The published schedules for those flights appear to overlap, suggesting that the aircraft could not have operated both flights according to their planned timings. Flight-tracking data indicates the aircraft arrived late from Athens before continuing to Wroc?aw more than an hour behind schedule.

The delay then appears to have propagated throughout the aircraft’s subsequent rotation via Wroc?aw, back to Charleroi, onward to Milan Bergamo and finally the delayed service back to Belgium.

By the time the aircraft departed Bergamo at around 23:00, an arrival at Charleroi before the airport’s night restrictions was no longer possible.

While the publicly available data does not establish Ryanair’s internal operational decisions, it appears consistent with the aircraft-reassignment mechanism described by the Walloon airport authority.

EU261 compensation dispute

The passenger subsequently submitted a compensation claim under EU Regulation 261/2004, which Ryanair rejected.

According to the airline, the diversion resulted from a “missed curfew imposed by Charleroi Airport“, which it considered to be outside its control.

After providing Ryanair with the written response from the Walloon airport authority and requesting a manual reassessment, the passenger says the airline declined to reopen the case. Customer service referred the matter to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and a subsequent written reply maintained the airline’s original position without addressing the evidence supplied by the Walloon authority.

The passenger says he can provide documentation including Ryanair’s original correspondence, the complete written response from the Walloon airport authority, the EU261 claim correspondence, the live-chat transcript, flight-tracking evidence, photographs and a detailed reconstruction of the aircraft rotation supporting his account.

The case bears similarities to an earlier Ryanair diversion from Milan Bergamo to Ostend reported by Aviation24.be in April, but includes additional correspondence from the competent Walloon airport authority together with publicly available flight data that appears to support the operational sequence described.