Originally Posted by
irishguy28
I've done that above. The original EU261/2004 makes no specific provision for connecting passengers. That further "delays" are introduced by having missed the original flight and then having to wait for the next one formed no part of the original regulation.
Delay is measured only as regards the departure of the delayed flight.
Agreed in that the original Reg makes no reference to compensation for delays or references to connections in relation to delays, but does provide for re-routing and right to care dependent on the delayed time.
Originally Posted by
irishguy28
The issue of arriving later than planned only occurs in the context of having accepted a re-routing in the original EU261/2004. (Taking the same routing, but possibly later flights on subsequent connections, is not covered by "re-routing" in this context).
Agreed insofar as original Reg concerned.
Originally Posted by
irishguy28
That Sturgeon ruling certainly went totally the opposite way. Now such additional waiting time must be considered "delay" - even if a passenger may have naturally booked such a connection, anyway, under slightly different circumstances! A passenger on just SIN-AMS in the OP's case would definitely not be entitled to compensation. A passenger making a connection may be (and in most cases would be, unless they had planned connecting onto a high-frequency route). For some routings (which are served less frequently, and not by many other airlines) it seems that any small delay can therefore now inevitably lead to the requirement to pay compensation.
No wonder they wanted submissions regarding the regulation earlier this year! Hopefully their second stab at it will be clearer.
But think about/read the rationale in Sturgeon for introducing the Precedent. Passengers whose flights are cancelled suffered a "loss of time" for which they are compensated, whilst delayed passengers were not, even though sometimes they suffered worse time delays than those who experienced cancellations. This led, in the eyes of the ECJ, to the original Reg not allowing passengers the "Principle of Equal Treatment" under general EU law.
I have no doubt that the revision to the Reg will clarify certain aspects which may not be as clear as they ought to be. I also understand, however, that the revisions will incorporate the precedent case law ruling principles of Wallentin-Hermann and Sturgeon.