Originally Posted by
NickB
While I would personally tend to indeed support an interpretation of the Reg which is rather more pax-friendly than that supported by most airlines, especially in the light of the recent ECJ ruling in the
Sturgeon case, it seems to me that being a little more cautious in expressing what rights pax have rather than affirming peremptorily that pax has an absolute right to be rerouted in any carrier on the same date would be advisable.
As to the case you mention, whatever the outcome of the case, frankly the reliability and precedent value of a small claims court in Massachussets in interpreting EC Reg 261/2004 is on a par with that of a small claims court in Poznan interpreting South Korean consumer protection legislation, viz. zero.
I agree I also doubt whether any ruling by a Boston Magistrate/small claims judge could provide any form of precedent in law to that same Magistate herself never mind anyone else.
However her ruling/decision would bind the parties to that dispute-subject to any available appeal. The parties to the dispute would be able to rely upon that decision.
There may be two broad issues.
a)Should the carrier offer re-routing on another carrier ( or indeed by any other form of transport)?
b)The "reasonableness"/timeliness of that offered re-routing-as viewed through the wording of the Regulation.
Reference a) above,-what if the carrier no longer offers a service on that routing-what if it stops or "suspends" its own services on that routing?
How can the operating carrier offer the passenger a re-routing other than on another carrier?
See
http://www.flightmole.com/forum/show...p?t=599&page=2
(Perhaps airlines might be wary/wish to avoid, where possible, references to the ECJ-especially after Sturgeon-to seek "clarifications"-and might prefer to live without "clarity")?