Originally Posted by
NickB
As to a), the Reg (Art 5(2)) specifies that "In any event, the assistance shall be offered within the time-limits set out above with respect to each distance bracket" (i.e. 2 hours short-haul, 3 hours medium-haul and 4 hours long-haul), which places an upper ceiling above which failure to assist is necessarily unreasonable
Yes, but it does not specify what the assistance must constitute. One LCC set up a portable water cooler at their checkin desks and stated that this met the minimum requirements. The line to access this water cooler was over an hour long but that then plays into their argument that "the care may be limited or declined if the provision of refreshments would itself cause further delay".
As to b), this is untenable. The reverse IS tenable: if the pax chooses reimbursement, then the right to care arguably disappears. But if the pax chooses re-routing, the right to care necessarily arises, otherwise the Regulation would make no sense whatsoever since the pax always has the option of rerouting or canx in long delays.
This interpretation is exactly why some LCCs decline to provide accomodation under any circumstance -- whether one chooses reimbursement or rerouting.
As to c), this is equally untenable. It is true that the regulation does not explicitly state that a carrier may not require a pax to hop around the airport on one leg and sing a song in Swahili as a condition of the carrier rerouting them. It does not follow from this that the carrier can actually require that. There is not a hope in hell that the ECJ would accept that a carrier can request any kind of payment as a condition of rerouting. I would hope that the relevant enforcement authority would impose the maximum fine allowed by the enforcement legislation on a carrier that would display such bad faith and contempt in the face of their legal obligations.
There has never been a single fine levied by the enforcement authority for non-compliance with EU 261/2004 and the carriers know it. The only decisions and precedents have been on actions take by individuals against the carriers and not by the NEBs. Especially in the case of foreign carriers (and some of the UK's largest LCC's are technically foreign carriers) the UK CAA is completely toothless. They are furthermore unwilling to pick a fight with the UK carriers over it while the foreign carriers get away without haviing to comply.
FT users are used to dealing with legacy carriers who for the most part are compliant with EU 261/2004. The LCCs don't even pretend to pay lip service to the regulations and this puts the compliant carriers at a significant competitive disadvantage.