Originally Posted by
B747-437B
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".
True on an absolutely literal reading of the Reg when one wants to play dumb. Pure sophistry which would not stand five seconds in argument before the ECJ. I even doubt that a lawyer would even try it as it is so obvious that there is not even the beginning of a shred of a valid argument. As to the 'causing further delay', I had another look at the Reg. I thought that there was indeed such a provision but, unless I missed it, it only appears in the preamble and not in the Reg itself. If that is so, there is no "cause further delay" defence, however strange that sounds.
This interpretation is exactly why some LCCs decline to provide accomodation under any circumstance -- whether one chooses reimbursement or rerouting.
Again pure sophistry. The LCCs know exactly what they are doing and know very well that the argument does not hold water. There are just putting up the appearance of a veneer of respectability to avoid having to say "well, we know but we don't care about complying with the law" but they do know that this is pure hogwash.
There has never been a single fine levied by the enforcement authority for non-compliance with EU 261/2004 and the carriers know it.
Indeed. Time for the EU Commission to crack the whip with the NEBs. I wonder whether they will following the current public consultation. Interesting to note that some of the questions in the consultation concern the reporting obligations of NEBs on their enforcement activities (number of prosecutions, levels of fines, etc...).