Originally Posted by
Jenbel
It's because BA have made the decision to cancel the EDI flight, inconveniencing the EDI pax and use the plane on the MAN flight (if the comment was correct).
A MAN flight cancellation would be due to the plane going tech - extraordinary circumstances. But the EDI plane didn't go tech - it was swiped to fly LGW-MAN. That's as much a BA management decision as the management deciding that pax A should be allowed to board and pax B should be IDB'd. Why cancel the EDI flight? Why not the GLA one? Or the CDG one? Or the TAB one? Because it's likely easiest for BA to do that. And that manipulating cancellations - instead of them being down to happenstance - is what moves it from extraordinary circumstance to commercial cancellation. It was commercially good for BA to cancel EDI over MAN or any other flight that day - comp is owed. Those pax have been inconvenienced for a commercial decision of BA. That's the very essence of the EU regs.
Forgive me, I am still blind to the relevance of any perceived ownership of specific aircraft to a specific route. BA was clearly short of one aircraft at LGW that afternoon. As a result of that one flight was cancelled and single flight load of BA customers was not able to travel on their ticketed flight.
Is there any detail in the EU Directive or subsequent legal precedence that confirms the reclassification of cause you suggest?