Mixed feelings about this, manly because of the ash cloud situation.

I agree with the poster above, that as a business, an airline is in a far better position to put pressure on an airport operator to insist they invest properly in equipment to deal with snow for example, than the passenger is. The airline chooses their partners, the airport, and sells the services of the airport, atc, and their airline to the passenger. It is therefore their responsibility should part of this package not work as intended (as they sold the collection of services). I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect an airline to be able to deal with snow, fog etc. (and how they deal with it should be irrelevant to me - ie if they do it themselves or through a 3rd party service provider). If their service provider lets them down, then the airline lets me down. Why should I have to deal with a company with whom I have no direct contract?

The ash situation though was as much caused by over-regulation leading to far too many claims under this law, than the problem with the law itself. It would be good if the law makers recognise that.