Within that framework of opinions exchange, I must say that I fully agree with NickB and Land-of-Miles and would probably go even a little bit further than them. While EC261/2004 is certainly not perfect in any way, it is, in my view, the least bad model of the type that there is around. I'm not sure what a 'compensation culture' is, but I know what a 'suing culture' is and one of the advantages of the regulation is that it avoids that by evaluating a clear (and in my view generally reasonable) entitlement based on what is it defines as reasonable inconvenience and what is not. You take a trip from LHR to SYD and arrive 1 hour late. It is 'reasonable inconvenience'. You book a flight from LHR to FRA and arrive 4 hours late, it is not. You get downgraded, it is not either. The suing culture is avoided because if the airlines comply there is no need for haggling over everything that would be put into a US-style claim such as loss of income, pain and suffering etc. and a relative (if imperfect) limitation of the differentiation between people who have a sollicitor at hand who can handle the process for them and those who, on the contrary, would be discourages to pursue their right.

I also fully see the logic of the Sturgeon ruling and think that the ECJ was perfectly right to rule the way it did. Anything else would have meant entrenching a loophole system whereby barely changing a flight number to avoid paying compensation to anyone (without Sturgeon if an airline has XY1 at 08.00 which is half full, XY3 at 10.00, and XY5 which is half full at 18.00 they could effectively cancel XY1 for commercial reason at the last minute, and renamed XY5 into XY1 to not owe compensation to anyone.) In my view, the ECJ's interpretation was reasonable, and certainly not any 'wilder' than legitimate judicial interpretation in most national court systems I know.

I'm not saying that you do not have a right to disagree, but like others, I think that your argument would come across stronger if you explained what alternative you would suggest because then, at least, others would be able to agree or disagree with you on specifics rather than on the words you reproach them to be putting in your mouth.