Originally Posted by
orbitmic
To be honest , I think that the acts contradict the words. by extending the compensation-less period on longer flights to 12 hours instead of 6, I simply do not think that the Commission's proposal give airlines an incentive to get the passengers home 'as soon as possible', quite the contrary.
I think there is also something a bit disingenuine when they say that compensation is only the 'second best option' as the key is to get people home as soon as possible to the extent that it wrongly implies the rerouting and compensation as 'either/'or' while in fact compensation comes in addition to rerouting in cases where the rerouting is not done soon enough. I just think that 9 and 12 hours are too long.
I agree with all of that.
2 more specific remarks:
1) the very long periods before compensation kicks introduces a gulf between modes of transport: the EU Regs on rail and maritime/inland waterways regulations have compensation kicking in at
one hour (although admittedly the compensation levels are calculated differently).
2) given that the thresholds before compensation kicks in for cancellations under Art 5 appear to remain the same, I do not see how the proposed increases to the delays for compensation under Art.6 could be legal, in the view of the reasoning of the Court in
Sturgeon.
All in all, I would have preferred graduated levels of compensation depending on the length of delays than the all or nothing approach in the current proposal.
Also, I do not quite understand why the thresholds on the obligation to reroute on an alternative carrier are not aligned to the thresholds for compensation to arise for shorter flights. 12 hours before the obligation to reroute on an alternate carrier arises without difference as to whether the flight is LHR-SYD or LHR-AMS does not seem to me appropriate.