Don't get put off by weird comment suggesting the choice was Budapest or total catastrophe. There was an interplay of company policy, pilot decision, infrastructure availability, and flight planning information which contributed to your sixteen hours in Hungary.

"Safety" is not the defining factor governing airlines' obligations under EU regulation. If it were, if it could be employed as a trump-card, then very little compensation would be paid,

The airlines should have contingency plans in place to mitigate the impact of flight disruptions on passengers, whatever the cause of the disruption. If the carrier did not have such plans in place, or took decisions which exacerbated the delay and disruption to passengers' travel, then compensation may well kick in.


I think that first off you might ask the airline why more fuel was not taken on board, particularly as bad weather was expected in the earlier stages of the flight. If the answer is that the aircraft was fuelled to its maximum then, I guess, that's that. If, however, it was a commercial decision that dictated the safety margin taken on at SIN you can probe further.

Unless night curfews or infrastructure at alternative airports prevented their use, then it would certainly be interesting to understand why ill-equipped Budapest was selected for reuelling. Again, one hopes the was not a commercially-driven decision, just as one hopes that company policy did not lead the flight crew to chance things, leaving the diversion decision to the very last minute, when Budapest was the only game in play.