I was not referring to the regulation, which, we know, is poorly worded. (For example, ticket prices include items which airlines collect on behalf of governments, airport authorities etc. Could the legislators really have meant that 75% of these should be refunded to the passenger despite having been paid out by the airline?)

In my post I simply referred to what would be considered reasonable. Imagine a world in which this regulation did not exist (but was being considered) and we were discussing what it should contain. I would maintain that a blanket 75% refund of ticket price is unreasonable. I do not need to show anything in the actually existing regulation to support my view.


Don't get me wrong. I would love to have 75% of my Amsterdam-Sydney-Amsterdam fare refunded because of a downgrade on the first, 40 minute hop to Heathrow. I just don't think it would be reasonable to demand it.

I think the reason behind the downgrade should be relevant and reflected in the regulation. If, for example, there was a huge flu epidemic amongst cabin crew I would see 75% of sector as reasonable. Where F-to-J downgrades are the result of a wish to sell more Y tickets or accommodate overbooked Y pax the regulation should hammer the airline. I think this because such behaviour is a bit like entering a contract to sell you something for an agreed price only for the seller to sell it to someone else because he can now get a higher price for it. In such circumstances a total refund of the ticket price or something similar might be reasonable.