I'm pretty sure I know the answer already but I just want to check. For arrival delays due to missed connections (at the fault of the airline) that are less than three hours, is no compensation due?

I cannot understand how a cancellation is any different to a delay in terms of why compensation should be any different. As the legislation stands, for short-haul arriving at a destination over 2 hours delayed due to a cancellation provides €250 whereas for a delay there is no compensation unless over 3 hours. I do not see the logic as the longer delay is much more inconvenient.

I think that for short-haul flights compensation should be payable for two hours of delay or even less. Short-Haul flights are like trains, they are typically frequent and delays are very irritating which is why the legislation exists in the first place. With delay repay on many UK train operators a 30 minute delay provides 50% refund (with an ever reducing list of extraordinary circumstances) and over 60 minutes a full refund. Naturally a refund is not the way the EU went which is perhaps good for some carriers and bad for others.

There is also the issue that despite the issue of weather the carrier is to blame where they do not use flexible capacity or provide re-route on OAL. I've been in a situation that a subsequent service to one that is cancelled is full and the one after may be several hours away, without priority standby a 3-4 hour delay would have ended up being 10.5 hours (due to a delay on this service as well). Then there is also the issue that BA seem to like to rebook revenue and high-fare pax first over Avios bookings- especially OAL redemptions. This again, is their choice and extends the delay. Why should it be that the original cause of weather mitigates compensation in these cases when the carrier chooses to prioritise some pax over others? However the extra delay would have been the "fault" of BA for not providing a larger aircraft. It seems the courts take this into consideration in hubs.