Originally Posted by
subject2load
Taking all possible scenarios into account, I would say that this is definitely the best approach.....^
It's my firm opinion that whenever pax try to 'manipulate' a situation with a view to receiving generous compensation for denied boarding or and/or comp upgrades, it very often ends up going wrong in one way or another.
There was a guy (based Sweden IIRC) here on the forum who fought EK doggedly for months & months in an attempt to receive what he believed was correctly owed in terms of substantial involuntary downgrading compensation under the (supposedly crystal clear !!) EU legislation, with EK having offered a significantly lower figure than he demanded. EK stood their ground, and when it came to the crunch of taking it to court, I'm reasonably sure (?) the pax either backed off or lost his claim, because after a long series of almost daily updates we never got to hear the end result, as we had been promised.
Wasn't that a slightly different situation in that a poster believed that EC261/2004 applied to the entire journey and therefore wanted downgrade compensation based on the ticket price for the entire itinerary. However, EU courts have a precedent for applying the applicability of the regulation on an individual sector basis (see other threads on this subject in this forum) and so his national enforcement body agreed with EK. However there was some contention as to the method of calculating the value of the sector in question as the final amount paid was based on the entire multi sector itinerary.