Originally Posted by
irishguy28
Just to let you know - the 2-hours deadline only applies to flights of 1500km or less. 3 hours is the deadline for flights between 1500 and 3500km.
Dubai to Brussels is almost 5150km, so your "deadline" would be 4 hours.
These deadlines are only relevant for determining the thresholds for the Art 9 duty of care to arise in case of delay.
They have zero relevance for determining the entitlement to Art 5 compensation in case of delay, still less in case of cancellation.
In case of delay, the entitlement to Art 5 compensation arises when the delay is 3 hours or more (as per
Sturgeon case). In the case of cancellation, the entitlement to Art 5 compensation is as per Art 5(3), which, if there has been no previous notice or the notice is less than 7 days, means arriving 2 hours or more after original scheduled time of arrival or leaving 1 hour or more before original scheduled time of departure. Again, the thresholds are the same regardless of the length of the flight.
Once the principle of entitlement to compensation is established, we then turn to Article 7 to determine the amount of compensation. In the case of a long-haul flight, the threshold of 4 hours is significant under Art 7, but merely for determining whether the entitlement is to €600 or can be halved to €300. Even if the delayed arrival is less than four hours, therefore, there is still entitlement to compensation, albeit for a reduced amount.
Did KLM pay for your new BRU-ZYR ticket, too? Or were you rebooked on the understanding that you were happy to accept BRU as your new final destination, meaning that KLM discharged their duty to you by returning you to Brussels?
KLM does not discharge its duty by flying the passenger to an alternate airport. When the passenger is flown to an alternate airport, the carrier is still under an obligation to bear the cost of transferring the passenger to the airport for which the booking was made or another nearby destination agreed with the passenger (see Art 8(3) of the Reg).
What is not explicitly stated in the Reg is whether the delay should be based on time of arrival at airport booked on the ticket or the alternate airport actually flown to but it seems to me that the former is the most convincing one and therefore the calculation should in principle be based on time of arrival at ZYR rather than BRU
I do agree, however, that the timing sounds awfully long for a transfer between BRU and ZYR but if the OP can show that it was a reasonable time, then why not? If there are any airlines offering train+flight combination at ZYR-BRU (SN perhaps?), the MCT they use could be a useful guide of what is a reasonable connection time between ZYR and BRU.
Originally Posted by
orbitmic
In this case, assuming that you were not informed of the cancellation ahead of time, what happens is that article 7 kicks in and cancellation is treated just as a long delay. It means that as irishguy28 mentions, given the length of the journey, you would only be eligible for compensation if your delay was over 4 hours and the cancellation is not due to exceptional circumstances.
As I stated above, I am afraid that this is incorrect. Even if it were a long delay, in any event the threshold would be 3 hours, not 4. But since it is a canx, the thresholds for eligibility are as per Art 5 and the amount as per Art 7.
did you ask KL to ensure that you would be taken to that particular destination rather than BRU? You would have been entitled to then arranging your transport to the Midi station and then could have compared arrival time.
I am with the OP on this one. It simply is not realistic to expect KL's agent at DXB to investigate reroutings from BRU to ZYR. I really cannot see a judge blaming the passenger for the failings of the airline in offering adequate options to the pax. Now, if the airline had told him that they would reroute him to BRU and could cover his transfer from BRU to ZYR and he should go to the KL counter at BRU to get his train ticket or taxi voucher to ZYR and the OP had declined or elected not to visit the counter, then fine. Otherwise, the onus is on the airline to offer appropriate reroutings. Let us not forget that the Reg places the onus on the airline to inform the passenger of his rights under the Reg and of the options which are open to him. I would be very surprised if KL at DXB had fully informed the pax of all his rights under the Reg and all the options available. Blaming the passenger for "making in own way" imo just does not wash if the pax has not been fully informed of all his options and entitlements.
The only issue is really what the OP asked: does it change anything that the last segment was on a train than on a plane? Clearly the Reg would not apply to a delay/cancellation on the train segment (the Train pax rights regulation would apply instead). My own hunch is that, when the incident is one covered by the Reg then the Reg should be read as covering the whole itinerary that the passenger presented at check-in as per Art 2(h). While it is true that this speaks of "connecting flights", I cannot see any convincing policy reason to adopt a restrictive reading of this and not include later segments which are part of the ticket even where they are in fact carried out by an alternative mode of transportation, such as train, coach or boat.
That said, given KLM's tendency to fight just about every claim, I would not expect them to give in easily and you would probably have to fight it all the way to court to get anywhere.