Originally Posted by
Dave Noble
It is not a loophole - why on earth would it be?
If it tried such actions, then can be pretty sure that the ECJ would simply rule against it as it has with other previous attempts by airlines to circumvent the legislation
I find it bizarre that some people think it is fine for an airline to just downgrade a passenger and not be liable for its actions.
If the airline wants to change its operations planned in advance it may be able to do it with only a few passengers impacted - but the impact caused on these passengers needs to be considered and allowed for if choosing to make changes and be held accountable for its actions
Regardless, AA has not cancelled the flight and the legislation is remarkably clear on passengers' entitlements when downgraded
This is nonsense. The class of service purchased doesn't exist any more; the OP is not being denied boarding, there is no F cabin to board them into. They have been provided ample notice of this situation, and would surely be accommodated on any reasonable alternative they propose.
If one pursues this line of logic, as an alternative, AA could simply rebrand the front cabin of the two-class plane as F, and give all existing J customers a free "upgrade." I'm all for consumer protection, and certainly believe existing bookings should be accommodated, but that anyone could consider compensation being due in this circumstance seems crazy to me.
Nobody is saying the airline isn't liable. The question is only the appropriate remedy. Reading the legislation in a way that makes "downgrading" somehow a worse sin than denying transportation entirely makes no sense. IANAL, so your reading my in fact be the legally binding one, but it doesn't make it any less preposterous.