Originally Posted by
olivedel
I do not believe I did express my opinion in a non-civil manner. Not at all.
You certainly did not and I did not say that you did. But I can see that you might have read my post as implying it so I apologise for my infelicitous phrasing.
I just expressed my concern (but apparently, I cannot do that either) about threads on compensation (not this one specifically) that could lead to trying to "abuse" the compensation system.
Of course, you can express what you want. But when you criticise others for writing on a particular topic that you do not like (even though it is squarely within the FT remit), it is a bit rich to then expect to be immune from criticism. As the saying goes, people who live in glasshouses ...
To be back on the OP's case, I think, in that case, that you cannot just say "OK" with the rebooking solution, then cancel a ticket and rebook one, get you own accomodation and then ask for compensation.
This is not what the OP did. The OP was first offered an unsuitable rerouting solution. The OP was then offered another solution but was told that this would involve refunding the original ticket and booking a new one as this was a departure from CDG rather than ETZ. This is a debatable interpretation of the Reg, in particular in light of Art 8(3) which requires the airline to pay for transport between original airport and alternate airport. Admittedly, Art 8(3) speaks of alternate airport on arrival and talks of alternative airports serving the region. Still, it is not an unreasonable analogy and I would not be surprised to see the CJEU interpreting it as applying on departure as well and possibly between airports such as ETZ and CDG. Alternatively, it is also arguable that a train+plane combo is also a suitable rerouting within the meaning of Art 8(1)(b) (all the more so as Lorraine-TGV is a TGV-air destination).
Similarly, Article 9(1)(b) of the Reg stipulates that the airline is responsible for providing hotel accommodation where "a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary." Arguably, one could see the forced overnight in Paris as falling within the scope of that Article although again this is not squarely covered by the wording if interpreted narrowly.
If you want compensation, you need the airline to handle the solution.
AIUI, this is what the OP did and the airline offered a reroute, albeit through refunding and rebooking afresh and the OP wants to argue that this process falls short of Reg 261/2004 for the reasons above.
Even if the case is valid within the Reg 261/2004, it would require several mails and maybe a lawyer to be defended IMHO.
Yes, it is not a straightforward, open-and-shut-book case but is this not precisely why the OP felt the need to post on FT? I would have thought that it is eminently sensible to post on FT to see if anybody else had experienced a similar issue, how they went about it and what the outcome was. It is, after all, a frequent traveler board and the place where you are most likely to come across fellow posters with relevant experience.