Old Jun 4, 17, 4:03 am
  #6  
ksu
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: KSU (Kristiansund N, Norway)
Programs: SAS EBD/ *G
Posts: 2,048
Originally Posted by CPH-Flyer View Post
It is not a blank check for any situation, but considering there are rulings that a lightning strike is not an extraordinary circumstance for subsequent departures from an airlines hub (can't remember the airline or jurisdiction right now), it is a pretty wide reaching verdict.

I do believe the EU261 has its merits, and has been necessary. But also think at times that the vagueness and very broad interpretation has not been reasonable.
It certainly is not a blank check for the airline.

As I - as a non-lawyer - read the judgement is that the accumulated unexpected circumstances (both destination and alternate closed, attempted landing had to be abandoned, leading to even less fuel, best secondary alternate (EWR) not accessible due to fuel and weather there, exceptionally long wait for handling at alternate finally chosen (PHL)) combined with SK doing its best to reduce the delay (cabbing crew IAD-PHL, flying substitute crew to OSL, cutting down turn-around time at CPH) meant that the airline had done as much as could be expected to reduce the delay for the passengers next day.

The question of not being able to get a substitute aircraft is thoroughly covered in the judgement.

I would dare to suggest that this judgement actually puts up a rather high hurdle for the airlines when it comes to allowing delays on incoming aircraft to delay later flights without paying out.

What might be important for non-European readers to note, is that the Danish Supreme Court decision does not affect the question of Duty of Care (i.e. getting the customer to the final destination as soon as realistically possible, offering room/food where necessary).
ksu is offline