Old Jun 4, 17, 11:50 am
  #7  
SK AAR
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Programs: TK Elite
Posts: 7,012
The Supreme Court judgment is a landmark decision in the sense that it also exempts the carrier from paying compensation for delays/cancellation of the following fliht(s), i.e. for the so called "knock-on" effects of a delay/cancellation. The arguments of pax/claims agencies have always been that the carrier needs to have aircraft and crew available even at outstations and therefore the carrier is liable to pay compensation if also the subsequent flight(s) is delayed/cancelled even if the initial flight may be delayed/cancelled due to "extraordinary circumstances".

The Supreme Court states that it would be an "ureasonable burden on SAS to have contingency plans/equipment available for situations like this where..." [and the Supreme Court refers the particulars of the delay in question].

I'm quite sure that this judgment will be relied on by carriers in the many cases where pax of the subsequent flights file claims for compensation and where the carriers previously have faced the argument that the carrier should have arranged for an alternative aircraft, crew etc. when the incoming aircraft is delayed/cancelled.

Last edited by SK AAR; Jun 4, 17 at 11:56 am
SK AAR is offline