Originally Posted by
Katamarino
Thanks for the input. I note that the Emirates v Schenkel case is rather different in that his flight departed from Manila, and he was trying to claim it was all part of the original flight out of Dusseldorf. My flight was outbound from Amsterdam, so should be covered by the need to be "departing from an EU airport".
Correct - the Schenkel case's reasoning though, was that each individual sector had to have the Regulation applied separately for the purpose of compensation.
In the case of Folkerts, the initial sector BRE-CDG was already eligible for compensation - the question for the court was the determination of the amount, was the distance to be based on CDG, or GRU or ASU.
In your case, EK will argue that the first sector does not even apply for compensation purposes and thus the question of what the final amount is, is irrelevant.
This line of reasoning was accepted by the German Federal Court in X ZR 12/12 and X ZR 14/12
http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cg...&pos=3&anz=192
One pax was booked on WY FRA-MCT-BKK round trip.
The same situation happened to him as did to you - delay at final destination, BKK, but first flight operated normally FRA-MCT (i.e. no compensation payable).
The court used the reasoning of Schenkel above to interpret the regulation as having to be interpreted for each individual segment separately and no compensation due.
We await an ECJ clarification.