Originally Posted by
smala01
There are several cases where county court judges have found on favour of passengers who were effected by knock on effects of "extraordinary circumstances". The test IMO seems to be that the delay clock begins at the moment a replacement aircraft could theoretically be provided to to fly from A to B, irrespective of the practicalities.
Bad weather must also affect the ‘flight in question’ in order for airlines to use it as a defens according to Bott + Co.
A very politically correct CAA statement
"A delay caused directly by bad weather is generally considered outside an airline’s control and therefore airlines do not have to pay compensation," he said. "However, if an earlier delay is affecting later flights – or causing a knock-on effect - airlines may find it harder to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable measures to avoid disruption. If they are unable to do this, passengers may be entitled to compensation as the airline has been unable to prove the delay was unavoidable."
The issue on FT is the use of the word "reasonable". People here are often not reasonable. Some are quite fanciful.
Those are non-precedential.
The claims agency types tend to get it right because they only get paid if they win, so fighting for claims which are losers is bad business.
The statement is quite clear, it falls to the carrier to demonstrate "all reasonable measures." That is not simply the time to fly in a replacement. It could be less and it could be more. By way of example, a replacement from where? How about the time to pull a standby crew and what if there are 5 standby crews and a 6th flight is delayed?