Originally Posted by
RolfD
the EC 261 is clear the carrier that issued the tickets is responsible for the delays, that is why the OP should get a lawyer
Completely false and wrong.
EC 261/2004 imposes the duty on the
operating carrier causing the delay. The operating carrier causing the delay was TP and if there is any compensation due, it is payable by TP. UA's gesture is just that.
The delay is then measured at the final ticketed destination, e.g. ATL and the Type of flight is determined by the distance from origin to final, e.g. ATL (although EWR would be Type 3 too).
Thus, OP arrived at ATL more than 4 hours late on a Type 3 ticket and would thus be due EUR 600 (If 3+ hours, it would have been EUR 300).
Whether compensation is payable at all will depend on the reason for the delay. If indeed the routing was lengthened by ATC, e.g. running the TATL tracks a bit to the south, TP will have a valid defense to a claim and will likely fight any attempt to collect. The claims agencies typically don't take on cases they can't win because they don't get paid, so that is a good test.
No matter what, TP owes OP a duty of care for the time he was on the ground at EWR. If he was not issued a hotel voucher and paid on his own, he could submit that receipt and reasonable meal receipts to TP.
If this has anything to do with the recent "bomb cyclone" and its effects on EWR and North Atlantic tracks, this is an open and shut
no comepnsation case.