Originally Posted by
NWIFlyer
The view of UA doubtless differs from the view of the law, but it’s the latter they have to abide by. There are clearly some practical difficulties in obtaining enforcement if a non-EU airline point blank refuses to comply with a court judgment, but if they have a UK office I’m pretty sure if pushed to the ultimate sanction via continued court enforcement they probably wouldn’t particularly want bailiffs knocking on their door with a view to seizing property.
As cws indicates, it really depends how much attitude anyone has for a long term fight.
Good luck to the poster in making that one stick. UA will no doubt argue they were only involved here because of the failure of the first flight on BA and as such should not be expected to carry the risk. I don't think EC261 makes specific reference to such situations and much as UA wouldn't want the bailiffs appearing they do also have deep pockets. So I wonder whether a long drawn out court saga with possible appeals and costs would really be wise here.
Maybe a bit of advice from Bott & Co would be appropriate?