Originally Posted by
Often1
This would have been a lot easier to understand and thus to explain if the passenger had simply listed his itinerary, the carriers, and the timings, rather than having to parse through vague references.
I agree with the observation about the opaque and confusing way in which the post was written. I've had to read it about half a dozen times before reaching a conclusion about what I think it means.
Originally Posted by
Often1
This would have been a lot easier to understand and thus to explain if the passenger had simply listed his itinerary, the carriers, and the timings, rather than having to parse through vague references.
But, once done. There is no EC 261/2004 delay compensation due here because the passenger arrived at his final ticketed destination not later than 3 (or 4) hours after his originally scheduled arrival. In fact, he arrived earlier.
But what I think it means is that the passenger arrived about 17 hours after his originally scheduled arrival. It would have been the full 24 hours (there only being one BA flight a day to that destination) if he had not been re-routed on SK and KL, thus shaving about 7 hours off the delay.
Does this make a difference? And I do wonder whether the person looking at the claim might have been equally confused by the way that the claim was described.