Originally Posted by ffay005

Deducting from BAEC's and Lkrt's cases, it starts to sound as if airlines like to interpret EC261 so that if an airline rebooks you, you're the responsibility of the original carrier even if the new carrier screws it up later on. I don't think there's anything in EC261 to support such an interpretation, though.

Say you're on HEL-JFK on AY. AY cancels and sends you HEL-LHR-JFK on BA+BA. AY now owes you €600. But if BA further screws it up and cancels their LHR-JFK, rebooking you onto AI LHR-JFK arriving more than three hours later than the BA LHR-JFK, then technically BA should owe you a second €600. However, to be compensated twice for this seems superfluous so there's a certain logic in claiming only AY needs to pay.

However, in Lkrt's case, the original route and reroute were supposed to land at roughly the same time, ie no EC261 to be paid. The reroute got screwed up and as far as I can see, the airline that screwed it up should pay.

In BAEC's case, the first reroute and subsequent delay were undoubtedly due to extraordinary circumstances. However, regardless of what's going on in Pakistan, the AI flight DEL-CPH took off with a delay, which (together with slow service at CPH transfer desk) caused pax to misconnect and arrive with a severe delay at final destination, more than three hours later than the first reroute suggested. AI is not an EU airline so EC261 does not apply and no compensation is due. However, if DEL-CPH had been on eg SK, then my logic says SK would need to pay EC261 compensation in this case (and not AY).

Very confusing.