Originally Posted by brunos

I agree that it is unexpected that AF paid the compensation and the OP was lucky with this.

It seems that the aircraft left the gate less than 2h late, because they had to unload some cargo ( maybe some non-boarding pax with checked bags). There is never a mention of a malfunctioning cargo door as claimed by FlyerCO. Then the plane had to de-ice. The fact that the plane could takeoff 2h41 late would even suggest that it left the gate well before 2h (time to taxi to the de-icing machines, wait in line, de-ice, taxi to take-off). Maybe, the aircraft was ordered to wait at the gate for de-icing rather at the de-cing station.

Suggesting that de-icing is treated as "normal" at airports like AMS or CDG, where it is such a rare event, is not a point that airlines (or Dutch courts) would accept.. Speculating as to whether the aircraft would have not needed de-icing if it left the gate an hour earlier is pointless and pure speculation from a legal standpoint. We have read many reports on FT where the de-icing time was substracted from the delay by airlines which refused compensation.
Like Often1, I think that one agent was probably too quick to authorize compensation without checking the details. In any case, I doubt that there is any avenue for getting the second 300 compensation.