Originally Posted by
garykung
I am not saying CWS is incorrect. Of course, to qualify for EC261/2004, you must meet all the criteria. But the Australian Government's action is insufficient per se to escape EC261/2004. At the minimum, BA is aware of the Australian Government's quota. BA can in fact choose not to overbook the flight to meet the quota.
Previously, ECJ has ruled that a planned strike is not considered as a getaway for EC261/2004. So using the same logic here, I don't believe the oz excuse stands here.
You are making an assumption that BA overbooked in a normal commercial sense, and it was this that caused the offload. The evidence suggests the airline were told to remove passengers as the Australian government would not accept them for entry.
The case relates to strikes which are within the airlines control. The Australian government imposing quotas on airlines about numbers of people who can come is clearly not within an airlines control. They are fundamentally different. I think you need to look for a more relevant case as the one you cite is not really of any use to an argument that compensation is due here.