Originally Posted by
LSunbury
Thank you for the advice c-w-s!
It does seem counter-intuitive. A cancellation caused the delay, then the compensation is based on the delay, not the cancellation, if I understand correctly!
Well you could argue it both ways. But the slightly longer answer is that EC261 does not give compensation for delays. You will not find one word about compensation for delays in the Regulation, and yet 95% plus of compensation is in fact for delays. This came about due to the Sturgeon case, where the CJEU ruled that airlines had to give some degree of equal treatment to passengers placed in very similar levels of travel hassle, But it wasn't completely equal, Sturgeon came up with the 3 hour rule for delays, and it's doesn't fully dovetail with the bit that is in the regulation, namely compensation for cancellations. And that flows from the compensation for cancellations has a 3 stage timeline involved, whereas delays typically you only find out on the day of travel. It's easy to point out the flaws to this. So let us say someone in AMS plans a short break in HNL - as a real holiday not a TP run - staying 4 days. If they are told at 15 days to departure that they can only have say 2 days in HNL, their hassle factor is enormous, whereas someone told at 13 days could potentially get 600€ per person for the hassle.