Originally Posted by
totti
Quick question regarding APPR compensation. My wife was on AC846 YVR to FRA. Her flight was 7 hours delayed. From what I understand EC No 261/2004 is not applicable because AC is not an airline based in the EU/EEA. However, APPR should potentially be applicable.
Partially correct. EU261 applies to all airlines irrespective of nationality if the trip
starts at an EU port (i.e. CDG, FRA). EU261 also applies for flights to or through the EU when the operating carrier is EU based. In your case since the trip originated in Vancouver and the airline is not EU based, then EU 261 wouldn't apply, although APPR certainly could apply.
Originally Posted by
totti
The issue is that AC claims the following: "In this instance, the compensation you are requesting does not apply because the disruption was caused by a safety-related issue. This flight is delayed due to additional time needed to substitute the aircraft."
My question: Is this a legitimate argument that holds up in court or has been challenged in court? I know that EU carriers cannot use this excuse because safety issues and delays needed to substitute the aircraft would still be considered within the airlines control. There have been several court cases in the EU that confirmed this interpretation. Is there something similar in Canada?
It is unclear what excuses AC will be permitted to make use of. Frankly if every airline could use safety as an excuse we would all still be stuck at home. What you can do is appeal their decision to the Canadian Transportation agency or alternatively fight them at small claims court. It's only until enough Canadians kick the tyres as it were of the CTA and small claims court that the enforcement of APPR becomes apparent to travellers. Even in the EU, when 261 was originally introduced airlines would always make the safety excuse and it wasn't until people challenged that nonsense that things became crystal clear as to what's an acceptable excuse.
-RooFlyer88