Section 75 can be an effective means of enforcing rights under the Montreal Convention.
We are going around in circles here, but s75 requires a breach of contract - and we still haven't established that - so no unless you have a breach you can't simply make a claim under s75 and request all consequential loses as part of that. Shall we just park s75 unless you are willing to come back and explain why it is a breach.
In my case, yes. And the circumstances are similar in the OP’s case in that an onward connection was missed. The convention doesn’t differentiate between the type of onward transport, or even the type of loss.
Aha, so you won in your case under Art. 19 MC99 and got all costs associated with a separate booking? Are you able to share any details?
EDIT: I hope it is something better than this btw
Impossible flight schedule for G-UZHT on 18th December 2022 getting £98 taxi fare back from U2 due to a late arrival, especially since it was merely discontinued after a second expenses claim was paid, rather than taken anywhere substantive.
To be clear, if this is your precedent you are basing this all from, I would not be going around advising people that they can get all costs back from an airline for a second separate booking when a positioning flight on a first booking is cancelled.
Yes, but that criterion is fulfilled in the OP’s case, so it doesn’t merit discussion.
Must try that line in the future in some of my cases
