Originally Posted by
SK AAR
Correct, and a flight departing 6 hours earlier (despite having to connect at BCN) would normally be not the end of the world, and considered adequate and acceptable to most pax. There is no right to purchase ticket with another carrier and ask for reimbursement just because there is a better and more convenient flight to the pax; there is absolutely no basis for this in the EU reg. Not even legacy carriers would rebook OAL in this situation. Yes, the OP can try to argue that departing 6 hours earlier and rebooked to non-direct flights is not considered adequate, but I would not bet on the OP winning that complaint, i.e. it will certainly be risky.
Thanks for clarifying, what you actually meant; this is entirely question, indeed: What's in this particular situation the definition of rerouting at the earliest opportunity.
In our situation, taking a flight that was booked and confirmed on a regular working day at 20:30, to be retimed at 14:15 is materially impossible to take, without inflicting additional damages and inconveniences over and above those already upon us, by the airline's unilateral decision of a flight cancelation.
This is the very reason, why the regulation in EU 261/2004 foresees other options than a full refund and imposes the requirement to provide the option of
b). re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity;
So it comes down to the question whether in suggesting the two flight options via Barcelona (one leaving 6 hours earlier, another one having an overnight stay not paid for by the airline and arriving 11 hours late), are in compliance with the airline's obligation to offer "re-routing at the earliest opportunity"; I would think - no, as the earliest opportunity is clearly the Ryanair flight mentioned, that leaves half an hour later than the originally scheduled.
ask for reimbursement just because there is a better and more convenient flight to the pax;
This is not the situation here. First, arguably the Ryanair flight is not more convenient but less so, given both airline's general service level and comfort in comparison. But notably, the Ryanair flight is the only one that fulfills the re-routing
obligation at the earliest opportunity.
It has been clarified over and over that this would of course include rerouting on other airlines (
here for example and
here) and that the airline is obliged to pay the fare difference, if they don't reroute themselves at the earliest oppportunity. The real question, it seems to me: where is the cut-off, when re-routing options are being considered "equivalent". It would be interesting to hear, whether any cases have been actually decided by a court of law on this.
In a related case the
ECJ has decided that a retiming of more than one hour in advance, is equivalent to a cancelation (and gives rise to compensation along Article 7 -- I clarified before that we aren't claiming any compensation for the first segment); however it's important to see, that the ECJ rightfully is much stricter with the rules for bringing a flight forward than delaying it. And this situation is similar here. Had the airline suggested a flight leaving six hours later, we would have been annoyed, but with so much advance notice, you can cope with this adequately. (and if you can't,you take the refund). But bringing the flight forward (or suggesting a much earlier different flight) in lieu of a canceled one, is equivalent to not remedying the breach of contract the air carrier is engaging in.