Originally Posted by
bd95
I’m not a lawyer but I’m not sure that salami slicing the delay to different reasons is in keeping with the stated aim of the legislation to apply a high degree of consumer protection. Yes, some delays are due to a combination of reasons, but to say that a 3:01 delay due to 2 minutes of non-countable reasons and 2:59 of countable reasons (extreme example, I admit) wouldn’t be subject to compensation seems not to be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation.
This is doubly odd when looked at in the context of a small delay on a short haul connection leading to a missed long haul connection and causing liability for the long haul rate of compensation.
Pretty much every senior court ruling I've seen has underlined the high degree of consumer protection provision, there's also an EU principle of "equal treatment". I think some district judges get that but CEDR tends to work off a more narrow interpretation on the whole. So if it's a 50 / 50 call then the principle of consumer protection can carry the argument. The most notable area where I've seen that on CEDR is on the "all reasonable measures" aspect in respect of weather / ATC delays. However airlines certainly do the salami slicing and rarely volunteer the fact that (e.g.) an ATC slot restriction can be made worse by dint of some ground handling delays causing a lost slot.