Originally Posted by
the810
I have no objection to SAS having a limit on how what's reasonable to buy as an essential item and what's not. I didn't dispute that. What I dispute is SAS refunding only part of what they accepted as essential items on the basis of customer keeping that clothes. The customer never wanted to buy them, they had to because SAS delayed his back. It's SAS' mess and they are the ones who should bear the consequences. If they wish, they can go the Lufty way and offer to pay the full amount on the condition that the customer returns the clothes to them. Again, they are the ones who caused the problem so let them deal with the clothes no one wanted to buy.
This is even more valid in the line of your argument. If customer is expected to buy a cheap crap for it to be accepted as an essential item, then SAS has to accept that the cheap crap may not have a value for the customer because they don't wish to wear cheap crap on a regular basis. If SAS forces the customer to buy something they don't actually want, then SAS should definitely be on the hook to pay for it.
Since my suitcase would be stocked with items from Dior, Louis Vuitton, and Hermės, what you are saying I should be able to go and get an outfit for a few thousand euros, wear it until my suitcase arrives, and then send it to the airline for a full refund? That'll be fun....
There is probably a need for clearer rules here, and the airlines could do themselves a big favour about being much clearer in advance regarding what is considered a essential item. People have very individual views and expectations on that. The Montreal Convention is really not helpful here, it is mainly a get out of jail card for the airlines to play, not a consumer protection regulation.