Originally Posted by
Carlusa
but a bit of rain at LHR is fully accepted as an extraordinary event that BA could never have foreseen or planned for?
I have won compensation on a case where I argued, amongst other things, that rain at LHR was not extraordinary. BA conceded and settled a day before the court deadline.
Originally Posted by
DelTroon
Is it reasonable to expect BA, or any other airline, to make replacement pilots available at every outstation?
It is not reasonable, but the law expects them to, and in that respect, the law is an arse.
Originally Posted by
Newly Wed
Surely it's not about reasonableness and having spare pilots available in case of illness. The EU261 regime is about who should shoulder the burden when delays arise. There are circumstances where it should be the consumer (e.g. weather) and other circumstances when it should by the airline (e.g. crew sickness).
The
EU261 regulation, as passed, made no reference to delays incurring compensation. Delay compensation in the EU was created out of whole cloth in an outlandish exercise in judicial lawmaking by the ECJ. I do not believe the lawmakers ever envisaged that passengers should receive windfalls of cash if a pilot happens to fall ill at an outstation. But we are where we are – and where we are, of course, is that the cost of said monetary showers is passed on in inflated airfares.