Originally Posted by
irishguy28
While you are correct, that's sort of irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that "so they are expected to have staff on standby everywhere?".
The regulation exists NOT as a blueprint for how an airline must structure their business so that they take all steps such that they never become liable for delay/cancellation compensation - it's there to spell out what is expected of them when their passengers are affected.
Staff members getting sick is not an exceptional occurrence - in most large organisations, you'll have numerous staff off sick every single working day. It's a part of doing business. The lesson is that it's not an excuse to deny compensation payments - not that they must roster extra staff on standby at every outstation.
well this is true to an extent, but effectively the court is saying the airline did not take all reasonable measures to minimise the likelihood of cancellation - so they are implicitly passing some comment on how the airline is run. but i do understand the point you are making.