I am glad my posts are at least bringing some enjoyment. Exchanging thoughts here, especially on complex topics like this, is very interesting for me as well.

I fully agree this isn’t an easy line for the courts to draw. But that’s what makes this such an interesting edge case. It sits at the intersection of safety, discretion, and legal obligation.

I do think the ECJ has historically leaned toward protecting passenger rights unless the airline’s hands were truly tied. Defining “terrorist or conflict-related risk” as a basis for exemption seems to me to be a slippery slope. Conflicts are unfortunately ongoing in many parts of the world, and if the mere presence of elevated tension were enough to relieve liability, a large portion of the EC261 framework could become moot in certain regions. I also acknowledge that what happened between India and Pakistan was more than just a bit of elevated tension, but given the context of the sub-continent, to some extent it was just that too, albeit with more teeth than usual.

That’s why I think this case is worth pursuing — not because I think the court should second-guess every safety decision, but because there’s a meaningful legal distinction between an imposed constraint and a precautionary choice. But yes, I too wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the person who has to rule on this one. As I told my wife, this is one of those situations where I am not angry at AF for taking the stance that they are. If I were in their shoes, I would do the same, because to some extent both views are defendable. To me, it comes down to one big distinction — a voluntary act cannot be extraordinary.