Originally Posted by
spgaston
If an airline is going to fly with a problem just because they don't want to pay compensation, then there is a much larger problem isn't there?
You think?
Originally Posted by
spgaston
I don't see what this has to do with compensation for a mechanical delay. ...
Take a look at KLM. They have overbooked their longhaul fleet this year and the mechanical delays have had a tremendous ripple effect on their scheduling. Because of EU regulations, they are paying pax compensation out the a** because they have not scheduled enough maintanance downtime for their fleet. You can bet they will think twice about such scheduling in the future.
I see your point but I don't agree with it, and the KLM case is a good example.
The EU regulation makes a clear distinction between delays and cancellation or overbooking. It states that in a delay situation the airline has a duty of care (i.e. refreshment, communication and accommodation depending on the length of the flight and the duration of the delay), but not a requirement to offer financial recompense. However in cases of cancellation or involuntary reroute there is a duty to offer financial compensation in addition to the duty of care. The reasoning behind this is that delays are usually unforeseen while cancellations and overbooking are usually a result of elective action by the airline.
Using your example of KLM: the problem is that “…they have not scheduled enough maintanance (sic) downtime for their fleet. You can bet they will think twice about such scheduling in the future.” KLM have chosen a maintenance schedule that causes the problems. This leads to long delays (inconvenient) and cancellations (that trigger hefty compensation payments).
In the OP’s case, if the 4.5hr delay happened on an EU flight, then the OP could have claimed for refreshments and communication at the time, but there is no requirement of compensation under EU law. DL’s offer of $100 as a goodwill gesture looks pretty generous.