Samalet,
I'm not sure if I follow the B747's analysis on the definition of a "flight" for the purposes of EC 261/2004. This may be rather too optimistic in your own favour rather than the airline.
I suspect that this may be a more complex issue.
I have been reading more regarding a case before the ECJ on flightmole.com -see
http://www.flightmole.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71
I think there are two separate arguments here.
KLM appear to be denying compensation basing the repudiation upon there being a delay rather than a cancellation. There is a long running and unresolved debate as to when a delay becomes cancellation-if at all-after simply a period of time.
However the original question of the flight routing also appears most relevant.
The factor here, I believe, is the definition of a "flight". EC 261/2004 makes no reference to the concept "sector" and the term "flight" is undefined.
It may be necessary to delve into the caselaw generated by 70+ years of litigation over the Warsaw and now Montreal Conventions.
The ECJ ( European Court of Justice) is considering a case at the moment ( the case against Emirates as linked above)-not directly analogous- but the same concept of a "flight" is reviewed for that purpose.
For the purpose of the Warsaw/Montreal system of air law-it is basically the journey that is considered -and a change or aircraft or a simple technical stop is not considered relevant. Therefore it may be possible for KLM to argue that YYZ-ALA is the relevant "flight".
YYZ-ALA is non-eu to non-eu and therefore not governed by EC 261/2004 on this reasoning.
I wonder if KLM have the potential to argue the case on this basis?
You may be able to argue the "B 747" routing. My feeling is that the same Advocate General might just fall in line with my viewpoint.
In summary KLM might be able to argue the 24 hour delay is still a delay and not cancellation-but there may be arguments against this.
However it is possible, if my analysis is correct, that KLM might also be able to take up the "routing " argument.
Maybe others disagree
Originally Posted by
samalet
Hmm, so in a more specific example that accured a little less than a year ago: KLM flight YYZ > AMS > ALA. Flight AMS > ALA was delayed for 24 hours. So if I understand correctly there should be a cash compensation in place as per EU261 regulation? I have tried to reason with customer service but what I got in reply was "As stated in my email, this was an overnight delay not a cancellation. Per EU guidelines you do not qualify for EU compensation. " And thats by supervisor in customer service.
Who is right and who is wrong?