SteamyUncle

With more than 42000 posts total, do you seriously think @NickB and @irishguy28 need it?

Have you asked yourself what this kind of posts bring to the table?

I, however, have a slightly off-topic little piece of advice for you and anyone who reads this thread: when something out of the ordinary occurs, like flight disruption, call the European numbers of AF or KL and not the US call center. Local CS representatives seem to be much more experienced and much more able to tackle complex issues.
​​​​​

NickB

My, how charming...

The reason why I made that post (and I suspect why ig28 made his too) is that your post #9 seemed to suggest that you still did not get what Reg261/2004 is about and how it works. You seemed to think that it was an issue of car rental vs accommodation, i.e. type of expenses. What I wanted to make clear in my post was that this misses the point: Reg 261/2004 is not about compensating for lost bookings, whether accommodation, car rentals, excursions, etc... It is not an accommodation vs car rental issue here and it does not matter whether the expense in question was for car rental, accommodation, or anything else.

As to whether that post was helpful, well I thought it was to clarify what you seemed still not to understand. Yes, the info was already there in IG28 post just above but I rephrased it slightly differently to insist on the key point. I could understand your reaction if there was a piling on of a long list of posters merely repeating the same thing. That was not the case here. Just a few confirmatory posts bringing a slightly different perspective/emphasis or slightly different way of expressing an idea is par for the course and normal dialogue in FT (and, TBH, on most IBBs IME). If you struggle with that, then perhaps FT is not for you.

. I hope you realise how ridiculous that is.

johan rebel

You said it!

Fortunately for you, several people here have been trying to be helpful. I'm beginning to wonder if they have been wasting their time?

Johan

flyerCO

There's very recent case law, arriving early is the same as arriving late. Basically its a "legal fiction" by the court.

NickB

Can you clarify which case this would be?

Under the terms of the Reg, compensation arises following cancellation when the new flight leaves early from departure compared to original schedule (1 hr early or more for less than 1 week notice; 2 hrs or more for notice between 1 and 2 weeks notice) or arrives late at destination compared to original schedule (2 hours late or more for less than 1 week notice; 4 hrs or more for notice between 1 and 2 weeks notice) but I am not aware of any case that would say that arriving early is assimilated to arriving late. That would be rather strange and would seem to contradict the caselaw I am aware of.

flyerCO

I finally read the case judgment that couple new places quoted.. It only involved (for this case) moving a flight time forward and that it can constitute a cancelation. My fault for trusting news organization to get it right. (I think most copied the 1st article)

NickB

Ah, I think I know the cases you are referring to (a series of cases decide by the ECJ last December concerning various holiday flights from Germany and Austria). The specific issue regarding a flight departing early (other than the finding of the Court that a rescheduling of departure time one hour earlier or more should be treated the same as a cancellation) was whether the fact that you arrive earlier at destination as a consequence of a rerouting or flight rescheduling at an earlier departure time would entitle the airline to apply the 50% reduction in the amount of compensation where the arrival is delayed by no more than the thresholds specified in Art 7(2) of the Reg. The Court said no because the reduction in compensation was premised on a departure no earlier than the original departure time and would therefore not apply in case of rerouting/rescheduling departing earlier than the original flight departure time.

flyerCO

Which makes no sense. Get you in X hours early, 100% comp, get you in X hours late, only 50% comp. I for most part get why some dislike the ECJ with rulings like this. EC261 has expanded well past anything written in law or even intended when writing the law. I'll claim my compensation of course! However I do feel it has become overly expanded law.

NickB

You forget one thing in your comparison: you get in X hours early but you also have to leave from origin Y hours early., which is not at all the same kind of thing. Having to leave from origin earlier is at least as inconvenient as arriving late at destination. IMO, the approach of the ECJ on this makes perfect sense:

Telling me: "we can get you at destination at the same time as originally planned but you have to leave from origin 10 hours earlier" is just as inconvenient as telling me "you leave as planned but we will get you at destination 10 hours later". I don't quite see why compensation should be cut by 50% in the former situation compared to the latter.

flyerCO

You leave 2 hours early, get in 2 hours early compensation is due. You also leave 2 hours early, but get in 2 hours later,, no compensation is due..

I get that leaving early can be an inconvenience. However It leads to situations like i just described. Plus the 50% reduction apparently doesn't apply. Why I don't get?

SkyTeam777

Does this legislation kick in for canceled flights due to crew timing out? I had a forced overnight in Munich due to crew cancelation and will arrive at my destination (MRS) seven hours late. Assuming this qualifies, but don't want to wait 3 months for a response. Is it best to email that customer care email or is there another avenue?

NickB

That would depend on the reason for the delay resulting in the crew timing out. If it is an "extraordinary circumstance", then no compensation will be payable. If it is not deemed an extraordinary circumstance, then compensation would be due.

Xandrios

Talking about "extraordinary circumstance" ... what is the consensus on the issues at AMS these days? I am aware of KLM rebooking pax that missed their flight due to long security queues (for free). Other airlines may not be so flexible. From what I understand the fact that the airport is only allowing pax to enter the terminal 4hr before departure, but the queue for security is beyond 4hr at times... is not covered under the regulation.

However, then there are airlines purposefully delaying their flights to wait for more pax to show up. Or because luggage needs to be offloaded for pax that did not show up. Those 30-90 min delays easily cause a misconnect. I'm sure the airline would consider that "extraordinary circumstance", but - especially in the case of waiting for more pax to show up - I don't know if I'd agree with that.

And lastly, the airport is asking airlines to cancel flights due to the crowds. And especially KLM does cancel quite a few flights. About 50 this weekend, for instance. From what I understand that is voluntarily for the airline. So... unless they are able to offer re-routing with minimal delay, that should likely also be covered for compensation then?

It's a bit of a grey area perhaps with all the issues at the airport, and I suspect that airlines will use that as a way to claim "extraordinary circumstance". But at the same time, some decisions are being made purposefully and potentially also to 'cover up' other problems (like crew shortages). What is the general opinion on the regulation applying to these cases?

SkyTeam777

It was due to a thunderstorm and a long duty day. The agents in Munich were telling people to book hotels and AF would compensate so makes me believe they see it as something eligible for the compensation. It's not extraordinary since they shouldn't schedule crew for 10-hour duty days if they would be close to timing out by the end of it.

NickB

Well, try your luck if you want to argue that but I doubt that AF will agree, which would mean that you would have to litigate it and, imo, the outcome of such litigation cannot be taken for granted.