Paralytic

I the that was covered when I did the farming module in Geography at school.

NickB

Given that this is designed as a FAQ/clinic thread to provide information, perhaps we can leave discussion of the rights and wrongs on the matter to one of the other 4278 threads on the subject?

h15t0r1an

Wondetful info in this thread. Especially where distinctions between various slightly differing circumstances have been identified. Advice better than many lawyers might be able to provide IMHO. Thankyou.

corporate-wage-slave

Many thanks to JALlover, PanGalactic, T8191, mike&co, andset1191, steveggetit, Paralytic, BOH, h15t0r1an for your feedback and praise. It's good to know that the sheer length of this thread hasn't put you off! Thank you again.

Yes I am aware of this issue. I know of people who were denied compensation by BA after their last round of strikes, I don't know of anyone succeeding on this point after challenge / court cases. Please let me know if there is anything out there. I'll leave the original point as it is for the moment.

Thank you, yes that is a good point. I'll put a summary of that in the main post.

Thank you also LTN Phobia for your comments. You now have your very own question in the main thread, though the answer is unfortunately shrouded with ambiguity. It would be good for someone to follow it up, if real damage is done in this scenario, so that we can know more.

orbitmic

I'm not aware of case law on that specific point but I'm sure others follow this more closely than me. One interesting help in interpreting the scope of the regulation which could perhaps be added to your list of references at the start of the thread is the 'guide' provided by DG Transport on the regulation which can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...g_2004_261.pdf Of course the Commission is not in charge of interpreting law and therefore there is no guarantee at all that the ECJ would interpret things the way DG transport does (not at all in fact), but it does include a lot of interesting points, not least on the 'more complex' cases mentioned downthread. On the specific issue of strikes, the DG suggests in their answer to Q14 in this document that strikes can be considered extraordinary circumstances 'under certain conditions' but that a case-by-case assessment would need to be made. My totally personal guess is that if an airline is in a position to know in advance of a strike and choose to cancel some flights as opposed to others, a good sollicitor could make a reasonably convincing case that the airline has not taken 'every reasonable measure' to fly the passengers of the cancelled flight. I may of course be entirely wrong. In any case, I would say that while the DG document is no guarantee of what the ECJ's interpretation of any point would be, BA is an even less reliable source of interpretation of the ECJ's heart and mind. Indeed, if we were relying on BA's understanding of things, long delays would not be eligible for compensation etc. Bottom line is that airlines go for the most conservative interpretation possible until the ECJ's rules that they are wrong and compensation is due, which of course, is fair enough.

BOH

Well I wasn't commenting on whether it was right or wrong, merely making a polite request

Happy New Year

Great thread BTW and thanks to c-w-s for starting it ^

Centipede100

I would like to add my thanks to the guys involved in putting this fantastic thread together, great job and a first port of call for anyone regarding 261/2004.^^^

pacenotes

I would also like to thank everyone who put the effort into this thread. As it looks like I will have to use it as I'm currently delayed 2 hours 30 mins on a flight to London to dublin. They say the reason was a delayed inbound plane so this would fall under this ruling?


To be honest I hope it does take off with just a 2 hour 30 mins and when I email I'd take 10k of avois!

NickB

That is not a reason in itself. You would need to know why the inbound was delayed to know the underlying cause. Incidentally, a 2h30 delay would not be enough for compensation to kick in (3hrs minimum for delays).

johan rebel

For what it is worth, a court in Copenhagen recently interpreted "at the earliest opportunity" as meaning "the next available flight on any airline" and ordered KL to compensate pax for tickets they had bought on an other carrier when KL canceled their original flight, rebooked them on a KL flight four days later, then canceled that one as well and rebooked them on another KL flight yet another four days later.

As far as I know, KL did not appeal the verdict.

Source (in Danish)

Johan

pacenotes

Hi nick

It says 2 hours above? So can you confirm?

Paralytic

Which bit? The only 2 hour reference I can see in in the context of a flight being cancelled within 7 days of departure and you being rerouted on a flight that lands more that 2 hours after your originally scheduled land time.

For delays, it kicks in at 3 hours.

corporate-wage-slave

Great feedback here! Thanks! And I'll tidy stuff up in a day or two, including areas that look confusing (e.g. 2 hrs versus 3 hrs). Johan - wow, what an extraordinary position for KLM to be defending! Can you check the link please?

jimcbob

There's a reference to the ECJ in a case against Ryanair where this is one of the questions: Europa link.

angatol

Not that I read Danish, but your link isn't a link to anything.