I don't think that is quite correct. I know Finnair lost a case in court where the court said that an air condition leak issue (I believe it was a new aircraft also) is not an extraordinary fault and made Finnair pay the 600 euros (and I think about two hundred thousand euros of the other guys lawyer fees). The consumer advisory board in Finland also states that on most cases technical faults have to be covered by the airline.

I've never heard of this happening. How does the court determine that a fault is within the normal course of maintenance on a new aircraft, vs a fault that is because its a new type?

Can you cite some previous examples?

I just think every airline would be using this get out clause for any fault, on any aircraft under the age of 2 years if it was allowed!

I thinks Bird strike/hail strike can opt out EC261 case, others technical problem should under EC261.

https://pointstobemade.boardingarea....ecj-klm-ec261/

Nonsense. Wallentin-Herman yielded the notion that technical issues are not deemed extraordinary circumstances. It is an inherent part of airline operations and thus compensation is due. Cathay can take it up with Airbus afterwards.

Its not whether its a standard fault on a new aircraft, its whether its a manufacturing fault that has only just shown itself for the first time. Ultimately its up to the passenger to test it which airlines know most wont.

Just a quick update. I ended up getting the new route credits. MEL-HKG was credited (instead of the original PER-HKG) 2 days after the flight, and today I just got the credit (CP+AM) for the QF PER-MEL.

As i already said, it depends on the issue. Issues within normal airline operations do not count but extraordinary issues outside the control of the airline do. See the Rolls Royce 787 problems.

The CEDR are rejecting claims but i don't think anyone has taken the court route to decide once and for all. BA would almost certainly pay up to stop it getting that far.

Thanks. Any post with data point?

There is a whole thread about it on the BA forum - https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...61-2004-a.html

If you search through it you can see compensation is being rejected by the independent adjudicator CEDR but nobody has taken it far enough yet to get a binding court decision.

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...l#post29416868

Really, nobody knows. BA are rejecting them, the CEDR seem to be rejecting them, and no-one knows what a court will say and perhaps never will because BA would certainly settle before anyone took it that far.