dblumenhoff

This, I think, is the clearest description. The whole EC261 (and in reality, on time statistics for airlines in general) is oriented around when did you arrive at your destination. Were you on a nonstop which was delayed an hour? You were an hour late. Your flight left an hour late but "made up time enroute"? You were on time. You were on a connection and the first flight was delayed 1 hour but you still made your connection which was on time? You were on time. You were on your first flight which was delayed only 5 minutes but you missed your connection (the only flight of the day) and had to stay overnight? You were delayed 24 hours. So the reason EC261 doesn't specify about missed connections is that ultimately what happens in between doesn't matter to most travelers, only when they arrived at their destination.

As to the avoidable/unavoidable conversation, I think there's a piece the OP is missing. Even if, right before the flight the night before, they made a last minute decision to throw an additional crew on the plane, and it just so happened that there was an extra crew available at the airport, they would not have been able to operate your flight due to minimum rest. Crew being repositioned, even if they are asleep in a business class seat, is never considered to be on their rest period, and in many cases they are considered to be flying and working. So they are in no better position to operate your flight than the crew that operated that flight. Also, EC261 does not suppose that airlines ever have standby crew at outstations. There was no way of the airline having a fresh crew for you short of having a crew 24/7 that sits at FRA and twiddles their thumbs. So once the previous night flight was delayed, your delay became an unavoidable consequence (unless that delay was avoidable, in which case yours should be as well).

BRITINJAPAN4

I am starting to feel compassion for this dead horse !

Londonlouis

Well, that last sentence is very much your opinion & I'd argue not very well grounded in fact. Most travelers would get hungry, frustrated, & anxious during an extended delay, which is precisely why stipulations were made for duty of care after certain delay thresholds.

EC261 had many limitations & that is why its case law has proven extensive in clarifying meaning & protections, while also expanding definitions in some instances.

To the crux of what you're getting at, the reason why it doesn't function as a standard delay is because it was rerouted & AF, not extraordinary circumstances, was responsible for that rerouting. What EC261 thinks about outstations is totally immaterial.

Why is rerouting different? Because it poses a significant inconvenience for many, who're, after scrambling to find the gate, often shifted into middle seats at the last minute (I wasn't). It also shifts the applications of EC261 into a seemingly different territory. If extraordinary circumstances were the reason behind the missed connection, of course then the rerouting is justified & no compensation is due. In my case, on the other hand...

I actually was put in a middle seat, having now gone back to check it. I guess at least it was an extra legroom (Skyteam status probably helped there).

dblumenhoff

I think you proved my point. If I'm delayed 2 hours, I'm 2 hours hungrier no matter how my itinerary changed, what reroutes, flew via China, whatever. The airline has whatever duty of care to feed me for a 2 hour delay. Doesn't matter what planes I took. The existing case law requires compensation for cabin downgrades, but does not distinguish between windows, middles, and aisles in the same cabin class. You may disagree and find a middle effectively a downgrade, but the law is not on your side.

You were rerouted in order to get you there closer to on time once the original delay happened. It seems like at this point you just want to argue when everyone is explaining how the law has been interpreted in the past. If you don't like it, complain to the EC.

FrankTalk

There is no "standard" delay and there is no non-"standard" delay. There is just... delay? It's a very simple numerical function between the ticketed arrival time and actual arrival time at the destination. If they don't match it's completely immaterial why the delay happened in regards that a delay happened. It's the same whether it was from crewing issues, from your FRA-CDG being delayed in landing by an emergency at CDG, or if the pilots decided to leave an hour late because they felt like dancing to the 1hr remix of the Macarena. In all cases you're going to be delayed.

The reason for the delay matters only as far as deciding whether you're entitled to any compensation from the airline (up to and including if you sue AF for malice implying the flight was delayed in order to inconvenience you personally).

Agreed stopping places is an industry standard term referring to connection points (and stopovers) on the ticket which is part of your contract with the airline. Should you have asked in CDG to get a refund because your routing was changed, AF would've obliged and as per regulations transport you back to FRA. Should you have asked for a different routing AF would've made their best to accommodate you (within reason). You agreed to take the reroute, AF's contractual obligations towards you were fulfilled (albeit with a delay, see first point).

Assigned seats are NOT part of the contract. Airlines will do their best to accommodate your selection but aren't guaranteeing it, so while getting a middle seat for a reroute is unfortunate it gets you exactly bubkis.

Not sure what else is there and what you're hoping for...

Londonlouis

Tl;dr.

That you continue to respond to this thread (& thus ping me with email notifications) arguing semantics about something that has very clearly been explained multiple times speaks volumes.

A "standard" delay in my wording entails a delay as outlined under EC261's Article 6 entitled "Delay". That should be plainly obvious at this point. Article 7, Section 2 makes clear the distinction between a claim for what could be described as a standard delay & one where "re-routing" on an "alternative flight" occurs.

Hence why Irishguy28's comment (#7) alluding to possible eligibility for compensation - contingent upon AF being responsible for the delay that caused the misconnect - was one of the few sensible responses in this thread.

errr, no. I explained very clearly why a rerouting constitutes a different form of delay than one where a passenger remains on the same plane.

Actual downgrading is an entirely different kettle of fish. So the law is not on my side for an argument I didn't make? It's not a surprise that both you & FrankTalk are now arguing against a strawman, short of anything productive to say about the original question at hand (regarding potentially applicable case law).

moondog

What's your aversion to talking with any of the companies that actually specialize in this stuff? While FT is a decent resource, no single poster has as much recent data under their belts than the large agencies. I saw that your are concerned about cookies and confidentiality. If so, you could also call them and explain your situation (in brief, of course). If they think your case has legs, they will offer you to represent you for a fee of ~30% and you can accept or decline. If they don't think your case has merit, you probably shouldn't waste too much time, though AF might kick you some miles or vouchers if you contact them.

FrankTalk

You really haven't read the regulation, have you? Per EU261 interpretation of delays the only relevant metric is ticketed arrival time vs actual arrival time, regardless of how much you wish it otherwise. The only recourse EU261 offers you in case of delays longer than 5 hours is a refund and return to your origin, less than 5 hours it's actually nothing. You were rerouted because the carrier's contract of carriage stipulates that they'll do their best to get you from your origin to your destination and reserve the right to put you on different flights or different carriers in order to do so.