Flight change and prepaid hotels

masaccio

jpsartre wrote: »

That's only of the original flight has been cancelled though. If it's a schedule change I find it entirely unclear to what extent the EU regulations apply.

Yes, I'm struggling with this too. 261/2004 says:

(l) "cancellation" means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.

Which seems to apply. And given that it appears to be a "cancellation" then:

Article 5

Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:

(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8

And then going to look at Article 8, I read:

Article 8

Right to reimbursement or re-routing

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:

(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,

- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;

(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or

(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and EU regs seem particularly difficult to understand.

jpsartre

I've had this discussion with someone in here before. Basically, I don't see how a schedule change satisfies the conditions for a cancellation as it is defined in EU 261. Now, I think a case could easily be made that when the departure of a flight is changed by a substantial amount, then it should be treated as cancelled and provide the rights that come with this (and I would certainly argue that a 12 hour change falls in that category). Unfortunately there is nothing in the regulations to back this up as far as I can tell so obviously the airlines are going to interpret the regulations in a manner that suits them best. I guess what we need are some court rulings to clarify how the regulations are supposed to apply to schedule changes. Perhaps there are some? If anybody in here knows I'm guessing it's Centipede.

Caz3121

Were there 2 flights a day, one in the morning and one in the evening and now there is only one?
or
was there one flight and the time has been changed?

If the latter it is not a cancellation, it is reschedule

masaccio

Caz3121 wrote: »

Were there 2 flights a day, one in the morning and one in the evening and now there is only one?
or
was there one flight and the time has been changed?

If the latter it is not a cancellation, it is reschedule

There were 2 flights: one morning, one evening. Now there's just the morning flight.

jpsartre

Now that definitely supports the claim that the later flight has been cancelled.

jpsartre

Centipede100 wrote: »

The originally planned flight is not going to be operated and a new flight has been planned to be operated the following day. Airlines might like you to believe that is a re-schedule or a schedule change but 261/2004 defines this as a cancellation:

(l) "cancellation" means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.

I don't see how a schedule change is defined as a cancellation by EU 261. I don't disagree that it is or should be (at least in some circumstances), but it simply does not follow from the definition of a cancellation.

To be cancelled, there are three conditions that must be satisfied. One, there has to have been one place reserved on the affected flight. Safe to assume this condition is almost always satisfied. Two, the flight has to have been previously planned. Again, this will always be the case. Three, the flight has to not operate. This is the key condition. Problem is the airline will claim the flight *does* operate, albeit at a different time. You and I might disagree but there is nothing in the definition of a cancellation that will settle who is right. The debate over whether a rescheduled flight is cancelled simply becomes a debate over whether a rescheduled flight operates.

masaccio

So an update. Spent quite a while on the phone now and Meridiana have agreed that the outbound flight is a cancellation. Infuriatingly, BravoFly -- the agent -- made two different bookings with Meridiana, so Meridiana are refusing to accept that they must allow a refund on the return flight.

Given that they're two bookings, I think they have a point. Grrrr.:mad:

Thanks everyone for the pointers to various EU regulations. That helped me see the wood for the trees.

jpsartre

Centipede100 wrote: »

So what would you prefer to call it? A delay, which it isn't as the definition of a delay is referred to in the Sturgeon judgement to which I linked.

So that leaves a cancellation. A rescheduled flight clearly doesn't leave at the same time nor necessarily the same day nor with often the same flight number so it becomes a cancellation.

If you are trying to have us believe that 261/2004 simply doesn't cover 'rescheduled' flights then I believe you are mistaken.

As I said, I'd personally argue that a substantial schedule change should be treated as a cancellation but the issue is not over what I think, it's over what the airline is likely to claim and in many cases they are likely to claim that a schedule change isn't a cancellation. Simply stomping your foot and claiming the contrary isn't going to get you very far and pointing to the definition of a cancellation isn't going to settle the issue for the reasons I gave earlier.

I didn't argue that EU 261 doesn't apply to schedule changes, I said that the extent to which it applies is unclear since the regulations do not mention schedule changes explicitly and gives no clue as to when, if ever, a schedule change is no longer a schedule change but a cancellation. That's why court rulings are needed to clarify this issue, similar to the Sturgeon ruling which determined that a flight should be treated as cancelled if it's delayed for a specific lenght of time.

richardw

Be very careful with jpsartre's comments on this subject, they're nothing new in these forums and other intelligent discussions have taken place. Perhaps do a search for a fuller picture before relying on them.

jpsartre

Hey, like everyone else I'm merely stating how I see things. I never pretended otherwise. I don't think I disagree with Centipede over how the regulations *ought* to be interpreted but unfortunately our opinion doesn't carry much weight if the airline insists otherwise.