Holiday firm changed dept airport - Advice needed

callum9999

d123 wrote: »

What fabricated quote? Perhaps if you learnt how to quote it would be easier to know who you are talking to. My quote is direct from the EU website, and perhaps if you understood how to read the Regulation it would be clearer to you.

The 'unless' means that 1a, b, or c apply unless i, ii or iii have happened.

So it's an easy Regulation to read, 1a, b, c would apply unless "(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure".

I didn't quote because there was no need to quote... Any idiot (well, seemingly not any...) could see I was talking to you and duchy.

Your quote is not direct from the EU website, you have altered it. There is no gap around the word "unless" - it follows on directly from part C on the website.

When you have a list that goes:

a)
b)
c) i), ii), iii)

It is not standard English for the i's to refer to every point previous to it - merely the sub section it is found within.

IT IS NOT AN EASY TO READ REGULATION. Your arrogance is making you believe that your simple interpretation must be right and everyone else is wrong. Only a complete and utter moron would classify this regulation as easy and simple to follow. It's approaching 11 years old and the EU STILL have not settled on what it actually covers. BA's interpretation of it on their website, for example, only mentions a two week exemption in the compensation section and not in the section where they describe the right to a reroute. If it's so simple, why would they get it wrong (and wrong in the passengers favour at that)?

As I said from the very beginning, your interpretation could well be right, but I'm not just going to roll over and take the unqualified word of a bunch of spiteful internet users.

System

I'm not just going to roll over and take the unqualified word of a bunch of spiteful internet users

I take that you also class yourself in that description or are you taking the high ground

callum9999

!!!!!! wrote: »

I take that you also class yourself in that description or are you taking the high ground

Do I class myself the same as someone who makes claims without sufficiently backing them up while calling me an idiot? No.

Do I expect people to blindly take my word for things? No.

What exactly is your point?

System

callum9999 wrote: »

Do I class myself the same as someone who makes claims without sufficiently backing them up while calling me an idiot? No.

You seem to think it OK for you to do it

Any idiot (well, seemingly not any...) could see I was talking to you and duchy.

so lets call people idiots then shall we.

callum9999 wrote: »

Do I expect people to blindly take my word for things? No.

But you expect people to take your interpretation of things without qualification

callum9999 wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

You are no different to anybody else on this thread.

BTW read and inwardly digest Article 3 and then tell me how the OP qualifies for compensation under EC261/2004 please.

d123

callum9999 wrote: »

I didn't quote because there was no need to quote... Any idiot (well, seemingly not any...) could see I was talking to you and duchy.

Your quote is not direct from the EU website, you have altered it. There is no gap around the word "unless" - it follows on directly from part C on the website.

When you have a list that goes:

a)
b)
c) i), ii), iii)

It is not standard English for the i's to refer to every point previous to it - merely the sub section it is found within.

IT IS NOT AN EASY TO READ REGULATION. Your arrogance is making you believe that your simple interpretation must be right and everyone else is wrong. Only a complete and utter moron would classify this regulation as easy and simple to follow. It's approaching 11 years old and the EU STILL have not settled on what it actually covers. BA's interpretation of it on their website, for example, only mentions a two week exemption in the compensation section and not in the section where they describe the right to a reroute. If it's so simple, why would they get it wrong (and wrong in the passengers favour at that)?

As I said from the very beginning, your interpretation could well be right, but I'm not just going to roll over and take the unqualified word of a bunch of spiteful internet users.

The quote is direct (you do understand what 'direct' means?) I simply bolded and highlighted the relevant word to make it easier for obtuse readers to comprehend (as well as other normal readers).

Follow the link, I even supplied the page number and read it in situ if you want, maybe after reading it enough times you might begin to understand.

It isn't a list that goes:

a)
b)
c) i), ii), iii)

It is a list that goes
a)
b)
c)
Unless
i)
ii)
iii)

It's a fairly common way laws are written, perhaps go and ask someone else help you understand it.