I'm aware of the regulations and the Sturgeon ruling but they don't support that compensation is due in this case IMO. For sure, article 6 applies but article 6 makes no reference to compensation. The Sturgeon ruling effectively says that a delay (note: an *actual* delay, not an expected delay) above 3 hours should be treated as a cancellation but that simply brings us back to the question of whether the OP's son was delayed (which I would argue he wasn't).
Replies
The alleged Ringleader.........
The alleged Ringleader.........