Flight cancelled- arrived 9 hours early

eskbanker

mdann52 said:

I believe the offer of reduced compensation due to an early arrival flies in the face of the recent judgement in Azurair and Others. The problem is this isn't currently recognised in the UK courts, only in the EU courts

Would you see that applying even though OP had an itinerary comprising connecting flights and the first one left on time?

mdann52

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

I believe the offer of reduced compensation due to an early arrival flies in the face of the recent judgement in Azurair and Others. The problem is this isn't currently recognised in the UK courts, only in the EU courts

Would you see that applying even though OP had an itinerary comprising connecting flights and the first one left on time?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The line in the judgement is as follows:

" Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not

applicable to a situation in which the amount of time by which the arrival of a flight has

been brought forward is within the limits referred to in that provision."

So bringing a flight forward doesn't allow the airline to reduce by 50%

eskbanker

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

I believe the offer of reduced compensation due to an early arrival flies in the face of the recent judgement in Azurair and Others. The problem is this isn't currently recognised in the UK courts, only in the EU courts

Would you see that applying even though OP had an itinerary comprising connecting flights and the first one left on time?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The line in the judgement is as follows:

" Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not

applicable to a situation in which the amount of time by which the arrival of a flight has

been brought forward is within the limits referred to in that provision."

So bringing a flight forward doesn't allow the airline to reduce by 50%

I haven't read through it all but noticed the reference in the following sentence to "Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that informing a passenger, before the beginning of his or her journey, that his or her flight has been brought forward may constitute an ‘offer of re-routing’ within the meaning of that latter provision" so am curious about the hypothetical applicability of the judgment to schedule changes after the journey had started, an unusual feature of OP's situation which is less inconvenient than being expected to turn up much earlier to start the journey.

mdann52

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

eskbanker said:

mdann52 said:

I believe the offer of reduced compensation due to an early arrival flies in the face of the recent judgement in Azurair and Others. The problem is this isn't currently recognised in the UK courts, only in the EU courts

Would you see that applying even though OP had an itinerary comprising connecting flights and the first one left on time?

I don't see why it wouldn't. The line in the judgement is as follows:

" Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not

applicable to a situation in which the amount of time by which the arrival of a flight has

been brought forward is within the limits referred to in that provision."

So bringing a flight forward doesn't allow the airline to reduce by 50%

I haven't read through it all but noticed the reference in the following sentence to "Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that informing a passenger, before the beginning of his or her journey, that his or her flight has been brought forward may constitute an ‘offer of re-routing’ within the meaning of that latter provision" so am curious about the hypothetical applicability of the judgment to schedule changes after the journey had started, an unusual feature of OP's situation which is less inconvenient than being expected to turn up much earlier to start the journey.

But that just means that an airline moving a flight forward and keeping the passenger booked on it counts as them having rerouted the passenger - but the pax still has the remainder of their rights under Article 8 if they want a reimbursement or to go at a later date instead.

I don't see that being relevant here though, as the pax hasn't had their flight time changed - they've had a cancellation and a reroute with an earlier arrival time. Hence why the Article 7 point is relevant here - it's a direct change the meaning of that regulation to remove a misinterpretation, and it doesn't matter how it's invoked. The nature of the cancellation or delay isn't relevant to the reading of Art 7 - if Art 7 is invoked, and the passenger is offered an earlier flight, the 50% rule is no longer in play.

What impact this has on future cases will be interesting. I could well see this being clarified later on, but how the judgment is written it's clear to me that the Art 7 point applies more widely than just schedule changes.