EC 261/2004: wear and tear or 'extraordinary circumstances'?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted on another thread a journalists botching of a story about a medical diversion. These have been considered to be an 'extraordinary circumstances".
I certainly hope the ECJ's interpretation doesn't call this into question. Although these incidents can be said to be unusual, or uncommon, they happen just about every day - something clearly not extraordinary.
I certainly hope the ECJ's interpretation doesn't call this into question. Although these incidents can be said to be unusual, or uncommon, they happen just about every day - something clearly not extraordinary.
Last edited by ExXB; 8th Feb 2015 at 11:30. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Miles from where I want to be.
Age: 39
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One would hope EU261 would never apply in the event of a medical diversion. Should a passenger claim compensation under EU261 for a delay due to a medical diversion then they are the lowest of the low. Not to mention the extra financial impact on the airlines and potential internal pressures not to divert due to medical issues.
If this were to happen on the outbound flight of the first wave for a short haul airline then then you're looking at over €250,000 in compensation based on six flights. Madness.
If this were to happen on the outbound flight of the first wave for a short haul airline then then you're looking at over €250,000 in compensation based on six flights. Madness.
