Originally Posted by
sptraveller
I don't think you're quite right about this and think it's a common and understandable misconception.
Airline conditions of carriage do not normally OBLIGE an airline to actually convey you anywhere, ever.
Please read some actual contracts of carriage and please cite some examples where I'm wrong. I don't believe you will find them.
Policy may advise them to accommodate you but contractually they owe you nothing beyond a refund.
Think the whole point of EU261 is to address this, and wouldn't have been contemplated otherwise.
Other then general contract law, which obliges them to uphold their end of the contract and you to uphold yours. Lot's of contracts include unenforceable and possibly illegal terms, though they generally get around this with disclaimer clauses, e.g. 'your statutory rights are unaffected...'. The purpose of EU261 was to create a putative measure whereby in addition to paying actual damages for failure to comply with the contract, e.g. cancelling your flight at the last minute because they decided it wasn't financially beneficial to operate it. In this case they would be in breach of contract and liable to pay for actual damages. The compensation is on top of this.