Originally Posted by
davidjohnson6
Even without a legal test case... what do you think a court would say if there are (genuinely) 50 knot crosswinds forecast at a destination airport along with low cloud and heavy rain... maybe with fog for good measure ? Would requiring an airline pay compensation for delaying a flight pass the test of being reasonable ?
As here, there's a common misunderstanding of the purpose behind EU261 compensation. It is not meant to be some usurous penalty for adverse circumstances which happen from time to time (and can be budgeted for as part of the cost of doing business for a carrier), but more a means of encouraging that carriers actually apply themselves to OVERCOMING such issues.
So in the event of both 50 knot crosswinds AND fog (an unusual Met combination, you have to admit, and one that would start an informed passenger to think that hyperbole is creeping in), it encourages the carrier to get all passengers on their way as promptly as possible, and not just to tell them "that flight was too difficult for us, go away, we'll get on with everyone else now". Which was certainly starting to happen and led to the measures in the first place. Or similarly, saying on a Sunday lunchtime departure on a mainstream European route "might be disruptive to us, come back next Wednesday afternoon". Which seems to be where I came in ...