Originally Posted by Bangkokeasy
It is obviously not ideal, but I would have said that, given the circumstances, the airline had gone to sufficient lengths to perform the contract (they did, after all, get the passengers to the intended destination, albeit very late and by a roundabout route). The sin is merely not keeping the SLF fully informed. Big deal. Happens all the time. Is it the fact that this judgement was a punishment to the airline for not keeping the passengers informed? If so, as JH said at the start of this thread - a nest of vipers!
Exactly. I
believe that the contractual obligation is transport from A to B; by any available (and reasonable) means. Obviously it's supposed to be by air but not necessarily (AIUI) in exigent circumstances. There are rules for compensation following such a 'schedule irregularity', but they change so often and need a law degree for comprehension.
I'd like to see the actual charges and judgement.