RJ100
A quick comment in EU261/2004.
Does the paragragh copied from the document allow the airlines to avoid paying any cost or compensation? As M. O'leary was claiming.............
Quote:
(14)
As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating
air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases
where an event has been caused by extraordinary
circumstances which could not have been avoided even
if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances
may, in particular, occur in cases of political
instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with
the operation of the flight concerned, security risks,
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that
affect the operation of an operating air carrier.
This is a good question, but I believe that the answer is no. My understanding is that the wording you've quoted prevents passengers from claiming compensation under the Montreal convention, but the EU reg. provides a completely new, separate right to compensation. Effectively, the Convention sets out the maximum restrictions that airlines can place on their liability. They are free to include more generous terms within their contract with passengers (Art. 25). The EU reg. simpy applies an additional set of restrictions which apply to flights which fall within its scope (flights starting and/or ending in the EU).
In any event, if there were a conflict between the two provisions, the EU reg. would prevail, since it was introduced in 2004, whilst the Convention was introduced into UK law by Statutory Instrument in 2002. Anything in the Statutory Instrument which conflicted with the Regulation would be impliedly repealed by the later legislation.
Pohutu