I've been reading the EC directive 261 (exciting I know
) and Article 5 clearly states that in the event of cancellation, a passenger is entitled to assistance and compensation (Articles 9 and 7).
Article 7 includes;
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay
compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that
the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances
which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
measures had been taken.
But article 9 does not.
However, in the initial preamble the following 2 paragraphs are
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.
(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist
where the impact of an air traffic management decision
in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day
gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the
cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even
though all reasonable measures had been taken by the
air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.
Surely this would cover it as well..... It looks like the judges have totally ignored the initial sections.