EC 261/2004: wear and tear or 'extraordinary circumstances'?
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
I posted on another thread a journalists botching of a story about a medical diversion. These have been considered to be an 'extraordinary circumstances".
I certainly hope the ECJ's interpretation doesn't call this into question. Although these incidents can be said to be unusual, or uncommon, they happen just about every day - something clearly not extraordinary.
I certainly hope the ECJ's interpretation doesn't call this into question. Although these incidents can be said to be unusual, or uncommon, they happen just about every day - something clearly not extraordinary.
Last edited by ExXB; 8th February 2015 at 11:30. Reason: typo
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
From: Miles from where I want to be.
One would hope EU261 would never apply in the event of a medical diversion. Should a passenger claim compensation under EU261 for a delay due to a medical diversion then they are the lowest of the low. Not to mention the extra financial impact on the airlines and potential internal pressures not to divert due to medical issues.
If this were to happen on the outbound flight of the first wave for a short haul airline then then you're looking at over €250,000 in compensation based on six flights. Madness.
If this were to happen on the outbound flight of the first wave for a short haul airline then then you're looking at over €250,000 in compensation based on six flights. Madness.
