Catch 22; The airline is required to get the passenger to the airport booked or, with the passengers agreement, another place.

So pax offered a (Hobson's) choice; We can get you back to LTN in a fortnight or so or, if you agree, to LGW the day after tomorrow. Your only other option is a 'full' refund.

I sonehow doubt they seek explicit agreement and probably don't record it but the regulation envisions delivering a pax to another point.

I'd check with one of the companies doing 261 claims. They won't take a case they know they won't win.

So pax offered a (Hobson's) choice; We can get you back to LTN in a fortnight or so or, if you agree, to LGW the day after tomorrow.

Why not plane to LGW then taxi to LTN? I wonder if you might be able to claim that; because was it not also necessary to achieve transporting you to your original destination 'within reasonable time'?

Thanks ExXB. Yes, RAT 5, my friends did have to do that and will claim from EZY first and, since one of them works in the travel biz and the other is a Police officer - they will not be taking no for an answer! I'll report back.

They are each entitled to the €250 compensation. I doubt squeezie will voluntarily cough up other expenses (not specified in the regulation) without a fight, to avoid setting a precedence. Small claims court (or the equivalent) may be the only way.

Note U2s Conditions of carriage provide that: (Emphasis added). Nothing there gives them the right to deliver the passenger to another airport, even another airport of the same city.

Also, from Easyjet's webpage: See: https://www.easyjet.com/en/help/boar...-cancellations

I've been assuming the pax have contacted U2 and have been rebuffed. If they haven't yet, they should.

It is now an unfortunate fact of life that airports operations in conjunction with ATC restrict flow rates at major airports. The losers in this are the passengers and airlines. Even though aircraft can normally operate in these poor conditions they are not even given the chance of doing so. I remember holding for ages whilst every plonker ahead of was offered an approach that they couldn't accept because RVR was 100M or so. Whilst this was happening, we and every other CAT IIIB were burning fuel and wasting time. Worse happens after you land. The connecting flights are often diverted or cancelled and outbound slots mean you should have stayed at home.

And then we have EU 261 compo regs. Fog happens, but so rarely it is reasonable it is reasonable to regard it as exceptional. Strong winds are the same. But what about gusts? If you fly into Leeds you can often make an approach that is within crosswind limits but gusts make it virtually impossible for you to safely land. So do the punters deserve compo for that? And while we are here, if an aircraft is maintained according to the manufacturer's schedule and all "lifed" components are replaced, is compo payable if a component fails prematurely?

Methinks too many people are too greedy and airlines have been unfairly discriminated against. Let's have a level playing field and include rail, bus and ships in compo regs written exactly the same as those that apply to airlines.

Thanks folks, I'm passing on your helpful info. They will be putting in the first claim this week. It seems like a standard problem in that, the a/c had operated other sectors that day but cout could not be despatched (for whatever reason) and so the out and rtn flights canx. The machine was operating again the next day.