3 ms·

I feel it makes perfect sense to compensate, as the company now has a clear financial disincentive to allow faulty aircraft to be in service. Regardless of dan

I feel it makes perfect sense to compensate, as the company now has a clear financial disincentive to allow faulty aircraft to be in service. Regardless of dancing around the semantics of cancellation, a severe problem was discovered in an aircraft forcing it to reland and delaying all passengers involved. If such an event is sufficiently costly for the airline then safety and maintenance measures will have to be increased.

mehrdadn 6y ago
I wasn't saying he shouldn't be compensated. I'm saying the compensation should account for the replacement flight he was provided. (See my edit.) And I'm not "dancing around the semantics of cancellation"—he's the one doing that. The entire point of my second paragraph is to look at it from a more practical standpoint instead of at semantics.
Closi 6y ago
The difference in the semantics is that one legally requires 250 euros to be given to the customer, and the other requires them to arrange a hotel, provide food and potentially issue a refund. It’s also worth noting that delays currently result in large costs for airlines, and there is already an incredibly strong motive to stop delays and issues happening.