英國希斯羅機場（LHR）T5轉機請益
正在載入
各位版上的大大好~
之前在智游網訂的一段票（只有出一張電子機票）
回程都是由英國航空承運
目前有點擔心回程的轉機時間會不會太短？（英國這段）
從德國慕尼黑預計到達倫敦(LHR)時間是17:30,T5降落
下一班飛往香港的時間是18:40，一樣是T5
因為後來查發現T5有ABC三棟，上網查說中間每棟的距離搭車的話還要20分鐘？
這樣轉機時間只有70分鐘來得及嗎？行李應該是直掛到香港吧？
英航官網上是說轉機至少預留1小時，想請問這個是整趟都需要跑步的時間？還是可以一般速度前進的估算？另外看到英航官網說下飛機後就跟著紫色的標示走，有點不太了解這個意思，有沒有遇過類似狀況的大大能分享經驗呢？謝謝！
之前在智游網訂的一段票（只有出一張電子機票）
回程都是由英國航空承運
目前有點擔心回程的轉機時間會不會太短？（英國這段）
從德國慕尼黑預計到達倫敦(LHR)時間是17:30,T5降落
下一班飛往香港的時間是18:40，一樣是T5
因為後來查發現T5有ABC三棟，上網查說中間每棟的距離搭車的話還要20分鐘？
這樣轉機時間只有70分鐘來得及嗎？行李應該是直掛到香港吧？
英航官網上是說轉機至少預留1小時，想請問這個是整趟都需要跑步的時間？還是可以一般速度前進的估算？另外看到英航官網說下飛機後就跟著紫色的標示走，有點不太了解這個意思，有沒有遇過類似狀況的大大能分享經驗呢？謝謝！
多情必自斃
06:40 PM LHR 5 01:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 031
08:10 PM LHR 3 03:05 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 256
09:45 PM LHR 5 04:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 027
09:55 PM LHR 3 05:05 PM+1 HKG 1 VS 206
10:20 PM LHR 3 05:10 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 254
萬一趕不上原定航班，還有不少其他選擇。70分鐘應該是足夠的。
08:10 PM LHR 3 03:05 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 256
09:45 PM LHR 5 04:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 027
09:55 PM LHR 3 05:05 PM+1 HKG 1 VS 206
10:20 PM LHR 3 05:10 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 254
萬一趕不上原定航班，還有不少其他選擇。70分鐘應該是足夠的。
白天不懂爺的黑
轉機說明頁上的圖片已經顯示給你看什麼是紫色的指標
https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/airport-information/flight-connections
https://www.britishairways.com/assets/images/information/airport-information/heathrow-flight-connections/760x160-t5-flight-connections-sign-bat5gen51.jpg
https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/airport-information/flight-connections
https://www.britishairways.com/assets/images/information/airport-information/heathrow-flight-connections/760x160-t5-flight-connections-sign-bat5gen51.jpg
日後再說
06:40 PM LHR 5 01:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 031
08:10 PM LHR 3 03:05 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 256
09:45 PM LHR 5 04:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 027
09:55 PM LHR 3 05:05 PM+1 HKG 1 VS 206
10:20 PM LHR 3 05:10 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 254
萬一趕不上原定航班，還有不少其他選擇。70分鐘應該是足夠的。
謝謝您！不過如果是買英航的，就算誤點應該也只能搭BA的吧？
08:10 PM LHR 3 03:05 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 256
09:45 PM LHR 5 04:40 PM+1 HKG 1 BA 027
09:55 PM LHR 3 05:05 PM+1 HKG 1 VS 206
10:20 PM LHR 3 05:10 PM+1 HKG 1 CX 254
萬一趕不上原定航班，還有不少其他選擇。70分鐘應該是足夠的。
謝謝您！不過如果是買英航的，就算誤點應該也只能搭BA的吧？
吃素的蚊子
謝謝您！不過如果是買英航的，就算誤點應該也只能搭BA的吧？
根據英航的運送條款第九條
https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage
Remedy 1
We will carry you as soon as we can to the destination shown on your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available in the class of service for which you have paid the fare. If we do this, we will not charge you extra and where necessary, will extend the validity period of your ticket.
Remedy 2
We will carry you to the destination shown on your ticket in the class of service for which you have paid the fare at a later date at your convenience and within the validity period of your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available. If we do this, we will not charge you extra.
Remedy 3
We will give or obtain for you an involuntary fare refund.
We will give you additional assistance, such as compensation, refreshments and other care and reimbursement, if required to do so by any law which may apply. We will have no further liability to you.
從Remedy 1來看，原則上是BA自己的航班。不過有問還是有機會。
根據英航的運送條款第九條
https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage
Remedy 1
We will carry you as soon as we can to the destination shown on your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available in the class of service for which you have paid the fare. If we do this, we will not charge you extra and where necessary, will extend the validity period of your ticket.
Remedy 2
We will carry you to the destination shown on your ticket in the class of service for which you have paid the fare at a later date at your convenience and within the validity period of your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available. If we do this, we will not charge you extra.
Remedy 3
We will give or obtain for you an involuntary fare refund.
We will give you additional assistance, such as compensation, refreshments and other care and reimbursement, if required to do so by any law which may apply. We will have no further liability to you.
從Remedy 1來看，原則上是BA自己的航班。不過有問還是有機會。
他會發光卻沒照亮我
在處理延誤的情況，EC261/2004凌駕於運送條款。
EC261第8條
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
轉乘安排原則上以乘客便利為依歸。當然，英航或會心不甘，情不願 安排乘客轉搭其他航空公司的航班。
無論如何，乘客有權要求航空公司清楚解釋其EC261下的權益。
根據英航的運送條款第九條
https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage
Remedy 1
We will carry you as soon as we can to the destination shown on your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available in the class of service for which you have paid the fare. If we do this, we will not charge you extra and where necessary, will extend the validity period of your ticket.
Remedy 2
We will carry you to the destination shown on your ticket in the class of service for which you have paid the fare at a later date at your convenience and within the validity period of your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available. If we do this, we will not charge you extra.
Remedy 3
We will give or obtain for you an involuntary fare refund.
We will give you additional assistance, such as compensation, refreshments and other care and reimbursement, if required to do so by any law which may apply. We will have no further liability to you.
從Remedy 1來看，原則上是BA自己的航班。不過有問還是有機會。
EC261第8條
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
轉乘安排原則上以乘客便利為依歸。當然，英航或會心不甘，情不願 安排乘客轉搭其他航空公司的航班。
無論如何，乘客有權要求航空公司清楚解釋其EC261下的權益。
根據英航的運送條款第九條
https://www.britishairways.com/en-us/information/legal/british-airways/general-conditions-of-carriage
Remedy 1
We will carry you as soon as we can to the destination shown on your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available in the class of service for which you have paid the fare. If we do this, we will not charge you extra and where necessary, will extend the validity period of your ticket.
Remedy 2
We will carry you to the destination shown on your ticket in the class of service for which you have paid the fare at a later date at your convenience and within the validity period of your ticket on another of our scheduled services on which a seat is available. If we do this, we will not charge you extra.
Remedy 3
We will give or obtain for you an involuntary fare refund.
We will give you additional assistance, such as compensation, refreshments and other care and reimbursement, if required to do so by any law which may apply. We will have no further liability to you.
從Remedy 1來看，原則上是BA自己的航班。不過有問還是有機會。
若不愛一切解釋都是多餘
在處理延誤的情況，EC261/2004凌駕於運送條款。
EC261第8條
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
轉乘安排原則上以乘客便利為依歸。當然，英航或會心不甘，情不願 安排乘客轉搭其他航空公司的航班。
無論如何，乘客有權要求航空公司清楚解釋其EC261下的權益。
重點是"comprable transport"的定義是什麼。從以下兩則來看:
1. flyertalk (Post #4)
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1423973-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-261-2004-2013-archive.html
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF EC REGULATION 261/2004 AS THE DUST SETTLES
https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/journals/2010_tlq_issue_3_barham_o.pdf
comparable transport conditions 並不表示航空公司一定要提供其他航空的選擇。EC261/2004對於何謂"comparable"並沒有界定，所以有模糊的空間。航空公司只要提供自家的"comprable"選擇基本上都可以argue他們已經遵守了EC261/2004的規定。
Flyertalk那則討論裡面#40，有人提到丹麥法庭的例子 (https://web.archive.org/web/20121103083218/http://politiken.dk/turengaartil/rejsenyt/sundogsikker/ECE1732947/bente-vandt-over-flygigant-flyselskaber-skal-betale-for-nye-billetter-naar-de-aflyser-fly/)判乘客勝訴，認為KLM應該提供乘客其他航空的航班。但我想丹麥法庭的判例應該只能代表丹麥當局的態度，不代表他們的判例能成為全歐盟的標準。在他國若做同樣的控訴，不一定是同樣的結果。但是在航空公司幫忙安排其他航班的當下，樓主若提出說EC261/2004"規定"要能提供其他航空的更早班次，英航不一定會認同這樣的詮釋，也不見得會怕樓主去告而屈服。英航若堅持不給轉其他航空的話，那就看樓主事後要不要去國外的法庭提告英航，由法庭來做詮釋了。
EC261第8條
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
轉乘安排原則上以乘客便利為依歸。當然，英航或會心不甘，情不願 安排乘客轉搭其他航空公司的航班。
無論如何，乘客有權要求航空公司清楚解釋其EC261下的權益。
重點是"comprable transport"的定義是什麼。從以下兩則來看:
1. flyertalk (Post #4)
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1423973-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-261-2004-2013-archive.html
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF EC REGULATION 261/2004 AS THE DUST SETTLES
https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/journals/2010_tlq_issue_3_barham_o.pdf
comparable transport conditions 並不表示航空公司一定要提供其他航空的選擇。EC261/2004對於何謂"comparable"並沒有界定，所以有模糊的空間。航空公司只要提供自家的"comprable"選擇基本上都可以argue他們已經遵守了EC261/2004的規定。
Flyertalk那則討論裡面#40，有人提到丹麥法庭的例子 (https://web.archive.org/web/20121103083218/http://politiken.dk/turengaartil/rejsenyt/sundogsikker/ECE1732947/bente-vandt-over-flygigant-flyselskaber-skal-betale-for-nye-billetter-naar-de-aflyser-fly/)判乘客勝訴，認為KLM應該提供乘客其他航空的航班。但我想丹麥法庭的判例應該只能代表丹麥當局的態度，不代表他們的判例能成為全歐盟的標準。在他國若做同樣的控訴，不一定是同樣的結果。但是在航空公司幫忙安排其他航班的當下，樓主若提出說EC261/2004"規定"要能提供其他航空的更早班次，英航不一定會認同這樣的詮釋，也不見得會怕樓主去告而屈服。英航若堅持不給轉其他航空的話，那就看樓主事後要不要去國外的法庭提告英航，由法庭來做詮釋了。
有了你心再野也知道拒絕
我認同rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義存在灰色地帶。不爭的是，歐盟航空公司都不怕乘客提告。再者，如果受影響乘客並非居住在歐盟國家內，訴諸法律程序無疑是費時失事。
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
因為心浪所以微勃
我認同rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義存在灰色地帶。不爭的是，歐盟航空公司都不怕乘客提告。再者，如果受影響乘客並非居住在歐盟國家內，訴諸法律程序無疑是費時失事。
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
那個Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 裡的good practice recommendation，我不認為裡面有隱含「儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。」裡面提到的時間那一條是寫「the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey」，這是total travel time，而不是scheduled arrival time。原來10小時可完成的行程，他建議要盡量也接近10小時完成。至於使用其他航空，建議裡面並沒說航空公司應該要有使用其他航空的選項，只是說如果航空公司決定使用其他航空來替代的話，也必須要盡量同等級(或更高)，以及類似的總飛航時間。
最後一段引用EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights裡的話，他強調的也是duration。為什麼作者會提到那個，那就要看他段話之前他寫了甚麼，那段話的前面是寫:
所以這段基本上是配合前一段的例子(廉價航空使用火車或巴士來代替的話)。所以也是跟最貼近原定抵達時間無關的。
不過當碰上delay，地勤要忙著幫很多人改票的壓力之下，去跟他們講大道理往往沒用。有心想幫的地勤自然會考慮一下人情，只是制式工作的地勤基本上就是說我們的運送條款就是這樣規定，我也不能再做甚麼。
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
那個Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 裡的good practice recommendation，我不認為裡面有隱含「儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。」裡面提到的時間那一條是寫「the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey」，這是total travel time，而不是scheduled arrival time。原來10小時可完成的行程，他建議要盡量也接近10小時完成。至於使用其他航空，建議裡面並沒說航空公司應該要有使用其他航空的選項，只是說如果航空公司決定使用其他航空來替代的話，也必須要盡量同等級(或更高)，以及類似的總飛航時間。
最後一段引用EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights裡的話，他強調的也是duration。為什麼作者會提到那個，那就要看他段話之前他寫了甚麼，那段話的前面是寫:
所以這段基本上是配合前一段的例子(廉價航空使用火車或巴士來代替的話)。所以也是跟最貼近原定抵達時間無關的。
不過當碰上delay，地勤要忙著幫很多人改票的壓力之下，去跟他們講大道理往往沒用。有心想幫的地勤自然會考慮一下人情，只是制式工作的地勤基本上就是說我們的運送條款就是這樣規定，我也不能再做甚麼。
是夢就會醒
重點是"comprable transport"的定義是什麼。從以下兩則來看:
1. flyertalk (Post #4)
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1423973-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-261-2004-2013-archive.html
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF EC REGULATION 261/2004 AS THE DUST SETTLES
https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/journals/2010_tlq_issue_3_barham_o.pdf
comparable transport conditions 並不表示航空公司一定要提供其他航空的選擇。EC261/2004對於何謂"comparable"並沒有界定，所以有模糊的空間。航空公司只要提供自家的"comprable"選擇基本上都可以argue他們已經遵守了EC261/2004的規定。
Flyertalk那則討論裡面#40，有人提到丹麥法庭的例子 (https://web.archive.org/web/20121103083218/http://politiken.dk/turengaartil/rejsenyt/sundogsikker/ECE1732947/bente-vandt-over-flygigant-flyselskaber-skal-betale-for-nye-billetter-naar-de-aflyser-fly/)判乘客勝訴，認為KLM應該提供乘客其他航空的航班。但我想丹麥法庭的判例應該只能代表丹麥當局的態度，不代表他們的判例能成為全歐盟的標準。在他國若做同樣的控訴，不一定是同樣的結果。但是在航空公司幫忙安排其他航班的當下，樓主若提出說EC261/2004"規定"要能提供其他航空的更早班次，英航不一定會認同這樣的詮釋，也不見得會怕樓主去告而屈服。英航若堅持不給轉其他航空的話，那就看樓主事後要不要去國外的法庭提告英航，由法庭來做詮釋了。
我認同rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義存在灰色地帶。不爭的是，歐盟航空公司都不怕乘客提告。再者，如果受影響乘客並非居住在歐盟國家內，訴諸法律程序無疑是費時失事。
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
抱歉之前工作忙碌，一直沒時間上版看><
謝謝您們願意花時間幫忙找到這些資料，認真詮釋相關條款，小妹在此致上最深的謝意。
本來出國在外就會有許多變數，能夠不delay最好，但若是真的不幸遇到了，經過您們耐心的解釋，大概知道自己能維護哪些權益，其餘無能為力的也大概心裡有個底這樣XD
至於跨境提告什麼的，我覺得我應該是不會提，畢竟程序麻煩，贏的機率也不大（雖然delay的話勢必是會延誤到之後回台灣的行程、工作）到時候應該也就默默吞下去而已，然後看保險的部分能負責到多少，盡量讓損失減少
再次謝謝你們！
1. flyertalk (Post #4)
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1423973-ba-compensation-thread-your-guide-regulation-261-2004-2013-archive.html
2. AN ASSESSMENT OF EC REGULATION 261/2004 AS THE DUST SETTLES
https://www.travellawquarterly.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/journals/2010_tlq_issue_3_barham_o.pdf
comparable transport conditions 並不表示航空公司一定要提供其他航空的選擇。EC261/2004對於何謂"comparable"並沒有界定，所以有模糊的空間。航空公司只要提供自家的"comprable"選擇基本上都可以argue他們已經遵守了EC261/2004的規定。
Flyertalk那則討論裡面#40，有人提到丹麥法庭的例子 (https://web.archive.org/web/20121103083218/http://politiken.dk/turengaartil/rejsenyt/sundogsikker/ECE1732947/bente-vandt-over-flygigant-flyselskaber-skal-betale-for-nye-billetter-naar-de-aflyser-fly/)判乘客勝訴，認為KLM應該提供乘客其他航空的航班。但我想丹麥法庭的判例應該只能代表丹麥當局的態度，不代表他們的判例能成為全歐盟的標準。在他國若做同樣的控訴，不一定是同樣的結果。但是在航空公司幫忙安排其他航班的當下，樓主若提出說EC261/2004"規定"要能提供其他航空的更早班次，英航不一定會認同這樣的詮釋，也不見得會怕樓主去告而屈服。英航若堅持不給轉其他航空的話，那就看樓主事後要不要去國外的法庭提告英航，由法庭來做詮釋了。
我認同rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義存在灰色地帶。不爭的是，歐盟航空公司都不怕乘客提告。再者，如果受影響乘客並非居住在歐盟國家內，訴諸法律程序無疑是費時失事。
的確，除Copenhagen City Court外，European Court of Justice 似乎尚未有案例探討rerouting的權益或”comparable conditions”的定義。在Case C‑83/10(法航)的案件，ECJ並沒有探討第8條的含義。
在缺乏ECJ案例或明確釋義的情況下，詮釋歐盟法律可以常識，以及立法目的作為參考。
McDonagh v Ryanair (C12/11)
“it is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).”
EC261的recital有2點可以參考:
(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
(2) Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers.
…
由是觀之，EC261的重要目的是為乘客提供高度保障。”At the Earliest Opportunity”應以乘客角度出發，方可達致為乘客提供高度保障的目的。
歐盟網站上有2016刊出的Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
When passengers are offered the option of continuation or re-routing of a journey, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:
—
if possible, passengers should not be downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class compared with the one on the reservation (in the event of downgrading, the compensation provided for in Article 10 applies),
—
re-routing should be offered at no additional cost to the passenger, even where passengers are re-routed with another air carrier or on a different transport mode or in a higher class or at a higher fare than the one paid for the original service,
—
reasonable efforts are to be made to avoid additional connections,
—
when using another air carrier or an alternative mode of transport for the part of the journey not completed as planned, the total travel time should, if possible, be as reasonably close as possible to the scheduled travel time of the original journey in the same or higher class of carriage if necessary,
—
if several flights are available with comparable timings, passengers having the right to re-routing should accept the offer of re-routing made by the carrier, including on those air carriers cooperating with the operating carrier,
由上述幾項資料可歸納出，對延誤旅客的濟助是以減少乘客不便，儘量令乘客可在最貼近原定抵達時間的情況下抵達目的地。
EU Legal Framework for Safeguarding Air Passenger Rights (ISBN 978-3-319-08089-5)一書第193頁中，作者提出:
In order to avoid solutions that would be unacceptable and clearly prejudicial to consumer rights, the term ‘comparable’ should be connected to a strictly temporal concept, so that it might not be rely on when passengers are offered transport having a noticeably longer duration than that of the flight. ,
在機場與地勤人員談論法律原則恐怕都是緣木求魚。前線人員不一定獲足夠授權，通情達理去解決問題。
祝 樓主 一路順風
抱歉之前工作忙碌，一直沒時間上版看><
謝謝您們願意花時間幫忙找到這些資料，認真詮釋相關條款，小妹在此致上最深的謝意。
本來出國在外就會有許多變數，能夠不delay最好，但若是真的不幸遇到了，經過您們耐心的解釋，大概知道自己能維護哪些權益，其餘無能為力的也大概心裡有個底這樣XD
至於跨境提告什麼的，我覺得我應該是不會提，畢竟程序麻煩，贏的機率也不大（雖然delay的話勢必是會延誤到之後回台灣的行程、工作）到時候應該也就默默吞下去而已，然後看保險的部分能負責到多少，盡量讓損失減少
再次謝謝你們！