What the United States regime publishes about being flown another way, quoted verbatim from 14 CFR 260.6, Refunding fare for flights cancelled or significantly delayed or changed by carriers (eCFR) and dated.
the instrument quoted here
eCFR
of the regimes read carry a rule on this question
2/2
the day these pages were read
2026-09-10
The instrument's own words
A consumer rejects the significantly delayed or changed flight, rebooking on an alternative flight, or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered by the covered carrier
That passage is the whole of what eCFR publishes on this point on the section cited. It is reproduced here for reporting and comment; it is not advice, and it does not decide your claim.
Side by side, each in its own instrument's words. Where the two regimes differ, the difference is the point: a passenger flying between them can be covered by one and not the other on the same journey.
Where this comes from
This quotation was taken from 14 CFR 260.6, Refunding fare for flights cancelled or significantly delayed or changed by carriers (eCFR) on September 2026, and the text of that page as it read that day is kept so the quotation can be checked. eCFR publishes it; this site only quotes it.
Cite or embed this figure
eCFR on being flown another way in United States: “A consumer rejects the significantly delayed or changed flight, rebooking on an alternative flight, or any voucher, credit, or other form of compensation offered by the covered carrier” (FlightDelayHQ Air Passenger Entitlement Index).
Cite as: "FlightDelayHQ Air Passenger Entitlement Index: Being flown another way, United States", updated 2026-09-10, https://flightdelayhq.com/rights/united-states/re-routing/.