Any suggestions on rewriting this to make the meaning clearer?

Question

"The Court forced an airport operator who had agreed to use “best endeavours” to promote an airline’s low-cost service, to accept arrival and departure of flights outside its usual opening hours."

I'm at a loss about how to rewrite this. I don't like the single comma after "service" and have considered putting another after "operator" so that the phrase beginning with "who" becomes parenthetical. But then I'm not sure if it can be made parenthetical because it seems like essential information. With no commas, I think the meaning becomes ambiguous.

Any suggestions on what would be best? Here's what I'm leaning towards at the moment:

"The Court forced an airport operator to accept arrival and departure flights outside the airport's usual opening hours because it had agreed to use "best endeavours" to promote an airline's low-cost service."

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

JJDouglas I don't like the single comma after "service"

In fact, it is wrong.

JJDouglasand have considered putting another after "operator" so that the phrase beginning with "who" becomes parenthetical.

Not a good idea.

JJDouglasl because it seems like essential information.

Right.

JJDouglasWith no commas, I think the meaning becomes ambiguous.

Yes, somewhat.

JJDouglas"The Court forced an airport operator to accept arrival and departure flights outside the airport's usual opening hours because it had agreed to use "best endeavours" to promote an airline's low-cost service."

That is fine, but 'it' is too non-sentient; use 'they' or 'the operator'.

Any suggestions on rewriting this to make the meaning clearer?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions