Without wishing the thread to enter into a philosophical debate, subjective opinions are those which are biased (e.g. my son is the best footballer in the world; unless you happen to be Mrs Messi of course); objective opinions are based on facts and not subject to emotions. I would have thought it impossible for OP to have an objective opinion abut Emirates on the basis of the 'facts' as perceived by him and whether he is biased as in above example or not is another matter.

Anyway, glad he got back and seems genuine aggrieved and hard done by whether one sympathises or not.

I think I have a suggested plot for Alexander McCall Smith's next instalment of the Isabel Dalhousie novels though!:D

Lol ;-).

Unfortunately, one anecdote is not data. I understand your feelings about EK, but I wouldn't base my decisions on them. I do think, however, that there is a lesson to be learned from your experience:

Whe you board a cruise ship these days, they all give you a health questionnaire to fill in and sign before you are allowed to embark.

It asks along the lines of: "Are you suffering from nausea or stomach problems, have you had a cold or flu-like symptoms in the last few days?".

This is to try and limit the spread of Norwalk and other viral outbreaks within the close community on board.

If you are rash enough to answer "Yes", a ship's medic will be on the scene within minutes to assess your condition and decide whether you are fit to travel.

If you have a temperature or any of the above symptoms you will be very likely be denied boarding and your vacation plans will be in ruins.

At least in that situation a qualified medic actually meets the traveller face to face, unlike in the case of this unfortunate family!

What's really disgusting is people taking public transportation and expecting to be treated as if they were on a personal jet. Also, people who think that just because they have kids their interests must be seen before everybody else's.

However unpleasant the result is to the OP, EK did precisely what they were supposed to do - when they saw a possible health threat (motion sickness is not the only thing that can cause vomiting), they removed the pax from the airplane so that he could be seen by a doctor.

Should have EK held the whole plane until the pax was examined? No. There were a lot of other people on the plane for many of whom departing on time was important.

Should have EK paid for the hotel room? No. The OP trip interruption was not EK's fault. The OP should have had (and probably have had) trip insurance that would possibly have covered the trip interruption costs.

Should have EK accommodated the OP on the next earliest flight? No. Again, the OP trip interruption was not EK's fault.

So, what's the problem here? The alleged impoliteness of EK's employees towards the OP? But it seems that impoliteness wasn't the point of contention - the OP seems to be upset because EK removed them from the plane (which was the right call), and didn't pay for their hotel (which EK wasn't obligated to do), and didn't buy them a ticket on QF (which EK wasn't obligated to do).

So, please stop acting as if EK didn't give you something they owed you. What would happen if EK let you fly and Max had complications mid-flight? Would you not be posting here that bad EK let your family fly instead of doing the right thing and sending Max to see a doctor?

+1. I couldn't have said it better.^

I think it is a good warning, well received by parents, and the fact that the child was cleared for travel does lend credence to the OPs point.

Airlines have no obligation to provide anything other than advertised customer service. That is neither here nor there. It is how airlines handle human beings in irregular circumstances that does (and should ) make a reputational
difference. Offloading a family with a sick child enroute and then doing nothing about their subsistence and wellbeing at one's own hub, does little credit to
Emirates, in my view.

On another note, I trust all the people who speculated about " the one post wonder" will also review their own statements on this post again for pointers on future engagement. Many people who post here are too busy (or have other priorities ) to check their posts with the breathlessness that regulars do, and speculation about their motives is discourteous and pointless.

+1. I couldn't have said it better.

A good warning of what? it doesn't matter what airline it is or whether it is a child or an adult; if information has been passed to a group such as medlink and that organisation recommends that a passenger be checked before being permitted to travel , the same issue will apply

Since they have no obligation to provide anything extra, then it is not reasonable to expect more than what they are obligated to provide. That is where travel insurance comes in; if a passenger chooses not to take out insurance then they are self-insuring and it is up to them to allow for it



when someone doesn't return for one week , that suggests to me that they are not overly interested in what a forum has to say once the rant is complete

A good warning, based on a reported experience, that this airline will stick to the letter of the law and families must be prepared for the consequences rather than choose another airline option where reported experience may indicate better responsiveness.

On whether it is reasonable to expect more humanity than required by the ToS, I think we can agree to disagree.
I think saying that one should not expect more than the ToS is an opinion, with which I disagree ( I don't disagree that the ToS determines the expectation floor, that's a truism ).
I received much more than the ToS warrants from both BA and LH, during IRROPS, last year... this would obviously shape my relative judgement on EK should the occasion arise. It's a competitive world and perceptions shape choices, quite reasonably, if some companies perform better than ToS compared to others. This is good feedback, for me , from this vantage.

Whereas I got crap service from BA last year... They diverted to DUB, and just left me to sort myself out. Then refused any sort of refund of expenses.

There you go :) It probably cancels out anyway across carriers. Though reporting these things should keep them keen.
I do suspect BA GGLs and LH. Senators (and HONS) get preferential treatment during IRROPS, not sure if that's the case with EK. My gold seems to make zero difference in normal times ( no IRROPS xperience though but no shortage of rude behavior.... Twice.. following damage to baggage notwithstanding my personal follow up and despite being gold and j class up here in BKK )

But they were very nice to EB during the US storm a couple of years ago, as I recall from his trip report....

Agreed! I fell very unwell with a runny bottom on a BA flight home from BKK. At no time did I make my predicament known to the FA's for fear of being unloaded in Katmandu. They could have however recorded my time spent in the wee room without a view and made their own conclusions

As I said, having provided evidence based opinion it is for visitors to this site to reach their own conclusions. As yet I've nothing to add to the original posting. I am both flattered and surprised to see some visitors posting many times on this subject. I am reading the comments with interest, even the weaker and ruder ones but I have a business to run and money to earn for the next trip, definitely not with Emirates.

Thank you for sharing this data point even though some may think it is verbal diarrhea :p