Sorry I meant MAN-DXB. The downgraded sector. And you need to take GC distance of MAN-DXB-SNG-DXB-MAN as total. And 75% of that

Where did this theory come from?

Where I've seen it discussed before, it has been contentious in that the pricing of individual segments and legs is completely different than if they're priced as part of a round trip. Never have I seen distance mentioned in any discussion.

This has made both sides go for figures which are to their own advantage, and then the fight starts.

It was in some or other court ruling discussed on the ever-entertaining BA forum.

According to the Interpretative guidelines for EC261 issued in June, it is only the cabin of the purchased ticket from which downgrades count. If the airline was to remove an upgrade using miles, then EC261 reimbursement does not apply

Whether this interpretive guideline issued by the Commission holds in law or not, I am not sure, but think that EK would probably do pretty well at defending based on the notice from the European Commission

Makes sense. I take it that OP gets his UG back. If he paid with miles, he gets the miles. If he paid with cash, he gets the cash. If he used a certificate of the type that some carriers supply, he gets that back. That is simply because, as a matter of contract, the UG was not supplied.

But, he doesn't get the % refund under the Regulation.

If he pays with miles/certificate or similar, then would expect the person to be entitled to a reinstatement of whatever was used

If paid with cash, then it is not going to be a FF award , but a cash payment. If paid for higher cabin in cash, then cannot see how that would not be eligible for 75% compensation

It's much better to use miles, EK won't pay cash back for downgrades.

Thanks for that... it seems to answer my hypothetical (this time spelt correctly) question.

They have to pay cash if the customer demands it (assuming ex-EU). If somebody gets a J->Y downgrade on a MAN-DXB fare for example, it would be worth about £900.

I know EK generally offer a free return in J, but some people wouldn't want or need that.

If someone purchases a business class ticket from EU and the person is then downgraded to economy class, I cannot see any reason at all to expect that a court would fail to require that EK pay 75% of the fare for that flight

Could someone explain to me why ANYONE would think it "reasonable" to claim 75% of the cost of an entire trip due to being downgraded on ONE sector?

I really think that just makes people look greedy....

Then again..Notwithstanding all the legit complaints that can be levelled at airlines....I don't understand why Europe holds airlines financially liable (effectively) for things such as volcanic eruptions!:D

On the first point, the argument was that it was a penalty deterrent for airlines to stop downgrading people and to reduce offloads due to overbooking: otherwise the argument was that if the compensation was too little, airlines would just factor that into the cost of fares or some such.

About volcanic eruptions - extraordinary circumstances doesn't warrant the cash compensation element, only the duty of care element (i.e. hotel/food/communication).

Because that's what the rules stated :) 75% of the ticket price.

Rules have been clarified as 75% of the portion of the overall ticket that was downgraded based on distance.

For A > B > C > B > A (4 segments) and each segment being 2000nm and A>B downgraded and overall ticket cost $4000 refund due would be:

0.75 * (2000/8000) * 4000 = $750.

It never made sense, but not every decision of the ECJ interpreting EC 261/2004 has made sense and some have made quite a living converting the quirks of that court (and various national courts) into handsome nest eggs for retirement.

By way of example, EC 261/2004 does not by its terms provide for any compensation for delays. Only for cancellations. Given the relative wisdom of at least some who were involved in drafting and the fact that their demographic suggests that many of them fly for business and leisure, one would have thought that if the Regulation were intended to provide for delay penalties, it would have said so and that one might reasonably infer that the word "cancel" does not mean "delay".

Nonetheless, the ECJ reasoned that enough of a delay is a cancellation and thus delays are treated as cancellations and are compensable under the Regulation.

Here, it is less of a stretch to interpret the term "ticket" to refer to the ticket for all segments rather than the ticket for the downgraded segment. However neither the ECJ nor any known court of record did so, so it became part of the lore of FT.

In theory, under the interpretation, if one purchased a ticket on LH LHR-FRA-BKK in J/F, and is downgraded on the micro-hop so-called intra-European J, one would claim 75% of the cost of the entire ticket, through to BKK, while the same individual flying only to FRA, obtains 30% of his ticket for the same inconvenience.

While the Guidance of June 2016 is not binding or precential, it carries a great deal of weight and, in this case, is quite logical.

I know you mentioned up thread that this came from the BA sub-forum, but was there any back up to it?