Hyperthetical EU261 Question
 

I managed to bag a couple of upgrade F seats* on the morning 777 flight MAN-DXB.

This is regularly changed to a 2 class depending on the load.

So, if we get bumped back to J, what could we expect when it comes to EU261? I actually expect we'd get zilch apart from the points... but that's just the EK starting point.

- 75% of the ticket price (£1850 for MAN-SGN). Around £1380.
- 75% of the actual leg. How would this be worked out? A normal J class MAN-DXB is about £2400. Sale prices get down to around £2000. So, maybe £750 for the one leg?
- Divide the fare by 4 (legs), and then 75% of that. £1850/4 * .75 = £346.
- Anything else?


Note that I don't actually want/need the cash... I'd prefer the F seats :)


* Note that the 'Text when upgrade seats become available' seems to be useless, as I only noticed when I went to book the limo.

EK isnt an EU airline and therefore isnt liable to pay EU261 compo

They are when the flight is from the EU though...

If they do the change more than 14d before dept you can forget it IIRC, not sure what's going to happen within 14d.. (m3red is the expert for downgrades :D

Yes - I remember m3red having an issue, but that was outside the EU.

To be honest, I'd be happy just getting the points back, but EU261 was brought in to stop these practices.

when are you going?

the morning flight does change but won't soon when it changes to a 380.

November - so I miss the A380 :(

Going to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix on the way back :D

As kuroko has already pointed out, modularmayhem would appear to be mistaken here.

I think the error is a common one - conflating the two key factors of 1) points of departure and 2) operating carriers

The 261/2004 regulation applies to “passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a [European] Member State to which the Treaty applies”.

This would clearly cover DYKWIA for his sector from Manchester to Dubai.

The same legislation also covers flights into the EU - where that flight is operated by an EU based airline.

So, this means that things would be quite different if an issue (eg protracted delay, downgrade to lower class) were to arise on the return sector DXB /MAN. That's because - if I have interpreted the legislation correctly - the operating carrier of the flight then becomes the material factor : it must be a Community Carrier. This is defined in the Regulation as "an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a [EU] Member State” ; which of course Emirates is not.

If DYKWIA were travelling on, say, BA, he would be covered for issues arising on both the MAN/DXB and the DXB/MAN sectors. But ... when travelling with EK, he is covered only for the outward sector because, in the journey he describes, it departs from an EU country (at least, until such time as our 'exit' is complete...!)

I first familiarised myself with this a couple of years or so back, by virtue of a useful summary article which appeared in Business Traveller. Have managed to track it down and link it for anyone interested
https://www.businesstraveller.com/op...261-explained/

As for the specific question raised by the OP : things are defined clearly enough where compensation for delays is concerned. But claims for downgrade compensation are far less common, and here the picture is rather more blurred. In theory, I believe you would be eligible for a refund of 75% of the original cost of the ticket - but there has been much debate/contention as to whether that means the cost of the entire ticket OR the sector on which the downgrade was imposed (75% is the highest level ...lower percentages apply to shorter flight distances).

Some time ago, there was a protracted thread here on FT about a guy (based, I think, in either Denmark or Sweden) who was determined to fight to the death with EK, which had categorically refused to calculate downgrade compensation based on his entire journey to Australasia - but instead limited it to just the one initial sector. And the pax was further frustrated by the fact that EK's calculation used fare constructions which were very much to his disadvantage, such that the figure offered was way, way, below what he had anticipated. The last we heard was that he was considering suing EK in the Courts but things later went rather quiet and - much as those of us who had followed the episode were keen to hear the end result - there was, sadly, no news as to the final outcome. The general consensus was that he probably backed down at the prospect of potentially high legal costs in his own country, where apparently there was no equivalent 'Small Claims' procedure.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone with first-hand experience of claiming - and receiving - downgrade compensation covered by the Regulation ; and in particular where the affected sector was one of a multi-sector itinerary.

And perhaps we also have some members who can offer more insight on the finer legal issues involved, with the benefit of relevant qualifications/professional knowledge (which I don't have !)

Ah, yes. That rings a bell now.

The explanation could have been that it had been settled out of court, complete with an NDA.

As Kuroko mentioned, as long as I get 14 days notice, I think EK are covered. I'd forgotten about that.

One of the problems with FT is that people rely on anecdotes from years ago.

First, EC 261/2004 applies to all carriers departing the EU. Thus, it applies to EK departing MAN as the UK is (still) within the EU.

Second, EC 261/2004 specifies a refund (not compensation) for downgrades of 75% of the "ticket". While some suggest that there has been much debate about what this means, that has been mostly on internet boards such as FT. The meaning of "ticket" was clarified in albeit non-binding guidance issued by the EC in June. That Guidance makes crystal clear that "ticket" refers to the "ticket" for the downgraded segment. Thus, 75% of the cost of the MAN-SGN segment if downgraded all the way through. Or put another way, 75% of the cost of each segment on which the passenger has been ticketed.

There is still a mileage component to every segment and 75% of that is the magic number.

Often1 : I appreciate the points you make, but it's fair to say that the 'debate' surrounding the precise implications of the 261 Regulation does not revolve solely around FT postings and/or other internet chatter. There has in fact been been an element of conflict even in documents produced by official bodies.

In this particular paper (linked below) - which is compiled by the Directorate General for Energy & Transport and seemingly intended to clarify various sections of the legislation -

"Question 27: Where an air journey contains several legs, which part is to be reimbursed in case of downgrading?

Answer : If an air carrier or tour operator places a passenger in a class lower than that for which reservations were confirmed, it shall reimburse 30%, 50% or 75%, as applicable, of the published fare in the class reserved, for that flight sector."

But there is then a footnote, reading as follows :

NEB (National Enforcement Body) are of the opinion that reimbursement will be made in relation to the ticket, not just the flight sector, which the passenger was travelling on when the downgrade occurred.

The 30% and 50% reimbursement figures refer to shorter distance sectors (less than 1500kms, and 1500-3500kms respectively).

I too am aware of the "non-binding guidance" issued by the EU (much more recently than my linked document) ; and yes, one would expect that to hold good in future cases. But the very fact that it was non-binding and seemingly not yet enacted as definitive legislation (??) still leaves some room for doubt IMO.

We could really do with some definitive, documented outcomes from contemporary relevant Court cases to give a true picture.....

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes...g_2004_261.pdf

OK - that's all very good, but what does it actually mean? My ticket is :-

MAN-DXB-SGN-DXB-MAN. All booked in J.

The initial MAN-DXB flight is upgraded to F.

I'm guessing you mean 75% of the MAN-DXB segment rather than MAN-SGN. So, how would that be calculated?

The great circle distance of MAN-SGN divided by the total great circle distance of all 4 flights multiplied by the ticket price. However in this case I think a refund of the miles would be more reasonable.

DYKWIA : how would that be calculated you ask. Therein lies the problem.

The basic formula is as quoted in my post above #10 .....see "Question 27"

But it might not be as simple as implied by the answer then given (ie the answer beginning ....."If an air carrier ........

In the case of either a one-way (or a typical 'single-sector return' MAN/DXB/MAN) ticket there would seem to be limited wriggle room for the carrier. But .... where multi-sector tickets such as your own is concerned, the matter of calculation becomes far less clear, and offers potential for an airline to manipulate figures to their advantage by apportioning a level of pro-rata cost to individual sectors that, ahem, will suit their purpose.

This - if you recall - is what happened to the aggrieved Scandinavian pax in that long thread I mentioned earlier.

MAN-SGN = 6,381 miles

/

MAN-SGN-MAN = 12762 miles

= 0.5

*

£1850

=

£925

Thanks - I'll use your message as my evidence :)

Sorry for the brief reply as I am in a quite short transit, but essentially Emirates v Schenkel in the ECJ and its application by the German Federal Court of Justice in cases X ZR 12/14 and 14/14 show that European courts are leaning towards interpreting each flight as an independent separate sector for applicability of the regulation itself - the decision in Air France v Folkerts only used the final destination as the basis of compensation (i.e. which class of delay etc.).

I think in this case EK have a good argument that if any compensation is due for a downgrade on MAN-DXB it is 75% of the cost of that sector based the pro-rata cost per mile for the ticket: unless you can show you paid X miles for the ticket on which case 75% of that might be due although I think just full refund of the miles is acceptable :p

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?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ed-kul-14.html Post No 206

Interestingly by the OP of this very thread! :D:D

Quite recent so maybe why I'd never heard of it. Against Emirates too.

Hence why I stored it in memory :D

Yet I'd forgotten about it, despite posting that link!!!