Forced downgrade
Jan 12, 2017 | 6:58 am
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
Unless 8% is the correct figure based on distance of DXB-HAM as a fraction of overall ticketed distance
HAM-DXB-CPT-DXB-HAM is 25,017 km.
DXB-HAM is 4,888 km. That is 19.5%.
OP got 8% back.
8% in 19.5% is 41%.
and actual cost difference for HAM-CPT return F vs J.
If this goes to trial, EK has to lower its pants and detail out how it got to these 18%. (corrected: it is 8%).
I dont think Emirates is keen on doing this and is rather willing to settle in this case.
Last edited by warakorn; Jan 12, 2017 at 7:26 am
Jan 12, 2017 | 7:21 am
#17
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,482
It was party to the Schenkel decision about the applicability of 261/2004 in the ECJ and is also the party to the test case in the Court of Appeal in England about whether 261/2004 applies to mis-connections in DXB causing a delay at the final destination in Emirates v Gahan.
I think there was also a thread on here a year or two ago where EK's final decision in writing was that they used a pro-rata great circle distance then compared that to the total fare in the lower cabin calculated on the day of the change and gave the difference pro-rated.
Jan 12, 2017 | 7:25 am
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
then compared that to the total fare in the lower cabin calculated on the day of the change and gave the difference pro-rated.
The fare difference on the day of booking between the actually booked F fare and the corresponding C fare with similar restrictions should be applicable.
Jan 12, 2017 | 7:50 am
#19
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Economy, mostly :(
Programs: Skywards Gold
Posts: 7,791
You are referring to a pro-rata calculation.
HAM-DXB-CPT-DXB-HAM is 25,017 km.
DXB-HAM is 4,888 km. That is 19.5%.
OP got 8% back.
8% in 19.5% is 41%.
How do you actually calculate this "actual cost difference"? This is the big question.
If this goes to trial, EK has to lower its pants and detail out how it got to these 18%. (corrected: it is 8%).
I dont think Emirates is keen on doing this and is rather willing to settle in this case.
HAM-DXB-CPT-DXB-HAM is 25,017 km.
DXB-HAM is 4,888 km. That is 19.5%.
OP got 8% back.
8% in 19.5% is 41%.
How do you actually calculate this "actual cost difference"? This is the big question.
If this goes to trial, EK has to lower its pants and detail out how it got to these 18%. (corrected: it is 8%).
I dont think Emirates is keen on doing this and is rather willing to settle in this case.
Jan 12, 2017 | 8:35 am
#20
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,482
That said, if he was travelling on an F/A class ticket but only sitting in the J cabin, EK could potentially argue for the access to additional baggage allowance and F lounge access in DXB.
Now, that would be an interesting cost claim!
Jan 13, 2017 | 3:55 am
#21
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,783
That said, if he was travelling on an F/A class ticket but only sitting in the J cabin, EK could potentially argue for the access to additional baggage allowance and F lounge access in DXB.
Jan 13, 2017 | 5:21 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,482
EK allow lounge access based on departing flight - usually in the case of a 2-class downgrade, they will look at the fare basis: if the pax is still booked in the onward F/A/Z fare buckets, they will have F lounge access in DXB. If they've been rebooked into the C class buckets, then only business lounge access.