Forced downgrade
 

I have been flying with EK HAM - DXB - CPT DXB - HAM in F. On my flight back, I was downgraded to C due to aircraft change - I did not receive any information, the boarding pass just being slipped under the other one in CPT.
In DXB, no information or apology either.
After second complaint with customer service, I received the offer for a "recalculation of price" meaning about 8 % compensation of the entire ticket, much less than stipulated by European regulations.
I was surprised to see how Emirates treats first class customers
Anyone has experience with similar complaints ?
Thanks

As it was the flight back EU261 does not apply, unfortunately in that case there is not much that you can do. Generally in such cases if you call EK before the flight you can switch to another flight free of charge on which F is offered.

It happens and it's not good. You are lucky you are getting any money back...

But the OP has clearly mentioned that he/she wasn't notified of the same by EK.

It does seem a bit unusual as EK has always sent an email to me whenever there was an aircraft change .

Wonder if the OP had booked the ticket via a Travel agent /3rd party website?. They sometimes don't pass on flight change notifications :-(.

​​​​

That kind of e-mail would likely end up in my Clutter or Junk inbox. Also doesn't the notification not specify an equipment swap but just a time change (which sometimes isn't even changed?) There was a whole long discussion about that on here a few months ago I'm sure.

They should call!

Whether there was notice or not, you are entitled to the refund for which you contracted and that is what you got, e.g. the fare difference.

EC 261/2004 does not apply.

If you did not receive notice of any kind and have checked with any possible source and your spam filter, complain about lack of notice, you may see some type of customer service gesture, although there is no particular compensation.

If you purchased through a TA or third-party site, it is for the TA/site to notify you.

Technically it does not apply.
However, the OP may get a German court involved and try to argue for a bigger refund based on the civil code in Germany. His departure and destination was HAM. A German court has jurisdiction.

EDIT: Apologies - I didn't see the "not" :D

That's what warakorn was saying, that while EU261 doesn't apply the OP could attempt to enforce a larger financial compensation under German common/contract law in terms of the conditions of carriage. I don't think the destination of the flight in question being HAM is relevant, since the decision to downgrade and acceptance thereof (by checking in and boarding the flight, even if not aware of the downgrade at the time) took place outside Germany. However the purchase presumably took place in Germany and one could argue therefore the contract falls under German jurisdiction. I think this is a long shot and not worth the hassle though.

Let's look at the numbers, typically on flights to CPT in my experience if we take Y=1 (a typical flight in Y as a base) then J = 3Y and F = 2J or 6Y. This could go up or down of course.

The great circle distance of HAM-DXB-CPT return is approx. 15,544nm, of which the DXB-HAM leg which we are considering is 3037nm, i.e. 19% of the total distance.

If we accept that F = 2J then OP is entitled to a refund of 1J, or 19%/2 = 9.5%. So to be completely honest, Emirates' number isn't completely unreasonable. Given fluctuations in pricing it is conceivable that 8% is in fact the correct number. Of course the correct figure could also be 12%.

All of this also does not account for the inconvenience and disappointment which I think EK should address in a separate compensation in the form of Skywards miles, especially if OP did not receive any communication. If booked via a TA however then Emirates shouldn't be liable for any further goodwill compensation as the onus is on the TA to inform OP and should have known that rebooking on another flight is possible.

Need more coffee - didn't see the not!

Outside of EC261/2004 there is a term in German law which is called "Erfüllungsort" (location of fulfillment).
The highest German circuit court (one level below the supreme court) has decided in 2011 (BGH, Urteil vom 18.01.2011 – X ZR 71/10) that both the departure and arrival airport count as "Erfüllungsort", based on § 29 ZPO.
The downgrade happened on DXB-HAM. The court, in which district Hamburg airport lies, has jurisdiction in this case.

The passenger cannot refer to EC261/2004. That is for sure, however, the German civil code for the fulfillment of a transportation service applies.

Cool, then there's just the matter of opportunity cost, is it worth pursuing? What is the desired rate of compensation (OP hasn't mentioned this) and how is it calculated and why is it more correct than the one offered already by Emirates?

That is up for the court to decide. The passenger and the airline probably will have a different calculation formula.
However, airlines try to avoid getting court verdict (esp. from a German one).

That is rather low.

DXB-HAM one-way in F runs at EUR 4880.
DXB-HAM one-way in C runs at EUR 2870.
We may talk about EUR 2000.
I am quite aware that the fare calculation of a HAM-CPT roundtrip is different than a DXB-HAM one-way trip. However, the fare calculation is an internal topic of an airline. A court may see that differently. Its quite easy to compare DXB-HAM one-way prices between C and F.

Lets say the passenger files a lawsuit and claims back EUR 2000, based on the calculation above.
Emirates disputes that and says that 8% is enough (we dont know what 8% constitutes in EUR). Well, EK definetely have to lay out how it gets to these 8%. For that EK has to release its internal calculation algorithm. I am not quite sure that any airline is fond of doing this, because it reveals their trade secrets. Moreover, that internal calculation algorithm could be quoted for other court cases.
The usual effect is that the airline will try to settle with a non-disclosure agreement (lets say EUR 1400 + court and lawyer fee).

Unless 8% is the correct figure based on distance of DXB-HAM as a fraction of overall ticketed distance and actual cost difference for HAM-CPT return F vs J.

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.

I wouldn't be so sure - Emirates does not seem to shy away from litigation.

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.

I don't think that would hold up in court.
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.

Your math almost holds up. As I already stated and you concur it is 19.5% of the total ticketed distance that is affected by downgrade. OP indicates to have been offered 8% of total ticket cost as refund. If F was indeed roughly double the cost of J on the day of purchase that is an accurate calculation and compensation should indeed be in the 7-10% range.

I agree - your analysis seems more equitable than EK's in that previous case.

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!

Wouldnt the passenger be entitled to F lounge access, because he arrived in F from CPT - even if the traveller continues with EK in Y or C?

No

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.

Let's see if the OP ever returns to update...