Thanks for info/advice Dave Noble, Red duster and Trotski.

I will do as advised and report back once I have had a reply from online submission form.

Will just need to wait an extra 12 hrs for a sip of Dom and then try and drink my weight in it to make up for 1st leg downgrade! Although being a woman I am a bit of a lightweight

Last email. I now wait for the response from ARN (NEB in Sweden). I think this is a big joke...

I can also say this is the first time the Senior Manager responded.

Wow! I think he's in the wrong job. That's a disgraceful response.

Good luck in court.

I disagree that it is a disgraceful response. It is a response which has addressed EK's position on the matter and how it believes it is in compliance with EU261

Whether or not it is ( I cannot see that it is ) is something to take to Sweden's equivalent of a small claims court and get a ruling .

Re disgraceful ---- isn't it odd for an Senior Manager intent on browbeating a customer to accept their point of view in regard to a airline mathematical computation to be confounding miles and kilometers? Are all of Emirate's customer relations personnel such amateurs, or does "Senior Manager" really mean "recent inexperienced hire"?

Depends on how many times the airline has been asked basically the same question. It isn't Emirates's 1st response to the passenger

As Dave Noble has already commented above, this is not a "disgraceful" response by Emirates.

Rather, it is a very clear statement of how they, as the carrier, see the facts of the situation in relation to the journey undertaken by the passenger, together with an analysis of the method of calculation applied for the amount of refund to which they believe the passenger is correctly entitled.

The tone of the letter might seem cold or even uncaring to some readers ; my own view is that the airline feel that their sole priority at this point (ie a point at which they have no wish to enter into negotiation or entertain alternative suggestions) is to set out their position with clarity and - one could say - a sense of emotional detachment.

I also happen to think (but of course have no way of knowing this for certain) that the letter would have been drafted by a member of Emirates qualified legal team, and merely signed by a Customer Relations manager to maintain continuity. People with a legal training/background may not necessarily always come to the same conclusion as a Consumer Protection body or Court of Law ; but they do (or at least SHOULD) have the ability to express themselves clearly and objectively, and this final response from EK is nothing if not clear.

I have followed this thread primarily because I too was (initially) downgraded on the opening sector of a recent trip to New Zealand. However I chose to be switched to an alternative, 3 class flight, simply because my personal priority was to travel in first class as originally booked rather than later receive some form of monetary or other compensation for travelling in a lower class.

Emirates have taken a firm stance here simply because they are confident that their refund offer is fully compliant with the relevant legislation. But of course others who have interpreted the law differently are equally confident that Emirates are wrong. In such cases it is always instructive to have legislation tested, and it will be interesting to see how this eventually pans out.

The fact that the particular piece of legislation at issue here is - to a degree - contentious is reflected by the fact that the legislation was amended and 'tightened' (and very much in favour of carriers rather than passengers) by the EU Parliament only recently.

There is likely still a bit to go before that 'tightening' may be finalised.

It's more the tone than the content that I was referring to. All he had to do was state EKs perception of the rules, and finish with "I wish to advise you that this is our final position on the matter".

I have difficulty seeing any tone other than a impartial recitation of EK's view on the matter together with acknowledging that the person has taken it to the local NEB and that it will use the same response there

Seems to be a pretty neutral letter that addresses the issues from EK's point of view

I agree. EK have a view and position which I think is well articulated. Seems there has been countless as they say emails on this and they are basically saying "ok for the last time we understand your position so see you in court". Which is fair enough. No point the OP having any more discussion as it is pretty clear that its court or accept the compensation offered.

I agree 100% with Havoc10G that the response from Emirates is clear and well-articulated.

I personally find nothing surprising in the letter ; but I AM very surprised by the rather emotive descriptions used by others who do not like its contents, such as "disgraceful", "amateur", and "joke"

Emirates have been in business (and very successfully) long enough to be well aware that when they decide to allow a customer to take them to Court, they (the airline) are not guaranteed a favourable ruling. But here at least they seem confident enough in their argument to give it a go. Judgements which might on the face of it appear totally predictable & certain can very often go the other way. I do hope the passenger concerned is equally realistic in terms of expectations.

The case will at least provide more understanding as to the law and its provisions when tested.

My long response to Emirates via ARN (swedish NEB). Sorry for a lot of text!



Thank you for your email in regards to this matter.


Let me present my point of view here by first referencing EC 261/2004, which is the regulation we are discussing:

Article 10

Upgrading and downgrading

1. If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class higher than that for which the ticket was purchased, it may not request any supplementary payment.

2. If an operating air carrier places a passenger in a class lower than that for which the ticket was purchased, it shall within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), reimburse

(a) 30 % of the price of the ticket for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less, or

(b) 50 % of the price of the ticket for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, except flights between the European territory of the Member States and the French overseas departments, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres, or

(c) 75 % of the price of the ticket for all flights not falling under (a) or (b), including flights between the European territory of the Member States and the French overseas departments.



As you can see, my claim is based on Article 10, Section 2C which specifies that the compensation is 75% on the price of the ticket. Now, the price of the ticket is fairly obvious. You have specified it on the ticket that you sold me for XXXXX SEK. It does not specify any particular price for the segments, but it�s a price of the ticket that specifies transportation from Stockholm to Auckland in First Class. That is undisputable I would say.

So, let us look at the fact. You made a commercial decision to do an equipment change. This I can only assume had to do with the fact that you had overbooked economy. The 2-class configuration gave you many more economy seats than the 3-class configuration according to your own websites information.

Now, when going back to regulation 261/2004, and the preceding work of why it came about etc, it was to make sure that airlines wasn�t doing these commercial decisions on the expense of the contract agreed upon between the airline and the passenger. Back then denied boarding etc was a lot more common than it is today, so the regulation did work. It just wasn�t commercially viable to deny boarding in the same extent.



Now, let us look at your email to me:

"Quote from Emirates email"

Allow me to explain that ticket refunds are non-negotiable. Airlines do not invent random amounts and figures to refund passengers. They are calculated based on the fare which is paid. Your calculation below is incorrect. You are not entitled to a refund based on a random market fare which you have found on the internet at today's prices. You are entitled to 75% of your ticket 17XXXXXXX. You are only entitled to compensation for the flight sector on which you were downgraded.


My repsone:

This is where we disagree. Nowhere in regulation 261/2004 does it mention the price of sectors.


"Quote from Emirates email"

On all other flights, you flew, as ticketed, in First Class. I will further explain the breakdown of the calculation of the refund. Your ticket price was calculated based on the fare from Stockholm to Auckland and return. The total fare paid was SEK 36802 (excluding the fuel surcharge and taxes, which remain). Breaking down this fare further, we assess the total ticketed kilometres which is 23730 and then divide this by SEK 36802, to reach a fare amount of 1.55086 SEK per kilometre. We multiply 1.55086 SEK by the ticketed kilometres of the Stockholm Dubai portion of the ticket (the sole sector on which you were downgraded) of 2986km. Finally, 75% of that amount is SEK 3470. This calculation methodology is universally accepted and, as you can see, is far from arbitrary.

My response:


I am sorry, but I disagree on the fact that this is universally accepted. As a matter of fact, as I am sure you know as well, there is no universally accepted methodology when it comes to 261/2004 Section 10. If so, I would like you to present this. On the contract between us, which is the ticket, the term ticketed kilometer isn�t mentioned. On your website, the term ticketed kilometer isn�t mentioned. I also tried looking for the term ticketed mile, but no luck. The only thing mentioned on both the ticket and in Section 10 is the price of the ticket, hence my claim is, as stated in Section 10; 75% of the price of the ticket.


Best regards

It is clear to me that EK have decided what its position is and I cannot see any point discussing it . Either you are prepared to initiate a claim against EK and should start it or you are not.

Are you prepared to take action?

Give the small claims court the details of the flight details , the details of the EU261 regulation and show how it states 75% of the ticket price

I think EK's letter is fine, and their calculation makes sense. As there was only one sector affected, most reasonable people would only expect to receive compensation for that sector. There is no basis for claiming compensation on sectors where the service was provided as booked. However, the way the regulation is worded is poor, and leaves a potential loophole. Will be interesting to hear the outcome. Personally I would side with EK on this one.