I will take this to court after the Swedish NEB has come to a decision. They have a good influence here in Sweden. So we wait and see.

I'm inclined to agree with Emirates on this one too. The wording in the original text of the law was unnecessarily ambiguous. However, it's in the process of being amended. Since the amendment makes it clearer that the 75% apply only to the downgraded sector(s), one can assume that it was the intent of the original law to be the same. I don't think any court will grant you anything but the 75% of the downgraded sector.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I cannot see any ambiguity

I cannot see why any court would have difficulty reading such a clause

Some very well-made points by both Turicus and Wan1dap.

I think it's fairly safe to say that Emirates are keen to see this whole issue tested in a Court of Law, and I just have a hunch that even if they were to lose at the first stage, they will then choose to appeal the decision. The actual monetary payout being sought by the passenger matters not a jot to EK in the grand scheme of things ; their much wider objective is of course to secure a ruling that would effectively kill off any similar claims in the future, and not least the time taken up in dealing with them.

Even though I disagree with the rationale and motive behind this claim, the passenger - based on his post 238 - has in fairness presented his own case to Emirates in a calm & objective manner, and so it remains to be seen how things pan out.

Personally I'm very much in sync with the thoughts of Wan1dap earlier and - regardless of how this particular piece of legislation might be interpreted by others - I have a fundamental (and even ethical) problem with the notion of so determinedly seeking financial compensation for travelling on flights on which a) no actual loss of any kind has been suffered, and b) the cabin class and service provided was precisely as ticketed and paid for.

Dave Noble, that's also what OP is going for, and I understand your point of view. The use of the word "ticket" could mean the whole ticket price. However, it has led to several disputes, and the law is being changed to read "downgraded sector" or whatever the wording is. I'm not 100% sure I'm right, hence my statement about seeing how it will play out.

I also understand the argument of dissuasion that OP puts forward, but I agree with subject2load that I wouldn't seek compensation for something I wasn't denied.

Even the definition of the very word "ticket" is perhaps not as clear-cut as it might seem.

We all know that nowadays we are effectively issued by the carrier with an itinerary and/or e-ticket, call it what you will. It can be printed out, although interestingly enough there are many occasions when it makes no difference at all if you show up at an airport without it because your booking will simply be traced from your passport (as I experienced myself a few days ago at DXB).

In times past, physical paper tickets were an absolute essential (as illustrated by the fact that losing one would create all manner of complications!). However .......for multi-sector bookings, there would be a separate tear-off coupon covering each sector. Some might consider these coupons as individual tickets in their own right ; which case it would - in today's world - be a matter of isolating the downgraded sector by basing any refund on the coupon or "ticket" applicable to that sector.

Just a thought .......

Some posting on this thread agree with Emirates' stance.

I do but only if the aircraft substitution was unavoidable.

If, on the other hand, Emirates' motive was to sell up to 80 more Economy seats (or, indeed, to accommodate an overbooked Economy load), I hope the courts take the passenger's side. We can't have airlines downgrading passengers simply because the cabin such passengers have booked is relatively empty and that they can sell tickets in another cabin or have already sold more tickets than they have seats.

I'd have thought that if accommodating extra Y pax was the reason, Emirates' might still be "quids in" even after refunding 75% of the total price paid for a small number of F tickets.

It is important to note that parts of EU261/2004 are meant to be punitive.

The regulation up until Feb 5th left much to be desired in specifics wording, but "price of the ticket" is rather unambiguous.

Any claim in relation to travel subsequent to Feb 5th is almost certain to be different.

I have finally received a reply to my letter requesting compensation based on EU261 for an equipment change by Emirates which downgraded my wife and me on a segment of our trip (FRA to DBX). We had 3 days notice of the change and could not change our plans to take a different segment. The trip was originally booked thru Qantas but on Emirates metal. Emirates is pleased to advise that they had heard back from Qantas who is processing a refund of Euro 242 each which "represents the class differential from First to Business" on the segment on our recent journey. No mention was made of EU261. I have priced out a one way first class fare on Emirates website (Euro 3,713) and a one way business class fare (Euro 2,096) for a difference of Euro 1,617 each. This is the same difference for a one way flight next week, next month and up to December, 2014. I cannot price out the same flight on Qantas website but if I understand correctly it is the problem of the Airline on whose metal I am flying and therefore Emirates. Any suggestions as to what I do next?

It is the operating carrier that matters , so if it was operated by Emirates, then indeed it is Emirates which is liable

The regulation does state that the enttitlement is to 75% of the price paid for the ticket

I would simply lodge a claim and take it to a small claims court rather than debate with EK

I am not sure where your definition of the ticket is not so clear cut but 261/2004 is very specific in its definition:

(f) "ticket" means a valid document giving entitlement to transport, or something equivalent in paperless form, including electronic form, issued or authorised by the air carrier or its authorised agent;

Why would it be different? What relevance does the 5th February have in respect of 261/2004?

If you mean that the EU is currently undertaking a revision of the Reg, that is true but that means nothing until it becomes law which is unlikely this year since the second reading in the EU parliament doesn't take place until September. There are a number of subsequent processes to be undertaken before the revision becomes actual law.

Even that definition is particularly badly worded, but that aside, the issue revolves around a single-sector vs a multi-sector trip. Is it reasonable to expect compensation on travel which was delivered as expected? Not in my view. However, we'll have to wait and see the outcome of the claim.

Fair enough - so the first passing is not enactment - that means until enactment occurs such definitions as voted for and noted in post #187 or otherwise amended are not applicable.

It doesn't make any sense for compensation to be for the entire journey regardless of which segment was down graded. You should receive compensation for the leg that was affected. If it was meant to be punitive then airlines would probably insist the non EU leg of any trip be issued on a separate ticket so as not to pay a punitive amount.