Your analogy is misplaced. The compensation for involuntary downgrade is supposed to be somewhat punitive since the airline is not providing what was booked and paid for in the first instance by the passenger.

So on that basis two passengers who fly Europe-dxb one who ends in Dubai and one who flies onward from Dubai to say Australia and who are both downgraded on Europe-dxb only would receive different compensation. So if that is the case airlines should insist on a new ticket from dxb onwards to avoid this.

Seems the punitive is the 75% refund on that leg. That is likely more than the fare difference so would count .

Seems like the ambiguous wording will be amended to reflect the relevant leg of the journey and in the meantime we have some test cases courtesy of this forum to see how current wording is viewed.

Here's another example (different airline, I know - apologies!):

I book an AMS-LHR-SYD-LHR-AMS Business Class trip on British Airways. I am downgraded on one sector (AMS-LHR).

Who would seriously argue that it would be reasonable for me to expect the airline to refund 75% of the ticket price (less taxes and PSCs)?

(I do however think that a higher rate of compensation should be paid if airlines deliberately downgrade passengers in order to use aircraft with fewer cabins and with the intention of selling seats in these cabins and/or accommodating overbooked passengers in these cabins. This is quite different from downgrades which result from circumstances deemed to be reasonably beyond airlines' control.)

The reason behind the downgrade is irrelevent. The rules have been written for delays and downgrading to be a deterrent to airlines to do these things.

Can you show where in the regulation anything to support your assertion exists?

I was not referring to the regulation, which, we know, is poorly worded. (For example, ticket prices include items which airlines collect on behalf of governments, airport authorities etc. Could the legislators really have meant that 75% of these should be refunded to the passenger despite having been paid out by the airline?)

In my post I simply referred to what would be considered reasonable. Imagine a world in which this regulation did not exist (but was being considered) and we were discussing what it should contain. I would maintain that a blanket 75% refund of ticket price is unreasonable. I do not need to show anything in the actually existing regulation to support my view.


Don't get me wrong. I would love to have 75% of my Amsterdam-Sydney-Amsterdam fare refunded because of a downgrade on the first, 40 minute hop to Heathrow. I just don't think it would be reasonable to demand it.

I think the reason behind the downgrade should be relevant and reflected in the regulation. If, for example, there was a huge flu epidemic amongst cabin crew I would see 75% of sector as reasonable. Where F-to-J downgrades are the result of a wish to sell more Y tickets or accommodate overbooked Y pax the regulation should hammer the airline. I think this because such behaviour is a bit like entering a contract to sell you something for an agreed price only for the seller to sell it to someone else because he can now get a higher price for it. In such circumstances a total refund of the ticket price or something similar might be reasonable.

I think that there is a poster here who can definitely show how EK can be where this regulation does not exist in actually giving nothing for an involuntary downgrade

If the regulation specifies that 75% is the entitlement, then it is perfectly reasonable to demand it. In fact on such an example of AMS-LON, there is no excuse whatsoever for a downgrade to occur due to the cabin size being flexible

If having to do an involuntary downgrade , then it would be silly of the airline to choose someone where the compensation would be so high

The regulation is not poorly worded in relation to downgrades at all imo; it seems particularly clear and unambiguous and the regulations are aimed at being a deterrent to the airline

I agree that the law should (and in many cases does) prevent bait-and-switch tactics. It will be difficult to prove this in many cases. The airline can probably cite any number of reasons for an aircraft change, and it will be hard to show otherwise.

However, a law should be applied evenly. It's still speeding, even if you were taking your sick granny to the hospital. You can only change the outcome if the actions were different. Selling a class which you then don't provide is a wrongdoing irrespective of the reasons why you could not or would not provide that class. It's not the passenger's problem if the crew is sick. Emirates just needs to price such eventualities into their tickets to cover the refunds they have little control over.

If they only downgrade AMS-LON, the compensation will be 30% of the ticketprice (instead of 75%) because it's less then 1500 Kilometres.

If you first look at the Kilometres and take the percentage from article 10 and next to that you also take a part of the ticketprice, you divide 2 times. That's not fair.

Indeed.

If someone did do AMS-LHR-SYD-LHR-AMS

Assume price paid is $13123 and a downgrade is performed on AMS-LHR. If allowed to do it based on ratio of the journey 231 miles of 22264 miles , then the value of the leg is $136. Take 30% of that and there is $40 due. That is hardly going to be fair and not at all a deterrent to the airline to downgrade the passenger.

A $4000 compensation would provide a large disincentive to downgrade the passenger

Hi guys!

Now I'v got the decison from the Swedish NEB and guess what........ They stick to what Emirates says that it should be decided on the sector flight. However when Emirates calculated this they used for me a unusual way of doing it.

I have talked to a lot of frequent flyers thats just shaking there heads. The NEB includes in the statement that I haven't provided enough evidence to get a higher amount of compensation...

So now what is right? I got downgraded as only First class Pax booked on a flight to business class, Stockholm to Dubai. I have been trying to talk with Emirates and I also say to them that I'm not happy about this. They just way it away and ignore....

My options now here in Sweden are:

1. Send in a complaint to the NEB with evidence that I still think this is a wrong decision and if they consider that my evidence is true they will take on the case and go on with it and maybe they will come to another decision... And if i do this, should I still refer that i should get 75% of the whole ticket price?

2. Take it to court!

3.Take the money from EK and never fly with them.

4 Try to have a negotiation with them over mail and say that i dont think this is enough from me.

What should you do? Thanks for the Help!

I actually believe that they should be prepared to upgrade passengers for no more than half of what they consider fair if they have to pay up.

What the NEB believes is irrelevent; have you actually taken it to a small claims court ? The court will rule based on the law, not based on trying to protect an airline as some nebs seem to do

In all honesty Simonsays91, I would think the time has come for you to make your own decision.

As things stand, the situation is that :

a) Emirates do not believe your claim is valid.
b NEB Sweden (having considered all the evidence you presented to them) do not agree your claim is valid
c) Many (but certainly not all) members here do not feel that your claim for compensation is justified, regardless of whether it is, or is not, legally valid.

As I recall from earlier stages in the thread discussion, those forum members who believe that your claim IS justified had advised that you should take Emirates to court rather than get involved in fruitless protracted discussion with the airline. However, you seemed hesitant/reluctant to follow that advice. Experienced member Dave Noble has now re-iterated that advice above.

Personally I would have never used up so much of my time in pursuing compensation for a loss that was never suffered in the first place. You were downgraded on one sector - for which EK have offered compensation ; but you seem determined to be further compensated for sectors where the class of travel provided to you was exactly as paid for & ticketed.

As to the various options you have listed, my own advice - for what worth - is that you should take your case to court. I say this not because I think your claim is justified, but because YOU seem very confident that it is, and you should therefore have the courage of your convictions.

There is clearly no merit in further negotiation, so realistically your only other viable option (and to me the most pragmatic & sensible) is to take the money as offered. But quite why you would never fly with Emirates again is beyond me. In what way have they caused you actual harm ....??

I can first of all say thanks for the pushing text! I will take it to court now. The waiting between begining of march until now was the NEB that had to decide. I havent been in contact with Emirates since 15 of march.

Thanks for all! Will report back when everything is clear!

Thank you Simon for giving us the update. I am sure I speak for a few when I say we await the next instalment with interest!