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.

Involuntary Downgrade
 

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.

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.

Involuntary Downgrade
 

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!

Involuntary Downgrade
 

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!

You didn't need to wait for the NEB ( nor even contact it ) , it seems to have just extended how long it has taken :)

I understand but you have to know that the court here in Sweden works a bit different then in the US. If the amount is more then 20000SEK it does not count as a small claim. In the worst case that I lose in court I will get stuck with paying for the whole thing. Crazy thing in Sweden I know. So I first need to talk to my lawyer and let him look in to it and if he thinks it will work I go for it. Otherwise it not a risk I'm willing to take. On the other hand they will set the standard in future case like this if I get the right compensation.

But as I sad will get back to you!

This evening I was reviewing my travel plans and saw I was downgraded from F to J on the DXB - ATH portion ex SFO. I read through this thread and decided to phone EK to see what they could do. The agent was clueless and when I asked if I could just reroute to MUC he put me on hold and said yes I could, they would waive the change fee (on a full F flex fare ticket?!?) and charge me the fare difference. He also asked me how I found out about the change, which I thought was odd. I thanked him for his time and just sent an email to customer affairs in New York.

To that end, I am reading some conflicting posts and am unsure if I have a EU 261/2004 claim (of course after flying)? The ticket was booked by AMEX (US) ATH-DXB-SFO-DXB-ATH. I would be fine with EK changing my ticket to MUC in F, but the one agent I spoke with said it wasn't possible.

Did you make the change to go via MUC or not? It is a bit unclear

The regulation is pretty simple in that if a passenger is downgraded on a flight where the regulation is applicable then 75% of the fare is due to be reimbursed to the passenger

It also seems that EK will not pay up without a fight

Unfortunately the one person I have seen who has posted having tried to take it to court seems to have failed after failing to turn up to present their claim ; apparantly EK sent no one from its side to defend it

The more recent poster ( in this thread ) never did come back with information on the outcome of his claim

Unfortunately for you in your specific case , the flight which has been downgraded ( DXB-ATH on Emirates ) is not one which is covered by the regulation , so you would have no claim in this case

If it was an ATH-DXB sector, then that would be covered


In order for a flight to be one under which EC261 applies , in simple terms has to either be

A flight departing from an airport in Europe - on any airline
or
A flight departing from an airport outside Europe to Europe - on a European airline

( it is slightly more complicated than that but is close enough for most purposes :) )

Thanks for the response. I didn't change the flight to MUC as the fare difference was outrageous. I did get a quick email response from NY Consumer Affairs telling me to call the reservation center. My email to them was in response to an unsatisfactory answer from the reservation center. I will make another call and see if they will switch our flight to Munich with no extra charge.

EK seems not to have any fares listed for MUC-SFO and the cost would be very high to change. Going to SFO-MUC via DXB is extremely circuitous

You are likely to have to just accept the downgrade with little compensation ( given how small the fare difference for ATH-SFO r/t is ) or cancel ( which with the downgrade you can do without penalty )

@sonomawine you can't reroute the last sector to a different country under the same fare. Any suggestions by EK that it's possible means they're repricing as separate one way fares via DXB.

I've tried doing that once at several points and it was a no all the way (including at the transfer desk at DXB). The only exception given is under severe conditions when a route is stopped due to war. For example when DAM was suspended, reroutes were permitted to IST, BEY or AMM. Prior to that when TIP was suspended, they allowed reroutes to TUN and CAI. More recently when KBP got suspended, they allowed rebooking onto FZ which didn't even have business class (not sure if routing via MOW was allowed), I know of someone who got disadvantaged because of this cancellation, put his foot down. The only compensation given along free rebooking onto FZ was the possibility to cancel and refund.

Obviously your case involves the last sector of a return ticket so you have no option of cancel/refund.

So yeah, unless a major shake up occurs in Greece there will be no reroutes.

After reading all this, it seems a shame that EK makes so many changes. It also is funny that this is the one change airlines cannot get away with (there's no way to have a first-class if there is no first-class. But you can change the time or cancel a flight and that's fine).

From reading this it seems like customer service isn't really the airline's forte. In terms of attitude. I've had plenty of Asian airlines fly with a first-class cabin with very few passengers (most recently CX, 1 passenger in F). Even Delta flew a plane with very few passengers. Maybe Middle Eastern airlines aren't really up to Asian airlines in terms of customer service quality then.

duplicate

Are your travel plans set in stone? It could be a one day equipment swap to a 2 class instead of a timetable change and as it's a downgrade due to that you should be allowed a free reschedule.

I would certainly advise you to go via your travel agent though - there was some drama on another thread with changes where a someone went straight to the operating carrier resulting in problems :D