DXB on evening of 30/03/2012 [Archive]

Paraffin Budgie

8th Apr 2012, 08:22

I was on EK002 from LHR (A380). After circling around over the gulf for quite a while, we went in to land in Dubai, and it seemed to me that we aborted the landing fairly early on.

We then diverted to Al Ain and refuelled. Several of the passengers requested that they be allowed to disembark there, and were, of course, refused.

I was a little worried that the crew would go out of hours and have to be replaced, but that did not happen. After about an hour or so on the ground we took off and returned to Dubai.

The captain announced that the cause of the diversion was weather related and that there had been a strong possibility of wind shear. As we flew over Dubai (both times), there was no sign of any fog on the ground.

The bad conditions must have been quite short lived, as it didn't seem too windy once out of the airport.

Wannabe Flyer

10th Apr 2012, 11:02

Was in DXB that day and there was no fog but was a very hazy and dusty day. However the airports over that period have been packed and every flight i too thru Dubai (4 in that 8 day period) needed a shoe horn to get into. Each and every one of those flights were delayed an hour on the ground due to traffic congestion. This was both East and West bound.

Mr Angry from Purley

10th Apr 2012, 17:13

sober
ten hour wait on the aircraft?, with crew??. Haven't they heard of a thing called a Coach??

:\

Sober Lark

10th Apr 2012, 19:06

Who'd fall for the old 'coach' trick in DXB? Paddy English EK002, Paddy Irish EK162 or Paddy ? EK748?

Looking on the bright side I'm pleased to announce EK162 has now become a Dubai once bitten twice shy Captain and won't fall for that one again.

Seriously I put it down to inefficient ATC handling of traffic (concur with Wannabee) and complete bungling from an Emirates customer service point of view once we landed in RKT.

Sober Lark

22nd Apr 2012, 19:53

So on that evening the decision was taken to divert EK162 to RKT where for practically 10 hours there was no PAX management, no airport facilities, no crew duty and replacement ability facilities, no tech facilities or other commercial facilities.

The other 4 EK flights affected were diverted to different airports in the region and their PAX enjoyed a 'fuel and go' facility with only a short delay. So the choice taken by EK162 to have to use RKT as a diversion airport on the evening was not at all unavoidable not at all 'force majeure'.

Flight departed DUB and arrived destination DXB 10 hours late. Air transport -Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(l) and Articles 5,6 and 7 - Concept of flight 'delay' and 'cancellation' - Right to compensation in the event of delay - Concept of 'extraordinary circumstances'.

ExXB

23rd Apr 2012, 08:39

EC261/2004 applies to delays in departure, not arrival (yet another hole in this terribly written regulation) and as written cash compensation does not apply to delays, only to cancellation.

It certainly isn't clear if the responsibility for care (meals, drinks, accommodation if required) in EC261 applies after the flight has departed. I would say no.

Additionally as EC261 applies to flights departing EU airports (for non-EU airlines) of which RAK isn't, it is doubtful that the regulation applies in any case.

However the ambiguities here would certainly make the lawyers rich arguing both sides.

Sober Lark

23rd Apr 2012, 12:00

ExXB sorry for that. For RAK read RKT (Ras Al Khaimah). So in this particular case I should look to something like the Montreal convention?

ExXB

23rd Apr 2012, 12:04

MC99 would be the way to go. One of the reasons why the Commission decided against having compensation apply to delays is that Montreal does have provisions.

You can sue under MC99 to recover proven damages, but not for compensation.

I doubt if any airline would let a case like this get to court. Too much publicity, particularly if (when) they lose.

Sober Lark

23rd Apr 2012, 12:14

Cheers. You've been a great help ExXB. Thanks.

ExXB

23rd Apr 2012, 14:22

You can find a copy of the treaty here: Montreal Convention 1999 (http://myweb.whitman.syr.edu/pjcihon/MontrealConvention1999.htm)

Article 19 - Delay

The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for it or them to take such measures.

Sober Lark

23rd Apr 2012, 15:09

Excerpt from Emirates reply:

Naturally, I was sorry to read that you were amongst those passengers affected by the diversion of flight EK162 on 30 March 2012 to Ras Al Khaimah Airport.

As you state, the aircraft was initially held above Dubai Airport in a holding pattern, due to AirTraffic Control restrictions. Unfortunately, continuing adverse weather conditions then resulted in the necessity to divert the aircraft to the nearest available airport .

I should mention that flight EK162 was one of 5 flights that could not land at Dubai Airport and were diverted to different airports in the region. The other 4 flights were refuelled and continued on to Dubai when the weather improved with only a short delayed arrival.

Regrettably after landing, your aircraft developed a technical issue that needed to be rectified prior to departure. When it became apparent that this issue could not be solved by the local engineers, Emirates engineers and crew had to be sought from Dubai. Therefore, our staff arranged for passengers to be transported back to Dubai by road.

I would like this opportunity to explain that Emirates would never compromise the safety of its passengers and would not operate an aircraft unless our engineers advise us that it is safe to do so.

Although Emirates staff had been dispatched from Dubai Airport to assist with the arrangements, Immigration officials at Ras Al Khaimah, refused to allow all passengers to leave the aircraft. This was a matter wholly outside our own control and although every effort was made to challenge the decision, we were unsuccessful in our negotiations and passengers were required to remain on the aircraft. I am truly sorry for the distress and discomfort this caused.

Flight EK162 subsequently did not land at Dubai Airportuntil 10.38 hours on 31 March….”

RKT can't have been an unknown or unfamiliar environment for EK and any risk assessments would have identified any adverse implications for landing at this airport with a full load of PAX on a Friday evening/ early Saturday.

Gulf 1

25th Apr 2012, 16:16

Strange that the decision was made to 'divert to the nearest available airport'. Would it not have been better to divert to the 'nearest suitable airport' or did they simply not have enough fuel?

Sober Lark

27th Apr 2012, 06:49

Thanks to everyone for all your comments on this.

Based on what I have, I think EK would find it hard to utter the 'exceptional circumstances' word.

Someone failed on their risk based alternate selection process. 1. Safety, 2. regulatory compliance and 3. commercial requirements.

DXB-RKT = 70km alternate for EK162 ex DUB result = DUB-DXB journey time of 21.5 hours.
DXB-AAN = 112km (alternate for EK2 ex LHR = fuel and go.
DXB-AUH = 116km (alternate chosen by EK748 ex Tunis = fuel and go.

Sharjah must figure somewhere as an EK alternate but does anyone know if there are others?

Sober Lark

2nd May 2012, 06:48

Thanks for your PMs.

Overnight I was thinking about this. What's the point if we have laws such as the MC where we as a PAX have an excellent case where an airline really can't hide behind the 'extraordinary circumstances' or 'force major' yarn if we don't use it. Perhaps because of perceived trouble we are prepared to instead suffer financial loss between what the airline offers and what we actually spent.

Perhaps my step by step journey through the process will help others who find themselves in a similar situation in the future.

Does Emirates have a European registered office?

There is or was one in London for some reason - Emirates Airline Ltd, 20-22 Bedford Row, London WC1R4JS - Company reg no 05761094

Sober Lark

16th May 2012, 08:32

16 May 2012

Airlines dealt blow by Europe

UK airlines were dealta blow yesterday when a top European court official said they should compensate passengers whose flights are delayed by three hours or more.

BritishAirways, easyJet and TUI Travel are challenging a 2009 ruling by theEuropean Court of Justice that passengers who experience lengthy delays should be entitled to the same compensation as those whose flights are cancelled.

However, advocate-general to the court, Yves Bot, said the airlines had not brought any new evidence to challenge the original ruling, which he said should stand.

His opinion does not constitute a final decision, but the European Court of Justice often rules in line with the advocate-general's recommendations.

Bot ruled in March that Ryanair must cover the costs of a passenger stranded by the volcanic ash cloud over Europe in 2010. See the original story below.

By Linsey McNeill

23 March 2012

Ryanair loses latest round in ash cloud court battle

Ryanair"s fight to avoid paying hotels, meals and drinks for passengers affected by the Icelandic ash cloud has faced a set back.

The airline launched a legal case to argue that the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in 2010 was such an 'extraordinary' event that the usual rules should not apply.

But in an 'opinion' issued earlier this week, Yves Bot, the advocate-general of the European Court of Justice, said airlines were not exempt, even if cancellations were caused by circumstances beyond their control.

Although the advocate's 'opinions' are not binding, in most cases they are followed by the full court.

If that is the case, Ryanair will be forced to pay for the room and board for Denise McDonagh, whose flight from Faro to Dublin was cancelled during the ash cloud crisis, stranding her in Portugal for a week.

She sued Ryanair for €1,129 in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, which then asked the European Court of Justice for an interpretation of the regulation.

Ryanair argued that, in this case, it should only be responsible for three nights" accommodation, with a price cap of €80 a night, and with limits on food and drink expenses.

The ruling will have little impact on Ryanair's finances, as the airline has settled all other claims, but it could have implications for airlines across Europe who argue for exemption from their obligations.

The advocate said the provision of care is "particularly important in the case of extraordinary circumstances which persist over a long time" and said airlines are able to pass on the cost to customers by increasing fares.

Following the publication of the opinion, Ryanair issued a statement pointing out that this was a test case.

Ryanair"s Stephen McNamara said: "Ryanair notes that the advocate general"s opinion is not binding on the court and we hope the final courtdecision will find in favour of Ryanair"s appeal and remove the blatant discrimination in the EU261 airline regulations, which expose airlines to unlimited liability even in cases such as volcanic ash which the airlines should not be held responsible for, whereas competing road, ferry and coach operators all have their EU261 liabilities limited by time and financial limits. This discrimination against EU airlines must end."

by Bev Fearis

ExXB

16th May 2012, 13:23

Sober Lark,
What we have here is a conflict of European Law vs. International Agreements between governments, which also is a part of European Law.

MC99 replaces the Warsaw Convention 1949. In simple terms the Conventions limit the liability of the airline to fixed amounts, while the airlines are required to accept a 'strict liability'. This means that the claimants do not have to prove the airline is liable, it is accepted.

Delay of passengers and/or their baggage are covered by MC99 (and Warsaw before it.). Cancellations are not. When EC Regulation 261/2004 was being written this fact was recognised, meaning that the Regulation contains no provision for compensation for delay, or delay of baggage.

While the advocate general is of the view that the airlines presented nothing 'new', it wasn't just the airlines presenting evidence. The representative from the EP clearly stated on the record that they considered provisions for delay and rejected them, due to the conflict with MC99. Similar representation was made by the European Council. In fact the only party to support the court was the European Commission who made a statement that they didn't pursue compensation for delay because the EP rejected it, they still thought it was a good idea.

The ECJ ruling goes well beyond their mandate of ruling European Law, it goes beyond to the point where they are making law, not interpreting it. This is an anathema to both the Parliament and the Council. The Commission too should also oppose this, but the EC rarely speaks with a single voice.

MC99 has been codified into European law by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 meaning that what we have is a conflict between two EC Regulations. The courts previous ruling, and if the follow the AG's recommendation, any new ruling will not resolve this conflict.

Should the ECJ maintain their ruling, I expect that the Council and the Parliament will take steps (possibly by amending 261/2004) to ensure that the ECJ by their ruling does not set a precedent by making law that was never intended by the EC/EP/Council.

The Ryanair case relates to cancellations and is in accordance with the clear language of the Regulation. O'leary et co didn't stand a chance on that one.

However what happened to you, delay resulting from a diversion, is not covered by 261/2004. If you suffered damage as a result of the delay you can seek redress through the courts under MC99 (assuming the airline doesn't address your claim).

Emirates is not an airline registered in a Member State of the European Union. For the purposes of 261/2004 it is not a European Air Carrier.

Sober Lark

16th May 2012, 14:27

Thanks ExXB,

According to article 2 of regulation 261/2004 an operating air carrier means an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger. As you say Emirates is a non EU licenced airline. If I invoked the MC which deals with international carrier liability for the delay which is claimable through court proceedings would I have to identify some office Emirates has in the EU?

Surely Emirates would have to prove it took all reasonable measures to avoid the damage or it was impossible to take such measures but I really can't see how they could do that. Perhaps they would see defending costing more than the payouti especially since the liability for passenger delay is approx €5,200 but then I had booked for 5 of us which would be €26,000.

One would have to have the case presented in court and undergo legal evaluation on the basis of the actual facts to establish the damages suffered. This Montreal Convention isn't that easy to get ones hear around. Has the ordinary consumer ever been successful in availing of the protection it offers?

ExXB

17th May 2012, 06:02

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I'm an aviation guy who worked in regulatory affairs for a number of years.

Under MC99 you can make your claim in a number of jurisdictions, of your choice. This include airlines HQ, your residence, flight departure country and at least one other that I can't recall at the moment.

The first thing you should do is to make a claim with the airline. Detail your losses (be prepared to document them later) and the compensation you are seeking. At this stage many airlines wii make an offer, they don't want to go to court either. They know MC99 and understand their liability. If your claim is valid they will likely settle. Only if they reject your claim, or their offer is insufficient, should you consider Court.

Do people succeed with MC99 claims? Hard to tell, but I can say they rarely make it to court.

Sober Lark

28th May 2012, 14:16

Airbus A330-200 A6-EAD operating EK162 Dublin - Dubai (depart Dublin 30th March) diverted to Ras Al Khaimah and continued to Dubai as EK162D

Q1. A flight that departs on time but arrives at destination 10+ hours late with a different crew and a different flight number. Is it considered a cancelled flight?

Q2. What is the actual arrival time of an aircraft? Is it touchdown or arrival at gate or when the doors are opened and PAX disembark? What constitutes arrival time?

ExXB

28th May 2012, 17:24

Q1. A flight that departs on time but arrives at destination 10+ hours late with a different crew and a different flight number. Is it considered a cancelled flight?

It probably depends on the airline, but the one I worked for a few decades ago would not consider this to be a cancellation. The flight needs to be 'completed' for internal bookkeeping reasons. The 'different' flight number is probably required by ATC (but an expert in that field hopefully can clarify)

Q2. What is the actual arrival time of an aircraft? Is it touchdown or arrival at gate or when the doors are opened and PAX disembark? What constitutes arrival time?Again it depends on the airline, and could differ depending on the purpose. Normally a flight's schedule is block-to-block.

In the sense of Regulation 261/2004 your flight was not cancelled as the regulation defines cancellation (Article 2 (i) as: ‘cancellation’ means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.

Does Emirates define 'cancellation' in their terms and conditions? If they do, that text forms part of your contract with them.

WHBM

29th May 2012, 10:12

Air Carriers had this ruling coming to them, as many had claimed "circumstances beyond their control" when this was not true.

For example, fog below minimums, that's obviously beyond their control ? Well not if both airport and aircraft are Cat 3 certified but the carrier has chosen not to spend the money on keeping their crews current on it.

BA cancellations at Heathrow due to flow controls in low visibility ? Well, you may notice this only normally afflicts domestic flights. BA make a commercial decision in such restrictions to dump the domestics and keep long haul going 100%. That's not Circumstances Beyond Their Control at all, it is a decision by the commercial department based on profitability. Fine, and the right thing to do, but don't pretend to the disorganised pax that the cancellation of their particular domestic flight was beyond BA's control.

FlyBe having "delayed" flights, where say the 0700 departure is delayed to 1000, when there just so happens to be another scheduled FlyBe departure, which leaves with both flight numbers attached to it. If the 0700 doesn't operate, that's a cancellation, NOT a delay FlyBe.

ExXB

29th May 2012, 11:56

Air Carriers had this ruling coming to them, as many had claimed "circumstances beyond their control" when this was not true.

...

BA cancellations at Heathrow due to flow controls in low visibility ? Well, you may notice this only normally afflicts domestic flights. BA make a commercial decision in such restrictions to dump the domestics and keep long haul going 100%. That's not Circumstances Beyond Their Control at all, it is a decision by the commercial department based on profitability. Fine, and the right thing to do, but don't pretend to the disorganised pax that the cancellation of their particular domestic flight was beyond BA's control.

Just out of curiosity how would you suggest BA deal with flow control restrictions? Is it better to cancel a daily widebody heading to Vancouver, or a A319 headed to EDI? Of course profits are part of it, but the inconvenience for the YVR pax is going to be a lot more than the EDI pax.

Should BA simply schedule fewer flights? That won't work as those slots would simply be used by others. You can't retire a slot.

WHBM

29th May 2012, 12:31

Just out of curiosity how would you suggest BA deal with flow control restrictions.
I think I made it quite clear that the current approach is the correct one.

What I disagree with is then pretending the resulting inconvenience to the selected group of passengers was beyond the airline's control, when it is clearly a business decision.

It also suits the industry to schedule slots up to the hilt for good weather ops. That's fine as well. But there is a resulting cost when bad weather sets in.

ExXB

29th May 2012, 15:58

What I disagree with is then pretending the resulting inconvenience to the selected group of passengers was beyond the airline's control, when it is clearly a business decision.

They have been told that they have 'lost' x number of slots. They then make business decisions on how to cope with that loss, but the loss was not within their control.

It also suits the industry to schedule slots up to the hilt for good weather ops. That's fine as well. But there is a resulting cost when bad weather sets in.

Well, slot allocation in Europe is governed by an EU Regulation (like everything else, apparently). Slots at Heathrow are allocated by an independent company in accordance with that Regulation. One of the main rules is 'use-it or lose-it' where if an airline doesn't use their slot 80% of the time they lose it. (Actual usage at Heathrow is a lot closer to 96%)

The number of slots available is determined by the airport, not the airlines. And they have no incentive to reduce the number of slots.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like BA - their service recovery for me on too many occasions was very (very, very) poor. And I don't use them any more. But as the largest slot holder at Heathrow they take the biggest hit when a third party (ATC/Airport) requires them to reduce their flights. Airlines with a single slot pair normally are unaffected.

Sober Lark

3rd Jun 2012, 09:56

Sounds familiar...

EK241 from Dubai to Toronto diverted yesterday because of bad weather and apparently as they hadn't enough fuel they diverted to an alternate.

Those PAX unfortunate enough to be members of Emirates Skywards will no doubt get the usual text message from Emirates giving then 25,000 complimentary air miles with the intention of reducing the volume of complaints.

If EK would only carry enough fuel on their aircraft they wouldn't have to have unexplained diversions and precautionary landings, then on to destination. Then they have the nerve to answer written customer complaints with words such as 'force majeur' and '...would never compromise passenger safety.' and '..circumstances beyond their control..'.

Perhaps they are all at it. It's only a matter of time...

I'm sure EK would have thought it quite unconventional to have diverted to Montreal.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/U...215Z/CYOW/CYYZ (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE241/history/20120601/2215Z/CYOW/CYYZ)

ExXB

4th Jun 2012, 12:32

Sober Lark.

What do you base your comment "If EK would only care enough fuel ..." on? Nothing I've seen on this diversion has suggested that they carried anything less than required (estimated flying, hold at destination, diversion to next suitable airport, etc., etc.). It costs money to fly heavy fuel around, and no airline is going to load fuel just for the sake of it.

The link you provided is for the YYZ-YOW portion of the flight. If you want to see the activity prior to diversion you need to click one line up, or here: FlightAware > Emirates (EK) #241 > 01-Jun-2012 > OMDB-CYYZ Flight Tracker (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE241/history/20120601/0555Z/OMDB/CYYZ) and then zoom in to Pearson.

YOW is closer to YYZ than YUL and probably is not as congested. Seeing as the runway is of adequate (albeit just) length for a diversion of an A380 I can't see why they would go all the way to YUL (or YMX). If they wanted something closer they could have gone to BUF, but that would have invoked fighter jets, TSA raping and pillaging and other unpleasantries.

Diversions for fuel are an everyday occurrence that are rarely reported in the press. In this case, the first landing of a new and big airplane, at the Canadian capitals airport it was newsworthy, but not exceptional.

Sober Lark

6th Jun 2012, 12:53

Hi ExXB, Much of what you say is very true but why did they welcome EK241's diversion with firefighters and paramedics?

Sorry, not YUL. I was word playing on the Montreal Convention.

Thank you for your previous reply regarding the T&C of carriage.

When you book online with Emirates you receive your tickets by e mail with an attachment called 'Conditions of contract and other important notices'. But this does not give the level of information you told me to look for so I drilled deep into the Emirates web site and on their site map I found 'Emirates Conditions of Carriage for passengers and baggage' modified May 2012.

It is a long document but here are a few lines which may be of interest and to other persons who find themselves in a similar situation and want to be treated better than they will be treated if they don't have this information:

Article9.1.1 ……We do not guarantee flight times and flight durations to you and they do not form part of your contract of carriage with us.

9.2.2 You will be entitled to choose one of the following three available remedies if we cancel a flight; fail to operate aflight reasonably according to the schedule; fail to stop at your destination or Stopover destination; or cause you to miss a connecting flight with us or with another airline for which you hold a through booking/confirmed reservation and adequate time existed to make the connection after the scheduled time of arrival of your flight. The three available remedies for you to choose from are available without extra charge and are set out in Articles 9.2.2(a) to (c) below. See also Article 9.2.3 for limitations on your rights and our liability.

9.2.2(a) Remedy One- we will carry you and yourBaggage as soon as we can on another of our flights on which space is available and, where necessary, extend the period of validity of your Ticket to cover that carriage.

9.2.2(b) Remedy Two - we will re-route you and your Baggage within a reasonable period of time to the destination shown on your Ticket on another of our flights or on the flight of another airline, or by other mutually agreed means and class of carriage. We will also refund you any difference between the fare, taxes, fees, charges and surcharges paid for your carriage and any lowerfare, taxes, fees, charges and surcharges applicable to your revised carriage.

9.2.2(c) Remedy Three - we will give you an involuntary refund in accordance with Article 10.2

In all of those situations, the refund will be:

10.2.1(a) an amount equal to the fare paid (including taxes, fees, charges and exceptional circumstances surcharges paid) if no portion of the Ticket has been used;

Or

10.2.1(b) if a portion of the Ticket has been used, an amount equal to the difference between the fare paid (including taxes, fees,charges and exceptional circumstances surcharges paid) and the correct fare (including taxes, fees, charges and exceptional circumstances surcharges) for travel between the points for which you have used your Ticket.

One would imagine if you are successful in a claim with Emirates then the balance of unrecoverable costs could be claimed from your travel insurance policy. Whether or not you can be successful depends on your travel insurance policy terms and conditions covering delay.

Having looked into this I note depending on cover selected, some insurers will not cover the cost of the flight but will cover a portion of the holiday costs you were contracted to pay – e.g accommodation, excursions, car hire for each day of the trip you have not used.

I also found different travel insurers have a different delay and holiday abandonment cover timeline. Note, if an airline calculates the arrival as touchdown of aircraft rather than disembarkation and this meant your delay was too short to successfully claim on your policy you could be flummoxed. Clarify this point and get it in writing.

ExXB

6th Jun 2012, 16:33

Hi Soberlark.

YOW greeted the A380 with 'all and sundry' because EK had declared a fuel emergency. That was SOP, even though EK cancelled the emergency before landing. Better safe than sorry. I wasn't in the cockpit so I can't even guess why they called an emergency just to cancel it. (From previous threads I've seen it suggested that this may be done to get priority, but I'm not a pilot and I'm not suggesting the EK crew were doing anything inappropriate - I'm sure the Canadians will be investigating this incident)

The Canadian ATC daily incident report has this; The Emirates Airbus A380-800 (operating as flight UAE241) was concluding a scheduled IFR flight from Dubai (OMDB) to Toronto (CYYZ). NAV CANADA staff at Toronto ACC reported that the aircraft was flown in an overshoot after encountering windshear on the approach. NAV CANADA staff at Montréal ACC reported that the aircraft diverted to its alternate airport, Ottawa (CYOW). While en-route, the flight crew declared a MAYDAY due to low fuel. NAV CANADA Operations Centre, Transport Canada Civil Aviation Contingency Operations, Transportation Safety Board and J.R.C.C. Trenton staff were all advised. When the flight crew was speaking with the Ottawa Terminal Controller, they cancelled the low fuel emergency. The aircraft landed on runway 14 at 2116Z without incident with ARFF services standing by. Ops. impact -- one arriving aircraft (FAB861, First Air Boeing 737-200) was delayed approximately 15 minutes in landing.

Apologies for missing your irony, it's just that YMX/YUL would likely be the next on their list ... :rolleyes:

ExXB

8th Jun 2012, 08:51

An update on the A-380 diversion.

UPDATE from TSB Daily Notification Log 06-06-2012 Occurrence Summary A12O0080: The Emirates Airbus A380-800 aircraft (UAE241) was en route from Dubai (OMDB) to Toronto (CYYZ). After a 25 minutes hold at the FEMA intersection, the aircraft was provided with the clearance for the ILS 15R approach, when the "windshear warning" activated. A go-around was commenced and the aircraft diverted to Ottawa (CYOW). The potential for a low fuel state was determined by the crew and in accordance with the operator's standard operating procedures the crew declared a "Mayday". Upon approaching Ottawa the crew was provided a direct routing to the runway and the crew estimated their arrival fuel quantity to be above their minimums and downgraded the emergency to "PAN PAN". The aircraft landed uneventfully with ARFF standing by. Subsequent fuel quantity calculations by the crew upon arrival determined that the aircraft's final fuel quantity was above the required final reserve.

Sober Lark

9th Jun 2012, 12:25

Thank you for your follow up ExXB

I note on Thursday 02 Feb 2012 Long hold times into Dubai in the early hours caused fule diversions-
EK108 to Ras Al Khaimah.
EK148 to Ras Al Khaimah.
EK784 to Sharjah.

Also I note on Friday 27 April 2012 weather at DXB caused long hold times leading to following diversions:

EK48 and EK52 to Doha.
EK92 to Al Fujairah.
EK349 to Muscat.
EK381 to Al Ain.

On Friday 30 March EK162 from Dublin diverted to Ras Al Khaimah as a fuel diversion where on arrival there were no facilities. (Would they have had ARFF faciities on that evening?)

Facilities at Ras Al Khaimah Ras Al Khaimah International Airport - Operating Rules and Procedures (http://www.rakairport.com/operations.html)

Why would RAK have performed so badly on that Friday early Saturday - is it because of a holiday?

The more I look into it the more I wonder why EK162's first choice was RAK? I'm really beginning to think he didn't have a choice.

ExXB

9th Jun 2012, 12:58

The UAE "weekend" is Friday, Saturday - not holiday per se but like everywhere weekends may be more of a challenge.

Sober Lark

12th Jun 2012, 06:42

In passing - take EK162 with a +10 hour delay in Ras Al Khaimah on the way to Dubai.

I know the financial consequences to me as a PAX on such a flight but you have crew already on duty several hours before the incident crossing different time zones into a new day etc

In such circumstances how do Emirates treat the aircrew?

Do they get time and a half in extra pay? As the pilots are still on duty is it counted as flying hours? Do they time off instead? Are they given recovery time?

Ignoring crew remuneration, I'd imagine it is a very complicated problem to construct flight crew schedules that allow for complex crew scheduling problems caused by such a delay. Any idea how it is done?

Sober Lark

10th Aug 2012, 12:09

Victor Inox

21st Aug 2012, 11:17

Although Emirates staff had been dispatched from Dubai Airport to assist with the arrangements, Immigration officials at Ras Al Khaimah, refused to allow all passengers to leave the aircraft. This was a matter wholly outside our own control and although every effort was made to challenge the decision, we were unsuccessful in our negotiations and passengers were required to remain on the aircraft. I am truly sorry for the distress and discomfort this caused.

And why would the immigration staff at OMRK not allow all pax to deplane there? They are as much part of the UAE as Dubai is.

Basil

21st Aug 2012, 13:11

Sober Lark,
I'd have thought the full journey DUB-CMB.

ExXB

21st Aug 2012, 13:27

Could anyone help me understand the definition 'outbound journey'?

This relates to a delay on a flight booked DUB-CMB straight through with the same airline which required a short connection in DXB.

What would you consider the outbound journey to be? Is it the full journey DUB-CMB or the first sector DUB-DXB?

Thanks.

I think we need some context here. Can you please explain the background? Also have you looked at 'whomevers' condition of contract? Often you will find definitions used by the contracting airline.

Sober Lark

21st Aug 2012, 14:13

Emirates paid me compensation of (1) A return flight to the same region (2) cash €1,259 (3) 150,000 frequent flyer miles between us.

Presently, I'm still out of pocket by €2,294 and I'm claiming from my UK based Multi Trip Travel Insurance policy for these unrecoverable expenses. My claim is fair and not exagerrated.

My insurers definition of a delay is 'if the insured is delayed for at least 12 hours on the outbound or return journey...because of adverse weather, mechanical breakdown/derangement...' The insurer has argued the outbound journey is DUB to DXB. My argument is the outbound journey was Dublin to Colombo (i was booked straight through, no stop over and held boarding passes to CMB). The case has gone to the Financial Services Ombudsman for direction.

The insurers are also arguing their definition of a storm. It seems their policy covers a storm preventing you from taking off but not a storm preventing you from landing!

Victor - we tried to get off the aircraft but we were not allowed. There was no one in Ras al-Khaimah to help anyone. A fellow passenger actually lived two miles from RAK and was stuck on the aircraft like the rest of us.

givemewings

22nd Aug 2012, 12:39

I note with interest your comment on another thread that "Emirates stranded me in RAK"... but by other comments by people flying that day and indeed the media, it was not in fact the airline who stranded the flight but the authorities in RAK was it not? While the delays were indeed unfortunate and inconvenient I cannot really see how they could have done anything else considering that fog/dust storm/whatever it was is a natural occurence and landing was just not possible... surely the blame should go to a) mother nature and b) Dubai Airports for the traffic management.... also you may be interested to know that a new arrivals/departure systems is to start tomorrow so we will see how that improves the situation during the 'rush hour'

Lucky your insurer covers weather-related delay- many will not.

Victor, RAK is a separate Emirate and may therefore have their own separate rules- bit like a plane landing in Brisbane instead of Sydney for some reason *may* be subject to different conditions or regulations of the State or the airport operator.

As for rostering, it's very complex operation and I do not envy them in the slightest when things go pear-shaped. As with many airlines, the cabin crew are paid a basic salary per month and flying hours are calculated from chocks off to chocks on. So I would think while on ground they were not being paid, however it would depend if the captain were savvy and had the chocks kept off a bit longer or not :E Something I think passengers do not know when giving crew hell during a delay- they are standing there taking it for free!! So some people out there really should be nicer, after all the crew are just as stuck, hot, hungry and tired as the pax (probably more so since they cannot sleep during a delay)

Keep us posted on what happens, I really am interested to know how this kind of a delay is treated since weather really is something that is out of the airline's control. I can think of maybe three occasions in the last few years where this has happened in Dubai, to many airlines inc EK, FlyDubai, Etihad, Gulf and Qatar...

Sober Lark

22nd Aug 2012, 14:04

Thank you for your reply givemewings, Basil and Victor and for your continued interest ExXB.

Previous post - "The other 4 EK flights affected were diverted to different airports in the region and their PAX enjoyed a 'fuel and go' facility with only a short delay. So the choice taken by EK162 to have to use RKT as a diversion airport on the evening was not at all unavoidable not at all 'force majeure'"

EK48/52 went 379km to DOH
EK91 went 107km to FJR
EK349 went 384km to MCT
EK381 went 127km to AAN

Why would EK162 choose to go 70km to an airport without facilities?

From where I was seated and as far as I could see I'm pleased to confirm people were at all times polite and friendly towards the crew. They looked pretty fresh after 21 hours of duty and you have to admire their professionalism. The pilot seemed to find the situation of complete lack of services as bizarre as we did. Of all the other choices he had why did he choose to land in such a hell hole on a Friday night / Sat morning? I really believe he had no choice. Perhaps he was like the Ryanair 4 or perhaps Emirates don't get on that well with RKT?

In passing I wrote to the airport management in RKT but I guess it would be embarassing for them to have to reply so they choose not to.

The insurance policy is for unrecovered expenses, I'll never be compensated for loss of time and I accept that. What I aim for is to be left in broadly the same financial position after the event as I was before the trip began. We met the pre-requirements for cover to apply. Our booking and trip complies with the period of cover requirement. The claim meets the wording in the policy definitions section and is not affected by the general exclusions section of the policy and we fulfilled our obligation to minimise a claim.

I've come to the conclusion that Emirates and many more airlines use standard terminology in their letters of apology which covers their asses against a valid claim and which as a consequence has the knock on effect of making it harder for Mr.& Ms. Joe Soap successfully claiming on their travel insurance policy.

Of course I'll let you all know how I got on. You've all been kind enough to read the post and many of you have helped me with guidance and direction which is much appreciated. Hopefully my experience will also help others who may find themselves in a similar situation.

givemewings

22nd Aug 2012, 15:10

Lark, were there any other (commercial, diverted) flights in RAK when you were there? It could be as you say, that it was the only option- I would very much doubt a crew would knowingly go there if there were no way to refuel- it could be that stocks were low or other flights got there first. RAK is not exactly a hugely busy airport so I would doubt they'd have unlimited supply readily available...

The 381 that went to AAN was not an quick in & out fuel stop, though compared to yours 3 hours or so is short. From what I know there was one (small) fuel truck for the aircraft that went there (at least one FlyDubai and several others)

When you have a lot of diversions you also have the issue of where to park them. With aircraft going to Al Ain and Sharjah it's possible there was nowhere to fit your flight hence the stop in RAK. Al Ain would have been quite full given they had a 380 included amongst the arrivals. When the weather's bad and your first choice alternate is bad, then you go where you can. Like you say, probably had no choice in it.

I know in Australia we have an airfield directory which lists facilities available at particular airfield and the operating hours of same. I am sure there would exist similar in the GCC. It is possible that the information Emirates had regarding facilities had not been updated by the airport operator (merely speculating here, I do not know for sure) if that was the case they could have diverted there, expecting to have full facilities and finding as you did, that it was not the case.

To answer your question of before, yes there would have been some roster disruptions after an extended duty period- a crew going up to 21 hours is definitely into the discretionary period therefore specific rest rules apply before the next flights could be taken.

ExXB

22nd Aug 2012, 19:24

In context I would say the outward journey is the portion of your ticket from the point of origin to the next agreed stopping point as shown on the ticket. A connection, of less than 24 hours, is not considered a stopping point.

In the fare calculation area of your ticket it should show if you had a stopover in DXB.

Where you delayed in your arrival in CMB? If you were then you should have a valid claim. But if you managed, despite an unusual connection, to catch your originally booked flight then I'm not so certain.

Victor Inox

23rd Aug 2012, 13:34

Victor, RAK is a separate Emirate and may therefore have their own separate rules- bit like a plane landing in Brisbane instead of Sydney for some reason *may* be subject to different conditions or regulations of the State or the airport operator

I know, givemewings, as I lived in Sharjah for three years. But all UAE ports/airports/road entry points are supposed to have uniform immigration requirements.

givemewings

23rd Aug 2012, 14:56

"Supposed" being the operative word..... haha

Well then, you would know very well how two people from the same govt department can give two different answers to the same question minutes apart- all a part of life in the UAE!! ;) :E

As Lark said, we shall probably neverrrr know the Why.... one of the things that makes you go hmmm :ugh:

Sober Lark

11th Sep 2012, 14:26

Successful claim on travel insurance for €2,000 paid today.

(a) Adverse weather conditions caused the diversion but it was Emirates choice of alternate airport (Ras Al Khaimah) that caused the unnecessary delay. Not 'force majeure'.

(b) The 'technical issue' which developed after landing came under the mechanical breakdown or derangement clause.

(a) Reasonable expectations were that the outbound journey was Dublin to Colombo.

After what we had been through Mr. Bruce Forbes Vice President Customer Affairs, Emirates offer on RTE radio's Joe Duffy show to passengers of 25,000 complimentary air miles was shocking to the conscience.

Emirates refunded me a percentage of the fare paid at €1,259, they have also given us future flights at no additional charge for the family and 150,000 air miles. My travel insurance claim for reasonable and unrecoverable travel costs was for €2,294.26 and the insurer paid me €1,919.26 (after excess).

I have been left in broadly the same financial position after the event as I was before (ignoring loss of holiday and time) and I'm happy the matter has been resolved.

May I take this opportunity to thank those on Pprune who took time to comment, the Financial Services Ombudsman and to Ms Margaret Shannon and Mr Paul Holland Managers in Emirates Customer Affairs who I believe handled my complaint to the very best of their ability.