DXB on evening of 30/03/2012
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
16 May 2012
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"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
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
Last edited by Sober Lark; 16th May 2012 at 08:41.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
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?
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?
Last edited by Sober Lark; 16th May 2012 at 14:29.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
A cancelled flight?
Airbus A330-200 A6-EAD operating EK162 Dublin - Dubai (depart Dublin 30th March) diverted to Ras Al Khaimah and continued to Dubai as EK162D
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?
Last edited by Sober Lark; 28th May 2012 at 14:29.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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?
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.
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,201
Likes: 347
From: London UK
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.
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.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
...
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.
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.
Joined: Oct 2002
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,201
Likes: 347
From: London UK
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.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
EK162, EK241
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
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
Last edited by Sober Lark; 3rd June 2012 at 10:01.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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 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.
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 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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
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:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Sober Lark; 6th June 2012 at 13:05.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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;
Apologies for missing your irony, it's just that YMX/YUL would likely be the next on their list ... 
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.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
From: Confoederatio Helvetica
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
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
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.
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
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.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
In such circumstances how do Emirates treat the aircrew?
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 988
Likes: 1
From: Dublin
'outbound journey'
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.
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.
Last edited by Sober Lark; 10th August 2012 at 12:10.
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
From: LSZA & EGWU
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.