DXB on evening of 30/03/2012
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DXB on evening of 30/03/2012
Was on EK162 from DUB-DXB on Fri 30/03/2012. After 30 mins in hold, two missed approaches into DXB with a diversion to RKT. Ten hour wait on aircraft followed by a 13 min flight from RKT to DXB on 01/04/2012. Would anyone have any idea what weather conditions were like at DXB that evening?
Maybe this is why the flight diverted:
The city in the clouds: Dramatic images of Dubai's skyscrapers poking through a cloud of fog at night | Mail Online
For once the DM has produced some quality images.
The city in the clouds: Dramatic images of Dubai's skyscrapers poking through a cloud of fog at night | Mail Online
For once the DM has produced some quality images.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to | Emirates Airline News and Information | Emirates Airline News and Information Three flights diverted because they had to hold too long!
EK2 from LHR diverted to AAN (which was supposed to have been closed because of a thunderstorm - so we were told)
EK748 Tunis to Dubai diverted to AUH
Airbus A330-200 A6-EAD operating EK162 Dublin - Dubai (depart Dublin 30th March) diverted to Ras Al Khaimah and continued to Dubai as EK162D
Lovely photos. But definitely not fog. Vis was good. Approach was approx 00:00 local time (think that is 20:00 UTC).
EK2 from LHR diverted to AAN (which was supposed to have been closed because of a thunderstorm - so we were told)
EK748 Tunis to Dubai diverted to AUH
Airbus A330-200 A6-EAD operating EK162 Dublin - Dubai (depart Dublin 30th March) diverted to Ras Al Khaimah and continued to Dubai as EK162D
Lovely photos. But definitely not fog. Vis was good. Approach was approx 00:00 local time (think that is 20:00 UTC).
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 167 Likes
on
102 Posts
Sober Lark
Those EK 330 drivers do try very hard to get home / down (where they are supposed to be). Have had a number of go arounds in India in bad weather and subsequant holds for storms. Delhi last year was intresting in a big thunderstorm. I think 330 fleet get some of the more challenging routes with EK so maybe they get used to more "hands on flying". Only an observation but I am sure one of them will be on to confirm or deny this.
Those EK 330 drivers do try very hard to get home / down (where they are supposed to be). Have had a number of go arounds in India in bad weather and subsequant holds for storms. Delhi last year was intresting in a big thunderstorm. I think 330 fleet get some of the more challenging routes with EK so maybe they get used to more "hands on flying". Only an observation but I am sure one of them will be on to confirm or deny this.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: France
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Posts: 735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EK162 DUB to DXB via RAK 30/03/2012 - 31/03/2012
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'.
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'.
Last edited by Sober Lark; 23rd Apr 2012 at 15:12.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can find a copy of the treaty here: Montreal Convention 1999
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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….”
Last edited by Sober Lark; 23rd Apr 2012 at 15:22.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Persian Gulf
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
divert the aircraft to the nearest available airport
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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