[TominScotland]

My colleague was due to fly MAN-DXB-MNL today, leaving on EK020 at 21.15. She went to check in this morning, to see that the evening flight had been ‘cancelled’ and she had been put on the earlier 14.00 flight. She did not receive any advance notification through the business travel agent or from the airline. The 14.00 flight would be impossible for her to make as she does not live close to Manchester so the agent has booked her on another flight tomorrow, meaning that she misses the first day of our meetings.

The very odd thing is that the 21.15 flight shows as operating on the Manchester Airport website and the outbound ex-DXB (EK019) is currently boarding….

To me this smacks of being bumped off a full flight….. However, without notification, it is totally unacceptable.

A minimum of EU261 should be due. Any thoughts on what else she might do?

[MartynSinclair]

Made all the stranger Tom, because Emirates still have availability on 18 and 20 in Y and J, tonight (according to their online booking system (although limited in F…)

[AMcWhirter]

Tom – I’ve just checked Emirates.com Although there is availability tonight for MAN-DXB when I checked MAN-DXB-MNL there was no availability at all.

It therefore suggests the problem is on the DXB-MNL sector.

Strange that no notification arrived. I wonder if the email arrived in the spam bin ?

Would EU261 apply in this case ? As we reported earlier EK has been instructed to adhere to EU261 when there’s a missed connection (at a point outside the EU).

Emirates told to pay out on missed connection claims

[FDOS_UK]

Get the agent to book her back on the flight tonight and go to the airport.

[capetonianm]

I think they’re lying to you. This is the information direct from their own system.

1EKAD14APRMANDXB2115
** EK – EMIRATES ** 0 SA 14APR 2115
21 EK 022 F0 A0 J0 C0 I0 MAN DXB 1000 2000 0 388
O0 P0 Y0 E0 R0 W0 M0 B0 U0 K0 H0
Q0 L0 T0 V0 G0 X0
22 EK 018 F4 A4 J4 C0 IC MAN DXB 1400 0015+1 0 388
OC PC Y9 E9 R9 W9 M9 B9 U9 K9 H9
Q9 L9 TC VC GC XC
23 EK 020 J4 C0 IC OC PC MAN DXB 2115 0725+1 0 388
Y9 E9 R9 W9 M9 B9 U9 K9 H9 Q9 L9
TC VC GC XC

** EK – EMIRATES **
FLIGHT NR DATE BOOKING CLASSES
EK 020 14APR18 SA J Y C I O P E R W M B U K H
Q L T V X

ROUTING TML TIME DC EQU EQO COC CAC ETI OFD
1 MAN A *** **** 388 EK EK EK YES
D 1 2115 MEAL F-/ J-DR Y-DR
INFLIGHT SERVICE 2 4 5 7 9

2 DXB A 3 0725 1
D *** ****

CLASSES CLOSED
**
F MANDXB
Z MANDXB
A MANDXB

MEAL INFORMATION

D DINNER
R REFRESHMENTS – COMPLIMENTARY

INFLIGHT SERVICE INFORMATION

2 TELEPHONE
4 AUDIO PROGRAMMING
5 LIVE TV
7 DUTY FREE SALES
9 NON-SMOKING

Nothing to indicate that it’s not operating. I would suggest you check later on FR24, which as yet doesn’t show the outbound as having taken off. Check the MAN arrival/departure boards, collate the evidence, and nail the bastards for EU261.

Update : Their own system now shows that 019 has departed (left the gate) and FR shows it as taxiing out.
** EK – EMIRATES **

DXB ATD 1436 MAN ETA 1927

[AMcWhirter]

But isn’t the problem on the DXB-MNL sector ? As a member of the public, checking Emirates.com , there is no availability displayed MAN-DXB-MNL.

When I entered MAN-DXB-MNL I was greeted with the message “No prices or flights are available for the dates [April 14] you entered.”

[capetonianm]

Sorry, hadn’t read it properly, however, my original statement that I think they’re lying to you is still valid. There is nothing to indicate that EK332/15APR is not operating.

They are showing availability through to MNL
1EKANMANMNL
** EK – EMIRATES ** 0 SA 14APR 1156
21 EK 018 F1 A1 J1 C0 IC MAN DXB 1400 0015+1 0 388
OC PC Y0 E0 R0 W0 M0 BC UC KC HC
QC LC TC VC GC XC
EK 332 J1 C0 IC OC PC DXB MNL 0335+1 1615+1 0 77W
Y0 E0 R0 W0 M0 BC UC KC HC QC LC
TC VC GC XC

EK332 is almost certainly overbooked.

EK 018 J 14APR 6 MANDXB HK1 1 1400 0015+1 388 E 0 M
EK 332 J 15APR 7 DXBMNL HK1 3 0335 1615 77W E 0 M

[capetonianm]

For what it’s worth, that flight has now opened up and is showing more availability on the DXB MNL

** EK – EMIRATES ** 0 SA 14APR 1400
21 EK 018 F1 A1 J1 C0 IC MAN DXB 1400 0015+1 0 388
OC PC Y1 E1 R1 W1 M1 BC UC KC HC
QC LC TC VC GC XC
EK 332 J1 C0 IC OC PC DXB MNL 0335+1 1615+1 0 77W
Y1 E1 R1 W1 M1 BC UC KC HC QC LC

[FDOS_UK]

Unfortunately, I don’t think it will be easy for the person to get any compensation.

Perhaps if she has a screenshot of the check in screen saying ‘cancelled’, she have a shout, but otherwise (a) the flights both operated and (b) she was not denied boarding (only could not check in online, which is different IMO), otherwise the airline are going to say ‘voluntary change’.

[MartynSinclair]

In this situation when re routing may be required, as in the DXB-MAN sector, if there was an issue with that sector and there is no alternative direct flight, if a via flight is available, which gets you to your destination earlier than the next direct flight… does the airline have to offer you that option?

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=862501]In this situation when re routing may be required, as in the DXB-MAN sector, if there was an issue with that sector and there is no alternative direct flight, if a via flight is available, which gets you to your destination earlier than the next direct flight… does the airline have to offer you that option?[/quote]

I don’t think so, so long as the next direct flight is the same day or the day after. It’s a bit of a grey area, as far as I am concerned and one where the business traveller is not protected very well, as our visits are often time critical.

The problem in this case is that the lady accepted a re-routing the next day and that would fall in line with the CAA expectations around the regulation, even if she can demonstrate it was involuntary.

[capetonianm]

The airline cannot reasonably expect someone, given only a few hours notice, to bring their flight forward by 7 hours.

They are unable in this case to offer a reasonable alternative, and accordingly the passenger will arrive at destination late enough to claim EU261.

Unable to check in online is as stated, not quite the same as denied boarding but it’s a grey area. As FDOS says, she should go to the airport tonight where she will either be denied boarding and thus able to claim unless the airline can reroute her to get to MNL within 4 hours of original ETA, or accepted for the flights booked in which case apart from the aggravation, there will have been no loss or inconvenience.

I see an interesting fight in the making. EK ride roughshod over passenger rights and EU rules, I’d love to see them lose now that there is a new ruling.

[AMcWhirter]

Indeed. It is an interesting case.

[LuganoPirate]

Slightly relevant, but I never check in online. Since my seat is reserved I know I’ll get it and then if there are any cancellation such as above, you have presented yourself at the airport in time so they cannot get away with any excuse for not giving comp. Only difference is you need to go to a desk to check in, but it’s not really a hassle and if you have bags anyway then no real hassle at all.

[FDOS_UK]

[quote quote=862503]The 14.00 flight would be impossible for her to make as she does not live close to Manchester so the agent has booked her on another flight tomorrow, meaning that she misses the first day of our meetings.[/quote]

capetonianm, I completely agree that the airline cannot ask a passenger to travel seven hours earlier, it is ludicrous, this is the tricky bit – she has already accepted a flight the next day, so she cannot go to the airport tonight, as she has no valid booking.

If the flights operated, then they were not cancelled, if she did not go to the airport, she cannot be denied boarding.

Can you see where I’m going with this?

[Author]

Posts