Middle East Airspace Diversions/Cancellations

[IrishPete]

You might as well get all your news of facebook or Fantail wrappers. Recently Al Jazerra admitted paying foreign news services to publish untrue news regarding tghe middle east.

Well if they've admitted publishing fake news that makes them more honest than many other sources. The BBC broadcast some bizarre allegations from a supporter of the current USA regime, about Iran and Venezuela (about the topic of this thread), and completely unchallenged to him or in the subsequent discussion of the interview between two of their own staff. A cursory Google to find out who he was, quickly found other people outraged by the platform he was given (the first result was a Twix post by a Cambridge University Professor of American History).

 

[Seat0B]

Arghhhhhhh. Thank goodness for Plan B.

 

[RooFlyer]

I’ve settled my plan B. Here.

 

[IrishPete]

9 January or 9 March? Assuming you mean 9 March.

As mentioned previously, your own rebooking was unnecessary and would have been fully covered under EU261 ex DUB, all the way to Canberra in business class.

As QR has cancelled the flight, that triggers the duty of care (for meals and accommodation if necessary) and for re-rerouting on another carrier to you final destination.

Month fixed, thanks. I'm clearly not at all stressed by this (and staying with my 92yo mother with dementia, who I'm simultaneously trying to get more care for, as she lives alone).

 

[IrishPete]

Although by doing it himself @IrishPete found PE to SIN and then ScootBiz to SYD instead of his original Y all the way. As QR only need to rebook in the original fare class I would say that is a win.

Certainty and an upgrade!

It's probably $3500 out of pocket and rising, just for the transport costs. I'm not incurring any significant accommodation costs.

Much as I'd like Qatar to pay, not being able to actually communicate with them makes that somewhat difficult. Perhaps I'll chase them after I get back to Australia. it does seem unfair for the EU to require the airline to pay, but allow travel insurers off the hook.

 

[serfty]

It's probably $3500 out of pocket and rising, just for the transport costs. I'm not incurring any significant accommodation costs.

Much as I'd like Qatar to pay, not being able to actually communicate with them makes that somewhat difficult. Perhaps I'll chase them after I get back to Australia. it does seem unfair for the EU to require the airline to pay, but allow travel insurers off the hook.

Never fear, Travel insurers generally do identify disruptions where EU/UK 261/2006 may apply and put to onus on the airlines to cough up where mandated.

 

[exLXCXFF]

I am not sure whether reported before but all EK diversions a couple of hours ago led to certainly some unexpected visitors with EK4 diverting to Al Ain air base — not sure how often they see an A380 and how people disembark there.

And here seems to be the reason why the diversions happened: Watch: Iranian drone drone hits Dubai International Airport

that was pretty close to hit the Concurse A

 

[Melburnian1]

Attention passengers!
Due to imminent threat and missles near DXB, all Emirates services have now been suspended until further notice.
View attachment 499802

Clearly situation remains volatile.

I read that a couple of hours ago, but 'The Australian' is now reporting DXB airport has reopened.

A surprise to have such change so quickly. Like all of us, I weigh risk v reward but this sudden change doesn't inspire confidence.

 

[PineappleSkip]

that was pretty close to hit the Concurse A

Yes, it's just off the north end of Concourse A

Al Jazeera has noted that a drone attack against Qatar was released immediately after the Iranian Interim Presidents statement.

Unpacking Iranian president’s statement​

As we have just reported, Qatar said it thwarted a missile attack minutes after Iranian media released a pre-recorded video of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian saying that neighbouring countries would no longer be targeted if no attacks originated from their soil.

Our colleague Resul Serdar, who has extensively covered Iranian politics, has offered some context to better understand the situation:

“Political figures in Iran are responsible on running state affairs and ‘non-strategic’ affairs. But when it comes to strategic affairs, such as the country’s foreign and security policies, politicians don’t have a say, including the president who according to the constitution is the number two in charge – this is a very well know fact in Iran,” Serdar said.

The centre of power lies with the office of the Supreme Leader and with the IRGC, even during peace time. Now that the country faces what it sees as a war of survival, Pezeshkian is likely not in a position to stop any attacks as “the IRGC is now in charge fully”.

“They will decide whether to attack or not,” Resul said, adding that the new Revolutionary Guards’ chief, Ahmad Vahidi, is considered one of the “most radical commanders” of the group since its foundation.

“I don’t think Pezeshkian or other politicians will have any influence when it comes to security politics,” he added.

 

[33kft]

I understand that Iran is going to stop sending missiles/drones over to their neighbours (unless attacked from there) according to the interim Iran President

Any minute now?

Does seem to confirm the earlier suggestions that central control of Iranian military doesn't really exist and any promises made would be best taken with a large dose of salt

 

[clifford]

that was pretty close to hit the Concurse A

Just be thankful it didn't damage the runways.

 

[IrishPete]

Never fear, Travel insurers generally do identify disruptions where EU/UK 261/2006 may apply and put to onus on the airlines to cough up where mandated.

My understanding is that travel insurances see armed conflict and wash their hands of it.

 

[serfty]

My understanding is that travel insurances see armed conflict and wash their hands of it.

One or the other - as long as they avoid having to pay.

 

[Melburnian1]

My understanding is that travel insurances see armed conflict and wash their hands of it.

Yes, most (or all?) insurers for the Australian market believe that armed conflict would push up the cost of premiums by a big amount were it included under policies.

 

[Pushka]

I’m surprised the ABC article by Laura Tingle hasn’t been amended as her claim about fighter escorts has been widely debunked. She said it as a matter of fact with no qualification or sources mentioned. Surely that falls below their editorial standard?

Not surprised tbh.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It's probably $3500 out of pocket and rising, just for the transport costs. I'm not incurring any significant accommodation costs.

Much as I'd like Qatar to pay, not being able to actually communicate with them makes that somewhat difficult. Perhaps I'll chase them after I get back to Australia. it does seem unfair for the EU to require the airline to pay, but allow travel insurers off the hook.

The airlines operating to the EU and UK factor in the price of relevant legislation including 261. It’s no different to companies doing business in Australia being subject to Australian Consumer Law.

Insurers are very clear in their policies… it does not cover war.

You can probably get bespoke insurances that cover war, but the premiums would likely be beyond what most of us are willing to pay.

It might be worth following up Qatar once you return to get your alternative arrangements paid - or at least partly paid. I’d base this on two grounds:

(1) Qatar’s travel alert page makes no mention of your rights under EU261. They only offer a change of dates or a refund.
(2) Difficulty getting hold of QR to clarify your situation. And had you known you were entitled to rerouting you may have persisted in your attempts to reach them instead of focusing on other plans.

Their travel alert page for Ireland is here: https://www.qatarairways.com/en-ie/travel-alerts.html I would take screenshots of the booking assistance advice of 5 March.

It really depends how QR is going to play this. If they play nicely you’re just getting what they would have paid out anyway (no loss to them). If they decide not to go down that route the argument would likely be that in cancelling and accepting a refund, that ends their obligations under 261.

However, I think their lack of consumer rights information on the booking assistance page could work in your favour and is a compelling argument.

 

[prozac]

Not surprised tbh.

She's a protected species.