Middle East Airspace Diversions/Cancellations

[prozac]

That's sound advice and basically what I'm doing.

I have an EY J ticket to MXP in a couple of weeks time and have decided not to fly it at all. Too many risks IMO.

I have decided to stay in Oz for the time being and leave any International trips for at least a couple of months to see how it all pans out. So I have booked a week just before Easter in a nice apartment on the Gold Coast for a bit of R&R, and I'm actually quite looking forward to it. Hopefully very little stress at all.

I'll just wait to see if my EY ticket becomes fully refundable, but if not, I'll cancel it anyway and wear the cost.

I am wondering about ME backlash in EU. Could pay to stay away from the cities imo.

 

[jase05]

I am wondering about ME backlash in EU. Could pay to stay away from the cities imo.

Not concerned at all.
Australia is just as big of a target so I’m not going to change my life for it

 

[Quickstatus]

I wonder, if from Australia, the ‘do not travel’ means ACL could somehow kick in?

A Do not travel" is only ever an advisory. If a traveller books and or travels to or through a DNT region while the Level 4 advisory is active, why would that traveller have additional claim under Australian Consumer Law?

I think for those who booked prior to the ME erupting or prior to a Level 4 advisory, , I think it is reasonable to get a refund under ACL provided the travel originated in Australia and is booked in Australia. How you get a refund from airlines under ACL is always going to be difficult

ACCC information regarding travel delays and cancellation

.....

 

[daft009]

I saw the 6am SYD to DXB Emirates A380 fly over me this morning during my jog.. was good to see

 

[MEL_Traveller]

A Do not travel" is only ever an advisory. If a traveller books and or travels to or through a DNT region while the Level 4 advisory is active, why would that traveller have additional claim under Australian Consumer Law?

I think for those who booked prior to the ME erupting or prior to a Level 4 advisory, , I think it is reasonable to get a refund under ACL provided the travel originated in Australia and is booked in Australia. How you get a refund from airlines under ACL is always going to be difficult

ACCC information regarding travel delays and cancellation

.....

Your second sentence is the point I’m making. The question was whether a passenger would have to accept a flight or re-route via DOH if a DNT was in place.

I am suggesting ACL could kick in for a full refund as the flight may not be fit for purpose.

There is no ‘additional claim’ under ACL, just airlines might seek to view the DNT as advisory. I’m not sure if ACL would overrule that thought by the airline.

 

[Quickstatus]

just airlines might seek to view the DNT as advisory

But it is only an advisory. Have airlines only provided a reroute option and not a refund option during this conflict/war?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But it is only an advisory. Have airlines only provided a reroute option and not a refund option during this conflict/war?

This is when they restart flying. Which airlines are now, despite a DNT.

Down the track there may be a time when refunds aren’t being offered, rather the airline is expecting you to fly.

It doesn’t matter if the DNT is advisory… travel insurance won’t cover you.

I’d argue there is a reasonable expectation that an airline flight can be covered by travel insurance. If it cannot be covered, the product is no longer fit for purport.

Against, this is just a hypothetical for a future time if that situation arose, which was the gist of the initial post: ‘if Australia still has a DNT in place, will Qatar try to fly me through Doha?’

 

[Quickstatus]

if Australia still has a DNT in place, will Qatar try to fly me through Doha?’

It is doing it now, with the option of changes or refund - entirely within ACL rules.

Hypothetically, it could remove the option of refund down the track. If that comes to pass, then the traveller could put in a claim under ACL.
The only problem with ACL is that the traveller has to fight their own battles first

 

[MEL_Traveller]

It is doing it now, with the option of changes or refund - entirely within ACL rules.

Hypothetically, it could remove the option of refund down the track. If that comes to pass, then the traveller could put in a claim under ACL.
The only problem with ACL is that the traveller has to fight their own battles first

Agree the ACL route might not be easy, but the big advantage a consumer would have here is the media… expecting granny and gramps to fly through the gulf with no travel insurance? I suspect the A Current Affair to be on that one PDQ.

 

[elanshin]

It is doing it now, with the option of changes or refund - entirely within ACL rules.

Hypothetically, it could remove the option of refund down the track. If that comes to pass, then the traveller could put in a claim under ACL.
The only problem with ACL is that the traveller has to fight their own battles first

This is when they restart flying. Which airlines are now, despite a DNT.

Down the track there may be a time when refunds aren’t being offered, rather the airline is expecting you to fly.

It doesn’t matter if the DNT is advisory… travel insurance won’t cover you.

I’d argue there is a reasonable expectation that an airline flight can be covered by travel insurance. If it cannot be covered, the product is no longer fit for purport.

Against, this is just a hypothetical for a future time if that situation arose, which was the gist of the initial post: ‘if Australia still has a DNT in place, will Qatar try to fly me through Doha?’

I dont think there's much point in debating this over AFF. This sort of thing is what courts are designed for and when the situation happens and a court needs to be involved, that's their job.

 

[Quickstatus]

I dont think there's much point in debating this over AFF.

Why not? We discuss lots of subjects just like this one...
In relation to this, how would you get the Court to be involved?.

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Just a reminder that the ACCC itself cannot provide individuals with a remedy for alleged breaches of the Consumer Law. The ACCC might review/investigate and could eventually fine an airline for breaches, but that still doesn't help the pax. The ACCC is inundated with complaints daily --- at least some of which are legitimate and even most of those still go nowhere given limited resources and other priorities at play --- and my experience is most companies don't tremble in their boots at the threat of a complaint to the ACCC being made. I wouldn't be holding my breath for much to come from this hypothetical.

Thus, a pax seeking a remedy for a breach of the ACL would need to go to Court via NCAT, VCAT, whatever and make their case --- and if they want want to do so with help, they'll have to pay a lawyer for it which increases the risk/cost if they lose. In my view it's not a clear-cut case. Filing a case might be enough to prompt an airline to settle with an ad hoc to avoid having to bother, but they might also be hesitant with that to avoid opening the floodgates if word spreads.

----

The reality is no one knows how long (or not) this will go on. It may not seem likely, but things could conceivably snap back to reality much faster than one might imagine right now. That leaves pax in a position where they have to make their own risk assessment in terms of what - if anything - they want to do now to plan ahead. Some would happily fly via DOH tomorrow if it reopened; others don't want to go near it ever again. If operations resume and the day of travel arrives but we still see do-not-travel advisories and travel insurance restrictions lagging behind, people might have to start making choices and own them.

If I were Emirates/Qatar/Etihad in that scenario, you can bet I'd be arguing that the AU government's "recommended" advisory or travel insurers' refusal to provide cover are out of my control and that I am providing a service that is fit-for-purpose and provided with the required care and skill to keep pax safe. People fly to places their governments advise against all the time, and many without travel insurance; if I'm the airline, I'm citing all of that as justification why pax can't rely on those reasons alone to voluntarily refuse travel and still demand a refund based on their own risk assessment. (Not saying I endorse this position or that it's without counterpoint; it's simply the position I would make if I were them to represent this isn't black-and-white.)

 

[FlyingKangaroo]

Here is the most fulsome info I've seen so far re: Etihad's attempts to restart operations for the next week: Etihad 13-19MAR26 Interim Operations — AeroRoutes. Certainly a big improvement over the last few days, but still looks like just a fraction (<50%, at least) of normal operations.

Meanwhile Qatar remains in its loop of copy-and-pasting the same message on X to drip-feed continued suspension day-by-day, though slowly adding very limited flights.

Latest update:

 

[Hunter4vr]

Looks like SQ is cancelling their flights to/from DXB for the rest of the month, my flight on the 27th of March has been cancelled today. Clearly other airlines are a bit more risk averse compared to the middle eastern carriers.

 

[Quickstatus]

Clearly other airlines are a bit more risk averse compared to the middle eastern carriers.

Im not sure
Maybe forward bookings to /from the ME have dropped off.

 

[Scash]

Hi all, I have a QF reward booking on EK409 MEL-DXB on the 19 March and then a revenue booking on EK109 DXB-LCA as my son is getting married in Cyprus. I have booked back up flights via HKG but was wondering a few things.

EK409 has not been flying, however I see EK407 has. There are reward seats available on EK407 and I can cancel my existing booking and re book on this flight, however my TA said that Emirates is only taking passengers who are repatriating back home, and not passengers who are just travelling.

Does anyone know if this is correct or if i would be able to board if I have a confirmed ticket (assuming EK407 is still operating).

Thank you.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hi all, I have a QF reward booking on EK409 MEL-DXB on the 19 March and then a revenue booking on EK109 DXB-LCA as my son is getting married in Cyprus. I have booked back up flights via HKG but was wondering a few things.

EK409 has not been flying, however I see EK407 has. There are reward seats available on EK407 and I can cancel my existing booking and re book on this flight, however my TA said that Emirates is only taking passengers who are repatriating back home, and not passengers who are just travelling.

Does anyone know if this is correct or if i would be able to board if I have a confirmed ticket (assuming EK407 is still operating).

Thank you.

According to google the focus is repatriation, but they are also carrying limited numbers of regular pax.You could call them.

 

[Quickstatus]

my TA said that Emirates is only taking passengers who are repatriating back home, and not passengers who are just travelling.

Does not sound right when you can currently book flights on the EK website.
Your entire flights may be dependant on wether the LCA sector operates. You might find that EK wont accept you for the outbound when the outbound from MEL is operating but not the LCA flight.