Middle East Airspace Diversions/Cancellations

[2tall4Y]

A couple of days after posting the above, I noticed in Manage Booking that one our inbound flights (EK44 FRA-DXB on 24 July) had been cancelled and received an email from Emirates yesterday with proposed alternative flights.

I rang Emirates this morning and despite the warning about higher than usual call volumes, I got through to a rep straight away. The first rep had to transfer me through to the disruptions team but that only took about a minute, and then my eligibility for a full refund was quickly confirmed and I was asked to complete the online form at www.emirates.com/refund to get the refund processed. I received a confirmation email shortly after submitting the refund form and the booking has already disappeared from the Emirates app.

I am positively surprised how quick and easy the process was. I will follow up here with a data point on how long it takes to actually receive the refund.

Closing the loop on my recent Emirates refund experience.

After requesting the refund on Monday, I received an email to say it had been processed early Wednesday morning and the money hit the credit card overnight.

Pretty happy with how it all played out, given Emirates told me the refund could take up 15 business days.

 

[pauldab]

I had noticed a few of those - especially those linked to credit cards,

Yep, same underwriter (Allianz) on my complimentary insurance exclude "Do Not Travel" and "Reconsider Your Need to Travel" countries but purchasing a plan from them direct only excludes countries marked "Do Not Travel".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yep, same underwriter (Allianz) on my complimentary insurance exclude "Do Not Travel" and "Reconsider Your Need to Travel" countries but purchasing a plan from them direct only excludes countries marked "Do Not Travel".

Yeah it’s interesting.

My ANZ CC has the same purported exclusion for ‘reconsider your need’… but it’s phrased as follows:

[excluded if] you not following an advice or warning that a reasonable person would have been aware of:​

- by the Australian government (when a ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ or ‘Do not travel’ alert is in place), which can be found on www.smartraveller.gov.au;​

‘Do not travel’ doesn’t leave much room for discussion. But ‘reconsider your need to travel’ perhaps does?

It just says ‘you not following the advice’ will exclude cover. But if you *did* follow the advice… ie you *did* reconsider your need to travel, and given all the other information at hand it was deemed safe… I reckon there’s wriggle room there.

And if they cover it on a paid policy but not a complimentary one?

Food for thought.

 

[pauldab]

Yeah it’s interesting.

My ANZ CC has the same purported exclusion for ‘reconsider your need’… but it’s phrased as follows:

[excluded if] you not following an advice or warning that a reasonable person would have been aware of:​

- by the Australian government (when a ‘Reconsider your need to travel’ or ‘Do not travel’ alert is in place), which can be found on www.smartraveller.gov.au;​

‘Do not travel’ doesn’t leave much room for discussion. But ‘reconsider your need to travel’ perhaps does?

It just says ‘you not following the advice’ will exclude cover. But if you *did* follow the advice… ie you *did* reconsider your need to travel, and given all the other information at hand it was deemed safe… I reckon there’s wriggle room there.

And if they cover it on a paid policy but not a complimentary one?

Food for thought.

I have ANZ and HSBC cards and they are both underwritten by Allianz, the wording is the same, but you'll be in for a battle trying to prove this train of thought.

The way I see it, depending on your itinerary you don't specifically need to declare stopover/transit countries and as travel warnings have been downgraded it's worth purchasing the insurance to have proper coverage for a trip on a ME hub carrier.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have ANZ and HSBC cards and they are both underwritten by Allianz, the wording is the same, but you'll be in for a battle trying to prove this train of thought.

The way I see it, depending on your itinerary you don't specifically need to declare stopover/transit countries and as travel warnings have been downgraded it's worth purchasing the insurance to have proper coverage for a trip on a ME hub carrier.

Or, for an airside transit, self insuring. Unless you think you’re going to have a medical incident during transit… in which case it could be excluded anyway as a potential pre-existing condition

 

[transpactraveller]

The UK has removed all travel warnings to the UAE and Qatar now, I wonder if Australia will follow.

 

[Seat0B]

After reading this info from Covermore linked by my preferred insurer Easy Travel, my interpretation is:

1. There are no issues for cover to the UAE now it is “reconsider your need to travel”.
2. If it goes back to “do not travel” they will deny a claim related to war activities, but should you be rear ended at traffic lights after buying groceries, you would be covered for medical costs.

What do you think oh hive mind? Have I correctly understood this?

 

[Melburnian1]

Your interpretation seems sound.

 

[equus]

2. If it goes back to “do not travel” they will deny a claim related to war activities, but should you be rear ended at traffic lights after buying groceries, you would be covered for medical costs.

Whilst that rationale seems sound, the only gotcha might be what happens if the costs of handling or the resolution are impacted by the "Do Not Travel" part. If medical treatment becomes more expensive due to ongoing issues, or it is not possible to repatriate due to lack of flights, might the insurer then consider that the nature of the claim (increased costs thereof) does indeed directly relate to the travel warnng?

 

[Seat0B]

thanks @Melburnian1 and @equus for the prompt and helpful replies. I've been off researching the PDS and it has clarified a few things quite well I think:

They will exclude:
"claims directly arising from You not following an advice or warning:
a) of a “Do not travel” advice issued by the Australian Government on the smartraveller.gov.au website (or the equivalent authority responsible
in Your country of residence for setting advisories for citizens and/or residents); or
b) published in the mass media;
and the subject of the advice or warning is related to the nature of Your claim.
This exclusion does not apply to any events which are independent or unrelated to the reason for the warning" (my bolding)
I think the bolded part gives me what I need for a family visit to UAE - cover for run of the mill medical expenses will be offered even if it back to DNT, but no cover for acts of war.

I also looked at "reconsider need to travel" and the only thing they are declining for that is guaranteed "emergency assistance" because for example airspace may be closed so medical evacuation not possible. They only say "may not be able to provide" so not even a flat refusal. This is a risk I am willing to accept.

"If Your trip involves travel to a country or part of a country the Australian Government on the smartraveller.gov.au website* has issued a “Reconsider your need to travel” or “Do not travel” advice or warning, We may not be able to provide You with emergency assistance in that country. For example, in a case where You travel to a war zone the airspace may be closed which may prevent Us from arranging emergency repatriation for a covered claim. This condition applies regardless of whether Your claim relates to the warning."

And yes I note your comment @equus about increased cost of medical maybe being an issue that makes it not "independent or unrelated" but the PDS wording talks about the event being independent of the reason for the warning, so I think that event means the incident itself. Event is not a defined term in the PDS, so presumably ordinary meaning of the word applies? So I read this as if I have a heart attack or an unexpected illness or a general car accident, these would covered as it they independent of war. If I have a heart attack or a car accident fleeing a bomb or during a bombing, or a car accident by falling into a bomb crater, or my car is hit by a bomb, not covered as directly related to the reason for the warning.
As I am very motivated to still take this trip to see family (a new grandchild is involved), I think I will just have to wear the risk that they may try to refuse to pay if costs are up.