Emirates A380 Flies 13 Hours From Dubai To Dubai

I am in Auckland now. The airport is slowly drying out but the airport is closed until at least 12.00 noon Saturday 28th local time.

That’s a lot of fuel to burn!

A lucrative day for those passengers originating from the EU though! €600 compensation. Ka-ching!

AAL 35 last night diverted back to DFW after maybe 6 hours in flight

The EU law only guarantees accommodation and meals and the right to refund if you choose not to continue the journey. Compensation is not provided if an aircraft has to turn around because the airport is closed. That is hardly Emirates' fault...

I'm going to guess that airport closure due to flooding falls under "extraordinary circumstances".

Dubai is not in the EU. So a flight operated by a non eu carrier departing a non EU country to a non eu country isn’t covered. If you’re connecting from the EU via dxb it still doesn’t apply if it’s beyond the airline’s control. emirates isn’t responsible for the closure of AKL.

It seems like the airport flooding and closure should be the main story here, not a single flight that was affected.

Because AKL can't even compete with the Emirates' novelty shower and AYCE caviar.

Not at all, for two reasons

EU261 would apply only to a flight that originated in EU (for non EU carriers) and this one originated in Dubai (and there are no direct flights form EU to Auckland)

Even more important, it des not apply to delays / cancellations which our out of airlines control, and a flodded airport is definitely not in their control

So did AAL 35.

Prob the worst flooding I can recall in 50 yrs in Auckland. Had to pick up my wife from cancelled elton john concert and the were several land slips and lots of flooding. worst thing was going around a corner and see manhole covers popped from water pressure. check out www.nzherald.co.nz

I would presume that we are not talking about just one single flight being diverted. There must have been several more. on route and then being forced to turn back or divert to another airport (depending on fuel issues and pilot flight hours) Any information on those?

"People typically travel because they have somewhere to go (or so I’m told!)" -- Cracking up at this @Ben. Thanks for the laugh.

Surely divert flight to Sydney?

Logistics or not, the decision to fly back halfway the 14hr journey has to be re-thought again and again. The flight lands in Dubai at 1am Saturday, what time is it in akl?_--11am. The airport opens at 1230pm in Auckland, an hour difference. Very wrong decision to fly back to dubai. Solution would have been to make a techstop on Sydney, fuel and proceed to all land when airport is open.. simple.

Seems like they were only a few hours from Perth, and even closer to Jakarta or Denpasar. EK operates to all three of those cities, they all have a hotel or two. I’d really love to know the decision making process!

Emirates operate flights to Christchurch, 60 minutes from Auckland and A380 capable, so a diversion back to DXB doesn’t make sense

Simple, if at the time of making the desicion on how to proceed there was already information that the airport is definitely going to open at 12.30.

I actually lol'ed at that line.

I would have thought Perth would have been more suitable, assuming their local Perth staff could check if accomodation would be possible, A380 can land there, Emirates have staff there, and after a 24hr rest period for crew, continue on to Auckland?

I was thinking this same thing. Others have mentioned diversion points like Australia or Indonesia, but landing in a different country than the one you are bound for can cause problems with visas and immigration. I can't really think of many reasons why Christchurch wouldn't have been the best option. I guess maybe because EK isn't servicing CHC at this very moment (resuming in March) so they may not have the staff yet? Perhaps issues with crew timing out as well. I don't know the specific rules of crew rest but I have to assume one of the longest flights in the world would have reserve pilots rostered. Can resting onboard while the secondary crew rests count towards crew rest requirements?

"if I were booked in first class and wasn’t in a rush to get anywhere, I wouldn’t mind getting two ultra long haul Emirates first class flights"
That was totally my first thought, if I was in F I'd be like meh...more Dom please....if not that would suck

And they were on AA not EK, so realistically they suffered far more!

True, if not you'd have a plane-full of people stuck at Sydney (or even Melbourne) without the required electronic pre-clearance for Australia. The Kiwi passport holders and the crew (obviously) would be fine, but everyone else...

That’s why I have chosen to Trevel with emirates.they are class above

Air NZ were diverting some international flights to Christchurch. Peak holiday period here in NZ, its possible there is insufficient hotel accomodation available in CHC to also take in this EK flight.

Yes, PER, SYD, MEL or BNE would be the possibles, and all are EK ports - but finding 300+ hotel rooms and organising transfers would have been problematic.

I think the 300+ hotel rooms in CHC would have been the issue.

Wise decision. It cheaper than having to accommodate 500+ passengers even in India (which requires prior visas) to enter.

But EU261 would apply for a trip from EU via DXB to AKL (?).
(If it wouldn’t be for the weather)

We will see how the passengers fare on the airline.

Wrong. EU261/2004 does apply when starting your journey in EU member states, Switzerland, Iceland or Norway AND flying on 1 ticket. The compensation part probably does not apply. But the other rights (duty of care, right to be flown back to starting airport, full refund, rerouting, etc) do.

Christchurch was the best option, no visa issues, a 1.5hr internal flight up to Auckland the next day and lots of flights available or fly the A380 up the next day. Crew could have been replaced by an A380 crew dispatched from Dubai within a few hours. ChCh hotels still should have loads of rooms available post Covid quarantine finishing.

@Klaus

No it would not. EU261 applies on all EU carriers (irrelevant if the flight is within, from or to EU) and foreign carriers on flights from EU only (so not to EU)
It does not work for onward flights from third countries.

Prompt decision.making is crucial in such situations.
This was well handled.

Sorry for the passengers who could not reach their destinations as planned.

It is an upfront fatigue to add to idle time. me being ex swissair had to reach saudia for umra from Karachi via Zurich where air time use to be more than 14 hrs and dry idle in transit around 5 hr, I still enjoyed know why it is was free of cost.

EU261 would most likely apply for some of the passengers onboard, if they were flying on a ticket that originated in the EU and then connected in Dubai. However, the flooding would be outside the airline's control so it would not trigger EU261 in any case.

Sorry TomK but you have this totally wrong. EU261 does apply to a single itinerary originating in the EU. It does not matter if the connecting flight is operated by an non-EU airline in an non-EU country. This was tested in the ECJ at the start of 2022 and the judges confirmed EU261 does apply in this situation. The case in front of them concerned United Airlines and a flight from Brussels to San Jose (USA). The delayed flight was from Newark to San Jose, and United were found to be liable under EU261.

Yep or Wellington. To me that would have made more sense, but guess EK made the call it be cheaper overall to accommodate people in Dubai.

Wonder how people were credited for the loyalty program. If it's based on weather then it may be a while before the bad weather stops and it is cleaned up.

In hindsight, very right decision. The airport is still flooded and won't open for international departures until 7am Sunday 29th.

So had EK continued that flight on, the A380 would have been stranded in a flooded city for days

Me too

They could have diverted to Australia (Sydney/Melbourne) or nearby SEA countries (Singapore/Kuala Lumpur). Emirates has daily flights to these cities and there are plenty of hotel rooms.

Even if one passenger cannot enter that country without a visa, they cannot divert there.

Ah, yes, random people on the internet definitely know more about the airline and its expenses than the airline itself.

Well diverting to Singapore is the obvious choice distance and facility wise, but probably not very logical in this case since the flood impact might take days to resolve.

Are they no other airports in Australia to accommodate this aircraft?

It makes sense to me to turn back to destination

There is no blanket exception for "extraordinary circumstances" under EU261/2004, nor for issues "outside the airline's control". It is strict liability.

The exception exists for "extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken".

It does not specify that these reasonable measures needed to have been taken by the airline. If someone else could have taken a reasonable measure to avoid the extraordinary circumstance from occuring, then compensation is still due.

It is not unreasonable that someone should have designed an airport that would not flood like Auckland airport did. Ergo, all reasonable measures were not taken. Therefore, Emirates owes compensation to passengers who originated in the EU. Emirates can sue Auckland airport for reimbursement if they so desire, but they must pay the passengers.

Ka-ching!!

You do know that it’s possible to just by all the caviar you want and eat it at home for far less than the price of a first class ticket right?

You do know that it’s possible to just by all the caviar you want and eat it at home for far less than the price of a first class ticket right?

Airlines are insured for such events

Best decision to return to Dubai, reasons given by the airline is sufficient

Forgive my lack of knowledge, but there are so many questions like did NZ authorities have an opportunity to warn incoming flights before their departure? Could the flight not land elsewhere in NZ as an alternative given the circumstances? Would beat heading all the way back. Alternatively could the flight reach Australia if Australia could accommodate them temporarily? Or is there too much red tape and legal barriers?

Careful with your Ka-ching @Sean M.

Your argument means nothing is ever "extraordinary circumstances".

You remember Eyjafjallajökull? It is not unreasonable to expect an active volcano to erupt, ergo all reasonable measures were not taken.
Ka-ching!!

You know terrorists are out there. It is not unreasonable that someone should have designed a way to prevent an attack. (By invading Afghanistan?)
Ka-ching!!

If you know an act of god will delay your flight, it is not unreasonable that someone should have prayed to god, or made some tribute. Ergo you should get a new god?
Ka-ching!!

It is not unreasonable for NYC to have few more airports or design LHR to be more efficient. Ergo any delay from NYC or LHR could have been avoided.
Ka-ching!!

It is not unreasonable to expect snow storms in the winter. So delays in the winter should have been avoided. Ergo, all reasonable measures were not taken.
Ka-ching!!

If you already know the outcome, everything can be avoided.
Ka-ching!!
Ka-ching!!
Ka-ching!!

Now maybe could you provide some reference that EK did paid out to at least one passenger on this flight.
Ka-ching???

No they aren't.

This emergency came to the knowledge of EK at convenient phase of the flight- early enough before the fuel balance reached critical level to warrant a diversion to alternate airport. So the option of returning to DBX, given sufficient fuel, wa the best operational decision for wellbeing of passengers and aircraft.

@Eskimo - Now you are being ridiculous.

The test is "all reasonable measures". Whether something is foreseeable is not the test. The question is whether it is avoidable. There is no reasonable measure available presently to prevent volcanic eruption or snowstorms. Those would fall under the exceptions.

There are however reasonable measures to protect against terrorism. There are reasonable measures to avoid airport congestion (not least that airlines could simply schedule flights to less congested airports instead). Similarly there are means to avoid flooding of airports. Those would certainly fall under EU261/2004 and require payment of compensation.

@Sean M.

Ridiculous maybe, but I'm just trying to apply your logic on other events.

"foreseeable is not the test." / "whether it is avoidable."
How can you avoid something you can't see?

Also while you can't reasonably prevent volcanic eruption, you can always never route any flight near an active volcano. Just like avoiding Russia right now.

If you can 'reasonably' avoid flooding, I'm sure you can 'reasonably' avoid snowstorms.
And all those effected in Bangladesh last year was unreasonable.

Regardless, maybe could you provide some reference that EK did paid out to at least one passenger on this flight.
Ka-ching???

What about the visas? Even if 1 single passenger doesn’t have a visa for Australia or Indonesia, the plane can’t land. And I don’t think that emirates would be able to pay for 200+ hotel rooms. The cheaper, safer option is to go back to dxb since everyone has (at least) a travel visa if they stay in uae

And the fact that Auckland airport flooded makes it worse, since if they made a decision to land there, everyone would be drenched, if not, soaked! And the airport itself was closed due to flooding as well.

There is already legal precedence and regulations were tested in court for extreme natural events and in this case, for the Iceland volcanic eruption. This was deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance outside the control of the airlines and the compensation was not required to be paid.

The airlines however were still obligated for the "care" requirement of the regulations meaning accommodation, welfare, food etc was required to be provided for affected passengers however the finding also ruled that this is based on the specific circumstances of each case (ie. each passenger) and needs to be proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable.

So unlikely to be a "ka-ching" blanket compensation moment for the passengers but Emirates may have to provide accommodation, food and care for the passengers until the flight can be made which, the form and quantum of the care obligations depends on the individuals circumstances (ie. if a Dubai resident was travelling from EU to NZ it will be different to an EU resident as it would be hard to justify accommodation costs as a reasonable expense. Food, transport etc during the wait however would be easier to claim).

Aircrafts Divert all the time and visas are never considered during diversions. No decision is right or wrong.
But in this case was emirates thinking logistics and costs rather than disruption to passengers.
Imagine the passengers having to get back on a plane to commence the entire journey.
I could be wrong but a more practical alternative must be in place for future occurrences.

Yeah mate, you can't always prevent flooding. Particularly the kind experienced by Auckland recently... Sometimes it just rains more than any reasonable measure can deal with.

If you're out for compo in this situation, you are the problem.

And then what? What about passengers who can't enter Australia?

Why didn’t the Emirates flight divert to any major airport in Australia? It’s very short flightier from there yo Auckland.That would have been the very best option logistically .

The A380 cannot land in Wellington, the runway is not long enough.