Denied boarding on medical grounds - Qatar Airways

Pollycat

peachyprice wrote: »

OP isn't asking about EU regs. They're asking if it's correct that they should have had to pay another $2000 to re-book when they were offloaded for medical reasons, not no-shows as the airline is claiming. I'm not sure why you've turned this in to an EU reg discussion.

I'm not sure why you think I've turned this in to an EU reg discussion.
Below are my first 2 posts on this thread.

I am - or at least I think I am - pretty clear that EU regs don't apply:

Pollycat wrote: »

As this is a UK website, and the flight wasn't from or to an EU country, the OP might be better asking the question on the Air Travel board of Tripadvisor.
Some very savvy travellers post on there.

Pollycat wrote: »

But your flight (Perth to Doha) didn't originate or land in any EU country.

Have you thought about this suggestion?

You might find it was pollypenny who brought an EU destination (London) into the discussion.

pollypenny

Pollycat wrote: »

Why is it harsh?
It's a fact.
The flight was from Perth to Doha.

I don't know if it makes a difference that the final destination was in the EU.
That's why I suggested that the OP ask on Tripadvisor - partly in case EU regulations apply and if not, what his rights are.
Was that harsh too?

Do you know if EU regulations apply in this situation?
If you do know that they do, why not advise the OP instead of nit-picking my post?
The OP has had no definitive answer to his question about no-show policy. He's been asked some questions, he's had 'probably not' and 'I guess' and 'might', not to mention being told where he went wrong.
Perhaps you can buck the trend and offer definitive advice...

The OP seems to have been treated harshly by the airline, do,I have sympathy.

You can tell a parent with a 2year old 'tough' if you wish.

Pollycat

pollypenny wrote: »

The OP seems to have been treated harshly by the airline, do,I have sympathy.

You can tell a parent with a 2year old 'tough' if you wish.

I'm not exactly sure what your first sentence means.

My opinion is that the OP has been treated harshly by the airline.
I wasn't telling anyone 'tough'.
I was stating a fact.

I think the OP will get better advice from a forum that is dedicated to air travel, with posters who are knowledgeable about IDB and specifically how Qatar should deal with passengers.

alanrowell

Booboolola wrote: »

Insurance company had never heard of this happening before for such a small thing.

You must have a lousy insurance company - a sick 2 yr old on what would have been a 12 hour flight with limited diversion options is not a "small thing".

stevie11

Very unfortunate for the OP and family and I am sure very distressing at the time.

I doubt whether this falls under the EU regs as it didn't happen in an EU country and wasn't an EU airline.

Good advice further up maybe the OP should post on the Qatar forum on Flyertalk. The frequent flyers are usually helpful and knowledgeable on there.

Good luck.

Pollycat

Booboolola wrote: »

No boarding passes as they ripped them up. Just heard that the insurance will only cover me and my son.

I find this very odd.

TadleyBaggie

Pollycat wrote: »

I find this very odd.

Presumably their position is that the rest of the party could have still travelled, just leaving one adult to look after the sick child.

Nick_C

No need for OP to go to Trip Advisor. There are plenty of people on these forums who can answer her questions.

The EU Denied Boarding rules are a red herring. OP was travelling into the EU on a non EU carrier, so no EU rules apply.

If this had been BA, then OP would have had the protection of EU261/2004. However, the circumstances she describes do not constitute denied boarding under the EU Regulation.

To quote from EU guidance on the Regulation:-

"In accordance with Article 2(j) of the Regulation, !!!8216;denied boarding!!!8217; does not cover a situation where there are reasonable grounds for refusing to carry passengers on a flight even though they presented themselves on time for the flight, such as for reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation. However, the concept of !!!8216;denied boarding!!!8217; relates not only to cases of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016XC0615%2801%29

IMO the airline acted reasonably. Vomiting could be a sign of a serious medical condition requiring urgent treatment (such as meningitis), or a sign of an infectious disease that could spread to other passengers in the 11 hours from Perth to Doha. If your son's condition had worsened two and a half hours into the flight, the nearest decent hospital could have been in Jakarta which would have taken a further two and a half hours. The airline would have been faced with huge costs for diverting, and hundreds of fellow passengers would have been affected.

If you were travelling with your partner and another child, then they should have continued their journey while you and the sick child stayed in Perth. Insurance Companies usually expect you to mitigate your losses.

You bought a cheap ticket that wasn't fully flexible.

Sorry for your experiences, but your only hope is to appeal to Qatar's goodwill, explain the insurance won't cover the loss, and plead with them to refund the extra charges.

wolvoman

TadleyBaggie wrote: »

Presumably their position is that the rest of the party could have still travelled, just leaving one adult to look after the sick child.

A really important lesson here for everyone when it comes to insurance. Any insurance, whether home, car, travel etc.

The onus is on the insured to mitigate losses as far as possible. In the case of a family travelling, then an obvious one is to split the party.

In this instance of one sick child, then it only needs one parent/adult to remain behind to care for them. Perhaps if it was 2 sick children then there'd be more justification for 2 parents to remain behind.

It obviously goes against normal family instincts to split the group, but it should be borne in mind.

If travelling from home then the most confident traveller should travel. If returning to home then the most confident traveller should remain.

happyandcontented

I think that what each company considers reasonable as mitigating losses should be clearly explained in the policy documents. I wouldn't mind staying behind on a short haul flight, but I wouldn't split the family for either a long haul or one with an onward connection.