Emirates claim tricky circumstance for cancellation am i covered? 9 March 2022 at 3:15PM in Flight delay compensation 6 replies 114 views

Shanks13

My flight was cancelled due to a baggage handler being killed on the ground. Emirates say it was out of their control but i have been sent an internal memo sent to heathrow staff which admits the staff member was asked to help due to being short staffed and wasn't qualified or been trained to be doing the job

onashoestring

How tragic .

If your flight is cancelled you have the legal right to either:

• a full refund or 
• a replacement flight to get you to your destination

If you have to wait long enough for your replacement flight, the airline legally has to help you with things you need. This includes: food and drink, access to phone calls and emails, accommodation if you’re delayed overnight, as well as journeys between the airport and the hotel.

Any additional compensation to the above is only payable if the airline is responsible for the cancellation. Emirates are not responsible for baggage handlers - they are employed by Heathrow airport . So you wouldn’t be entitled to compensation from Emirates .

You may be able to claim something from your travel insurance . 

Westin

A very tragic accident.

It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates ground handler at LHR - DNATA.

Onashoestring lays down the position and gave good advice. 

Sandtree

Westin said:

A very tragic accident.

It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates ground handler at LHR - DNATA.

Onashoestring lays down the position and gave good advice. 

Not really @westin as @onashoestring stated the reason Emirates isn't responsible is because he was employed by Heathrow and not Emirates but you are reporting he was employed by Emirates

A quick google seems to show its more complicated as he was an employee of Dnata who are contracted to Heathrow however Dnata is part of the Emirates Group... I suspect there is sufficient separation that @onashoestring's statement still holds true and its your own post that is incorrect in stating he was an Emirates employee

bagand96

onashoestring said:

How tragic .

If your flight is cancelled you have the legal right to either:

• a full refund or 
• a replacement flight to get you to your destination

If you have to wait long enough for your replacement flight, the airline legally has to help you with things you need. This includes: food and drink, access to phone calls and emails, accommodation if you’re delayed overnight, as well as journeys between the airport and the hotel.

Any additional compensation to the above is only payable if the airline is responsible for the cancellation. Emirates are not responsible for baggage handlers - they are employed by Heathrow airport . So you wouldn’t be entitled to compensation from Emirates .

You may be able to claim something from your travel insurance . 

Unless things are done differently at Heathrow, baggage handling staff are employed by either the airline or by ground handling agents. And the airline choose and contract their ground handling agents.

I could be wrong but I think in the past people have successfully claimed EC261 compensation based on ground handling delays/issues on the basis that they are contracted by the airline so effectively under the airline's control.

That said I'm not sure in this case you'd have a valid claim. The death of a member of staff by a tragic accident is surely an extraordinary circumstance. The airline would have no choice but to cancel the flight whilst the circumstances were investigated. 

Intrugued how you've got hold of an internal staff memo with such detail.

A very sad event. 

Westin

Sandtree said:

Westin said:

A very tragic accident.

It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates ground handler at LHR - DNATA.

Onashoestring lays down the position and gave good advice. 

Not really @westin as @onashoestring stated the reason Emirates isn't responsible is because he was employed by Heathrow and not Emirates but you are reporting he was employed by Emirates

A quick google seems to show its more complicated as he was an employee of Dnata who are contracted to Heathrow however Dnata is part of the Emirates Group... I suspect there is sufficient separation that @onashoestring's statement still holds true and its your own post that is incorrect in stating he was an Emirates employee

@Sandtree  I have not said he was an Emirates Airline employee. The poor gentleman was employed by Dnata. I am however aware of the ownership and companies within Emirates group.

This is a terrible, terrible accident. An exceptional circumstance for the flight cancellation. Passenger welfare taken care of. Hopefully people won’t look to take advantage of this situation.

Sandtree

Westin said:

Sandtree said:

Westin said:

A very tragic accident.

It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates ground handler at LHR - DNATA.

Onashoestring lays down the position and gave good advice. 

Not really @westin as @onashoestring stated the reason Emirates isn't responsible is because he was employed by Heathrow and not Emirates but you are reporting he was employed by Emirates

A quick google seems to show its more complicated as he was an employee of Dnata who are contracted to Heathrow however Dnata is part of the Emirates Group... I suspect there is sufficient separation that @onashoestring's statement still holds true and its your own post that is incorrect in stating he was an Emirates employee

@Sandtree  I have not said he was an Emirates Airline employee. The poor gentleman was employed by Dnata. I am however aware of the ownership and companies within Emirates group.

This is a terrible, terrible accident. An exceptional circumstance for the flight cancellation. Passenger welfare taken care of. Hopefully people won’t look to take advantage of this situation.

Apologies @Westin, I misread what you said and somehow inserted an "as"

Read:
It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates as ground handler at LHR

Actual:
It was a 70 year old man employed by Emirates ground handler at LHR

Not sure the missing ' is a sufficient excuse