An Emirates Business Class passenger has retaliated against the airline, winning thousands of dollars in compensation and even taking the CEO to court after his complaints about his sad-looking seats were dismissed and ignored.
Kiwi surgeon Mark Morgan, 57, took the airline to the New Zealand Dispute Tribunal and was awarded $12,600 after the court found he and his and his wife’s sad business class experience from Auckland to London last August was nothing like what the airline had advertised.
His David and Goliath-esque battle went on to make headlines around the world.
Now he has revealed to Daily Mail Australia why he was so driven to continue the arduous process of seeking compensation – and has offered advice to other passengers who feel they have also been duped by airlines.
Dr. Morgan also said his case may have already set the stage for a flurry of similar claims after other passengers reached out seeking advice.
Mark Morgan claimed that reality fell short of expectation and that he and his wife were forced to sit on ‘worn’ chairs
Dr. Morgan was paid $12,600 after claiming his business class experience did not live up to the airline’s ad
“I was driven by a sense of unfairness,” he told Daily Mail Australia.
“Whether or not I won, I just wanted to use some of the CEO’s time, because I knew it had to be him representing Emirates at the tribunal, even if it was only through a conference call.
The Kiwi doctor requested that his face not be revealed
“To have the satisfaction of saying to the person involved that this is fucking unacceptable, it pissed me off and you are wrong.
‘Just being able to say that – whether I had won or lost – was enough. It wasn’t about the amount of compensation, that money was gone, as far as I’m concerned.’
Dr. Morgan’s concerns began when his wife traveled to London a week before him.
She had flown an older aircraft than the updated Boeing 777-300 seen in advertisements aimed at New Zealand travelers.
“I was assured before I flew that they would use the updated version of the aircraft,” he said.
However, on the day of his flight, the ground crew told him they would be flying the older version of the 777.
“I asked them if they would upgrade me because as far as I’m concerned I booked a flight with an upgraded cabin and a flat seat – all those things you see on their website that promote it as the best thing since the bread split,” said he.
“I knew it wasn’t—and they knew it too. The ground staff said they had received a lot of complaints – they had lodged protests at their headquarters in Dubai, but hadn’t gotten anywhere.’
Emirates’ online advertising for their new Boeing 777 aircraft – which Mr Morgan successfully argued – was misleading as it was not available to passengers flying from New Zealand
Dr. Morgan and his wife were unhappy with the business class seats as they did not recline to lie flat and were “worn out” and had fewer cushions than the seats shown in Emirates’ advertisements.
There was also no minibar, internet connection or USB ports and the entertainment system was ‘faulty’ due to its age.
“Why are they using the most obsolete aircraft in their fleet for the longest journey on the Emirates route?” asked Dr Morgan.
“It is a total of 19 hours from Auckland to Dubai and they have the best aircraft in their fleet.
“All over the world, they only have 10 out of 130 or 140 planes that have been upgraded to the 777 plane. Nearly 90 percent of people won’t see the ads they use around the world to showcase that improved cab.”
Dispute Tribunal Referee Laura Mueller said: ‘The advertising of a service that Emirates knew was unlikely to be provided is misleading and deceptive’
Dr. Morgan said he first tried to settle his claim amicably through their customer service center, but was “rejected.”
“Once I had that reaction, I wrote to Chris Lethbridge [regional manager of Emirates’ New Zealand],’ he said.
“What really surprised me there – and perhaps also its equivalent in Australia – is that he said he was not authorized to handle and resolve local complaints. It must be done centrally at the head office. It is ridiculous.’
Dr Morgan then emailed Tim Clark, the Emirates president, but received the same ‘general fob-off’.
Each time he contacted another Emirates representative, he told the airline that he would consider the case closed if they reimbursed him a small amount, which was less than the amount he eventually received at the tribunal .
“More importantly, I said if I succeeded it would generate negative press for Emirates and it would be better to just sort it out – I mentioned that in my initial letters and complaints to them,” he said .
“And it turns out that’s exactly what happened.”
Dr. Morgan studied the New Zealand Fair Trading Act and eventually took Emirates to the Dispute Tribunal, accusing it of ‘misleading advertising’.
Emirates defended its ads, saying the fine print made it clear that the airline “cannot guarantee that any particular aircraft will be used.”
“These articles enable Emirates’ business to function effectively in that they provide it with a degree of flexibility in navigating the complexities of cross-border air travel,” the airline’s submission read.
Emirates claimed that the service Mr Morgan and his wife experienced was only 5 percent less than the service it was advertised for, and had offered a $786 refund.
Consumer Champion founder Adam Glee praised Mr Morgan for showing that ‘big companies can’t get away with this kind of behaviour’
But dr. Morgan told the tribunal that Emirates’ advertising was designed to lure travelers away from other airlines, but it was selling a service that “essentially didn’t exist.”
Referee Laura Mueller of the Dispute Tribunal agreed and ordered the airline Dr. Morgan to pay.
“Emirates was promoting a business-class service that consumers most likely would not receive,” she said.
“This was the result of advertising a service they rarely provided, not an occasional or one-time aircraft change due to operational requirements.”
She added: “The advertising of a service that Emirates knew was unlikely to be provided is misleading and deceptive.”
His $12,600 claim came about by calculating half the cost of what it would have been to upgrade his and his wife’s flights on each leg of the trip.
Dr. Morgan said he had already been asked for advice by a passenger in a similar position who wanted to file a claim.
“Most people don’t have the time, inclination or confidence to go to a litigation tribunal,” he said.
“You can’t get a lawyer to represent you there – you have to represent yourself.
‘You pay a lot of money to fly business class and I do it on such a long-haul flight because I want to be able to sleep. You pay your money for that – and if they don’t give it, they have to pay it back.’
His advice to others in a similar position was, “Stand up for your rights and be prepared to argue them in small claims court.”
Adam Gleezer, founder of Consumer champion, said, “I always love David versus Goliath stories. I recommend Mark take this to the tribunal. Anyone who feels misled should follow his example.’
He added: “I deal with customers being bullied by companies on a daily basis and we need more people like Mark to show big companies that they can’t get away with this kind of behaviour.”
‘Mark was even willing to settle for a lower amount than what he eventually got through the court. Yet Emirates would not listen.
“They thought that Mark, like so many others, would quietly leave. But in this situation, I am pleased to see that justice has been done.”
Daily Mail Australia approached Emirates for comment.