Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

JPears wrote: »

Guys you are overthinking this a little too much. As I posted above. Burst tyre, not EC. K2 took nearly 3 hours to get a replacement plane at one of their major hubs. (I had a RA flight in March from LBA, plane broke, they used one 2 stands down within an hour or so. And LBA is sparse for RA flights.)
If you had departed on time, possibly no weather issues, but also J2 could have used the other runway even if weather was bad.
Pcy - knock on from weather is not an EC, case law available I think, escapes me which case though.
Keep it simple. You don't need anything else.

Hi JP, just to confirm then, a 'knock on' isn't only for the next/following flight? A 'knock on' can be classed as an issue within the same initially delayed flight - ie my flight departure was delayed 2hrs 50mins by the burst tyre, but the arrival was delayed another 16hrs by the weather factor later in the flight? I thought knock-ons were only for later flights - showing I still have a lot to read!

NoviceAngel wrote: »

https://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2015/1388/another-win-at-court-for-flight-delays

https://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2015/1395/another-weather-court-victory-for-flight-delays

These spring to mind (credit Vauban) for originally posting the links.

Hi Novice, thanks for the links. From reading them though, it appears they relate to delays on separate, following flights - the 'knock on' effect.

My weather delay was my for my actual flight - but it only became an issue due to an initial 2hr 50mins tyre burst delay.

Does this make sense? Or am I reading the documents incorrectly?

pcyuljr wrote: »

........

My weather delay was my for my actual flight.....

Apologies I misunderstood your earlier posts. It's always difficult to apportion blame for the delay on differing elements, like Vauban has said.

I think you need to be cautious about taking this one on, so I'll go back to what I said and consider NWNF, I say consider because you have quickly grasped an understanding of what's involved and stand a good chance on your own.

Without going back to read all your posts, just to play devils advocate if in your own words the burst tyre resulted in a 2h 50 min delay (less than 3h), then I guess weather caused the remainder of the delay. If your relying on the fact that if you had of set off on time, the EC part of the delay wouldn't have played a part in your total delay, then that is very sketchy.....

I think that's what Vauban said but he says it posher lol

NoviceAngel wrote: »

If your relying on the fact that if you had of set off on time, the EC part of the delay wouldn't have played a part in your total delay, then that is very sketchy.....

Yep, I agree it is quite sketchy. That's the bit that makes it exciting!

Hopefully Jet2 and I will agree that 2hrs 50mins of the delay was technical (the tyre).

The total delay ended up being over 19hrs, but the fact is it only has to be 3hrs for the compensation purposes.

Which means we'll actually be arguing over that 10mins between the tyre delay ending and the weather delay starting.

Now I guess the important thing here is was the weather delay an EC. We did attempt to land, but the pilot wasn't able to.

I'm considering trying to determine if other aircraft did land after the time we attempted to. If others did, then I think I'd be in a good place to argue that it was a limitation of Jet2 that we didn't land, as opposed to an EC. What do you reckon?

I don't mean to sound preachy with my posts, which I'm aware they sometimes come across like, I'm just firing out my thought processes and seeing what sticks!

Well done. This would not have happened several years ago.