Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

pete146

Hi All

After months of trying to progress my claim with Thomas Cooke, I finally have a court date for February 2014.

I must confess that I am nervous. Thomas Cooke have stated that:

Flight was originally on OYVKF however this was AOG in MA with an EPR Air Probe fault. G-MDBD then ferried in from LGW to operate the flight. This is a reactionary event. It is also in my opinion defendable as there were no previous defects for EPR on the number 2 engine the month prior to this event.

In English - there was an Air Probe? fault, a probe heat test was carried out, and the EPR mode control was faulty - so the number 2 engine was replaced.

I now need to start to prepare my case and evidence but I am totally unable to find out what an 'EPR Air Probe' is, or what an 'Air Probe fault might be!

Is there any source that you would suggest I contact in order to get the information needed? Thomas Cooke are going to court with 2 expert witnesses, who will claim that this is extraordinary circumstance - I need to be in a position to evidence why it is not, yet I can find absolutely zero information!

Any help / advice would be appreciated as I now have to pay a hearing fee and am beginning to wonder whether I should actually continue to pursue this.

Thanks

DisneyJan

JPears yes I have advised Thomas Cook and Northampton County Court of the false statements on the TC defence and have added links as evidence to the daily mail article, the you tube videos and all the previous dates the aircraft had the same fault in 2012.


It beggars belief that a company that has thousands of lives in their hands flying on their aircraft can actually to a Judge blatantly lie about an incident with one of their own aircraft.

111KAB

pete146 wrote: »

Any help / advice would be appreciated as I now have to pay a hearing fee and am beginning to wonder whether I should actually continue to pursue this.

Thanks

Yes pursue - you are on a winner - don't worry about the probe ~ load of nonsense introduced to confuse you. There was a technical problem with your plane .... technical problems are ordinary no extraordinary - Wallentin/Huzar etc have ruled this - compensation is due.

pete146

thanks - I am only worried that if they don't make an offer before the court date, then I am going to be sat in small claims court with absolutely nothing to say to support my case

111KAB

pete146 wrote: »

thanks - I am only worried that if they don't make an offer before the court date, then I am going to be sat in small claims court with absolutely nothing to say to support my case

Well read this thread! If an EU law ~ Walletin doesn't support your case (it does) then you are in trouble. The law is on your side. They may or may not make an offer before court however posting on here (they read the threads) that you have nothing to say in support of your totally viable case means they may take you all the way. If you have a problem with talking then appoint a no win no fee - if you don't want to even do this then PM me and I will back your upfront fee with the promise I will give your entire award to charity.


Different airline but this link would suggest your comment re "zero information" is misleading > https://www.facebook.com/notes/monarch-complaints/reference-material-if-faced-with-monarch-delay-over-3-hours/226027064225351


A Boeing 747 has approximately 6 million 'parts' - if we are to get into the realms of discussing individual part failures then these threads will become longer than War & Peace. Not even Boeing themselves know how many rivets as they buy by the pound weight. Stick to the fact that the plane had a technical problem and tell them where to stick their probe.

batman44

DisneyJan wrote: »

JPears yes I have advised Thomas Cook and Northampton County Court of the false statements on the TC defence and have added links as evidence to the daily mail article, the you tube videos and all the previous dates the aircraft had the same fault in 2012.


It beggars belief that a company that has thousands of lives in their hands flying on their aircraft can actually to a Judge blatantly lie about an incident with one of their own aircraft.

There is plenty of evidence all over for this aircraft, use it. Also the court will take a dim view in this case, this happened on another aircraft, same thing with mine and in process now so i am following your case and superowls with intrest. Simple fact of the matter is that the Wallentin case deals with exactly the same sort of problem, a fault in the engine turbine and you know what happened, it's now the predominant case law. It's frustrating that they put us through this and wastes our time and effort and money and costs them a fortune in defending. I think the judge will see it this way, just throw in all the evidence. The best quote I have come across for civil cases it's "Facts not Evidence" is used so in yours and my case the facts will speak for themself's. So bulid your case on each fact on what happened to this aircraft and provide the evidence to support your statement, just ref it in your statement of case. Good luck and i hope to use yours and Superowls cases as ref for mine.

tigertrumps2

Bloody raging to say the least !!!!! After fighting CCA, TC and god knows who else for the last 13 months i was finally settled as i had my case due in court January next year. A couple of weeks ago i got a request of Travlaw to stay the hearing due to Huzar v Jet 2 case, after taking some advice i was going to refuse the formal request. Got home from work yesterday and the courts have decided to "vacate " the case for 42 days after the FINAL outcome of the appeal !!!!! Where is there any justice in that, i don't even get a say, keep on going TC and the rest of you lowlifes you pi** me of but i will not be defeated.

JPears

tigertrumps2 wrote: »

Bloody raging to say the least !!!!! After fighting CCA, TC and god knows who else for the last 13 months i was finally settled as i had my case due in court January next year. A couple of weeks ago i got a request of Travlaw to stay the hearing due to Huzar v Jet 2 case, after taking some advice i was going to refuse the formal request. Got home from work yesterday and the courts have decided to "vacate " the case for 42 days after the FINAL outcome of the appeal !!!!! Where is there any justice in that, i don't even get a say, keep on going TC and the rest of you lowlifes you pi** me of but i will not be defeated.

Is that after the permission to appeal hearing or the actual appeal, which has yet to be granted? (and hopefully won't) i think many others share your rage.
None of the airlines are doing themselves ANY favours what so ever.
Personally, now knowing how ALL the companies operate, atrocious customer services (oxymoron) and the fleets they flog to death, I will be unlikely to fly anywhere unless I have no alternative. Car is king!

batman44

DisneyJan wrote: »

Superowls they have signed a defence for court to say that point 7 and 8 are true.


The dailymail on the 25th June did an article on this plane with the aborted take off its all over you tube from eyewitnesses who filmed it I am just beyond words and so angry they have said it was just pulling out of the hangar . They should be sued for dishonesty aswell.

Contemp of court comes to mind and an criminal offence, contact the court and tell them they are delibratly making false statements and you have the video to prove it! BBC Watchdog would be very interested in the case. This should be refered to the CAA and the high court as the CAA are failing in their remit to enforce it's powers. If one company was sued or fined for a few million then it would stop overnight. The protection of passengers rights are paramount under the ruling and therefore if the NEB's are not doing the job then the EU Courts should prosecute.

len49

JPears wrote: »

Is that after the permission to appeal hearing or the actual appeal, which has yet to be granted? (and hopefully won't) i think many others share your rage.
None of the airlines are doing themselves ANY favours what so ever.
Personally, now knowing how ALL the companies operate, atrocious customer services (oxymoron) and the fleets they flog to death, I will be unlikely to fly anywhere unless I have no alternative. Car is king!

Good Evening

I've been back to a Scottish Sheriff Court this week for a re-convened proof Hearing. The case was adjourned part way through as we ran out of time, on the day, in September 2013. Unfortunately, the Sheriff allowed TC a deferral until outcome of Huzar permission to appeal/appeal is known. He overruled my objections that my case was not reliant on Huzar, that permission to appeal, only, had been applied for and the delay had two events, the first being a 5.5 hours delay due to knock-on effects of weather on a preceding flight.

He said that outcome of Huzar would provide clarity, influence future decisions and reduce the chance of appeal from either party if he proceeded with my case.

In readiness for my next court visit I would appreciate if anyone could tell me how to get a hard copy of the actual Court Ruling in the weather related Jager v easyJet at Macclesfield County Court on 16 September 2013. I have lots of newspaper and website downloads but I believe that a copy of the Court Judgement would be required to convince another Court.

Thanks in advance

len49

Details of previous post:
We had an initial delay of 5.5 hours (Palma to Glasgow, October0 2010) due to TC's excuse of "adverse weather" (must have been somewhere else in Europe as it was wet but unremarkable in Palma) and other flights were flying in and out, then a failed taxi attempt due to mechanical failure resulted in a further 11 hour delay whilst engineer and parts were flown out from the UK.

Passengers, many with young babies, were begging for hotel accommodation as delay was carrying over into next day but TC blanked us.

Usual excuses from TC quoting EC's but they omitted to mention the initial 5.5 hour delay in their defence statement. They also used the Montreal Convention 2 year time bar but I'm not buying their guff.

I wrote to the Spanish Air Authority (AESA) to investigate who have confirmed in writing that they have investigated and found no evidence of EC's and that they have written to TC advising them to pay out. I attended Scottish Sheriff Court Preliminary Hearing last week with Proof Hearing set for early September