Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Jet2fan

... and if Jet2's solicitor turns up with a fancy briefcase / stack of legal papers and then starts quoting EU legislation verbatim (or his / her interpretation of it !) with various precidents in front of an arbitor / judge who is not fully aware of actual relevant EU laws, then we're gunna be in dickies meadow !

Just a thoight.

John.

JPears

IMHO Jet2 are trying to bluff as much as possible in every case.
They continually procrastinate and delay. Why?
1. It costs them nothing except postage and cheap admin staff time to push a pre formatted letter to print, and they can keep doing it. Okay so if you labour the point should it get to a hearing it might not be looked on favourably and I stress the word might.
2. They have got nothing to loose by taking this tack.
3. They have everything to gain by putting people off at each and every stage:
a) General inertia and lack of understanding a lot of potential claimants have.
b) do I go to small claims? Big decision for some due to cost, inconvenience and lack of legal knowledge/experience/determination.
c) do I risk possible (but IMHO highly unlikley) costs of hearing should it go against you. Jet2 have repeatedly declined to ffer any information other than quote EC, in their opinion. If they then roll up at court with bundles of evidence or excuses. Again that won't look good in front of some judges, but how many cases will get that far?
You only have to look at some posters on this forum who are clueless and not prepared or able to aquaint themselves with the basics.
In my case Jet2 defence is full of holes and misses one of the judgment's main rulings. But they now have the solicitors involved and their weasel brinkmanship that they try to play. I have turned the tables by requesting a mass of information from them in the Allocation Questionaire (N149)
Bring it on!

JPears

There is a mass of information that can be gleaned off of t'internet to help you with the technicalties of aircraft and problems.
One thing Jet2 surely don't have in their favour is the age of their aircraft. Decidedly ancient compared to most rivals. I suspect this age, despite servicing/maintenance is the root cause of most of the ECs/techs. Jet2 have the choice - buy/lease new/newer aircraft or operate clapped out fleet & accept unreliabilty and stump up compensation. I had an 18 year old car and 5 year old car. Both very reliable because I maintained them FULLY, but guess which one took a lot more maintenance to check and change things?

richardw

JPears wrote: »

c) do I risk possible (but IMHO highly unlikley) costs of hearing should it go against you.

Are you sure that this is a risk?

JPears

No Im not sure either way. I haven't researched this yet. What are your thoughts/knowledge?

richardw

It's been asked and clearly answered in these forums.

Mark2spark

JPears wrote: »

IMHO Jet2 are trying to bluff as much as possible in every case.
They continually procrastinate and delay. Why?
1. It costs them nothing except postage and cheap admin staff time to push a pre formatted letter to print, and they can keep doing it. Okay so if you labour the point should it get to a hearing it might not be looked on favourably and I stress the word might.
2. They have got nothing to loose by taking this tack.
3. They have everything to gain by putting people off at each and every stage:
a) General inertia and lack of understanding a lot of potential claimants have.
b) do I go to small claims? Big decision for some due to cost, inconvenience and lack of legal knowledge/experience/determination.
c) do I risk possible (but IMHO highly unlikley) costs of hearing should it go against you. Jet2 have repeatedly declined to ffer any information other than quote EC, in their opinion. If they then roll up at court with bundles of evidence or excuses. Again that won't look good in front of some judges, but how many cases will get that far?
You only have to look at some posters on this forum who are clueless and not prepared or able to aquaint themselves with the basics.
In my case Jet2 defence is full of holes and misses one of the judgment's main rulings. But they now have the solicitors involved and their weasel brinkmanship that they try to play. I have turned the tables by requesting a mass of information from them in the Allocation Questionaire (N149)
Bring it on!

Hear hear :T

lizcat

northwest1965 wrote: »

We received a reply today. Originally got the "flight safety shortcoming" letter. This arrived today

I have noted your comments that you believe technical faults cannot constitute an ex circumstance under EU Reg 261 and your ref to case Wallentin v Alitalia. If I may clarify that the regulation does not define ex circumstances. However technical faults can, depending on the individual facts surrounding the delay, constitute ex circumstances. The Wallentin decision to which you refer to confirms this. Having completed a thorough investigation I can confirm your flight was delayed by a cabin pressure issue. All reasonable measures were taken and therefore it was an
extraordinary circumstance. No compensation is payable.

Thoughts please anyone?

Jet2 have been busy completing these thorough investigations and always coming to the same conclusions in every case......

I have received my reply today which is identical to the above until it gets to my specific delay. My letter still refers to it as 'the unexpected technical fault to the aircraft due to operate your flight resulted in a delay that could not have been foreseen or prevented even though all reasonable measures were taken and therefore, as the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances, no compensation is payable'

No mention of the fault itself as I requested in my last communication with them....I will be composing a reply over the weekend.

Mark2spark

Here's the reply to a third letter.

Dear Lizcat, you're right, we tried it on, thanks for persisting, here's a cheque for the full amount.

Not! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

willhollis18

JPears wrote: »

In my case Jet2 defence is full of holes and misses one of the judgment's main rulings. But they now have the solicitors involved and their weasel brinkmanship that they try to play. I have turned the tables by requesting a mass of information from them in the Allocation Questionaire (N149)
Bring it on!

I am just about to return my allocation questionnaire - what information have you requested on the form? Initially for mine I was keeping in simple and just filling out the mandatory sections but from your reply I imagine you've completed the 'other information'?