Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

Well I for one will bevery disappointed if Jet2 don't appeal. It's great entertainment value to see them deploying the same tired arguments and then expressing terse disappointment when they lose. Again.

I know they've lost every significant flight delay case so far, and that it must be costing them a fortune in legal fees. But why not have yet another go; they're bound to win eventually.* And in the meantime, the publicity their efforts are generating continues to raise awareness of 261/04. So keep up the good work.

*When I say "eventually", of course I actually mean "never". But that shouldn't let that put you off, Jet2 After all, it hasn't so far!

But it's less entertaining for the poor LiP who gets dragged through it and has to face barristers arguing the finer points of contract law.

111KAB

howticklediam wrote: »

But it's less entertaining for the poor LiP who gets dragged through it and has to face barristers arguing the finer points of contract law.

I quite enjoyed it! Think my barrister should have had a name change to Richard Head.

NoviceAngel

Hmmmm, content with my success but missed out on my big day, although I did get to see the Court in action at Liverpool and of course, it will be Manchester in a week or so.......

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

I quite enjoyed it! Think my barrister should have had a name change to Richard Head.

Me too. In fact, I had two such barristers - as well as two witnesses from Monarch. Once you get over the initial nervousness and thinking that the little man never wins, actually it's really liberating - and even fun (in retrospect).

HTIA is right of course that this would be all much easier - for everyone - if the airlines simply paid out what was legally due without any of this nonsense. But if they're going to be difficult, they might as be so in glorious technocolour and give us a laugh in the process.

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

Me too. In fact, I had two such barristers - as well as two witnesses from Monarch. Once you get over the initial nervousness and thinking that the little man never wins, actually it's really liberating - and even fun (in retrospect).

HTIA is right of course that this would be all much easier - for everyone - if the airlines simply paid out what was legally due without any of this nonsense. But if they're going to be difficult, they might as be so in glorious technocolour and give us a laugh in the process.

So if you're in a back water like "up North", do BB send a swanky barrister with expensive shoes from that London, or do they hire some local talent with a flat cap?

Can you gauge how much of a threat you are to them, or how much your case means to them, by the quality of the brief they send?

NoviceAngel

howticklediam wrote: »

So if you're in a back water like "up North", do BB send a swanky barrister with expensive shoes from that London, or do they hire some local talent with a flat cap?

Can you gauge how much of a threat you are to them, or how much your case means to them, by the quality of the brief they send?

Well that's always been the point, normally Tom Bird deals with it personally, ask JP such a nice chap.... Don't get all of a fluster, let the birds flap there wings, as someone said to me in a PM the birds back has finally broken.....

PS he looks such a nice chap http://www.quadrantchambers.com/people/tom_bird/

howticklediam

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Well that's always been the point, normally Tom Bird deals with it personally, ask JP such a nice chap.... Don't get all of a fluster, let the birds flap there wings, as someone said to me in a PM the birds back has finally broken.....

PS he looks such a nice chap http://www.quadrantchambers.com/people/tom_bird/

So a full day out including the travelling, it's going to cost a pretty penny.

Vauban

howticklediam wrote: »

So a full day out including the travelling, it's going to cost a pretty penny.

It must cost a fortune. Quadrant Chambers represented Monarch in their case against me - but 2Birds weren't involved at all: the legal work was done by Monarch's in house lawyers.

I was nothing but impressed by the professionalism of the barristers - who after all are principally interested in the business of representing their clients. But they were professional, knowledgeable and personable and fair. At least with me.

I like to think that Monarch brought out the big guns because they wanted to make an example of me - I had been quite active on the forum. But if that is the case, it became a very expensive folly if so. I do know that Monarch and others have engaged local solicitors instead - and they seem to be a very mixed bag. I think 111KAB had this experience on a couple of occasions, where one was much more impressive than the other.

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

...........

I was nothing but impressed by the professionalism of the barristers - who after all are principally interested in the business of representing their clients. But they were professional, knowledgeable and personable and fair. At least with me........

I'd just add that in Liverpool all the barristers and solicitors on either side, were very professional and courteous to each other throughout...

Sometimes it's hard to remember when you're personally involved, that they are people doing a job to represent their clients to the best of their ability, sometimes they win sometimes they lose and I bet tell the other half all about what a good or bad day they've had when they get home from work.. It's not personal it's a job. I have respect for 2birds, even though we are at the opposite end of the spectrum, they have always answered my emails, swiftly, professionally and courtesly.

In fact I'd love to share a glass of wine with Tom, I bet he would have some tails to tell.

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Mark2spark

mrtonygibson wrote: »

In my honest opinion the first case which challenges the two year rule (and wins) will be the last one that is defended in court. The interpretations of when this can be enforced (if at all) should be established and clear guidelines given. The 6 year claim period as laid down in the European regulations should take precedent over the terms and conditions (deliberately brought in, in an attempt to reduce this period by four years) and any judge worth his salt will see through the reasons for the changes in terms and conditions brought in for this reason. Good luck to all remaining claimants.

Slightly perplexing that this 6 year / 2 year issue has, in the main, only arose due to the airlines dragging appeal after appeal through the courts, I mean Sturgeon (confirming delays are the same as cancellations) was only finalised Oct 12, some 7 years after the Reg was bought out. I had a 5 hour delay in 2005 that - had I known the full intent of the Reg - I could have claimed for.
Many people would have claimed pre-sturgeon if the payouts had commenced.