Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

NoviceAngel

Well first of all I wouldn't say I was an expert, but I've been here a while and have read quite a few posts from the real EU261 pioneers, here's one that I still refer to today that is as valid as the day it was written.....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59429463&postcount=580

Vauban

My view - though I am no expert either - is that, contrary to what is sometimes assumed here, there is little in the legislation or subsequent case law that says consequential delays (knock-ons) cannot be extraordinary. The para 15 quoted by HTIA refers specifically to an air traffic management decision and quoting the phrase about "a particular aircraft on a particular day" out of its context doesn't hold much water, IMHO.

The one part of the regulation which is clear about knock-ons is when they are caused by weather problems. There weather can only be extraordinary if it affects the flight directly ("meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned").

But, knock on delays can be more difficult to justify as not requiring compensation if you use the so-called "Third Question" (or second test) of the Wallentin judgenment, which says - put simply - that even if the cause of the delay is extraordinary, the airline has to move heaven and earth to minimise the delay and get you going again - every action short of an "intolerable sacrifice". The greater the distance between your flight and the original incident that caused the delay, the harder it is to satisfy this part of the Wallentin test.

howticklediam

Thanks folks. Helpful as ever. Might be another string to my bow.

JPears

The Third question has been little tested in court as far as I am aware. Probably because it can really only be part of the claimant's submission when the delay really has been exceptional. This only affects a small percentage of flight delays, cancellations and denied boardings.
I tried this as an "in the alertnative" in my case. Jet2 managed to fudge their reasons enough to satisfy the judge that they had attempted to move "heaven and earth" to minimise my delay (caused by the previous flight) - actually they did nothing.
But then my judge got the whole tech issue not EC wrong anyway, so what does he know?

howticklediam

What has become apparent to me, and the biggest surprise, is how the legal system can throw up random results when the process is supposed to be designed to avoid this.

I've got a new date now, three months away. What riles me is that the decision to set aside can be made in less than a week (I know my counter argument wasn't fully considered, if at all), yet the new hearing is three months away, what was the rush? Nothing has ever happened that fast in my case before.

legal_magpie

howticklediam wrote: »

What has become apparent to me, and the biggest surprise, is how the legal system can throw up random results when the process is supposed to be designed to avoid this. .

I will try to answer this as neutrally as I can. These cases are all dealt with as small claims and are heard by District Judges or Deputy (part-time) District Judges. Some DJs (and a few Deputies) have considerable knowledge of these cases but most don't and rely on the evidence and legal arguments put forward at the hearing.

Some cases are presented very well, others not so well. Nearly all the cases involve the airline accepting that there was a delay but that there is a good reason why the regulations don't apply, usually exceptional circumstances.

Court of Appeal decisions such as Huzar and Dawson are very helpful but ultimately the judge has to decide the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.

howticklediam

legal_magpie wrote: »

I will try to answer this as neutrally as I can. These cases are all dealt with as small claims and are heard by District Judges or Deputy (part-time) District Judges. Some DJs (and a few Deputies) have considerable knowledge of these cases but most don't and rely on the evidence and legal arguments put forward at the hearing.

Some cases are presented very well, others not so well. Nearly all the cases involve the airline accepting that there was a delay but that there is a good reason why the regulations don't apply, usually exceptional circumstances.

Court of Appeal decisions such as Huzar and Dawson are very helpful but ultimately the judge has to decide the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.

The randomness of decisions I can understand, and if you're unsure of your ability to perform in court or follow the CPR rules then you are more exposed to that randomness and should get professional help.

What I don't understand is the randomness of having a fortnight to apply for a set aside, yet only having three days to get your rebuttal in (without warning).

howticklediam

If an aircraft is leased does that absolve the operator of any responsibility for maintenance and/or equipment failure?

I've never heard of it being put forward as a defence before so I guess not.

JPears

I would have thought not. In Jet2's case, the majority, if not all of their aircraft are leased (old and cheap).
There could be an arguement if say Jet2 temprarily leased a plane from say Monarch or Vueling and then that flight were delayed. Either way, one airline or another is liable for compensation.

NoviceAngel

Yeah I would agree, it would be like renting/leasing a car, sure the rental company would be responsible for heavy maintenance with the aircraft, but your ticket is with Jet2 and they have ultimate responsibility to ensure that any aircraft either owned or leased must be ready to fly at the time to get you to your destination without delay.

It would be Jet2s fault for leasing such an old aircraft.