Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

Vauban

northwest1965 wrote: »

Because of the defence submitted, I am in two minds or not to carry on. Should I post the defence here, for you to take a look at, or can i PM someone?:)

It's fine to post their defence - though we might PN you our thoughts in response (so as not to let the airlines see!)

Chrisggggg

I sent a letter to jet 2 about my delayed flight in 2009 I used the template on this site. I received a reply today from jet 2 stating that because the flight was more than 2 years ago they won't consider my claim because under English law the claim must be made no later than 2 years from the date of the incident occurring.

Is this correct I thought claims could go back 5 years ?

P_Doff

Good morning.
Jet2's defence has arrived this morning dated 17 April. Service of claim was acknowledged on 13 March. The defence is therefore surely out of time. Should that be allowed?
The defence pleads:-
"The fuel filter bypass warning light for engine no.1 came on during or shortly after landing at Malaga Airport (the Aircraft's previous flight). It was necessary for local engineers to carry out checks in accordance with the Aircraft's Fault Isolation Manual.
To minimise the delay to passengers, the Defendant arranged for another aircraft, a Boeing757 .................. to perform the Flight.
The delay to the Flight was caused by a technical fault which could not have been reasonably anticipated."
Is this not a "knock on"?
Any views and advice would be most welcome as I now have until May 7 to complete and return form N180.

northwest1965

1. On 1 June a tech fault occured. The flight had to return on account of uncontrollable cabin pressure

2. Defendant took an extensive inspection
3. As a precaustion they replaced the aircraft's rear outflow
4. Following a ground run it would still not pressurise properly. They traced problem to a defective air cycle machine & it was replaced.
5. The original part was fitted in March 2010.
6. To minimise the delay to passengers they used the next available aircraft
7. The flight was caused by a tech fault that could not have been reasonably anticipated.
8. The fault in the aircraft's air cycle machine was an EC in that it stemmed from events which were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the defendant and/or which were beyond the defendants actual control

Vauban

northwest1965 wrote: »

1. On 1 June a tech fault occured. The flight had to return on account of uncontrollable cabin pressure

2. Defendant took an extensive inspection
3. As a precaustion they replaced the aircraft's rear outflow
4. Following a ground run it would still not pressurise properly. They traced problem to a defective air cycle machine & it was replaced.
5. The original part was fitted in March 2010.
6. To minimise the delay to passengers they used the next available aircraft
7. The flight was caused by a tech fault that could not have been reasonably anticipated.
8. The fault in the aircraft's air cycle machine was an EC in that it stemmed from events which were not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the defendant and/or which were beyond the defendants actual control

Oh dear? Is that it? Two questions for them:

a) what were they doing with the air cycle machine that was not part of their ordinary airline operations? Were they trying to bake a cake with it? Or rather did it break as a consequence of the airlines "normal exercise of activity" (ie flying a plane). Yes I thought so;

b) whilst the part breaking may have been beyond the airlines actual control, the response to the malfunction wasn't. So what efforts did they make, short of "intolerable sacrifices" (as Wallentin describes the requirement) to get you another plane?

Read the Wallentin judgement - it addresses all this admirably.

northwest1965

I should have added. The original fault was 1 June, our flight was June 2nd.

So I read it from Wallentin, that the only way they can use the excuse about the part, would be if these parts were known to be defective?

P_Doff

I should have made it clear that my flight was from Budapest so I'm not sure what my plane was doing in Malaga. Apologies for any confusion.

northwest1965

Centipede100 wrote: »

Correct.

Could you give us a timeline of when the tech issue arose as far as you know on 1st June and what time your flight was on 2nd June?

The reason I ask is that the airline must prove that this was the a/c tasked with your flight and not just another a/c in the fleet generally as the Regulation sets a high hurdle for the airline to prove ECs existed that affected your flight not some flight or aircraft a day or so beforehand.

It happened on Flight LS201 - currently that is Leeds-Amsterdam 7am departure time.

We were scheduled to leave Paris at 12.15

There is a section in the defence about the Montreal Convention Article 35. It states that our right to damages was extinguished on 3 June 2012.

Another point - As they don not keep records after 2years they want us to prove that we were all on the flight and presented ourselves for checkin at least 45mins before the flight. How the hell do we do that?

northwest1965

Centipede100 wrote: »

If you look back at what happened to the original flight LS201 affected by the tech issue, that flight is reported to have arrived in AMS with a delay of 170 mins.

According to Point number 2. On 1 June 2010 a technical fault occured on the Aircraft during flight LS201. It departed from leeds but had to return on account of uncontrollable cabin pressure.

This leads me to believe that the flight, was offloaded, a new plane found, flight completed, just with a delay of 170mins???

northwest1965

Centipede100 wrote: »

Ignore the bit about checking in for the flight but you will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that you were indeed on flight LS316 either by the original booking ref/PNR number or email confirmation. Alternatively you could use photos of the holiday, credit card or bank statements of the payment to Jet2 or preferably a combination of these as proof.

Thats fine, we have the confirmation email, credit card statements...oh and me on Space Mountain in Disneyland Paris:)