Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

booogle

I have a delay claim with jet2, jet 2 denied based on extraordinary circumstances (technical issue). Current status is CAA are investigating and expect to issue me with a report in the next few months. If the report is favourable and jet2 still don't cough up, I will be using MCOL for sure.

P_Doff

In my case it was not until the Defence was filed that I was aware of what the technical issue was. But my argument must be that irrespective of what the issue is, it isn't extraordinary. As it says in Wallentin, they are to be expected. When they do arise, they must get their @rse in gear and sort out the problem sharpish, or make alternative arrangements, so that their passengers are not inconvenienced. This practice of the airlines taking a "sod the passengers" attitude has to stop. If I am as unfortunate as our friend JP at least I will have the satisfaction of knowing that although it will have cost me a few quid, it will have cost Jet2 a damned sight more. Freedom for Tooting - Power to the People, for those of you old enough to remember.

Vauban

Jet2fan wrote: »

My point is that Jet2 will (and have proved) to throw money, time and resources in trying to beat us on an individual claim basis.

We do not know how to break down these individual claims as Jet 2 can drip feed us with information about the specifics of each claim. Ie. it took me 2 months to get out of Jet2 that it was a hydraulic leak which caused the delay.

What was the part ? What was the cause of the leak ? What is the failure rate of the part ? What is the maintenance schedule for the part / aircraft ? Where do I get this data ?
I would not even know where to start, but Jet 2 and their lawyers are FULLY clued up and know how to “play the game”
It would take months and hours (hundreds of hours) to find out / analyze / produce graphs / numbers / data / pay for industry experts etc etc.

But you do not need to know any of the answers to the questions you have posed in order successfully to prosecute a claim! You don't need to draw graphs or employ experts or spend huge sums of money. Why do you think you do? These tactics from the airlines are smokescreens, and you do your claim more harm than good in trying to engage on such matters.

Ask yourself: is the technical failure inherent in the business of flying, the resolution of which is beyond the control of the airline? Or is it like sabotage, terrorism or a fleet-wide hidden technical defect that grounds all the airplane? That's all you need to address.

Which isn't to say that a judge won't call it wrong. But more often, it seems, they will not. Jet2 are not the only ones to use fancy barristers in court - other airlines have too. And none of them, as reported here, have won. So I wouldn't treat Jet2 differently from any other airline, except perhaps to accepy that they'll not look to settle but take it all the way.

Where I do agree with you though is that this nevertheless requires some commitment of hours of work, some confidence, and some ability. If you lack these, a no win no fee route is a good alternative. But it's not strictly necessary: taking the airline to Court is not as hard (or scary) as many first assume, IMHO.

stevemej123

booogle wrote: »

I have a delay claim with jet2, jet 2 denied based on extraordinary circumstances (technical issue). Current status is CAA are investigating and expect to issue me with a report in the next few months. If the report is favourable and jet2 still don't cough up, I will be using MCOL for sure.

We are in exactly the same position as you. Trouble is that the CAA are interpreting the legislation in favour of Jet2 ( ie tech issues = extraordinary circumstances ).
Now i wish we had NOT gone to the CAA because IF the CAA come down on the side of Jet2 then we don't stand a cat in hells chance in court. I'ts too late to go to small claims because the judgement is likely BEFORE a court date. We will just have to wait now.
CAA are as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
good luck

Mark2spark

Jet2fan wrote: »

A few words :
Mark2 spark, IMHO you are offering duff advice... when you say “just bang out an NBA” / “fill in an MCOL” as quickly as possible” etc. in the case of Jet 2.
This may work well in the cases of BA, Thompson etc. Who just seem to be rolling over and paying out at the first whiff of a court date or appearance. Jet 2 are not.
And unless you are ready to go “the full distance “ and fight with the same amount of tenacity and amount of resources as Jet 2, then like our good friend JPears, you could be on a hiding to nothing.
Remember, these guys (JET 2) seem to be going as far as throwing money / time and resources at each particular claim and seem to be breaking down each particular claim to it’s specific individual details.
If they are saying” a part broke on their aircraft”, say a hydraulic hose, Jet 2 are going as far as getting the technical specs for the particular hose, the failure rates for each particular part, the life expectancy for each particular failed part / industry experts / stress analysis for each part. etc. etc.
If they can prove that (for example) that particular hose should last 25 years and that the one on your flight broke at 5 years, then they are saying “extraordinary circumstance”
Forget Wallatin, when they (and their) highly paid experts stand in front of a judge and argue the minute details. The judge just ain’t taking things into account things like.... They should have an aircraft on standby or the whole picture.
To me the whole idea of 261/2004 by the EU is to combat the low cost airline model of ringing out every cent of profit of the travelling public to the detriment of some passengers, I.e as there is no slack in the system some passengers will inevitably “fall through the net” and be treated very poorly suffering excessive delays due to there being no room in the business model to account for breakdowns or “extraordinary events” , whilst also combating the problem of delays and their knock on effects.
For most, people will get a cheap flight to a destination and all will be tickety-boo, yet when it goes wrong, it can often go wrong BIGTIME with airlines not having to compensate in anyway.
By just firing of MCOL’s for each and every claim in this instance does not seem to me to be a very good idea and it seems to me to be a case of the right tool for the right job.
The frustrating thing is that Jet2 are getting away with it. (for the time being)
JPears tried one way and for him it did not work, now others (inc myself) are trying the No Win / No Fee way and we shall see what happens to ourselves (fingers crossed that B*tt & Co know what they are doing).
We are all pioneers with regards this 261 / 2004 case, I believe Jet 2 WILL be brought to book and that it is just a case of time and how.

Thanks for your post Jet2fan, I don't take any umbrage at the idea that I offer duff advice at all
As my signature says, IANAL, and my contributions on this public forum are simply for people to take someone else's opinion on, and use in whatever way they see fit.

However, let's examine a couple of your points:

My reply at #585 was in response to the post directly before, #584.
Your response in #586 details how Jet2 are throwing money by citing EC's on tech issues. Yet you can see that post #584 details how Jet2 have simply denied the claim based on a 2 year time limit.
Perhaps you are of the opinion that this time limit is a valid excuse, and that the poster should now walk away?
Or perhaps further engage in a letter writing game of ping-pong?
Therefore, IMO, my advice still stands, that is: "Don't waste time on the rounds. NBA right now, then court." (The previous poster referred to looking forward to round 2)

Secondly, in reference to Tech issues, you state that Wallentin should be forgot about, as in brushed aside? Even though it is established case law, where the tech issue was detailed as:
"11. The cancellation of the Alitalia flight from Vienna resulted from a complex engine defect in the turbine which had been discovered the day before during a check. Alitalia had been informed of the defect during the night preceding that flight, at 1.00 a.m."
and the resolution was:
"(EU262/2004)...must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control."

Which, unless there is sabotage or terrorism, clearly makes JPears judge wrong, and the purpose of Jet2's legal team to state otherwise is entirely with the motive of hoodwinking the judge in favour of their client.

I suggested that I would contribute to a fund for JP to appeal if it evolved, so confident am I of this.

But you are clearly correct when you insinuate to people that mostly, they will have more than a letter writing exercise on their hands, to get compensation.
But it's surely not gone unnoticed by you(?), the amount of out of court settlements that are now being registered by posters that have commenced MCOL?
Whilst you might say "Ahhh, but that's not Jet2", then yes, but it's early days yet for Jet2 cases to come to court in any abundance for there to be a clear trend observed.

Mark.

supisces18

I agree with Mark2Spark and Centipede.
You cannot just rollover because they have engaged some London Solicitors ,who even have the gall to publish an article on their own website clearly knowing the impact of the Wallentin Hermann judgement on its clients JET2.COM .
2Birds say themselves that tech problems are inherent unless a manufacturer defect or sabotage .
they go as far as to say that the judgement is a victory for passengers.
yet here we have that same firm trying to convince the judges that technical problems just because they dont happen very often or happen before the life expectancy are extraordinary circumstances.
Seems 2birds dont heed their own article.
Wallentin Hermann is clear in that tech problems are part and parcel in their business as airline passenger carriers and the fact that some tech problmes dont occur very often is not extra ordinary circs.
After all we could spend all day detailing every part or problem any aircraft might encounter.
Also this business about life expectancy of parts .
Do your research.
The majority of parts have a life expectancy but its very dependant on how that part was installed and maintained .
Often if you research the fault you an find a maintainance and handling guide for that part .
You will find that there is always a cause ands effect when something goes wrong.
And mostly its down to human error.
These aircraft parts are precision pieces of equipment and majority are highly reliable.
So if you are quoted in a defence that the part failed having always had a marvellous track record having never failed before and wasnt due to be checked again for eons....dont just accept that.find out about the part and show the judge you have evidence suggesting otherwise.
Thats the hard part the research but its out there and can be found.
WallentinHermann spells it out for the Courts and its up to us to take each part and show why it applies in our case backed up with evidence.
Im carrying on and I keep bombarding the defence with a little bit more evidence and asking them more and more questions and will do right up to the 14 days before I get my court date.
Ive just had the case transferred to my home town and await the date.

Jet2fan

“Perhaps you are of the opinion that this time limit is a valid excuse”... Nope (the time is six years)
“And that the poster should now walk away?”… Nope, I’m not saying that.
“Or perhaps further engage in a letter writing game of ping-pong?” Nope, I’m not saying that either.

I am not advocating ANY course of action, I am stating that by casually advocating this route they (being Jet2 and 2 Birds) are going be ready for us and that I suspect it a massive mountain to climb.
This is why I am trying the NWNF route, for the amount of money involved (in my case €2000) I am not prepared to undertake the HUNDREDS of hours work (which I envisage would be required for a successful outcome) and yet could boil down to me standing up in court and being made a fool of when the Judge has been manipulated into siding with Jet2.
I do not want my case to cost Jet2 thousands of pounds to defend and ultimately win… I want the money AND retribution for the casual way I have been dismissed. I want the money and when I win to be able to send Jet2 a final letter headed “Ha Ha Ha Ha”

“Which, unless there is sabotage or terrorism, clearly makes JPears judge wrong, and the purpose of Jet2's legal team to state otherwise is entirely with the motive of hoodwinking the judge in favour of their client.”
When it gets to court it doesn’t matter a fig what Wallatin states or the meaning, purpose or spirit of Wallatin… It is what Bird and Bird can bend the Judge into believing the issue to be.
I know JPears’s judge was wrong (we all know it) but at the end of the day, he was persuaded by Bird and Birds interpretation of 261/2004 / Wallatin which is all that matters. There case was bolstered by their smooth talking counsel etc.
When we as laymen stand in front of an independent arbiter & layman (The Judge) with Bird & Bird (dressed like a couple of penguins in gowns) a so called expert with a stack of legal papers 2 foot high (and wheeled in on a trolley) on the other side, who do you think the guy in the middle is going to ALLOW himself to be convinced by ?
It is not about the law, the ONLY example we have is JPears, and from what I have read of his experience it is APPEARANCE / CONDUCT and SEEMING knowledge of 261/2004 which persuaded his Judge to side with the more professional looking outfit.
Jet 2 will take it all the way to court…. Where, when you turn up with info printed on the back of a fag packet taken off the internet, face 2 or three guys who are professionals in that particular industry (legal and aviation), who have letters after their names and a stack of legal documents and folders will look the most convincing outfit… I fear we’ll be DONE OVER more times than not.
This is what you are persuading people to face when advocating the fire off an MCOL route.
I would welcome JPears opinion on this.
Mark, Centipede, may I ask, when do you face Bird & Bird in court ?
(Or, who is the next one up before the judge on this issue ?)….
Please note: I am only talking about Jet 2 here.

P_Doff

Jet2fan wrote: »

I would welcome JPears opinion on this.
Mark, Centipede, may I ask, when do you face Bird & Bird in court ?
(Or, who is the next one up before the judge on this issue ?)….
Please note: I am only talking about Jet 2 here.

I think it may be me up next. Taking my hearing fee to court today.
I see where you are coming from and yes it has been a lot of work. But at the end of the day, nervous as I shall have been, I will know that I will have given as much as I might have taken. Right is right and most judges know this. Unfortunately for JP, he got one that didn't.

DrA_Harrogate

Centipede100 wrote: »

I am starting this thread for those claiming flight delay or cancellation compensation from Jet2.com.

Any posts regarding any other airline in this thread will be ignored (at least by me).

Good afternoon fellow sufferers!

I have, just this minute, fired off a MCOL form re a Jet2 delay. The delay met all the criteria and I have voluminous correspondence boiling down to "extraordinary circumstances" and (later) technical faults.

I do believe that the plane was broke AND that this might well have been 'extraordinary' however, it broke before a previous flight (i.e. the outbound one), and we returned to a different airport.

I understand that an 'extraordinary circumstance' cannot 'roll over' to subsequent flights, and that our return to East Midlands, rather than Leeds, was to suit the airline, and was not extraordinary at all.

I shall keep you posted as to progress, and if anybody has info and tips I would be very grateful, of course!

JPears

I am staying quiet at the moment, whilst a possible appeal is considered.