Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Jet2.com ONLY

derek99b

CobyBenson wrote: »

Hi anonnymouse

This site should give you what you want: antonakis.co.uk/acars.php?page=request

Hi
It appears he only goes back about 4 months with his data.
I've tried to get info on my plane of 2011, but nothing there

derek99b

JPears wrote: »

And the bottom line is that a 20 year old plane has 20 year old components, if they haven't been replaced. No part last forever, moving, spinning, solid state or otherwise. Jet2 will not accept that age is a factor and put you to task over this, requiring evidence. I say produce the evidence that it ag DOESN'T have an impact. Just because there is no evidence to support age related reliabilty, doesn't prove it doesn't exist. Common sense should prevail here.
I am sure if you put the quiestion to a judge - what would he rather spend 3 hours, 5 miles high in - a 20 year old 737 or 5 year old 737, I think I could predict the answer.....

When I did my original HNC Electronics qualifications, I did a module on "Reliability and Testing Methods". I'll have to see if I can find my textbooks.
What is important is that every airline component has a "Mean Time to Failure" as part of its specification. ( Just try googling "MTTF Relay" and you will get the picture). I have asked Jet2 for this information about the component that failed and their response is that it is not a"lifed component". Absolute rubbish, everything has a life. Even me so I'm out bellringing all day today.

carole6691

Does anyone have any thoughts on this reason.... Have just after many attempts been told by jet2 after a subject access request that the reason for my 12 hour delay was because of a fault with an actuator cable which required its replacement.they cite that this an on condition Item which is not required to be replaced prior to defect and as it was fitted on 19th February 2011 it's early failure could not have been anticipated .it therefore according to them constitutes a extraordinary circumstance which could not have been anticipated or prevented even though all reasonable measures wew taken to do so .
I'm not sure this holds upto scrutiny but would be pleased to get your thoughts
Regards
Carole
Ps interestingly no other info other than my letters and there replies we're sent back even though I asked for any material used to determine there answer, this was mainly as up till then I couldn't get any specific reason from them at all.

derek99b

Keep all your original booking forms, check in papers, boarding cards, letters that Jet2 gave you at the gate, everything else write it down. Then go straight to EUClaim. Send them copies of everything. I think it is a waste of time trying to argue with Jet2, I've been at it for 20 months now, got nowhere. Have fun. Don't let it get you down.

supisces18

carole6691.
They have a template for replies.
Many of us have had the same only adjusted to suit the technical fault.
Its always been inspected as per their regulations lt was never expected to fail at this time .Its never happened before!!! each and every time they throw in that line that it was unexpected and constitutes extraordinary circs.
Yet we all know on here that a plane developing technical faults despite how rare is NOT extraordinary circs.They are doing these letters to fob you off and make you drop it.
You have two choices in that you do lots and lots of research and take your chance in court and that the judge on the day of your case knows the wallentin hermann judgement inside out or you go to Bott Solicitors and pay the fee and let them sort it for you.

JPears

Like suspices said, the fact that it could not be anticipated is irrelevant, that is not the meaning of extraordinary circumstances. Jet2 have chosen to take this interpretation but will soon come a cropper over it.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Like suspices said, the fact that it could not be anticipated is irrelevant, that is not the meaning of extraordinary circumstances. Jet2 have chosen to take this interpretation but will soon come a cropper over it.

It is a logically absurd proposition. If a technical fault is predictable, why would an airline allow is to fail, rather than replace the near-faulty piece? Surely, by definition, any technical failure that occurs must be unpredictable, unless the airline is being scarily reckless?

supisces18

It is a logically absurd proposition. If a technical fault is predictable, why would an airline allow is to fail, rather than replace the near-faulty piece? Surely, by definition, any technical failure that occurs must be unpredictable, unless the airline is being scarily reckless?


absolutely!!!
ridiculous use of a word.
when I got the template letter including unpredictable and unforeseen and several other ridiculous suggestions I actually did a letter to go with my defence for the judge .I asked that the judge consider the fact that all tech problems are unpredictable .Thats why they do checks to try and pick up on a problem before it occurs.I suggested if that was the JET 2 defence ie unpredictable and once found they took all reasonable measures to sort it out it was NO defence at all.

goodfella789

Has anyone else received this reply from the CAA washing their hands of the complaint?
With no reference in the subject line, i can only assume this is a template reply.
They haven't told me anything from their investigations and there isn't anything i don't already know.
Very disappointed, i would have at least expected a report on the CAA's findings- is that unreasonable?
Back in the hands of Jet2 now.


**Importan​t update about your claim**
Dear Passenger,
We are writing to update you on your claim for compensation for a disrupted flight.
It appears your flight falls within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 and recent EU case law. As you may be aware, compensation is subject to whether the reason for the disruption was within the airline’s control, known as ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
The Civil Aviation Authority has been working with other National Enforcement Bodies across Europe to understand what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are in relation to flight disruptions in light of the Regulation and European case law. The results of that work will be published on the European Commission website shortly.
We have asked all airlines to reconsider against this new guidance whether compensation should be payable in all complaints that have been received by the CAA. We have now sent your complaint back to the airline for reassessment.
The airline will respond to you directly following their reassessment of your flight against the new guidelines on ‘extraordinary circumstances’. We are now closing your complaint. We are unable to enter into further correspondence on this issue as your complaint is now with the airline for reassessment.
We are interested in your comments about the CAA complaint handling process. You will be sent under separate cover a survey and we hope you will be able to take a few minutes to complete this form, to provide us with your feedback.
Yours faithfully

Regulatory Policy Group
Civil Aviation Authority

Vauban

goodfella789 wrote: »

Has anyone else received this reply from the CAA washing their hands of the complaint?
With no reference in the subject line, i can only assume this is a template reply.
They haven't told me anything from their investigations and there isn't anything i don't already know.
Very disappointed, i would have at least expected a report on the CAA's findings- is that unreasonable?
Back in the hands of Jet2 now.


**Importan​t update about your claim**
Dear Passenger,
We are writing to update you on your claim for compensation for a disrupted flight.
It appears your flight falls within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 and recent EU case law. As you may be aware, compensation is subject to whether the reason for the disruption was within the airline’s control, known as ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
The Civil Aviation Authority has been working with other National Enforcement Bodies across Europe to understand what ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are in relation to flight disruptions in light of the Regulation and European case law. The results of that work will be published on the European Commission website shortly.
We have asked all airlines to reconsider against this new guidance whether compensation should be payable in all complaints that have been received by the CAA. We have now sent your complaint back to the airline for reassessment.
The airline will respond to you directly following their reassessment of your flight against the new guidelines on ‘extraordinary circumstances’. We are now closing your complaint. We are unable to enter into further correspondence on this issue as your complaint is now with the airline for reassessment.
We are interested in your comments about the CAA complaint handling process. You will be sent under separate cover a survey and we hope you will be able to take a few minutes to complete this form, to provide us with your feedback.
Yours faithfully

Regulatory Policy Group
Civil Aviation Authority

Everyone seems to have received one of these this afternoon. It is very odd. Why would the CAA close everyone's complaints in this way - unless perhaps they thought they were going to be satisfactorily resolved? And what is this new guidance to be published on the European Commission website, I wonder? Could be better news than not ...