Jet2 LS209

lewroll

Hello,

Hoping that someone can give me some advice please. I flew from Leeds Bradford on the 22nd May 2009 to Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. After being in the air for some time, the captain told us we had a technical problem and that we were turning round and landing in Gatwick because he was unhappy about the situation. To cut to the chase, the flight arrived in Sharm about 7 hrs late as I recall. I have tried flightstats.co.uk as recommended but although the flight is recorded it says that the information about delay is unavailable so is there anywhere else I can look to try and get the information please? Also would this fit into the category for delay compensation please?
Thanks in advance - any help gratefully received.












a

Mark2spark

If you was on the plane, you *know* that it was approx 7 hours late, so the point in checking flightstats for the accurate time is lost on me?

It appears to be a claimable delay, but without more details, can't confirm.
Commence your claim.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59173303&postcount=4

lewroll

Mark2spark wrote: »

If you was on the plane, you *know* that it was approx 7 hours late, so the point in checking flightstats for the accurate time is lost on me?

It appears to be a claimable delay, but without more details, can't confirm.
Commence your claim.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=59173303&postcount=4

Thanks for your help and sorry, should have been more specific and accurate! I believe it have been (if memory serves me well) between 5 to 6 hours late arriving in Sharm but was just happy to arrive after having spent many hours 'incarcerated' in Gatwick airport. I would have liked confirmation from some source or other just to be sure of my ground.

Also I do not have or cannot find any documentation apertaining to the flight after all this time and I would really like to be absolutely sure before taking on Jet2 because history tells me that they will do everything in their power to avoid paying out even on unquestionably legitimate claims.

Mark2spark

As long as you're more than 3 hours late on arrival, then you have a claim.

If you have exhausted every avenue towards finding evidence of purchasing 'the service' from Jet 2, then the last resort is a SAR request, details, as before, in the FAQ's.

richardw

My guess is you could get a judge that just takes a 'it happened in the air, therefore it's extraordinary' view and that'll be the end of it.

Vauban

richardw wrote: »

My guess is you could get a judge that just takes a 'it happened in the air, therefore it's extraordinary' view and that'll be the end of it.

I think this is a risk too. All the more important, then, to ensure your arguments are grounded in the principal tenets of the Wallentin judgement. See the recent debate on the Monarch thread for further details.

To my mind, a mid-air tech failing cannot be deemed extraordinary if it is an inherent consequence of airline operations. And the test for what they must then do to minimise the delay is quite challenging for the airline. As Mark notes, this could even include putting you on a rival carrier's service. And clearly if you are stuck in the UK, it's harder for the airline to prove it did everything possible to get you on your way than if you are stranded in rural Ruritanea.

Mark2spark

The reason for turning around and not carrying on to the planned destination is something you need to get out of them.
If it was a flight safety shortcoming, - in flight - then why not land at the nearest airport?
They probably turned around for the commercial decision that it's cheaper to fix in the UK than overseas, and sod the passengers.

lewroll

I understand that safety is paramount and to be honest, my thoughts were the same - why didn't we just land at the nearest airport? After all we were about 1 1/2 hrs into our flight and it took us about 1 hr to fly back to Gatwick.

I have now made an initial approach to Jet2 about an SAR request and what the cost will be. I'll try and keep people informed on how I get on.

Ich_2

why didn't we just land at the nearest airport

Landing at the nearest airport is not the best solution in a lot of cases.
It takes time and distance to reduce altitude in a controlled manner, if the aircraft is fuelled up they may need to burn off fuel to prevent an overweight landing (not all aircraft can dump fuel). Though they will quickly reduce height if they de-pressurise.

If it had landed over weight the checks needed would have taken a lot longer than the repair.

Landing at an airport that has no handling or repair facilities for that company only increases delay, similarly no availability of spare aircraft.

They probably turned around for the commercial decision that it's cheaper to fix in the UK than overseas, and sod the passengers.

Bunkum - sorry! See above landing elsewhere potentially increases the delay!
Any decision will be made by the final arbiter in flight, the captain. Legally no one has the right to over rule him! If the aircraft needed to land immediately it would have, if he decided to return the same applies.

(or put it this way in the event of an accident the flight crew will be the first to arrive so they are not going to do anything that badly affects their safety)

Mark2spark

Bunkum? Hmmm.......
I disagree.
A *true* safety issue doesn't give room to turn around and return to the departing airport. And 90 mins into a flight to Sharm opens up countless options of extremely well equipped airports, all with engineers, and many with replacement aircraft available so that the passengers can continue their journey without undue delay - a 2nd test of EU261 is for the airline to only fall short of 'intolerable sacrifice' in their efforts to keep the passengers from being delayed.
Planes have radios I hear so the pilot could have chosen from a dozen airports that had a spare plane for lease available.

So it appears that the aircraft didn't *need* to land immediately, which throws the *safety* issue out of the window, and we revert back to a straightforward tech issue, that the airline (pilot) chose to turn around for.
What did the airline do in order to arrange a replacement aircraft and crew once they knew the plane had turned around?

Ich_2

and many with replacement aircraft

Just how many companies do you think will have aircraft just sat there "in case" and for spot hire?
All the airlines that have spares will either be using them or will want to keep them for their own use 9but you can see on here the low numbers available)
So what sort of buisness plan would keep a multi million pound aircraft just sat there with a crew.
There is only one company in the UK actually does this, and their 3 aircraft are usually fully committed either in use or on hire as a spare for another airline.

The decision to land and where even for a safety problem is, as well as the pilots descretion, detailed in the aircraft paper work that will also be consulted.
A good one is the winscreen! In some cases they may continue the flight, some they must reduce altitude to reduce the pressure differential, reducing altitude uses more fuel so may force a a diversion.
Another one would be hydraulic problems, aircraft have three systems so if they lose one in the air it is not an imediate land but divert to the nearest suitable airport. Which is why some turn back.

You also need to bear in mind that not just any engineer can repair an aircraft, they have to hold a licence for partucular types and models so it is not a given thing that at any perticular airport there is some one to fix the aircraft anyway.

A *true* safety issue doesn't give room to turn around and return to the departing airport.

This was not the case here anyway, the aircraft departed Leeds/Bradford and diverted to Gatwick after 90 minutes flight, this was no doubt because it was the nearest suitable airport as it does have engineers licensed on the types that Jet 2 fly

I got interrupted by work, the main issue I see is that problems that the public see as tech issues, within the airline industry are seen as flight safety issues so that leads to conflicts. But the industry does not just make it up,, they carry a huge amount of operations information and most of it being legal documents telling them how to react when equipment fails. failure to follow these procedures renders them liable to prosecurion, so it isn't about lack of care, or making it up.

Or in context, what was thought to be a minor tech issue on an aircraft in Spain a few years ago, that was solved by disconnecting some equipment that did not seem essential, led to it crashing on take-off with the loss of life of all on-board!