Huzar appeal

batman44

David_e wrote: »

" ... NEBs collaboratively published guidance ...."

Actually, the CAA Chief Executive’s recent letter says :“The list of extraordinary circumstances agreed by the 7 NEBs was presented to all NEBs …”.

So it doesn't even appear that this was the work of all, or possibly even a majority of, NEBs!

What price democracy and transparency?!

Can you link to this letter? I like to see if I can use it. thanks

David_e

batman44 wrote: »

Can you link to this letter? I like to see if I can use it. thanks

There you go:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64443166#Comment_64443166

It's 111KAB's post #7583


Vauban's posting #11 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63722638#Comment_63722638

includes the link for the BATA letter to which I also referred.

P_Doff

Whilst Wallentin doesn't say so in as many words, for Heaven's sake, unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable(unpredictable) technical ARE inherent in the normal activity of an air carrier, are they not? The sooner an appeal court judge says so, the better.

JPears

As centipede has already stated - AVs piece completely flys in the face of the expected amendments by EC, of the regulation.

I think Lord Professor Vauban's nice hat has been borrowed from a Hogwart's member.

Mark2spark

Am I to take it that Huzar will have representation that argues the toss *for* the consumer?
I mean, it's basic stuff really. If a terrorist fires a bazooka from the airport perimiter at a plane and takes out number 2 engine, then yes, *that's* an extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the airline. And the knock on effect (time) to fix that can be successfully argued as beyond reasonable measures.
But basic tech issues caused by random failure - and the time taken to fix them - is what the Regulation is aimed at.

batman44

Mark2spark wrote: »

Am I to take it that Huzar will have representation that argues the toss *for* the consumer?
I mean, it's basic stuff really. If a terrorist fires a bazooka from the airport perimiter at a plane and takes out number 2 engine, then yes, *that's* an extraordinary circumstance beyond the control of the airline. And the knock on effect (time) to fix that can be successfully argued as beyond reasonable measures.
But basic tech issues caused by random failure - and the time taken to fix them - is what the Regulation is aimed at.

I would agree with that, it has already been covered by Wallentin & Huzar that tech's are inherent with the exception that some are not. A third party hit the plane and damage it, it needed repair, that would not be inherent. So anything that involves the running and repair of an aircraft, just as in cars that have a mechanical issue are inherent in the normal operation irrespective if it fails when new or when old, the only exception to this if there was a fault with a part and the manufacturer needed to change the part, this obviously would mean the entire fleet will need to be resolved, a manufacture defect in the aircraft. To use an analogy the A380 aircraft that had an uncontained engine problem when it went into service or the battery issues the Dreamliner had when that went into service. Anything else no they are not EC's. That's my understanding,

Ironically I did see a programme on discovery channel on testing this engine for the airbus 380 to see if it would blow, it did and stayed contained.

richardw

batman44 wrote: »

…..A third party hit the plane and damage it, it needed repair, that would not be inherent...

Seems a fairly frequent occurrence that luggage trucks by the ground operator, who is not a third party viz principal-agent relationship, hit aircraft on a fairly regular basis, so I'd argue that such incidents are perhaps inherent and not extraordinary.

Saxondale

I had my case against Thomson stayed by the Northampton county court on Monday.

The District Judge simply stated that he is awaiting direction from the pending court of appeal hearing

I tried to argue that as I have a letter from the Spanish Aviation Authority that I am entitled to compensation then my case should be distinguished.

In his opinion though the aviation authority's decision isn't binding on the courts

Thomsons legal begal interestingly stated however that the airline could face a fine for not complying with the decision.

That being the case I will notify the Spanish Aviation Authority that Thompson have not complied and see what happens

chili2001

Well the 29th has come and gone and still no update on the Huzar appeal...

http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20133277

CobyBenson

chili2001 wrote: »

Well the 29th has come and gone and still no update on the Huzar appeal...

http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/listing_calendar/getDetail.do?case_id=20133277

I had an email from the court yesterday saying that they still haven't even sent the papers to a judge yet.