Huzar appeal

batman44

Bott & Co Twitter feed - also on facebook page

Following yesterdays judgement they have written to the airlines and invited them to settle claims on hold, failing to do so within the next 7 days they will ask the courts to lift the stays and commence proceedings.

Nice one - playing tough now.:T

NoviceAngel

Vauban wrote: »

So let us raise a glass to whoever in Jet2 was driving their strategy, because they have done more to advance UK passenger rights on Regulation 261/04 than the CAA, MEPs and Uncle Tom Cobbly ever managed. Cheers guys - you're the best!! :beer:

I agree 100% Vauban, I have to question the long term damage the deux oiseaux (oh yes, i can swear too Centipede) are causing their Client Jet2. Even if you're correct in that the legal action "if successful" would be cheaper than paying out all the claims, what about the damage to the Company, the case even got a mention on the BBC TV program 'Watchdog' yesterday evening, and was also headline news in the papers this morning, and yesterday in some regional TV news broadcasts.

Let me throw a very non educated non legal view into the pot, we've discussed on here many times how Jet2 use the oldest, most unreliable fleet of aircraft in the business, I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, I suppose you get what you pay for.

If I buy a ten year old car, I would expect more components to fail and maintenance would cost more, and it would require more visits to the garage. I would accept that! I would obtain insurance in the form of AA/RAC (many other breakdown services available:D).So here's a question or two.

Why not get insurance against breakdown to pay claims?

Do Jet2 market themselves as a down-market, expect delays airline? No of course not. If they marketed themselves that way, where would the argument be? If they want to compete on a level playing field, then stop wasting money on frankly ludicrous legal battles, and just purchase a stand-by plane, which could be used for emergencies, when the inevitable happens with an ageing elderly fleet of air stock.

I recently booked a flight from Manchester to mainland Spain, the cheapest flight was with Ryanair, who undoubtedly have an extremely modern stock, Jet2 on the other hand cost double the price of Ryanair, would I receive twice the service on a 30 year old plane? Now I know that Jet2 routinely try to argue that the older planes are more reliable than the new but come on, I'd love to know what Lord Justice Elias would make of that one.

I think Jet2 are heading for Oblivion, they are causing not only outrage in the community with their contemptuous attitude to legitimate claims for compensation, they are further outraging the legal community and alienating the public who they aim to serve.

I started my claim simply wanting an apology from Jet2, I was aware of the compensation but I would have been satisfied with a sincere apology and perhaps an offer of a 'free' flight to calm the waters. It was Jet2s reaction to my letter that has brought my court action, they lied to me in their letters and failed to respond to the AESA, in fact this is the 1st and hopefully last legal battle I will have, I don't enjoy this, I do it because I feel I have no choice in the matter, it's clear reading through these forums what Jet2 think of their customers, if I ran my business that way my valued customers would quite rightly not put up with it, so why should I as a genuine customer and supporter of a locally based airline?

It's a local firm, start acting like Yorkshire men and women, you're a disgrace to Yorkshire.

NoviceAngel bows his head in shame and toddles of to his flat cap and his little Yorkshire terrier while eating Yorkshire Pud and a glass of chilled Macon- Villages Uchizy - sorry in-joke!

NoviceAngel

batman44 wrote: »

Bott & Co Twitter feed - also on facebook page

Following yesterdays judgement they have written to the airlines and invited them to settle claims on hold, failing to do so within the next 7 days they will ask the courts to lift the stays and commence proceedings.

Nice one - playing tough now.:T

and trust me I know that 2Birds, are also writing to the Courts to have all cases further 'stayed' until the Supreme Court appeal, if granted, it's down to the local courts yet again!?!?!?

I will post results of my case as soon as I hear from the local Court

Vauban

NoviceAngel wrote: »

It's a local firm, start acting like Yorkshire men and women, you're a disgrace to Yorkshire.

NoviceAngel bows his head in shame and toddles of to his flat cap and his little Yorkshire terrier while eating Yorkshire Pud and a glass of chilled Macon- Villages Uchizy - sorry in-joke!

Actually, it's a good observation: we have essentially Lancastrian folk (in the form of Ron and the Bott team - yes, I know you say it's Cheshire but it's practically not) versus the Yorkshire airline. My God its ...

The War of the Roses Again

batman44

Noviceangel - Have you got the link to the 2 birds news story asking court to stay? I am firing off my stay to TC in the next few days with a nice but strongly worded letter to pay up.:D

NoviceAngel

Taken to PM, no public link because their isn't one as far as I'm aware

batman44

Vauban wrote: »

Actually, it's a good observation: we have essentially Lancastrian folk (in the form of Ron and the Bott team - yes, I know you say it's Cheshire but it's practically not) versus the Yorkshire airline. My God its ...

The War of the Roses Again

Are we back on this again Vauban? You know what happened last time we chatted about cheshire, Yorkshire etc LOL:D

edtheduck_2

Centipede100 wrote: »

If you are midpoint through the small claims process then I would just let the claim run but it can't do any harm to write and ask the airline to settle now on the basis that Huzar sets precedent case law.

Thank you Centi, just got similar advice from Vauban on the TC thread too, so going to send letter to them and post on their online forum...nothing to lose by doing this in the interim, while the court system does its thing.

batman44

I do not think the appeal will be aloud, just seen a post on Monarch Facebook page must be from a barrister or something.

Permission was refused and will be refused on application as a high court than the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter on appeal. I think we have all overlooked this-

Wallentin and Sturgeon fourth chamber ECJ, this court overules the Supreme Court and it has been decided what EC's are already.

Correct me if my thinking is wrong.

Vauban

batman44 wrote: »

I do not think the appeal will be aloud, just seen a post on Monarch Facebook page must be from a barrister or something.

Permission was refused and will be refused on application as a high court than the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter on appeal. I think we have all overlooked this-

Wallentin and Sturgeon fourth chamber ECJ, this court overules the Supreme Court and it has been decided what EC's are already.

Correct me if my thinking is wrong.

I can't see this - what exactly does this person say?