Huzar appeal

JPears

NoviceAngel wrote: »

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!

Ooh careful what you say about the Tykes airlines and its fleet age, they are more than a touch prickly about.:eek:
Unfortunately they seem to think a new coat of paint/livery will make it all better.
I do tend to look overhead with a touch of anxiety when I see a plane over the Otley Chevin with a big red J on it.....

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

Ooh careful what you say about the Tykes airlines and its fleet age, they are more than a touch prickly about.:eek:
Unfortunately they seem to think a new coat of paint/livery will make it all better.
I do tend to look overhead with a touch of anxiety when I see a plane over the Otley Chevin with a big red J on it.....

I remember JP, what was it now they we're just about to put an order in for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, when they heard about the battery problems, so they went to Dulux and Pollyfiller instead?

It's late and I've had a glass of wine after the RW concert at the Arena, need my sleep nighty night.... Or good morning to those passengers still waiting to board at LBA

Vauban

For the Huzar junkies among you, I commend this assessment by the law firm Stephenson Harwood:

http://update.shlegal.com/cv/d7c2e03daa4914974aed7a0c9373ec724ee15a36

One paragraph that I thought was particularly interesting was this:

Other events which are beyond the control of the airline because they are caused by extraneous acts of third parties will continue to be extraordinary circumstances, such as acts of terrorism, wild-cat strikes, air traffic control problems and freak weather conditions. The UK CAA has advised airlines that unsettled weather conditions, such as fog, snow or thunderstorms, may not be "freakish" enough to constitute extraordinary circumstances – the only weather conditions which might now fall within this category include volcanic ash and unusually severe snow. The UK CAA is also considering whether to remove bird strikes from the list of extraordinary circumstances.

The article was also written before the CAA's volte face of late Friday, and is pretty clear about the wisdom of their original determination that previous claims were not affected: "In our view, the UK CAA's guidance on this point is wrong, with the result that passengers [previously rejected by the airlines] may still be able to claim compensation ... There is a risk that the guidance may become the subject of future challenge if airlines, relying on that guidance, are refusing to pay historic claims. Quite.

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

The UK CAA is also considering whether to remove bird strikes from the list of extraordinary circumstances.

The CAA are also currently wrong on that point too. Plenty of info on the CAA website about birdstrikes that show them as being an 'ordinary circumstance' and dare I say it, 'inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier'.

batman44

fresh in and again

notice

Take notice that on THURSDAY, 19 JUNE, 2014 in COURT 67, at 10 O'CLOCK, Judgment will be given in the following.

APPEAL

From County Courts

FINAL DECISIONS

B2/2013/2478 Dawson -v- Thomson Airways Ltd.

jenn1ewest1

waiting with bated breath for Thursday x

Tyzap

There is a good a good explanation of the case here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzar_v_Jet2
But it might not be there for long.

NoviceAngel

Tyzap wrote: »

There is a good a good explanation of the case here.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huzar_v_Jet2
But it might not be there for long.

I can't see why not? It's factual and represents the case history well, it will need updating when J2 lose their 'leave to appeal' at the Supreme Court, I'm sure someway, somehow it will be accurately updated ;)

batman44

Been reading a few reports around the web from the travel industry and i thought i give my take.
why do jet2 insist in carrying on with it when the have been beaten by two courts, four judges and the EU, yet they think or presume they are all wrong. They say they are seeking clarity on the issue, no,you cannot be any clearer and its jet2 that are confusing and mudding the water. They are paying thousands on defending a lost cause until they get the result they want, this seems to me like the EU in brussels about a referendum, keep doing it until you get the result you want. They may not like it or the industry may not like it but it's there and it's there for a purpose, the whole point of the regulation is to compensate passengers for the inconvenience and disruption to their lives and plans. It was not drawn up as a mean to give them a get out clause, EC's was there for when it was not the airlines fault 100% examples were given in the regs, nothing more, it was not meant to be twisted by legalease!
It is no joke being delayed for hours on end and then letting the airline get away with it. Why is it that you can get insurance for this if your car breaks down on the way to the airport? Why have the airline not got insurance in place if they fail to meet expectations?
This is blatent and irresponsible to the passenger that keeps the business running, sorry but I replace my car if it fails too often or is more that 10 years old, why cannot they do the same with aircraft? Most are on lease anyway so why not?
This is just pure greed and contempt for the passenger that already suffers enough with the 3inch legroom, luxury they say!
It's high time they all pulled their socks up as the passengers are not accepting this anymore. Aircraft are up in the air nearly 24/7 7 days a week for 10, 15 years and parts do and will fail just because they are not on the check list does not mean they will not fail. Rant over.

Tyzap

It looks like this case is starting to polarise opinions, including the aviation ministers who is 'surprised' at the RCJ ruling last week.

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/06/18/48358/aviation+minister+surprised+at+jet2.com+court+ruling.html