Thomas Cook on Don't Get Done Get Dom

Grumpelstiltskin

BBC1 11.00 to 11.45. Usual extraordinary circumstances rubbish plus not paying out for children.


Edit. Will be on iPlayer soon.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070tc5

Alan_Bowen

Seems TC may have 'got away' with the Goa flight, wasn't that their A330 that had regular problems with one engine, seem to recall there is a YouTube video of the stalling right engine on take off from Manchester.........

Vauban

According to the programme, bird strikes are "definitely" extraordinary circumstances, but if a passenger falls ill on a flight then it's not. I think that tells you all you need to know.

The mangling of the Wallentin test was so horrible I nearly cried: after reading out the definition, Dom says "So basically, if it's outside the airlines control then it's extraordinary". Nooooooooooooooo!

Alan_Bowen

Making things 'simple' for viewers to understand often means the reality is lost, however the number of viewers at 1100 on a Wednesday morning probably means very few people have been mislead

connersz

Grumpelstiltskin wrote: »

BBC1 11.00 to 11.45. Usual extraordinary circumstances rubbish plus not paying out for children.


Edit. Will be on iPlayer soon.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0070tc5

Definately sounds worth watching tonight, thanks for the link.

I know the issue has been raised on Watchdog a couple of times.

connersz

Just watched this on iPlayer. I was a bit disappointed to see that couple reading the draft list of circumstances under the belief that it was an official approved document.

In the end the reason they believed that they were entitled to compensation was that the technical issue wasn't listed in that document.

111KAB

connersz wrote: »

I was a bit disappointed to see that couple reading the draft list of circumstances under the belief that it was an official approved document.

In the end the reason they believed that they were entitled to compensation was that the technical issue wasn't listed in that document.

Until these plonkers pull their finger out that will continue to be the case .... http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/caseopened.faces/en/51767/html.bookmark


Following an email to the Ombudsman's secretary earlier this week I received this email back ....


In reply to your first question, if you wish to complain about the manner in which the above complaint has been handled, you could follow the instructions on the Ombudsman's website concerning service complaints (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/atyourservice/dissatisfied.faces).

In reply to your second question, I just want to reassure you that the complaint is being dealt with by the Legal Department and that the next step in the Ombudsman's inquiry will be taken soon. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you a more precise update at this stage.


Therefore I have now submitted a complaint regarding the way the complaint is being (or in this case not being!) dealt with - the original complaint went in around 7 months ago.

connersz

111KAB wrote: »

Until these plonkers pull their finger out that will continue to be the case .... http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/caseopened.faces/en/51767/html.bookmark


Following an email to the Ombudsman's secretary earlier this week I received this email back ....


In reply to your first question, if you wish to complain about the manner in which the above complaint has been handled, you could follow the instructions on the Ombudsman's website concerning service complaints (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/atyourservice/dissatisfied.faces).

In reply to your second question, I just want to reassure you that the complaint is being dealt with by the Legal Department and that the next step in the Ombudsman's inquiry will be taken soon. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you a more precise update at this stage.


Therefore I have now submitted a complaint regarding the way the complaint is being (or in this case not being!) dealt with - the original complaint went in around 7 months ago.

Am I right in thinking that the original complaint was that they never removed the info from their website?

111KAB

connersz wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that the original complaint was that they never removed the info from their website?

No the complaint was that it should never have appeared on there in the first place as the list was purely a wish list dreamt up by the airlines in conjunction with the CAA and a few, but not all, the NEB's.

connersz

111KAB wrote: »

No the complaint was that it should never have appeared on there in the first place as the list was purely a wish list dreamt up by the airlines in conjunction with the CAA and a few, but not all, the NEB's.

Ah ok.

I have to hand it to them though, while they can get away with it, how many customers who were pointed towards the list do you think believed it and gave up? A good proportion of the ones who didn't give up after the first responses I bet!
That would probably include people who watched this program and see them using the list like it was legitimate. I'm surprised that the BBC didn't check that out or look into the definition of 'draft' list.

paulsad

Supercilious Dom ... watched a woman moaning about a big settee she'd got from Harveys had some marks you could hardly see then she moaned they'd scratched her new floor with the replacement ... yeah right. Wonder she didn't complain the settee was too big so Harveys should buy her a bigger house.