The Other View on Compo Claims

richardw

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

...... in reality a lot of these claims are morally bankrupt, driven by eyes blinded by ££££ and people are claiming purely by virtue of their 'consumer rights'...

Nope, most claims are entirely 'moral' because the effect of cancellations and delays is horrendous. You really need to read more to increase your awareness of what has actually happened to passengers. Do you think Mr Huzar was blinded by £££?

Vauban

I don't know to whom you're referring when you talk about the "intellectual high ground" (or even what that is). But when you say:

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

Remember, just because it's a 'right', it doesn't make it right. Right!!?

... then I have to reply, er yes it does. In a legal sense. And whilst it's possible to make a cogent argument that Regulation 261/2004 is a counter-productive law, that ultimately works against the interests of passengers (I don't believe that incidentally, but a case could be made), what it is not possible to justify is the wholesale disregard of the law by airlines in an attempt to frustrate passengers from claiming their statutory rights. That is completely unacceptable - at least to those of us who believe in rule of law.

Right, I'll get the popcorn ...

JPears

And I don't think anyone has "sniped" at you. It has all been quite amicable, points put forward.

mgdavid

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

....... Monarch, btw, will go out of business if they don't find a buyer soon. ..........

still on the brink
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29353907

SpannerMonkey

Before I start, I just want to reiterate a couple of points:

1. My views are not those of the industry, but my own from my day-to-day working life.

2. I definitely see the benefits of some of EU261, but I hold that technical faults are rarely the airline's fault in the way implied/portrayed by either this forum or the law itself.
I am no expert, but my reading of the issue is that clever lawyers have convinced judges to interpret the law in a way it was never intended, namely that defects are the airline's fault and they should pay for it. Only an opinion.

My comment about the intellectual high ground was aimed at post #9 by duchy. The tone is one of superiority and dismissiveness in relation to what I said. Whilst I acknowledge the tongue-in-cheek aspect of it, there's a serious point behind it:
We have got, as a nation, into the habit of always finding someone to blame, and of late, wanting compo. The human rights reference was aimed at the European interference in our laws - votes for prisoners anyone!? And the reference to our Transatlantic cousins was the compo culture that's now endemic over here.
The other point, for those that need clarification, was that when stuck in a traffic jam, we are having our time wasted, and usually as a result of a deliberate act on the part of someone else. Do you seek redress in the courts for the loss of your valuable time?? Yeah, good luck with that plan!
The 'my valuable time' argument seems only to apply to those greedy, uncaring airlines. Selective? I'd say so.
In reply to duchy, I'm more than happy to have a sensible discussion on the matter.

A lot of you talk about contingency plans as if it's the easiest thing in the world to change or repair aircraft when they go tech. Do you have any concept of what an empty aircraft as a 'spare, just in case', costs? Do you care? No, I thought not. You should, because despite Vauban's non-specific comments regarding passengers not paying in post #13. I can assure you, you most certainly are in the long run.
I believe the irish lads are adding 2.5 euro to a ticket nowadays, and consider how an airline makes it's money, it's got to come from you lot.
Incidentally, does that position have anything to do with the fact that I mentioned that the rank and file are going to end up paying more, just so the few can be compensated for their valuable lost time? Call me cynical.

I appreciate that for some claims there is a moral justification, you lose a day of your hols, you should get something for that.
But here's a thing; my other half is cabin crew, and if the aircraft comes back on to stand for a tech issue before take off, how often do you think she hears the 'it doesn't matter, we can claim' comment? Anyone want to guess? - a jar of compo forms for the winner! Haven't even had their valuable time wasted yet, but considering the windfall already. The best of it is that the flight crew wouldn't return to stand it if it wasn't necessary for everyone's safety. Makes you see it from a different side.

Now then, food, warmth, safety and punctuality. Google Maslov's hierarchy of needs and you'll see what I meant. Without food and warmth, you're gonna die! Without safety, you're in a world of trouble at 35000ft, so nah, I don't see punctuality as the important issue of the two, it comes a poor second.
For the pedants, safety comes before punctuality, because if not, what we are looking at is this: as the engineer fixing your plane, I stand at the front of the cabin and say "Folks, I know what's wrong & you can have a choice. I fix it, it'll take 3 hours but it'll be safe, or, you can go now, it'll probably be ok but I can't guarantee it. But you'll be on time IF you get there." Ok, it's extreme but it illustrates the point.
For the record, with my airline, you won't get that choice... Everything I have been taught, in over 30 years in this industry, is safety comes first, EU261 is doing a damn good job of attempting to turn that on it's head over the last couple of years.

jpsratre, post #7. Interesting point that, about airlines who, by implication, don't maintain their planes well enough, according to you.
What do you know about that? Whatever it is, you should be sharing it with both the CAA and EASA.
It's an easy comment to bandy about, but you should be aware there are a host of regulations regarding maintenance of aircraft, and I can assure you that following them religiously will not stop you getting tech issues. I believe I've mentioned some of this previously, but here's another for you; recently we replaced a part, the aircraft went off down-route and that same, brand new, from an approved source, out-of-the-box, fitted part, failed again. It happens. Is that the airline's fault? What's the contingency for that? What would you do?

Vauban, I am aware that 'right' in law means you CAN do it, my point is that it doesn't make it morally right every time. I believe some people attempted to use a similar defence at Nuremburg in 1945/6.
Don't get all excited, I'm not implying anyone is a nazi, I'm simply saying that the rules ain't always morally right.

richardw, I don't need to read anymore about Mr Huzar, I know about it. In his case I can see some justification for compo, but not every case is moral. But the more general point is that the airlines will not roll over and pay without a fight, because every Bott & Co in the land will be all over them the minute they do. Mind you, I don't see the airlines winning even if it does get into the Supreme Court, and then they'll pay out, get insurance to cover it and who'll be footing the premiums?? Not you lot according to Vauban. I disagree, it's exactly where it'll come from.

I could go on.. & on, but that'll do for now. My view, which as mgdavid states above, is idiotic because it comes from experience, is that planes go wrong, yes, even new ones (and that's a topic for another post in future) & I truly believe the legislation was never intended to spank airlines for putting safety before punctuality.

I may not have answered everythng here but I'll get around to it, promise!

BTW, I always drive to my holidays, so much better than flying - too many delays for my liking ;-)

Oh yeah mgdavid, I believe that the outfit that Monarch are sweetning themselves up for is a venture capitalist setup - 'Bye bye Monarch, you're going the same way as Comet. Anyone want any used aircraft, one's got a new windscreen, honest!!?'

111KAB

SpannerMonkey's posts are appreciated by me HOWEVER I cannot understand why an aircraft engineer posts on this forum and expects (or maybe he/she doesn't) posters to agree with their analysis.

By all means SM post on an aviation forum and draw attention to the fact that you believe your industry is being wrongly treated but I doubt you are going to obtain a sympathetic hearing on this forum and indeed you are only exacerbating the 'problem' by putting over your point of view.

By the time people post or seek assistance on this forum they have normally been subjected to a delay which, in the majority of cases, has caused them some distress - either financially or in terms of duration - so your 'defence' of the circumstances will just fall on deaf ears and make people more determined to get their just rewards ~ something you believe is compensation culture. In some cases it may be for the compo however the majority of people I have dealt with are not money grabbers they have just been extremely annoyed with the lack of respect the airline have shown them both when delayed and when they contact the airline after the event.

I am surprised that you have come to this forum to defend your industries position. As someone who has been involved in the industry I keep my thoughts to myself in respect of aviation matters (but not 261/2004) on this forum - how many times have you seen a post from the Directors of easyJet/Ryanair/Jet2 or Monarch etc ..... NEVER. Why? Because they realise that in this case the publicity/argument will not be to their benefit.

Whilst your employers may agree with your comments I doubt they welcome your input on a forum thread established to seek just compensation for delayed passengers. Maybe you disagree but if you or your employers want a real open discussion then come clean ... mention the airline ... either on this thread or via PM and I will facilitate a meeting (at my expense) where we can discuss.

Vauban

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

Vauban, I am aware that 'right' in law means you CAN do it, my point is that it doesn't make it morally right every time. I believe some people attempted to use a similar defence at Nuremburg in 1945/6.

I really don't quite know how to respond to this. I think we can all agree that war crimes and genocide are illegal and shouldn't happen. But that doesn't mean the law of the UK shouldn't be respected by the airlines (who must comply with all laws at all times). My point is not that the law is moral or not, but that it isn't discretionary just because you think it's wrong.

Nd talking of laws, you've heard of Godwin's Law presumably? Hang your head in shame

111KAB

Having re-read my own post and that of Vauban I have come to the conclusion that the OP has lost the plot - yes you have to consider any claims with regard to the problem created however my own position is RESPECT THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR YOUR FLIGHTS AND WE WILL RESPECT YOU.

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

I hold that technical faults are rarely the airline's fault in the way implied/portrayed by either this forum or the law itself.

You have misunderstood EU261 if you think it's about fault. It's not, it's about responsibility which is a completely different thing. Example: As a passenger it's my responsibility to get to the gate in time for take-off but there are many things that could happen, none of which would be my fault, which would prevent me from doing so.

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

A lot of you talk about contingency plans as if it's the easiest thing in the world to change or repair aircraft when they go tech. Do you have any concept of what an empty aircraft as a 'spare, just in case', costs? Do you care? No, I thought not.

I think you're completely wrong and that most of the posters in here are well aware that it is difficult and expensive for airlines to have contingency plans. That's why, prior to EU261, there was little to no incentive for airlines to have *any* such measures in place. Now there is. That's a good thing IMO.

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

jpsratre, post #7. Interesting point that, about airlines who, by implication, don't maintain their planes well enough, according to you.
What do you know about that? Whatever it is, you should be sharing it with both the CAA and EASA.

I thought it was obvious that I meant that in a relative sense. The airlines who have relatively poor maintenance records will be hit harder by EU261 than those with relatively good maintenance records. Again, that's a good thing.

SpannerMonkey

Be calm Vauban, the point of what I was saying is that when a law is passed and accepted as law, it doesn't make it morally right.

The Nuremburg thing is a classic example of that. People hid behind the law to excuse themselves from morally reprehensible acts.
As I said, I'm not comparing claiming compo to war crimes, I'm saying the principle of what's happening is the same.

I think that was quite plain, so I wonder why you chose to make the point you did?

And no, I haven't lost the plot, it just suits some people to think that instead of accepting or countering some of my points.

I am posting on here, not for sympathy or agreement, but purely because I want you to see that the courts/laws take on technical delays being the fault of the airline is tenuous on one hand and possibly downright dangerous on the other.

Many posts on here are in an air of hope of money back, and whilst I agree there may be some purists who are in it for justice, I'm afraid that many are here just for the free money.

And the argument remains, the public will pay in the end.