The Other View on Compo Claims

111KAB

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

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

Not an argument .... just an acceptance .... I would willingly pay €2.50 not to have been delayed for a day+ or for the knowledge that I could have my €250 without having to go to court twice ... but there again that is Monarch for you!

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

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.

Morality has nothing to do with EU261, just as morality has nothing to do with an airline's contract of carriage.

SpannerMonkey

Vauban wrote: »

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

Nice one Centurion! :rotfl:

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

Morality has nothing to do with EU261, just as morality has nothing to do with an airline's contract of carriage.

No, but they have a moral duty of care, which involves yours and everyone else's safety. No?

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

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. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Two things 111KAB. I can't mention my airline because they'd be likely to sack me, & I am totally indifferent to my directors views.
These views, as previously stated, are mine. The tone of some posts on here require the opposing view.
Seriously, Good Luck to all your claims - think about it, the more airlines have to invest in extra maintenance the more work I'll have.
Win-win! :beer:

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

No, but they have a moral duty of care, which involves yours and everyone else's safety. No?

Are you talking about the right to care afforded by EU261? If so, that has nothing to do with morality that I can see. It's don't think it's about safety either.

111KAB

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

Two things 111KAB. I can't mention my airline because they'd be likely to sack me, & I am totally indifferent to my directors views.
These views, as previously stated, are mine. The tone of some posts on here require the opposing view.
Seriously, Good Luck to all your claims - think about it, the more airlines have to invest in extra maintenance the more work I'll have.
Win-win! :beer:

I only had one claim ... I 'won' ... but I continue to fly and continue to help others .... I don't mention 'my' airline ... I don't fear the sack ... I have principles! The more work you have the more I have to explain problems to people on here!

SpannerMonkey

jpsartre wrote: »

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.



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.



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.

I have agreed that there are some positive points to EU261, I really do agree. Some airlines were blatantly taking the micky, to be sure, to be sure!

My point is that spanking airlines for tech defect delays, which I have outlined is beyond their control for a variety of reasons, and driven purely by safety, is unfair.

You are making assumptions about maintenance is what I'm saying. A maintenance program for an airline is approved by the aircraft manufacturer and the CAA. It has to be followed, it's a legal requirement, myself & my colleagues can get prison time for falsifying maintenance.

So to talk of poor maintenance on Public Transport category aircraft you are treading onto thin ice, unless of course you have the evidence of which I spoke.

No one is really any better than anyone else on the whole.

SpannerMonkey

111KAB wrote: »

I only had one claim ... I 'won' ... but I continue to fly and continue to help others .... I don't mention 'my' airline ... I don't fear the sack ... I have principles! The more work you have the more I have to explain problems to people on here!

Helping those that need help is great, more power to your elbow!

I do my job properly too.

jpsartre

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

My point is that spanking airlines for tech defect delays, which I have outlined is beyond their control for a variety of reasons, and driven purely by safety, is unfair.

I don't agree with that but I think it's an entirely reasonable viewpoint to have. Out of curiousity, do you think it's unfair that I have to buy a new ticket if my car breaks down enroute to the airport and I miss my flight?